Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 65

Thread: Sanctuary Zones

  1. #1

    Default Sanctuary Zones

    Basically on sanctuary cities, counties, ect.

  2. #2
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    7,320

    Default

    Um.... this thread is lacking. Cities and states should follow the law. Being against something does not give anyone the right to break the law, and when they do they should be punished. This is the beginning of the breakdown of society, I think I should be allowed to murder pedophiles, should I start murdering anyone charged? The pedos want to touch children, they think it should be legal, you ok with your children being touched?
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  3. #3

    Default

    What The Blazin1 said.

  4. #4
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    If you support sanctuary cities you have to support allowing cities to legalize gay discrimination in their cities.

  5. #5
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    I thought it was just them not actively chasing or prosecuting? The same way they don't go into law offices and check for cocaine traces.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  6. #6
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    I thought

    it was just them not actively chasing or prosecuting?
    Found your problem.

    It is active legislation. For instance, two illegals raped and assaulted a 14 year old girl in a Maryland school (you must be freaking out on who to support -- the beaten and raped female child, or the non-white rapists). The Maryland legislature then voted to make Maryland a sanctuary state 4 days later.

  7. #7
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cofc View Post
    Found your problem.

    It is active legislation. For instance, two illegals raped and assaulted a 14 year old girl in a Maryland school (you must be freaking out on who to support -- the beaten and raped female child, or the non-white rapists). The Maryland legislature then voted to make Maryland a sanctuary state 4 days later.
    Why did I pick that rambling post to look at? What are you talking about? Are you saying that illegals have seperate laws to abide by? That don't include ****? What on earth does that have to do with them voting to be a sanctuary city? That's a bit like saying "someone committed tax fraud" so changing the tax laws 2 days later is directly linked. I think you are losing whatever plot you had.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  8. #8
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    I thought it was just them not actively chasing or prosecuting? The same way they don't go into law offices and check for cocaine traces.
    The title is applied to cities and states when their police forces don't comply with federal immigration agency (ICE) requests to do certain things, such as pick up someone for them, or hold someone for them. Most sanctuary cities (I'll use NYC for example) will use this policy to release illegal immigrants picked up for minor offenses, mostly traffic offenses. They absolutely do cooperate with ICE when the offense is more serious. The position of sanctuary cities or states is generally as follows:

    1) fact: it is the responsibility of federal agents to enforce federal immigration law.
    2) fact: there is no legal requirement anywhere in federal law that says localities have to do immigration raids at the request of ICE, or to comply with ICE detainer requests (to hold someone so ICE can come pick them up.)
    3) fact: if it is widely known that local law enforcement will not be enforcing federal immigration law, immigrants are much more likely to cooperate with local law enforcement in their operations. It makes local law enforcement tougher if immigrants are afraid to report violations of the law, afraid to testify in court, etc.

    So based on these facts, sanctuary cities or states generally refuse to honor detainer requests or run immigration raids, while following all applicable federal statutes. These cities usually decide to honor detainer requests when the immigrant in question is a violent criminal (ie. committed a violent or serious crime).

    TL;DR, conservatives just want big government to make the lives of people miserable -- sanctuary cities are following entirely legal and quite rational policies.

  9. #9
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    sanctuary cities are following entirely legal and quite rational policies.
    Then so are locations that allow gay discrimination, according to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    Are you saying that illegals have seperate laws to abide by?
    In sanctuary locations, yes. That is the whole point.

  10. #10
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    Um.... this thread is lacking. Cities and states should follow the law. Being against something does not give anyone the right to break the law, and when they do they should be punished. This is the beginning of the breakdown of society, I think I should be allowed to murder pedophiles, should I start murdering anyone charged? The pedos want to touch children, they think it should be legal, you ok with your children being touched?
    So Jacksonville actually gave what would be the best reason to be a sanctuary city, from the position of conservatism.

    Basically they wouldn't detain illegals for ICE because they weren't getting paid to do it, which means they got stuck with a tab when they normally would have just released them. So they released them, because why should they hold someone when they won't be reimbursed for the expense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  11. #11
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    So Jacksonville actually gave what would be the best reason to be a sanctuary city, from the position of conservatism.

    Basically they wouldn't detain illegals for ICE because they weren't getting paid to do it, which means they got stuck with a tab when they normally would have just released them. So they released them, because why should they hold someone when they won't be reimbursed for the expense.
    They release criminals if they are illegals? That makes no sense at all.

  12. #12
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    7,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    So Jacksonville actually gave what would be the best reason to be a sanctuary city, from the position of conservatism.

