Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?
Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:if you are against “sanctuary cities” then you are pro government over reach and against states rights. Hypocrital Republicans.
If you’re here without documents, you’ve broken Fedral law
Yes, and so it's up to the Federal law enforcement to enforce that law, not local law enforcement. Maybe we should have ICE giving out speeding tickets.
States are supposed to obey Federal law
Obeying Federal law =/= doing the work of enforcing Federal law
In fact, as mentioned above, federal appellate courts have ruled that state and local law enforcement overreaches their authority when they detain suspects for ICES without a judicial warrant.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The idea behind sanctuary cities seems incredibly stupid to me. I’ve never understood its purpose, or how it actually helps the legal citizens in its city. I’ve read too many stories of undocumented immigrants committing acts of violence against legal citizens, and how ICE wasn’t able to detain or deport them. If you think there are good reasons for a sanctuary city please share your thoughts.
Ten minutes of research should easily clarify this for you. Police departments need help from the community, not opposition, to solve crimes. That’s also why almost no local police departments participate in ICE’s 287(g) program. And most departments that have tried it, dropped out. Immigration is a federal matter. Cities and towns don’t have authority over immigration, so why should they get involved? It only leads to problems.
Would you prefer federal agents in your town then? How else will ICE know unless they're notified by state or local?
Every time someone is booked, their fingerprints and record are processed through the NCIC. If there is a hit on the DHS database, ICE is directly notified.
Now you know...
According to ICE, local agencies must notify them as soon as possible or 48 hours in advance of releasing someone who has a detainer. But local officials can release immediately or ignore detainers all together.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:if you are against “sanctuary cities” then you are pro government over reach and against states rights. Hypocrital Republicans.
If you’re here without documents, you’ve broken Fedral law
Yes, and so it's up to the Federal law enforcement to enforce that law, not local law enforcement. Maybe we should have ICE giving out speeding tickets.
States are supposed to obey Federal law
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:if you are against “sanctuary cities” then you are pro government over reach and against states rights. Hypocrital Republicans.
If you’re here without documents, you’ve broken Fedral law
Yes, and so it's up to the Federal law enforcement to enforce that law, not local law enforcement. Maybe we should have ICE giving out speeding tickets.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The idea behind sanctuary cities seems incredibly stupid to me. I’ve never understood its purpose, or how it actually helps the legal citizens in its city. I’ve read too many stories of undocumented immigrants committing acts of violence against legal citizens, and how ICE wasn’t able to detain or deport them. If you think there are good reasons for a sanctuary city please share your thoughts.
Ten minutes of research should easily clarify this for you. Police departments need help from the community, not opposition, to solve crimes. That’s also why almost no local police departments participate in ICE’s 287(g) program. And most departments that have tried it, dropped out. Immigration is a federal matter. Cities and towns don’t have authority over immigration, so why should they get involved? It only leads to problems.
Would you prefer federal agents in your town then? How else will ICE know unless they're notified by state or local?
Every time someone is booked, their fingerprints and record are processed through the NCIC. If there is a hit on the DHS database, ICE is directly notified.
Now you know...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Sanctuary Cities are dumb because they are saying open borders are fine. All you have to do is cross the border and make it to a sanctuary city and noone can touch you. Lower class people should be the most pissed about this driving down wages for everyone else.
This is flat out ignorance. Sorry dude, you have been lied to about what a "sanctuary city" is.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:if you are against “sanctuary cities” then you are pro government over reach and against states rights. Hypocrital Republicans.
If you’re here without documents, you’ve broken Fedral law
Yes, and so it's up to the Federal law enforcement to enforce that law, not local law enforcement. Maybe we should have ICE giving out speeding tickets.
On Wednesday, a three-judge appellate court panel found this violated state law because the Suffolk police went beyond their authority. ICE detainers ask police to hold someone already in custody for 48 hours, to facilitate a transfer. By putting Francis back in jail, the court found Suffolk went too far. "[L]ocal law enforcement officers are not authorized to effectuate arrests for civil law immigration violations," the ruling said.
[b]The court found they could, however, if ICE showed them a warrant signed by a judge.[b]
[i.e., it's not that getting into a sanctuary city means "nobody can touch them." It means that you have to follow the legal protocols to do so.]
The case was brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union, which says ICE issued about 800 detainer requests to the Nassau and Suffolk county sheriffs last year. Associate Legal Director Chris Dunn said the ruling set a precedent because it applies to all local police, statewide.
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/15/668374307/local-police-cant-detain-immigrants-for-ice-ny-court-finds
Can you remind us what it means to be a “sanctuary” state like California or city like Oakland or San Francisco?
The term sanctuary has no uniform legal meaning, but in general it refers to integrationist policies—that is, policies that serve to integrate immigrants regardless of their status. So called “sanctuary” laws might include prohibition of use of county funds to initiate an inquiry or enforcement based solely on immigration status, or the refusal to hold ICE detainees (in county jails, for instance, until ICE arrives), or the refusal to let ICE agents into public spaces without a judicial warrant. So, it can take many forms. But it is not a protective blanket that prevents ICE from doing its work. They can do their job, but it’s a matter of how much assistance they get from localities.