Having been camping for 8 days, I just heard about this last night.

Are we a nation of laws, or are we not? It's time for the feds to put an end to looking the other way, when these liberal sanctuary cities refuse to comply with duly constituted federal laws. Buffoon that he is, Trump is correct on this one issue, and this may well doom Jeb Bush, and may well catapult Scott Walker to the head of the pack.

I don't know what unites us anymore as a country, I truly do not. How can we disagree on whether or not it's a good idea to let illegal aliens, with multiple felonies in this country, continue to walk around?

http://www.businessinsider.com/kathryn-steinle-murder-immigration-sanctuary-cities-2015-7

In all seriousness, how does one's moral compass get so utterly broken, that they can't see anything wrong with letting repeat felons back on our streets?

I do not think we are even capable of a rational discussion on this anymore. We have jumped the shark as a nation. We cannot even discuss these issue on a national level without being rasssist or have the social justice warrior mob reign down on you.

We are unable to discuss that this is simply: law. Abused, circumvented, ignored as convenience, law.

I do not think we are even capable of a rational discussion on this anymore. We have jumped the shark as a nation. We cannot even discuss these issue on a national level without being rasssist or have the social justice warrior mob reign down on you.

We are unable to discuss that this is simply: law. Abused, circumvented, ignored as convenience, law.


This country couldn't be more divided more now if we tried.
Imho this has been the plan all along.

This country couldn't be more divided more now if we tried.
Imho this has been the plan all along.

But if some cities can spit in the face of federal immigration laws without any consequences, why can't another city, maybe Birmingham or Kansas City, refuse to perform gay marriages? Why is it that only the liberal squeaky wheel gets the grease?

Are we really this divided, that liberals can't agree it's a bad idea to shield illegal aliens with muktiple felonies, from the feds? Are they that far gone? What's in that Kool Aid, anyway, acid? How does the liberal moral compass get this fu**ed up?

As to how divided we are, I agree 100%. Pat Buchanan wrote a brilliant piece on what's happening to this country. If America was a married couple, we'd have gotten divorced by now.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150713/OPINION02/150719797&source=RSS

We have jumped the shark as a nation. .

The same nation that elected Ike, now elected this guy twice? Jumped the shark, indeed.

Megyn Kelly made a great point last night about the fact that Obama hasn't commented on this case, when he chooses to comment in situations like his pal up at Harvard disobeying cops, and Ferguson, and other events that pander to his base and thus deserve the attention of POTUS. This family is showing nothing but dignity and grace in the aftermath of this. After the funeral, they took all the flowers, and passed them out at convalescent homes. That doesn't warrant a syllable from Obama, when the death can be traced directly to the feds willingness to let cities ignore our laws? Yet maybe if the family chose to set fires and riot and loot stores, maybe then Obama would respond?

John R, what is all this leading to? Combine the complete breakdown of rational thought on things like this, with the looming collapse of SS and Medicare? What is this country going to look like in 20 years?

What are we doing to our kids?

This country couldn't be more divided more now if we tried.
Imho this has been the plan all along.


Ohhh, I don't think we have reached peak division, sadly.

The same nation that elected Ike, now elected this guy twice? Jumped the shark, indeed

John R, what is all this leading to? Combine the complete breakdown of rational thought on things like this, with the looming collapse of SS and Medicare? What is this country going to look like in 20 years?

What are we doing to our kids?

I don't know, other than to say we will all be "equal" and divided as we bow to our Chinese Overlords in a decade or two.

I cannot see many possible outcomes other than some kind of massive nation state takeover of everything if we continue on the path we are on. We will be Greece or Aregentina except we will OWE close to the WORLDS GDP if we do not change course soon and hard. Here is a 2 year old chart: http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fy2013_path_to_prosperity.pdf


All the "Doomsday" issues such as National Debt, unchecked illegal immigration (I am all for legal immigration), gangs, terrorism, global instability in markets, and conflict (ISIS, Eastern Europe, SCS/WestPAC, Iran and a Persian Gulf States Nuke Arms Race).