    Basically they wouldn't detain illegals for ICE because they weren't getting paid to do it, which means they got stuck with a tab when they normally would have just released them. So they released them, because why should they hold someone when they won't be reimbursed for the expense.
    What does this text wall have to do with my post? Can I murder toucan or not?
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    What does this text wall have to do with my post? Can I murder toucan or not?
    Yes please.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mod Dark Tower View Post
    *Sigh*, I'm such an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    I'm not very bright.

  14. #14
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    What does this text wall have to do with my post? Can I murder toucan or not?
    I don't know can you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  15. #15
    Philosopher н-υ-п-т-ε-я's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    in my body of course
    Posts
    2,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    Can I murder toucan or not?
    But can he defend himself efficiently?
    http://static.pokemoninfinity.com/im..._forum_sig.png

    trooper? recruit an army and get two recruits from me for your army...

    teacher?
    first five would receive 50 extra coins don't miss the chance...

  16. #16
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    I'm still not sure why some conservatives hate it so much. If ice want to catch them, I'm assuming they aren't stopped at the border?
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  17. #17
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    I'm still not sure why some conservatives hate it so much. If ice want to catch them, I'm assuming they aren't stopped at the border?
    All they need to do is release non-illegals for committing crimes and lock up all illegals. Reverse it so you can stop supporting it.

  18. #18
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    7,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    I don't know can you?
    Not legally, see my point? Of course you will say no.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  19. #19
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    Not legally, see my point? Of course you will say no.
    So you can't figure out how to do it legally? There are legal ways. Or Quasi legal ways.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  20. #20
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    7,320

    Default

    Only if I was illegal to begin with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    So they released them, because why should they hold someone when they won't be reimbursed for the expense.
    Federal Law requires that they are contacted when an illegal is being held in custody. The law doesn't say that they must jail them.

    I promise you that I'm the biggest civil libertarian you'll probably ever encounter, but to grant local or state governments the power to pick and choose which laws they will uphold is a can of worms that is best left closed.

  22. #22
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilAnse View Post
    Federal Law requires that they are contacted when an illegal is being held in custody. The law doesn't say that they must jail them.

    I promise you that I'm the biggest civil libertarian you'll probably ever encounter, but to grant local or state governments the power to pick and choose which laws they will uphold is a can of worms that is best left closed.
    I am ready for a fetal-sanctuary cities. They simply do not follow federal abortion law in their locales.

  23. #23
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,618

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilAnse View Post
    I promise you that I'm the biggest civil libertarian you'll probably ever encounter, but to grant local or state governments the power to pick and choose which laws they will uphold is a can of worms that is best left closed.
    Which State/Local government responsible for enforcing Federal immigration law are you referring to? Which things local police are legally required to do are they choosing not to do?

  24. #24
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilAnse View Post
    Federal Law requires that they are contacted when an illegal is being held in custody. The law doesn't say that they must jail them.

    I promise you that I'm the biggest civil libertarian you'll probably ever encounter, but to grant local or state governments the power to pick and choose which laws they will uphold is a can of worms that is best left closed.
    So, if they aren't in custody, what's the issue?
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    So, if they aren't in custody, what's the issue?
    That they are here illegally?

    Look, we have jurisdictional stuff that happens here all of the time between cities, counties, and states. If someone is driving on a suspended license from Ohio and is pulled over in another state like Indiana, a simple DL check will show that suspension and the officer will detain you and contact the other state in question and give them the opportunity to come and pick you up or cite you a new ticket with a court date. It happens every day. That's what extradition is. Should the Indiana cop just say "well, none of my business...let Ohio deal with it on their own dime" and let the person go?

    The bottom line to me is that if we don't have borders, we don't have a nation...and without laws, there is no freedom. That's much more important to me than a political party just wanting to open the doors up just to help them win some elections.

  26. #26
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Which State/Local government responsible for enforcing Federal immigration law are you referring to? Which things local police are legally required to do are they choosing not to do?
    All sanctuary locales.

    Releasing rapists and murderers and terrorists and kidnappers and not notifying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    So, if they aren't in custody, what's the issue?
    They release rapists and murderers because they are here illegally.

  27. #27
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,618

    Default

    This distinction might be a little complicated for you two snowflakes, but I feel compelled to explain something to the both of you.

    Unlawful entry into the US is a crime in and of itself.

    Unlawful presence in the use is NOT a crime in and of itself, and there are no Federal laws requiring any State or City officials to turn people who are in the US unlawfully over to Federal officials.

    For the side of the argument that claims to be about law enforcement, you seem to know remarkably little about what the laws actually say.

