Barr announces sweeping new sanctions, 'significant escalation'

originally posted by: chr0naut

The current administration is Republican.

President's don't write laws, so no, it's not. Basic civics.

Please show some sources supporting that.

Like shooting fish in barrel.

Child Rape Suspects Released In New York & New Jersey After Local Jails Refuse To Hold Men For ICE

newyork.cbslocal.com...

North Carolina Sheriff Releases Child Molester Wanted By ICE

www.nationalreview.com...

You are making the assumption that because they cross the border without official acceptance, they are guilty of other crimes. Blanket deportation removes the otherwise law-abiding, too.

No, you are simply lying. I am talking about the criminals. Hint, the ones I am not talking about are not law abiding, if you are here illegally you are breaking the law. This thread is not about that element though.

Ah and there's the rub!

What legally differentiates nearly anyone resident in the US from illegals? If you remove birthright citizenship, even those descended from the founding fathers can be defined as 'illegals' and 'undocumented'.

Fallacious statement not even in the same ballpark of reality. This is the problem with progressives, they make up crazy scenarios and then act as if their fantasy is reality. The only group affected would be illegals, those who have been granted undeserved citizenship would even keep it. Only those moving forward would be affected.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

It's time states started following the law. States have rights, I am completely against state's rights being trampled. Immigration is not a state right, it is federal. Rapists, molesters, drunk drivers, these are the people that sanctuary cities are protecting. Let's start putting law abiding citizens first.

"Rapists, molesters, drunk drivers, these are the people that sanctuary cities are protecting."

Inclined to have a yawn there, like it or not, it's part of life, immigration or not, and it's all against the law...sooo? what does that say?

It says you only care if someone is killed, in a manner that can provide you with political ammo.

a reply to: Arnie123

I meant one's who aren't committing any other crime than illegal status.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

And, it seems that barr, or at least the author of that post I was responding to, wants to sanction the citizens by taking away their medicare benefits... I'm not even sure if anyone has mentioned just what barrs sanctions are. I'll have to skim back through. But is shouldnt be cutting medicare benefits!

a reply to: dawnstar

No, he is sanctioning the State. You don't get to tell the feds to stay out and then demand their money. If the people want the feds out, they can vote in the clowns who will keep them out.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ya, well right now he seems to just be poking around investigating and he hasn't mentioned much as far as sanctions, except in the title of the article. So, I guess it depends on the sanctions if they come.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ya, well right now he seems to just be poking around investigating and he hasn't mentioned much as far as sanctions, except in the title of the article. So, I guess it depends on the sanctions if they come.

Any State that chooses to ignore federal immigration policies should lose all federal funds. They are literally not charging illegals with crimes they are charging citizens for. They are putting child molesters back on the street rather than deporting them. They are even refusing to allow their airports to be used. The level of crazy is shocking.

Unfortunately, I would assume they could also hide a lot of otherwise unconstitutional activity under the banner of "immigration enforcement". Or otherwise, simply take mechanisms and resources allocated for immigration enforcement and misuse them to violate the rights of US citizens.

They'd never do that though,right?

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

It's time states started following the law. States have rights, I am completely against state's rights being trampled. Immigration is not a state right, it is federal. Rapists, molesters, drunk drivers, these are the people that sanctuary cities are protecting. Let's start putting law abiding citizens first.

"Rapists, molesters, drunk drivers, these are the people that sanctuary cities are protecting."

Inclined to have a yawn there, like it or not, it's part of life, immigration or not, and it's all against the law...sooo? what does that say?

Point blank. You don't pour gasoline on a brush fire. You try to leave that out of the equation, if you can.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
Democrats claimed that Trump colluded with Russia and Ukraine to cheat in the 2016 and 2020 US elections, and used that to rush impeachment through the House for reasons of "national security".

At what point are these sanctuary states and Democrats colluding with foreigners to come here and illegally vote in US elections? At what point is that a "national security" concern?

www.fairus.org...

Good post and my reply is RIGHT NOW.

So, no funding for schools? No reimbursements for medicare or medicaid? Just what would that entail?
Ya, the level of crazy is shocking no matter how much you say if the citizens dont like it they can vote republicans in office the next election, it does no good if grandmas nursing home drops her on the side of the road because of nonpayment and she ends up dead!!
Like I said, let's see what those sanctions are..
As far as the criminals in this country go, I dont care their immigration status, if they commit the crime, they need to do the time, pay the penalty, then, after that you can deport them back to from wherever they came. But they committed a crime in our country and unless their own country gives us assurance that they will be held accountable there, they can keep their butts here and sit in one of our jails..
As far as the craziness of our immigration, that is a multilayer clusterfck that I really have no idea how to fix and it would take me far to long to try to figure it out.
One thing is for sure though, depriving the elderly of the benefits they worked their lives for, holding money back from schools and roads and letting the deteriorate isnt gonna do anything to correct the problem. It will just create a giant mess that will cost us more in the end.

a reply to: dawnstar

Well if they stop funding that is allowing the problem, then the problem of illegally entry and cashing in on freeloading while our own citizens are forced to suffer and are fleeced is going to SOLVE ITSELF fairly quickly.

It really will.

ETA

We can help them in their country's cheaper and help improve the lot of all the people on earth. Just letting all of them in to pillage our efforts is not going to help anyone on the long run. Fundamental change in their homelands comes from necessity.

Awesome. Now do the 2nd amendment AG. I am tired of having King county and Seattle deciding what happens for the whole state. Easrern WA should secede.

a reply to: Justoneman

??? So elderly citizens who have paid into the system for 40-50 years should lose their medicare benefits just when they need the the most??
Have you even looked at what is needed to get on any of the federal social safety nets?? I only ask because I know you need to prove your citizenship status and being in the country illegally doesnt qualify you!! Ya, in some states they may have expanded those programs...providing state funding for them, but then that isnt federal money.
So, you want to throw american poor out of thier HUD subsidized homes, which by the way, include a large number of senior citizens. Take away their healthcare, even if their healthcare needs are so great they need to be in assisted living facilities. Kids losing chips funding.
And you dont think that those american citizen taxpayers that are now seeing the childcare center they rely on to work shut down, elderly parents having to move in with them, many needed 24 hour supervision that you cant afford so you have to not only quit your job to care for your kids, but also your parents. Seeing their rent skyrocket because the owner of the apt complex now has a bunch of nonpaying tenants. You dont think that while they are watching this all go down and they are looking at the hopelessness of their budget, they wont look at that nice chunk of money the govt is taking from them, lol...if they are still able to work and get that paycheck, and decide they need that money more to help counteract the stupid actions the federal govt has taken?? Find a way to avoid paying some of it, declaring themselves exempt from federal taxes? I would be, and I would feel more than justified doing it.

a reply to: chr0naut

I don’t think so. We do . Why do you care ? You are obviously a globalist . We’re trying to fight for our freedoms and you’d give em all away . Your soul is trash

originally posted by: smurfy
Inclined to have a yawn there,

Typical radical leftist who cares less about our own citizens than they do people who are here illegally.

like it or not, it's part of life, immigration or not, and it's all against the law...sooo? what does that say?

It says that the numbers of people dead or maimed. molested, or just attacked would be less - maybe a lot less - if those who were here illegally were dealt with appropriately (removed and sent packing) when the opportunity presents itself.

a reply to: dawnstar

Why are you pretending to be clueless, IDK?
I didn't imply any of it and don't waste time trying to explain. There isn't much to say.

When you are moving the goal posts and then being clueless too, it is not a good thing.

As an observation for anyone:

The left is sinking faster and faster as reality starts to bite like one of Steven King's books, "The Langoleers" where the langoleers eat up the last bit of each scene to clean it up for the next one between milli seconds.

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: chr0naut

It is still illegal to rape, molest. drive drunk and commit other crimes in sanctuary cities.

For now.

All of these crimes fall under the jurisdiction of state laws. If CA becomes a "sanctuary state" anything can happen.

No. That would require a massive rewrite of legal statutes and existing case law.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Democrats could fix immigration and give seasonal visas to seasonal workers any time they wanted, they refuse to do so.