People are either not gaming out the next 2-3 decades, are smelling Unicorn Farts and Double Rainbows, or see this as an acceptable end state.

I don't know, other than to say we will all be "equal" and divided as we bow to our Chinese Overlords in a decade or two.

I cannot see many possible outcomes other than some kind of massive nation state takeover of everything if we continue on the path we are on. We will be Greece or Aregentina except we will OWE close to the WORLDS GDP if we do not change course soon and hard. Here is a 2 year old chart: http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fy2013_path_to_prosperity.pdf


All the "Doomsday" issues such as National Debt, unchecked illegal immigration (I am all for legal immigration), gangs, terrorism, global instability in markets, and conflict (ISIS, Eastern Europe, SCS/WestPAC, Iran and a Persian Gulf States Nuke Arms Race).

People are either not gaming out the next 2-3 decades, are smelling Unicorn Farts and Double Rainbows, or see this as an acceptable end state.

"as we bow to our Chinese Overlords in a decade or two. "

Have you seen what the Chinese stock market is doing? Not good.

I hear that any nation ending in "-aguay" is agood bet. Paraguay, Uraguay, etc.

WE R NOT UNITED JIM...:)
If we were, the country would B a much better place......U can thank the communist, socialist democratic, liberal, progressive left....the feds should step in and refuse these sanctuaries federal money.

"as we bow to our Chinese Overlords in a decade or two. "

Have you seen what the Chinese stock market is doing? Not good.



Even more reason for the PRC to want to collect, no? Or worse, what does a country barely containing 1.5 billion people do when internally things go to crap? They unite/nationalize people against external entities. Interesting times.

I hear that any nation ending in "-aguay" is agood bet. Paraguay, Uraguay, etc.

I thought I heard something about 'Guays" being able to form unions, mergers....or something along those lines.... :hee:

"as we bow to our Chinese Overlords in a decade or two. "

Have you seen what the Chinese stock market is doing? Not good....

Ye, and when they start calling all their debts to cover mounting losses, who do you think they will be coming after?????

Kind of like saying the money the US borrowed was "payable on demand" and they may be "demanding" payment soon!!!

Ye, and when they start calling all their debts to cover mounting losses, who do you think they will be coming after?????

Kind of like saying the money the US borrowed was "payable on demand" and they may be "demanding" payment soon!!!

What China has is long term bonds of ours, they can't call that on demand, thank God.

But it also means they can't buy as many of our bonds going forward, which means the demand of our bonds goes down, which means the price of our bonds goes down, which means the interest rate on those bonds goes up...all of which means, it is about to become harder for us to borrow money.

WE R NOT UNITED JIM...:)
If we were, the country would B a much better place......U can thank the communist, socialist democratic, liberal, progressive left....the feds should step in and refuse these sanctuaries federal money.

That pendulum swings in two directions as far as divide goes. Total lack of concession by both sides is the killer in the crowd.

If the Feds step in and remove aid due to Sanctuary Cities doesn't that also lend itself to also dropping funding due to any legal matter where a state is out of compliance with federal law? Could become a slippery slope. For example let's say the executive branch declares through executive order some inane federal law that states are expected to adopt or face loss of federal funding in certain areas of state budget. Sounds almost dictatorial considering there could be a majority of a certain leaning group on the SCOTUS. You set legal precedent based on Sanctuary Cities and what else could follow?

I think the idea of harboring criminals via "sanctuary" is beyond ridiculous. But the law has to be written to protect the rights of those it is intent on protecting with out opening a door to future violations of our rights as citizens.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In house committee yesterday TSA says they will not hold back federal funding from sanctuaries....so much for that....:)

Sounds almost dictatorial Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, it is dictatorial. It's also the only way to run a country. The alternative is anarchy, where state sare free to choose which federal laws they comply with, and which they don't.