    /argument.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Unlawful presence in the use is NOT a crime in and of itself, and there are no Federal laws requiring any State or City officials to turn people who are in the US unlawfully over to Federal officials.
    This is completely false.

    https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...local-officers

    Subsection 1324(c) of Title 8 specifically authorizes state and local officers "whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws" to make arrests for violations of 8 U.S.C. 1324. There is also a general federal statute which authorizes certain local officials to make arrests for violations of federal statutes, 18 U.S.C. 3041. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that 18 U.S.C. 3041 authorizes those local officials to issue process for the arrest, to be executed by law enforcement officers. See United States v. Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977).

    Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an arrest warrant "shall be executed by a marshal or by some other officer authorized by law." The phrase, "some other officer," includes state and local officers. Bowdach, supra.

  29. #29
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Unlawful entry into the US is a crime in and of itself.
    Rapists are not raping currently therefore there is no law regarding them being locked up?

  30. #30
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    Knowing little about your dumb laws, and just going on whats posted it looks to me like Local law office CAN arrest on federal warrants. But don't. So the FBI can ask the locals to bust a door down. But they can say nah, not today. It's not like being in the US illegally is a big crime even if it were technically illegal. And if the states think that ice is wasting taxpayer funds going after people who are just trying to get a better life, then, no, I don't think it's unreasonable to not waste their time on it. Like I say, do they go into law firms and test for cocaine? They'd get a bigger catch if they did.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  31. #31
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    do they go into law firms and test for cocaine?
    Can you correlate this nonsensical question to illegals that have committed additional crimes?

  32. #32

    Default

    The problem with your premise, Rocchick, is that when you give permission to local/state governments to pick and choose which laws they want to waste their money/time enforcing, where do you draw the line, and who are the people drawing the lines?

    Further, your argument is a strawman when you say that every person that comes across the border illegally is just looking for a better life. There are many that are just here to take advantage of handouts, deal drugs, and participate in gang activity.

  33. #33
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,618

    Default

    Rokchick is correct -- laws authorizing a police body to perform a function are not the same as laws requiring them to do so. The attempt to suggest otherwise is laughable.

  34. #34
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    laws authorizing a police body to perform a function are not the same as laws requiring them to do so.
    Great. Fetal-sanctuary cities when?

  35. #35
    Consul Rokchick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    -32 degrees latitude, free, safe and warm
    Posts
    9,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilAnse View Post
    The problem with your premise, Rocchick, is that when you give permission to local/state governments to pick and choose which laws they want to waste their money/time enforcing, where do you draw the line, and who are the people drawing the lines?

    Further, your argument is a strawman when you say that every person that comes across the border illegally is just looking for a better life. There are many that are just here to take advantage of handouts, deal drugs, and participate in gang activity.
    And those doing the bad stuff do get picked up and held. I saw it on the internet, so it must be true.

    And it doesn't seem to make those cities any less safe.
    I'm glad I'm not judgemental like all you smug, superficial idiots

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Rokchick is correct -- laws authorizing a police body to perform a function are not the same as laws requiring them to do so. The attempt to suggest otherwise is laughable.
    Still trying to pretend you know the law, eh?

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

    (a) Criminal penalties
    (1)
    (A) Any person who—
    (i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
    (ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
    (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
    (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
    (v)
    (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
    (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
    shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
    (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
    (i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
    (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
    (iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
    (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.

  37. #37
    Philosopher cofc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Back to Oz.
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    And those doing the bad stuff do get picked up and held.
    False. Obama literally released tens of thousands of illegals that committed rapes, murders, kidnapping, etc.

  38. #38
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,618

    Default

    It's not that Rok is giving the localities the ability to decide whether or not to do this, the Federal statutes are doing that. DA's argument is literally "the Federal law should be something other than it actually is and we should all pretend it says what I want it to say instead."

    EDIT: note how none of that makes unlawful presence, specifically, illegal...... It's also Federal code which means state/local officials aren't necessarily required to enforce it.

    Instead of mass quoting statute, point out the specific statute that requires local officials to detain and deport all unlawful residents. You're arguing that state and local officials are violating a specific statute, and you have yet to post that particular statute. (Hint: it doesn't exist.)
    Last edited by The Burninator; 03-31-2017 at 03:17 AM.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rokchick View Post
    And those doing the bad stuff do get picked up and held. I saw it on the internet, so it must be true.

    And it doesn't seem to make those cities any less safe.
    Those doing the bad stuff would include being here illegally. I don't care if they are otherwise model citizens. We have laws and legal ways to enter our country. Do it that way or pay the price.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    It's not that Rok is giving the localities the ability to decide whether or not to do this, the Federal statutes are doing that. DA's argument is literally "the Federal law should be something other than it actually is and we should all pretend it says what I want it to say instead."
    No, my argument is what the laws actually say. Your argument is that they are whatever you think they should be.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •