I hope not. Would drain the citys resources.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the rights of those waiting in line and obeying the law? What about the rights of those who built this great country.

You mean immigrants? Agree we should let more immigrants in to build up this great country.

Let more in legally, fine.
If you mean refuse to enforce our nation’s immigration laws, no.

BTW -- which part of the govt. makes the annual quota numbers for immigration, by country? Is that Congress or a government agency. I really don’t know.

Get back to ironing your white hood, pig.

And there is no "country quota".

A legal way around this would be amnesty, as they did it under your beloved Reagan. No more tearing families apart, no more wasteful raids. But you wouldn't like that would you? Because in that instance, you'd have to let in more brown people. We can't have that can we?

That was me, and I have seen a list of annual numbers of immigrants allowed by country. If the word “quota” offends, then use another word, like target or limits. We may allow in 200,000 from China, and 150,000 from India (not sure of the actual number, but really no need to be so insulting (white hood, pig? really?).

So technically.. does this mean that we will loose 350 000 jobs to just two groups a year? that seems like quite a lot!
So many grads have problems finding jobs in tech companies etc. and at this rate it would get really bad really fast
right?

Anonymous wrote:

I will always punch nazis and insult racists like you, you white hood wearing pig.

Pffffft, big talker.

You've never punched another person in your entire life.

Here's a Pro-Tip: if/when you ever do summon the courage to place your hands on someone in anger, you better be prepared for what happens afterwards, because you just started a fight. And now you don't get to decide when the fight is over - the other person does. And there's always a chance that the person you started that fight with might wanna carry it a LOT farther than you're willing to, and be a lot better at fighting than you are. Because some of us walk around ALL THE TIME hoping, praying, and wishing someone takes a swing at us, because then it's party time. And since it's self defense (because YOU started the fight) there's almost no limit to what we'll be forgiven for in defending ourselves.

So I guess you better make sure you only punch children or really frail looking old people. Better odds that way.

Anonymous wrote:CASA de Maryland - originally Central American Solidarity Society - is working with state elected officials to pass legislation that might remove any cooperation or information exchange with ICE including for convicted or arrested persons.

Might mean no fingerprints exchanged, no ICE notification under any circumstances etc. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017RS/bills/sb/sb0835f.pdf

That would be state wide and it won't pass.

CASA de Maryland - originally Central American Solidarity Society - is working with state elected officials to pass legislation that might remove any cooperation or information exchange with ICE including for convicted or arrested persons.

Might mean no fingerprints exchanged, no ICE notification under any circumstances etc. http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2017RS/bills/sb/sb0835f.pdf

Anonymous wrote:must see this on the Virginia's Legislative Information System page:
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?171+sum+SB1262

SB 1262 Sanctuary cities; liability for certain injuries and damages caused by an illegal alien.

Introduced by: Richard H. Black

SUMMARY AS PASSED SENATE: (all summaries)

Liability of sanctuary cities for certain injuries and damages. Provides that a sanctuary city, defined in the bill as any locality that adopts any ordinance, procedure, or policy that intentionally restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law, shall be jointly and severally liable for the tortious injury to persons or property caused by an illegal alien within such locality.

If that's the definition of sanctuary city then there aren't any sanctuary cities, because to my knowledge, none of them restrict the enforcement of immigration laws. What they don't do is go out of their way to aid ICE. None of them will stand in the way of a properly executed ICE warrant, none of them will block ICE agents from doing their jobs.

How can we find out exactly what it means to be a "sanctuary city" prior to the public meeting? I find conflicting information and I'd like to be afforded the opportunity to ask informed questions (since that is what I assume is the purpose of the public meeting).

Thanks!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Montgomery County is "not" a sanctuary jurisdiction. We turn folks over to ICE at the jail "if" ICE has a proper warrant/detainer with proper probable cause. Always have. Always will.

this:
http://cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map

That policy group issues reports often riddled with errors. In any event, it's not a federal designation. Just because people want it to be a sanctuary jurisdiction, doesn't make it so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the rights of those waiting in line and obeying the law? What about the rights of those who built this great country.

You mean immigrants? Agree we should let more immigrants in to build up this great country.

Let more in legally, fine.
If you mean refuse to enforce our nation’s immigration laws, no.

BTW -- which part of the govt. makes the annual quota numbers for immigration, by country? Is that Congress or a government agency. I really don’t know.

Get back to ironing your white hood, pig.

And there is no "country quota".

A legal way around this would be amnesty, as they did it under your beloved Reagan. No more tearing families apart, no more wasteful raids. But you wouldn't like that would you? Because in that instance, you'd have to let in more brown people. We can't have that can we?

That was me, and I have seen a list of annual numbers of immigrants allowed by country. If the word “quota” offends, then use another word, like target or limits. We may allow in 200,000 from China, and 150,000 from India (not sure of the actual number, but really no need to be so insulting (white hood, pig? really?).

I will always punch nazis and insult racists like you, you white hood wearing pig.

? I wish I understood where that [incorrect] assessment comes from, and nothing I said deserves it. And by the way you are wrong - immigrant visas are limited in total and by country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the rights of those waiting in line and obeying the law? What about the rights of those who built this great country.

You mean immigrants? Agree we should let more immigrants in to build up this great country.

Let more in legally, fine.
If you mean refuse to enforce our nation’s immigration laws, no.

BTW -- which part of the govt. makes the annual quota numbers for immigration, by country? Is that Congress or a government agency. I really don’t know.

Get back to ironing your white hood, pig.

And there is no "country quota".

A legal way around this would be amnesty, as they did it under your beloved Reagan. No more tearing families apart, no more wasteful raids. But you wouldn't like that would you? Because in that instance, you'd have to let in more brown people. We can't have that can we?

That was me, and I have seen a list of annual numbers of immigrants allowed by country. If the word “quota” offends, then use another word, like target or limits. We may allow in 200,000 from China, and 150,000 from India (not sure of the actual number, but really no need to be so insulting (white hood, pig? really?).

I will always punch nazis and insult racists like you, you white hood wearing pig.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about the rights of those waiting in line and obeying the law? What about the rights of those who built this great country.

You mean immigrants? Agree we should let more immigrants in to build up this great country.

Let more in legally, fine.
If you mean refuse to enforce our nation’s immigration laws, no.

BTW -- which part of the govt. makes the annual quota numbers for immigration, by country? Is that Congress or a government agency. I really don’t know.

Get back to ironing your white hood, pig.

And there is no "country quota".

A legal way around this would be amnesty, as they did it under your beloved Reagan. No more tearing families apart, no more wasteful raids. But you wouldn't like that would you? Because in that instance, you'd have to let in more brown people. We can't have that can we?

Wrong. See:
http://immigration.findlaw.com/visas/how-do-i-get-an-immigrant-visa-number.html

U.S. law limits the number of immigrant visa numbers that are available every year. This means that even if the USCIS approves an immigrant visa petition for you, you may not get an immigrant visa number immediately. In some cases, several years could pass between the time USCIS approves your immigrant visa petition and the State Department gives you an immigrant visa number. In addition, U.S. law also limits the number of immigrant visas available by country. This means you may have to wait longer if you come from a country with a high demand for U.S. immigrant visas.