These are duly constituted federal laws, dealing with issues of national security. Liberal cities are choosing to ignore these laws, and people are dying because of it.

What would happen if, for example, Dallas Texas decided they weren't going to recognize gay marriages? You think Obama would allow that?

Abraham Lincoln took the dictatorial approach during the Civil War, and he is usually considered a hero for that.

I cannot believe that we cannot agree on low hanging fruit such as this. Cities can let felons walk around free, in spite of federal laws to turn these people over to the ICE. I literally cannot believe that our divides run this deep.

Ohhh, I don't think we have reached peak division, sadly.
:hidin::nailem::nailem::rocketem::rocketem:

Having been camping for 8 days, I just heard about this last night.

Are we a nation of laws, or are we not? It's time for the feds to put an end to looking the other way, when these liberal sanctuary cities refuse to comply with duly constituted federal laws. Buffoon that he is, Trump is correct on this one issue, and this may well doom Jeb Bush, and may well catapult Scott Walker to the head of the pack.

I don't know what unites us anymore as a country, I truly do not. How can we disagree on whether or not it's a good idea to let illegal aliens, with multiple felonies in this country, continue to walk around?

http://www.businessinsider.com/kathryn-steinle-murder-immigration-sanctuary-cities-2015-7

Just read that article. WTF? I'm with you Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"What should be done is any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, which as I understand it, urged them to deport this man again after he got out of prison another time," Clinton said.

"The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported,” she added.

But in a statement the next day, the former Secretary of State's campaign made it clear that she supported sanctuary cities.

"Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years,"

No wonder this country is where it is right now...

I think there's a lot of confusion as to what a "sanctuary city" is and is not.

Define it Spence. I'm curious
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The term Sanctuary city is given to cities in the United States or Canada that have policies designed to shelter illegal immigrants. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status. The designation has no legal meaning.[1]
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Shouldn't "sheltering illegal immigrants" be illegal?

Sheltering anything illegal should in itself be illegal...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think there's a lot of confusion as to what a "sanctuary city" is and is not.


U have me confused now...."sanctuary," could it B or not B a bird aviary?...I need to get some good weed to figure this one out.....lol:)

I think there's a lot of confusion as to what a "sanctuary city" is and is not.



Instead of merely insulting us for being ignorant, why in Gods name don't you enlighten us?

One thing stands out.. We're talking about San Francisco.
Not much left to be said there... Most liberal population in the country... People there make me look like Charleston Heston. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We're talking about San Francisco.
People there make me look like Charleston Heston. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotflmao: that's friggan funny

:rotflmao: that's friggan funny

I was just getting ready to do the same thing when I read the Charlton Heston line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just read an article on this the other day simply due to the fact that the City of Worcester was looking to adopt Sanctuary City status.
Shocker really. The city leaders would step on each other's balls to get the attention of Boston Democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Define it Spence. I'm curious
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
There is no single definition I'm aware of. The term "sanctuary city" seems to be created by anti-illegal immigration folks.

There are a few issues I've read about. First, many cities have policies where they don't inquire about immigration status unless there's good reason because they don't want undocumented people to feel threatened to report crime. Studies appear to show this has been effective. New York City under Rudy Giuliani had such a policy when he was mayor.

Another problem is that there seems to be a disconnect between Federal and local laws. So lets say the police detain someone and under local law they can hold them for 24 hours. ICE gets involved and asks for the person to be detained for 48. If the city complies they get sued which costs them money the Feds don't reimburse so now the City has to sue the Federal Government.

The Inspector General has studied this and found the State's aren't breaking laws but some may report it as a Sanctuary City helping someone avoid deportation which is misleading.

While this murder was certainly tragic and seems as though a bad guy slipped through the cracks, it shouldn't invalidate the policy if there's a net benefit to help fight crime.

There is no single definition I'm aware of. The term "sanctuary city" seems to be created by anti-illegal immigration folks.

