Sanctuary Cities...

T

tenacious

PREMIER
I have to say, I really enjoy reading over USA today. They've been writing some good articles, and also Op-eds. I thought this was a good one about sanctuary cities...

Both sides mischaracterize sanctuary cities
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...anctuary-cities-editorials-debates/436784002/

To listen to public officials squabble over “sanctuary cities” is to hear half-truths and misleading boasts that do nothing to provide the safety that law-abiding immigrants and the public deserve.

On one side are those who laud sanctuary cities as the epitome of humane treatment. In January, for example, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf vowed she’d go to jail to defend her city’s opposition to federal immigration raids after the City Council passed a resolution cutting off cooperation between police and federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). And California’s attorney general threatened to fine businesses that violate a section of the state’s sanctuary law by sharing information on immigrants with federal authorities.

At the other extreme is Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who rails against sanctuary cities, has threatened to withhold federal funds from several and has filed suit against California, calling its policy unconstitutional. The Justice Department has also been exploring ways to criminally charge state and local officials who limit cooperation. And at Tuesday's White House roundtable on sanctuary cities, President Trump said they “put innocent Americans at the mercy of … hardened criminals.”

Both sides mischaracterize the advantages and risks of sanctuary policies.

Used in a nuanced way, a sanctuary policy can separate federal immigration enforcement from local policing so undocumented immigrants who stay out of legal trouble won’t fear that any interaction with police can lead to deportation. Such fears prevent immigrants from coming forward as witnesses or reporting crimes such as domestic abuse, making communities more dangerous.

The trouble comes when a city or state goes to extremes by shielding immigrants who have a history of serious crimes or who repeatedly sneak back in the USA. At that point, advocates undermine their case by seeking to defend the indefensible.

California, for example, refuses to detain immigrants who have run-ins with the law — except in the rarest of circumstances — for federal deportations. A law effective in January allows county sheriffs to notify federal authorities only when an immigrant has a record involving one of a long list of a serious or violent crimes. That’s fine as far as it goes. But the law defines "notify" so narrowly, it can become meaningless.

As a spokesman for Alameda County explained, after notifying federal immigration about undocumented immigrants with serious records, the sheriff will release them “the minute” their time in state custody ends. ICE agents can either seek an arrest warrant or get to the jail in time to pick them up at the door.

The most notorious example of what can happen in these circumstances occurred in 2015, when an undocumented immigrant with a lengthy felony record and repeated illegal entries into the USA after deportation was freed by the San Francisco County Sheriff, despite being wanted by immigration authorities. Three months later, he was charged with fatally shooting a woman in San Francisco's tourist area, setting off a national debate over sanctuary cities.x

Differences won't be resolved by threats to jail public officials for passing laws in their own cities and states. So far, the Justice Department's efforts to withhold federal grants from sanctuary jurisdictions have fared poorly, rejected by courts in San Francisco and Philadelphia. Meanwhile, California gains no safety for its residents by playing word games over holding serious criminals for immigration authorities.

What the public needs are sensible and humane policies that will keep law-abiding immigrants safe from unfair deportations, while keeping residents safe from those who endanger public safety.
Click to expand...
 
tenacious said:
Harsh medicine... arresting and shipping off your neighbors, who many times have been part of the community for years. Personally I think we can find a more humane way. Immigrants have been good for America.
Click to expand...
A bounty would be more humane, for US citizens.
Send all the criminals back to wherever they came, we will get by without them.
Sheriff Joe 2020
 
Sheriff Joe said:
A bounty would be more humane, for US citizens.
Send all the criminals back to wherever they came, we will get by without them.
Sheriff Joe 2020
Click to expand...

Yes well... it was statements like that which lead to the "real" Sheriff Joe ending up an admitted criminal who used political favors to avoid prison time. And somehow rather then shipping him off, he's running for the Senate as a Republican.

But I do get your point. Your a real law and order kinda guy Sheriff Joe.
 
tenacious said:
Yes well... it was statements like that which lead to the "real" Sheriff Joe ending up an admitted criminal who used political favors to avoid prison time. And somehow rather then shipping him off, he's running for the Senate as a Republican.

But I do get your point. Your a real law and order kinda guy Sheriff Joe.
Click to expand...
What statements? Admitted criminal?
Fake News.
 
Aj7cw8xc


MORE Cities Seek to Defy 'Sanctuary' as Revolt Spreads...
 
tenacious said:
Harsh medicine... arresting and shipping off your neighbors, who many times have been part of the community for years. Personally I think we can find a more humane way. Immigrants have been good for America.
Click to expand...

Around and around we go...If my neighbor is a criminal, I don't want them as my neighbor. America was built on legal immigration, not illegal immigrants. Open borders for you? Or if you can sneak in, aka break federal law, then its ok.
 
"Kathleen Kim, a professor at Loyola Law School who specializes in immigration law, said the city won't prevail because there isn't any evidence that SB 54 is unconstitutional.

“And the Los Alamitos ordinance relies on the presumption that SB 54 is unconstitutional,” Kim said. “That issue has not been adjudicated. One part of me thinks that it seems premature to pass an ordinance like the one in Los Alamitos without seeing first how the constitutional challenge plays out in court. It doesn’t make sense for Los Alamitos to come out with this ordinance. It seems like a waste of resources.”

Localities have a lot of discretion but they cannot contravene state law, said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School.

“That’s essentially what they are trying to do. I think this is a political statement and not one that is necessarily legal,” she said. “Can you imagine the consequences if cities and counties could do this on a regular basis…. You shouldn’t make a political statement through potentially impermissible laws.”"
 
*GOBEARGO* said:
Around and around we go...If my neighbor is a criminal, I don't want them as my neighbor. America was built on legal immigration, not illegal immigrants. Open borders for you? Or if you can sneak in, aka break federal law, then its ok.
Click to expand...

Ahh... yes the old conservative morality two-step. Quite a little dance. I mean I never heard you speak out when your beloved Republican Party ran a pedophile for the Senate in Alabama. Never a peep about recordings of Trump laughing about sexually assaulting women, attacking the FBI/Courts/congress and anybody else who dares look into his business dealings with Russian mobsters. And yet your against illegal immigration because of you don't want to be seen as condoning crime.

Is this some kind of joke? I mean really... it's becoming hard to take some of you guys seriously.
 
Multi Sport said:
So @tenacious ... what's your take on Los Alamitos? The local Government decided not to be a Sanctuary City but the left has been calling the move unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I think it's wrong to spend years encouraging people to move here because we want cheap labor, and then turn so quickly on them because it's a convenient wedge issue for Donald Trump and Republican's.
 
tenacious said:
Ahh... yes the old conservative morality two-step. Quite a little dance. I mean I never heard you speak out when your beloved Republican Party ran a pedophile for the Senate in Alabama. Never a peep about recordings of Trump laughing about sexually assaulting women, attacking the FBI/Courts/congress and anybody else who dares look into his business dealings with Russian mobsters. And yet your against illegal immigration because of you don't want to be seen as condoning crime.

Is this some kind of joke? I mean really... it's becoming hard to take some of you guys seriously.
Click to expand...

Aww the old pretzel discussion. Twist and turn from the original subject because you have no rebuttal. And you summarized 80% of the nutters talking points into a nice ADD rant...well done.
 
tenacious said:
I think it's wrong to spend years encouraging people to move here because we want cheap labor, and then turn so quickly on them because it's a convenient wedge issue for Donald Trump and Republican's.
Click to expand...

Yes illegal immigration only became a topic since DT took office...makes perfect sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top