The Latest: Rape suspect in immigration fight had green card and lived in a sanctuary city

The Latest: Rape suspect in immigration fight had green card

This is quite a lengthy article. Unsurprisingly this sort of news never makes it onto CNN,MSNBC,NBC and other news networks who are promoting open borders.
Whats more ironic about this case of this migrant who committed the rape crime is that he lived in a sanctuary city.

You know what's even more ironic? That this abomination of a reality even exists.

If convicted, his resident alien status will be revoked.

He will spend however long in prison and then be deported immediately thereafter.

Maybe he didn't see that Gillette Ad.

‘The perfect man’

In the eyes of the moronic leftist.

Surely it’s not his fault that he’s a rapist, the poor guy. Hopefully he gets a house and a lifetime of welfare for this. Perfect voter-base material.

a reply to: AtlasHawk

What does this have to do with him living in a sanctuary city? If he had a green card that means he was living there legally so it being a sanctuary city really has nothing to do with it.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

He was living in the most liberal city that had a sanctuary city and worse he already had a previous criminal record.

originally posted by: AtlasHawk
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

He was living in the most liberal city that had a sanctuary city and worse he already had a previous criminal record.

That has nothing to do with the city he lives in. He wasn't living there illegally using the sanctuary city to hide and prevent being deported. Sanctuary cities are a problem, but in this case it is irrelevant.

Throw the book at him. Does he get checked for a sex disease now also?

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: AtlasHawk

What does this have to do with him living in a sanctuary city? If he had a green card that means he was living there legally so it being a sanctuary city really has nothing to do with it.

I find the structure of the article a little odd. It's actually three articles written at different times saying essentially the same information. Like someone is trying to drill something into your brain.

The condensed version goes something like this:

A legal immigrant, with a green card, is a suspect in a rape. He is to be tried in a sanctuary city.

As a sanctuary city, San Francisco has an official policy of not helping federal immigration authorities.

The Department of Homeland Security "demands" that SF makes an exception in this case. DHS wants to be informed if the suspect makes bail or is found not guilty.


The Result?

SF says they'll think about it, DHS backs down a little, and so far everyone considers the situation handled for now.

So what is this really about? Ask yourself this: How hard would it be for the DHS to find out if someone in the legal system is bailed out or acquitted, with or without a city's cooperation?

My guess is, not hard at all. Given the fact he was apprehended in Canada means I have a better chance of winning the lottery than he has of getting bail. If he goes to trial then DHS will know the verdict as soon as the gavel bangs.

I believe this article was written to try to convince people that federal law, specifically the DHS, trumps state law. [I honestly couldn't think of a better word than "trump", sorry.] DHS picks a person in this country legally, accused (not convicted) of a horrible crime, and demands that the city changes their policy. The DHS picked a fight that they could frame in a way to get public opinion on their side.

----------

As a fanatic supporter of the Constitution, I have a problem with this.

Federal laws do not trump state laws, per se. The have different domains. Immigration policy is within the federal domain. But this is really not an immigration issue. This is a criminal matter that falls under the jurisdiction of the City. Whether he makes bail or is acquitted is the City's concern.

If the DHS wants to revoke his green card, I'm sure there are already legal avenues to do that once he's convicted of a crime. So what are they really "demanding" here?

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: AtlasHawk

What does this have to do with him living in a sanctuary city? If he had a green card that means he was living there legally so it being a sanctuary city really has nothing to do with it.

Another one failed to read a linked article
Go back and read with comprehension
Slowly and carefully
That way you will answer your own question.

Oh , wait
You are the same one
Two posts and did not read.
Have you read yet ?

a reply to: projectvxn

And several months later he will be back in another city in a different part of the country snickering to himself about the stupid gringos.

originally posted by: ntech
a reply to: projectvxn

And several months later he will be back in another city in a different part of the country snickering to himself about the stupid gringos.

Do Tunisians call Americans gringos?

He's legal. Are you MAGA folks against work visas now too?

a reply to: AtlasHawk

When will the majority of society wake up to the undeniable fact that you cannot bring barn cats into the house? They are incompatible with not only the house, but also with any housecats that may be around and it almost always ends with the housecats getting injured and the house destroyed.

originally posted by: LordAhriman
He's legal. Are you MAGA folks against work visas now too?

I am! I've been saying 'close the damn borders' for some years now. I actually do have the stones to openly admit that I am 100% against anything but discrete, merit based immigration into the USA. No vacancy, doors closed, show us what high level degree or experience can you bring into the country with you or don't even bother knocking, ANTI-IMMIGRATION.

a reply to: ntech

You misspelled "infidels." This one wasn't here because his country was in tatters, he was here because his religion demands converts and the blood of nonbelievers.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Actually I think it would be dhimmis.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: AtlasHawk

When will the majority of society wake up to the undeniable fact that you cannot bring barn cats into the house? They are incompatible with not only the house, but also with any housecats that may be around and it almost always ends with the housecats getting injured and the house destroyed.

100% of the Libs and leftists on this very site most definitely believe you should ALWAYS bring the barn cats into the house.

Otherwise it’s not fair on the barn cats.

And after the same result, every single time, 100% of the libs and leftists on this very site will STILL insist on bring the barn cat into the house.

It’s most definitely an IQ thing.