There are a few issues I've read about. First, many cities have policies where they don't inquire about immigration status unless there's good reason because they don't want undocumented people to feel threatened to report crime. Studies appear to show this has been effective. New York City under Rudy Giuliani had such a policy when he was mayor.

Another problem is that there seems to be a disconnect between Federal and local laws. So lets say the police detain someone and under local law they can hold them for 24 hours. ICE gets involved and asks for the person to be detained for 48. If the city complies they get sued which costs them money the Feds don't reimburse so now the City has to sue the Federal Government.

The Inspector General has studied this and found the State's aren't breaking laws but some may report it as a Sanctuary City helping someone avoid deportation which is misleading.

While this murder was certainly tragic and seems as though a bad guy slipped through the cracks, it shouldn't invalidate the policy if there's a net benefit to help fight crime.

that was hilarious....did you really write that??

that was hilarious....did you really write that??
Are you having trouble comprehending it?

that was hilarious....did you really write that??

I think he types these up some time so they can swept into the cloud and get recycled in other places. I like Spence, great choice in Beer and many things, but he is a Strategic Messager in RL

OK - ten minutes of Google-FU

http://sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=1067

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkXXWbBkCGs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMzsUo2aM4U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8R-cPYjplU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm-lqvniBJ4

I think he types these up some time so they can swept into the cloud and get recycled in other places. I like Spence, great choice in Beer and many things, but he is a Strategic Messager in RL

OK - ten minutes of Google-FU


Did you watch any of these videos? They pretty much just reinforce my two points...

[QUOTE=JohnR;1077611]I think he types these up some time so they can swept into the cloud and get recycled in other places. I like Spence, great choice in Beer and many things, but he is a Strategic Messager in RL

he is funny in his own odd way.....:bl:

I believe the term "sanctuary city" was created by the liberal politicians as a means of getting word to their voter base as a means of ensuring votes of blind loyalty from the residents and their "new" friends and relatives.

Springfield Ma was one, called such 10+ years ago.

Did you watch any of these videos? They pretty much just reinforce my two points...
😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you watch any of these videos? They pretty much just reinforce my two points...

Yes - "The term "sanctuary city" seems to be created by anti-illegal immigration folks."

That is why it is listed in the documents from the government of the City of San Francisco, the most right wing bitter clinging city in the Union. Clearly created by those opposed to anti-undocumented-aspiring-not-yet-(usually)-future-democratic-voters

That is why it is listed in the documents from the government of the City of San Francisco, the most right wing bitter clinging city in the Union. Clearly created by those opposed to anti-undocumented-aspiring-not-yet-(usually)-future-democratic-voters
I said created not used. Many seem to want to give the impression that in these cities you're immune from deportation which simply isn't true. Some cities are more forgiving than others but they all work with the Feds.

Simple question, why do so many cities employ some sort of sanctuary policy unless it's effective at fighting crime?

Simple question, why do so many cities employ some sort of sanctuary policy unless it's effective at fighting crime?

:rotf3: you are on a roll ......

I think it's more effective at creating democrat votes than preventing crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it's more effective at creating democrat votes than preventing crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That's not what the police say.

How about job creation for un skilled white males in the manual labor trades... Landscaping, roofing, construction, etc. Que?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about job creation for un skilled white males in the manual labor trades... Landscaping, roofing, construction, etc. Que?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Good lord, Nebe just claimed construction was an un skilled trade :hihi:

Flame on.

You obviously have never rubbed elbows with a framing crew
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You obviously have never rubbed elbows with a framing crew
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Around here you're more likely to see roofers than framing.

NEBE...U should read the book..."the millioniare next door."...and it may not B to late for U to become one....:)

Why do you assume my net worth is less than 1 M ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Net worth over a million doesn't make a millionare. It makes an individual who has little access to free cash potentially high debt and operating costs that are high. My net worth is over a million dollars but I am frigging broke.

Sanctuary City like every other legal term or idea is open to interpretation. The city of Worcester just looked at proclaiming itself a sanctuary city, being the progressive super star that it is. City council doesn't understand why. But if San Fran is a sanctuary it's gotta be good.

My understanding is a municipality will not pursue individuals based on immigration status, further if an individual is involved with non violent illegal activity the Feds will not be notified based on immigration status.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Never assumed that....U mentioned un skilled labor......a million today is like 50 thou in the 70's....more then likely will not last in retirement....:)

You obviously have never rubbed elbows with a framing crew
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have worked in construction for over 40 years now and am considered by most to be highly skilled. What has been happening to this once proud profession is sad.

Unfortunately the illegals, who are unskilled in my opinion, provide cheap labor and do not pay workers compensation, insurance, taxes etc. making for an "uneven playing field". Legitimate companies can't compete with that.

You can subcontract the work to these illegals without the hassel of hiring as employees who would need documentation of their status.

Ok rant over ....time to head off to work ...probably to fix something that was framed improperly...not level/plumb, out of square, crooked, wrong measurement...

That is exactly the point I was trying to make .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have worked in construction for over 40 years now and am considered by most to be highly skilled. What has been happening to this once proud profession is sad.

Unfortunately the illegals, who are unskilled in my opinion, provide cheap labor and do not pay workers compensation, insurance, taxes etc. making for an "uneven playing field". Legitimate companies can't compete with that.

You can subcontract the work to these illegals without the hassel of hiring as employees who would need documentation of their status.

Ok rant over ....time to head off to work ...probably to fix something that was framed improperly...not level/plumb, out of square, crooked, wrong measurement...

Any company that subcontracts to a group without receiving insurance certificates is out of their mind. We hired a site company to dig some ground grids for us. We requested a cert. got one and the guy never paid the bill. Fast forward 6 months. We get an insurance audit. 10,000 dollars later we cover his ass on five or six projects he did for us under a certificate that was no good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I said created not used. Many seem to want to give the impression that in these cities you're immune from deportation which simply isn't true. Some cities are more forgiving than others but they all work with the Feds.

Simple question, why do so many cities employ some sort of sanctuary policy unless it's effective at fighting crime?

Spence, have you ever been objective for 5 consecutive seconds?

You are correct when you say there's a disconnect between federal and local laws. And do you know, in our republic, which law trumps which, in those situations? It's pretty explicit, it's in the supremacy clause. Not a lot of ambiguity.

I have never once heard anyone say that sanctuary cities are set up to fight crime.

In this case, ICE told the authorities in San Francisco to notify them when they let the illegal alien go. ICE would have deported him, for the 7th time. San Francisco, being an enlightened, compassionate place (unlike the rest of the nation) specifically chose to ignore ICE's request, and that decision cost this girl, by all accounts a superb American, her life. And as enlightened as those city leaders are, they sure have been mum on this subject. Not a lot of courage there.

If you think it's good policy to let illegal aliens with multiple felonies, to escape the grip of ICE, you are a liberal. If you think these people should be subject to our duly constituted laws, you are not a liberal. The air on your side of the aisle, is getting pretty funky, Spence.

How the hell did we (and by 'we', I mean liberals) get to the point, where it's controversial to say that guy like this needs to get kicked out, and not let back in? This is not a complicated issue, this should be low-hanging fruit. But nope.

I think it's more effective at creating democrat votes than preventing crime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Give that man a cigar!

Spence, it has nothing to do with fighting crime. It has to do with towing the liberal line.

You are correct when you say there's a disconnect between federal and local laws. And do you know, in our republic, which law trumps which, in those situations? It's pretty explicit, it's in the supremacy clause. Not a lot of ambiguity.
Jim, the ICE detainer is a violation of the 4th Amendment unless there's a Federal arrest warrant.

I have never once heard anyone say that sanctuary cities are set up to fight crime.
I didn't say set up, I said why would communities do it if it wasn't.