The current administration is Republican.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I would be happy for real criminals to be prosecuted and handed over to the law enforcement of their originating countries, or, if they will not be treated properly as criminals by that other country, prosecution and incarceration in the US is also a possible second option.

That is who we are talking about. Criminals that these sanctuary cities refuse to hand over for deportation.

Please show some sources supporting that.

The implication that these people are still going to commit criminal actions after incarceration can equally be applied to criminals who happen to be US citizens. Incarceration is a deterrent but cannot make someone do the right thing even under the best of situations.

Yes, and we have enough home grown criminals without taking in the rest of the world's criminals too. There are no good options for many American criminals, for illegal criminals we have a great option, deportation. Democrats actively block that.

You are making the assumption that because they cross the border without official acceptance, they are guilty of other crimes. Blanket deportation removes the otherwise law-abiding, too.

Are you happy to spend tax dollars rounding up and deporting those who are not guilty of any crime other than being in the country without citizenship or equivalent?

I am for spending the money wisely. The first group should be criminals. Removing birthright citizenship for illegals
(which multiple Supreme Court decisions already imply they have no right to) and cracking down on businesses that hire them is a better option than targeting the illegals themselves.

The topic of this thread is the refusal of Democrat sanctuary cities to turn over criminal illegals for deportation.

Ah and there's the rub!

What legally differentiates nearly anyone resident in the US from illegals? If you remove birthright citizenship, even those descended from the founding fathers can be defined as 'illegals' and 'undocumented'.

You can't say "I'm a citizen because my whole family was born here". You'd have to have a process of documenting every citizen because Social Security registration, Taxation registration, Birth certificate, driver's license and all the other documentation is also carried by those you are determining are 'illegals'.

The current admin is republican. The admin do not pass laws. they enforce them. Congress pass laws. Democrat led House, would be a good place to start.


That the individuals cross borders "without official acceptance" they are guilty of a crime. Period. There is no law abiding.
I recognize this is a fundamental disagreement between different ideologies on the subject.
I swear I heard recently from multiple individuals that no-one is above the law. Would you agree no-one is above the law?

I agree that no-one is above the law.

I also acknowledge that there are bad laws, like the Jim Crow laws and etc, and that many of these laws are now acknowledged as bad. Many of them are removed from the books or superseded by fairer and more equitable laws, all the time.

There is also a place for mercy in jurisprudence, which means that sometimes someone might transgress a statute for mitigating reasons and therefore it would not be fair that they are prosecuted.

Only a child cannot conceive the difference between legalism and true justice.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is still illegal to rape, molest. drive drunk and commit other crimes in sanctuary cities.

Perhaps if they prosecuted the ones that actually committed serious crimes, rather than going after particular ethnicities, or affiliations, or whatever qualification, that has nothing to do specifically with those crimes, they would have less overall crime?

As usual, you have things exactly backwards.

Illegal immigrants first come here illegally,
Then (sometimes) commit further crimes.
Some are pretty bad, like rape, drug trafficing and drunk driving.
And then, because they are "illegal" they are getting special treatment and are let go by the authorities, because they don't want people (like you) claiming their LE are "racist".

Backwards/opposite of what you say.

American citizens commit these crimes too.

Should all American citizens be prosecuted because they are in an arbitrary group of people that has some criminal members? Or would it be more rational to beef up policing to deal only with those who commit actual crimes?

Remember that some of the people groups who you are calling illegals have been coming into America as seasonal workers, for a generation. Some are seeking asylum and fear to return, some simply want a better life for themselves and their families and would be happy to become citizens. They aren't all criminals, despite the recent definition of "illegals" being applied against them.

we have a process for that, but it doesn't include "sneak over the border" as part of the process. I can't believe you didn't know that.

And, how effective is that process?

There are artificial caps on the number of people that will be allowed asylum, set by the President, and unrelated to the volume of requests or actual needs of the asylum seekers.

This means that for years, there has been a growing backlog which means that asylum seekers must now hang in limbo for literally years before even having their case considered.