: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

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

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

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....:)

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

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

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.

Give that man a cigar!

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

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

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/cont...f-local-police

http://www.policylink.org/sites/defa...PORT_FINAL.PDF

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/spe...-united-states

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.

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

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.

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.

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?
.

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?

Simply not true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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.

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

Who 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:

"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-oe...y03-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

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

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

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.

four....."common sense"