This has been studied quite a bit and a lot of police seem to have a very positive perspective on sanctuary policies. I used that Google thing JohnR seems so fond of and found some interesting results:

http://www.policefoundation.org/content/role-of-local-police

http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/INSECURE_COMMUNITIES_REPORT_FINAL.PDF

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/criminalization-immigration-united-states

In this case, ICE told the authorities in San Francisco to notify them when they let the illegal alien go. ICE would have deported him, for the 7th time. San Francisco, being an enlightened, compassionate place (unlike the rest of the nation) specifically chose to ignore ICE's request, and that decision cost this girl, by all accounts a superb American, her life. And as enlightened as those city leaders are, they sure have been mum on this subject. Not a lot of courage there.
When the local prosecutor failed to charge him for his outstanding drug charge the authorities had no legal justification to hold him.

It's a sad case for sure, but if anything is another reason for immigration reform.

Jim, the ICE detainer is a violation of the 4th Amendment unless there's a Federal arrest warrant.


.

Do illegals get Constitutional protections? That's a sincere question. I would have thought not...

I didn't say set up, I said why would communities do it if it wasn't.

.

Because one of the pillars of liberalism is that if one falls into a victim group (and currently, because Hispanics vote Democrat, they qualify) nothing they do is their fault. And for many liberals, defying the man, regardless of what the man is saying, is a badge of progressive honor. If you think that sounds stupid and crazy, I agree. But that's liberalism, at least on this issue. So what if a few superb Americans are sacrificed.

When the local prosecutor failed to charge him for his outstanding drug charge the authorities had no legal justification to hold him.
.

Do you get any facts? He was deported after committing felonies here. As soon as he stepped foot back on American soil, he committed a crime, and ICE has the legal authority to detain him and ship his azz back.

Because the feds had a legal claim to him, they asked the local hippies officials to alert ICE if they let him go They weren't about to let this poor victim fall into the hands of the totalitarian folks at ICE, so they set him loose on that poor girl instead. Well done.

This is exactly why I say liberalism is a mental disorder. There is no rational reason to oppose the notion that illegals who commit felonies here, need to go. Build a one way, high speed train to Tierra Del Fuego.

Do illegals get Constitutional protections? That's a sincere question. I would have thought not...
Well they sure do although I don't believe they share all the rights citizens do.

Well they sure do although I don't believe they share all the rights citizens do.

The Sanctuary Cities have more rights than you Spence. They can harbor
criminals without penalty. You can't. Try and harbor a criminal in your house or town and see how quick you go to jail.
So tell me , how is that part of the libs call for fairness?
.

The Sanctuary Cities have more rights than you Spence. They can harbor
criminals without penalty. You can't. Try and harbor a criminal in your house or town and see how quick you go to jail.
So tell me , how is that part of the libs call for fairness?
.

Simple, because victims deserve more fairness than the people who prey upon the victims. The illegal is the victim, ICE is the remorseless predator.

Right. Can I unilaterally declare my house to be a sanctuary from income tax? How long would I get away with that?

The Sanctuary Cities have more rights than you Spence. They can harbor
criminals without penalty. You can't. Try and harbor a criminal in your house or town and see how quick you go to jail.
So tell me , how is that part of the libs call for fairness?
.
Simply not true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Simply not true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please tell me where I'm going wrong.

Please tell me where I'm going wrong.
Primarily because being on US soil illegally isn't a crime, it's a civil violation. If an undocumented person has criminal charges against them they certainly can be held, but when ICE requests a person be detained simply to evaluate deportation priority there isn't a lot of legal justification from what I've read.

Primarily because being on US soil illegally isn't a crime, it's a civil violation.

let's just call it trespassing

Trespassing

You commit a criminal trespass whenever you enter onto property which you know you do not have the right to enter, or remain on property after learning you do not have the right to be there. Trespassing can occur on both private and public property, and you do not have to receive a verbal warning that the property is off limits. Even if you enter a structure or property with the owner's permission, you can still commit trespassing if the owner later orders you to leave but you choose to remain.

