The immigration thread: American Melting Pot or Get off my Lawn

[TheGreatBuzz]

11 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

No one in "sanctuary cities" is banning ICE from doing its job.

My understanding is that in the majority of sanctuary cities, when they take an illegal immigrant into custody, they are not allowed to notify ICE of the persons status.  I'm not suggesting that the local law enforcement go around kicking in doors and actively looking for illegals but that when they get an illegal on something else (DUI, petty theft, etc), they give ICE a heads up so they can come grab them for processing.

 

9 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

its hard to reconcile a push for states rights on some issues @TheGreatBuzz without also arguing that sanctuary cities should be the states business (like pot, for example).

True.  But then it becomes hard for the flip side of the coin also.  You can't be for immigration sanctuary cities and then be against the town sheriff that says he won't enforce a particular gun law.

[No Excuses]

51 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

My understanding is that in the majority of sanctuary cities, when they take an illegal immigrant into custody, they are not allowed to notify ICE of the persons status.  I'm not suggesting that the local law enforcement go around kicking in doors and actively looking for illegals but that when they get an illegal on something else (DUI, petty theft, etc), they give ICE a heads up so they can come grab them for processing.

 

The entire point of not requiring local law enforcement to not share data with ICE is so undocumented people also aren't afraid of notifying the police of criminals in their community or citizens/residents who are abusing them.

 

I don't think you fundamentally understand that this policy is largely in place so that we don't create enclaves of people living underground, with no trust or access to local law enforcement resources.

Edited April 12, 2019 by No Excuses

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

 

The entire point of not requiring local law enforcement to not share data with ICE is so undocumented people also aren't afraid of notifying the police of criminals in their community or citizens/residents who are abusing them.

 

I don't think you fundamentally understand that this policy is largely in place so that we don't create enclaves of people living underground, with no trust or access to local law enforcement resources.

I do understand.  And I'd be fine with it only being "sanctuary city" for witnesses and such.  What I have a problem with is not reporting the ones who have committed an additional crime (DUI, petty theft, etc).  And I say additional crime because they are already committing one crime by being here.  Calling them undocument vs illegal may make people feel better but it doesn't change the FACT that their mere presence is committing a crime.

[Forehead]

57 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

but that when they get an illegal on something else (DUI, petty theft, etc), they give ICE a heads up so they can come grab them for processing.

 

 

This is correct.  When local law enforcement picks someone up for some reason, say a drunk driving arrest, and they don't have docs to prove legal presence, they'll notify a Federal Agency, who can elect to issue a "detainer" on them or not.  What that basically means is that when the persons time in jail is up, the local agency informs (let's say ICE for this argument) ICE that the release is impending, and ICE can choose to take custody of them or not, depending on enforcement priority, etc.

 

Sanctuary cities simply don't notify the Federal Agency in the first place, that's the difference.

[visionary]

Again, these were supposedly asylum seekers that were being targeted, not necessarily ‘illegal immigrants’.

 

if the policy in dealing with asylum seekers is to just drop them off in random cities (likely away from any friends or relatives or their intended destination) without giving them their opportunity to apply for asylum, that’s a problem.  If they’re rejected for asylum and then dropped off in random cities, that seems like a potential problem also.   

 

If we’re talking about snatching up all people who are here illegally and dropping them in sanctuary cities elsewhere no matter where they are currently living, that’s also an issue.

 

Are these options better than detaining them forever?  Probably.  But that isn’t a sensible option anyway.

 

That said, this seems like the kind of thing that has a potential to be completely misunderstood by people who don’t look into it much, so I kind of hope it goes away and doesn’t become a political issue, or get Trump to do it to spite the media and others.

[visionary]

Also the fact that the White House and admin officials did not want the policy to come out publicly and were denying it should tell us something.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by visionary

[Llevron]

Are we e planning to do this with European illegals as well? Or is this a "southern border" only type of deal. 

 

Im losing respect for those of you pretending you dont know that Trump is doing this because his supporters are racist and this gives them a full chub. 

 

I would also like someone to tell me if hes only doing this to sanctuary cities that are blue (or if all sanctuary cities are blue then thats cool too)

[twa]

The problem is mainly at the Southern border since we have a safe 3rd country agreement with Canada that eliminates most people waiting here for asylum hearings.

 

Hopefully they will get one at the Southern border, they already have tried with the Remain in Mexico policy.

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[Llevron]

I thought we just needed more judges so we could get the hearings over with faster and process these people? Is that not correct? 

[NoCalMike]

5 minutes ago, Llevron said:

I thought we just needed more judges so we could get the hearings over with faster and process these people? Is that not correct? 

 

Yeah in all of the noise I keep hearing, I have yet to hear any solution that involved increasing the staff & resources at the border to process the asylum seekers (and that doesn't mean everyone gets approved, but it moves the backlog)

 

I also have heard little to no discussion on addressing the reasons folks are fleeing their countries.  

Edited April 12, 2019 by NoCalMike

[Larry]

Yeah, I made the suggestion a while back that maybe increasing the judges might be a net cost savings, by reducing detention costs. 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2019 by visionary

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

[visionary]

 

He also contradicted his earlier tweet yesterday.  Anyway, this makes no sense.

 

 

 

Edited April 14, 2019 by visionary

[visionary]

 

[Koala]

I wonder where he got the idea from?  This is an intelligent enough troll job that I doubt he came up with it on his own.   

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2019 by visionary

[visionary]

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

On 4/15/2019 at 9:09 PM, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

 

I wonder how much of this stuff was going before trump was in office and now there is just a spotlight shined on it.

[Larry]

42 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

I wonder how much of this stuff was going before trump was in office and now there is just a spotlight shined on it.

 

Keep searching through the standard list of excuses to justify this. Eventually you'll find one that you can pretend is good enough for you. Or at least you'll delay enough for something to come along, and you can change the subject.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

14 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Keep searching through the standard list of excuses to justify this. Eventually you'll find one that you can pretend is good enough for you. Or at least you'll delay enough for something to come along, and you can change the subject.

 

Im not justifying anything...