Penalties

A person convicted of criminal trespass faces a range of penalties. In most criminal trespass situations courts do not impose significant jail penalties, fines, or lengthy probation periods, though the potential penalties differ among states, depending on the circumstances of the case and the laws in your state, a trespassing conviction can lead to a significant jail sentence and other penalties.

Just remember.
Calling an illegal Alien an undocumented citizen is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just remember.
Calling an illegal Alien an undocumented citizen is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile deviceWho calls them undocumented citizens?

I wonder if it will be acceptable if some cities or states declare themselves "sanctuaries" for "documented Americans" who want to avoid certain decisions being made at the federal level.....:huh:

Who calls them undocumented citizens?

"Huh? "Undocumented citizens"? The linguistic purist in me balked. Unlike "undocumented immigrants," the genteel euphemism for "illegal aliens," the phrase "undocumented citizens" was a contradiction in terms.

But as a Freudian slip it made sense. The speaker, despite her professions of homage to the rule of law, deep down probably thought that the distinction between an illegal immigrant and a citizen was a technicality. It was the same sentiment behind T-shirts at last year's immigration rally in Los Angeles that said: "I'm illegal. So what?"

"Undocumented citizen" has been popping up in other places. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, whose portfolio includes immigration, was asked at a conference in February about congressional restrictions that made it hard for social-service agencies to serve "undocumented citizens."

Chertoff didn't call the questioner on his inaccuracy, but the phrase has offended the ears of some conservatives. TV talk show host Glenn Beck had some fun recently with a Florida legislator who wants to abolish the term "illegal alien," which she says "makes people think of beings from outer space." (Really?) Her preferred term: That's right, "undocumented citizens."

This war of words over what to call 12 million non-citizens is more than another example of loose-talking liberals providing ammunition to conservative critics of "political correctness." Semantics aside, liberals on immigration reform—a group in which I count myself —too often give short shrift to the problem posed for many Americans by the fact that illegal aliens broke the law."

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oew-mcgough3may03-story.html


"GOP Congressman Calls Illegal Aliens "Undocumented Citizens", Trusts Obama Administration

By Jon Feere, August 8, 2013

While holding a town hall meeting, Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) was caught on video supporting amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, people he calls "undocumented citizens". In response to a question from a woman with illegal alien family members who have been in the country for over 13 years, he illustrated a lack of understanding of immigration policy and unjustifiable faith in the Obama administration to secure the border. Seven problems with his response are analyzed below. Here's his quote:

Undocumented citizens should have to come forward, they should have to self-identify, they should pay a penalty and back taxes, and the............."




Ben Rodgers @BenRodgers1
Two undocumented citizens were arrested at the #IAFreedomSummit while protesting http://goo.gl/wEQEjr via @DMRegister
11:11 PM - 24 Jan 2015
Des Moines Register

Thanks scott :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This immigration stuff is nothing more then political BS to get votes, not what's good for America.
What ever happened to our quota system???
Seal the border with a wall, use high tech detection systems, drones, etc. whatever.
THEN, send back all those who have committed crimes here first, followed by those who came here illegally crime free, who can be funneled back through the quota system.
Quotas are set for a reason, to prevent chaos like this.

Exceptions could be made for those who have become citizens and have children who have followed illegally with a requirement for them to become citizens within one year, if over 18 yrs. and by age 18 if under that age.
All those with past criminal records are banned.
We are not a criminal refuse country.

^ king Phillip tried this in the late 1600's and it didn't work out so well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seal the border with a wall, use high tech detection systems, drones, etc. whatever. THEN, send back all those who have committed crimes here first, followed by those who came here illegally crime free, who can be funneled back through the quota system.
Quotas are set for a reason, to prevent chaos like this.
That's pretty much Trump's plan. Except nobody but you and Donald seem to think it's feasible.

With enough fire power and explosives anything is possible Jeff
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's pretty much Trump's plan. Except nobody but you and Donald seem to think it's feasible.

Let's hear your plan, Spence. :huh: No selective hearing here. :doh:

That's pretty much Trump's plan. Except nobody but you and Donald seem to think it's feasible.

No, I think it's more along the lines of Charles Krauthammer, and good old common sense.

No, I think it's more along the lines of Charles Krauthammer, and good old common sense.
Ok, we'll add Chuck to the list and now we're up to three.

Ok, we'll add Chuck to the list and now we're up to three.

four....."common sense"

four....."common sense"
Thinking it's feasible to deport 11 million + people defies common sense, hence it didn't make the cut.

Thinking it's feasible to deport 11 million + people defies common sense, hence it didn't make the cut.

if we can import we can export...thinking we can't do something like that defies common sense....thinking we can adopt 11 million(probably a lot more in reality) people as citizens who came here illegally and the flood will just slow "defies common sense" and destroys any future hope of controlling our borders or maintaining a legal immigration system that has any merit or purpose....common sense makes the cut because it excludes all progressives who seem to operate on the notion that they can outsmart common sense and have good results...

if we can import we can export...thinking we can't do something like that defies common sense....thinking we can adopt 11 million(probably a lot more in reality) people as citizens who came here illegally and the flood will just slow "defies common sense" and destroys any future hope of controlling our borders or maintaining a legal immigration system that has any merit or purpose....common sense makes the cut because it excludes all progressives who seem to operate on the notion that they can outsmart common sense and have good results...
"Import" implies a deliberate act, we didn't import 11 million illegals.

"Import" implies a deliberate act, we didn't import 11 million illegals.

so you're saying they shouldn't be here....and by the way, much has been deliberate, I think both sides would agree whether you place the bulk of blame on business or government policy...

Thinking it's feasible to deport 11 million + people defies common sense, hence it didn't make the cut.

Spence, that is your opinion. If the original immigrant policy was enforced we wouldn't be in this mess.
You forgot to answer the question- "Let's hear your plan, Spence." :hihi:

That's pretty much Trump's plan. Except nobody but you and Donald seem to think it's feasible.

You don't think it's feasible to deport the ones who have committed crimes here? Eisenhower, in 1954, deported all the illegals they could round-up, whether they had committed a crime or not. He deported over one million. It was called, amazingly, Operation Wetback. Not the most sensitive name to give the operation, but it showed that large-scale deportations aren't logistically impossible.

Spence, that is your opinion. If the original immigrant policy was enforced we wouldn't be in this mess.
You forgot to answer the question- "Let's hear your plan, Spence." :hihi:

Spence this is my third request.

"Let's hear your plan, Spence."
You libs are supposed to want fairness, how can you leave this thread after
knocking my plan without giving me a shot at yours. :hihi: :D

Spence this is my third request.

"Let's hear your plan, Spence."
You libs are supposed to want fairness, how can you leave this thread after
knocking my plan without giving me a shot at yours. :hihi: :D
I think we've discussed this in the past. Rubio's own plan which he ditched once Obama pretty much called for the same thing was a good start. Enable the Dreamers, give status for those who register, increase penalties for those who employ and work to keep the criminals out.

You don't think it's feasible to deport the ones who have committed crimes here? Eisenhower, in 1954, deported all the illegals they could round-up, whether they had committed a crime or not. He deported over one million. It was called, amazingly, Operation Wetback. Not the most sensitive name to give the operation, but it showed that large-scale deportations aren't logistically impossible.
I didn't say impossible I said feasible.

In 1954 the Mexican government wanted their people back because they needed the labor, it's a totally different scenario. Also back then I don't think people were woven and dispersed like they are now.

Perhaps even a bigger factor. In California which was a focus of the Operation about 8% of the State was of Hispanic/Latino decent...today that number is around 30%.