We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, November 15. 2016
Several cities threaten to defy federal law with their self-imposed sanctuary status:
LAPD Joins Liberal Mayor Resistance, Won't Hand Over Illegals
Emanuel Tells Undocumented Immigrants Chicago ‘Always Will Be A Sanctuary City’
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
This is about one thing; votes. The Democrats are buying the votes of illegals and legal hispanics. This is what they do. Well all that and selling influence and calling anyone who disagrees racist, homophobic bigots. This is classic anti-American/anti-citizen Democrat pandering.
It's real simple, and it's been a part of the Democratic playbook for as long as I can remember; you simply threaten to withold federal funding for schools, highway projects, etc. from the self-declared sanctuary cities until they change their ways.
Then let the Mayor of Chicago explain to all Chicagoans how their taxes will be going up (again) so that the needs of the ever-growing-in-number illegal immigrants can be met (because that's who we are).
Yeah, isn't that the same threat used to the states whose schools don't want to follow whatever insanity the Ed. dept. rules from on high in DC?
Like George Wallace at the schoolhouse door?
In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court found that states cannot be required to enforce federal law. However, they can't interfere with federal officials enforcing federal law, nor can they nullify federal law. The constitution does not allow the federal government to "draft" the police of the sovereign states. That means local governments don't have to arrest undocumented aliens and turn them over to the federal government.
What Wallace did was try to block black students from entering, but, after several attempts, eventually stood aside when so ordered by federal officials.
this is how it works outside the world of libtarded fantasy where no illegal has ever committed a crime.
an illegal vermin is arrested by the state and prosecuted for favorite liberal crimes like rape, robbery, assault, murder. all the crimes that give libtards wet dreams.
the Department of Homeland Security is aware of these illegals in state custody and issues immigration holds or immigration detainers to the state officials ordering the scum to be handed over to the feds after jail or prison terms are served. under federal law, foreign vermin can be deported for certain kinds of felonies or multiple offenses of various kinds.
libtarded state officials, who love to release criminals back into the population, interfere with the federal process by disobeying the hold and releasing the illegals / convicts to go out and commit more crimes.
so, asshat, the fed isn't requiring states to administer the Immigration and Nationality Act, its requiring them to turn over illegals for federal immigration justice.
don't give me this bullshit about a federal case you didn't read and don't understand.
Will Bithers: an illegal vermin is arrested by the state and prosecuted
Trump promised to deport 12 million undocumented aliens, the vast majority of whom have not committed significant criminal acts. Most sanctuary cities do turn over people convicted of serious crimes, but not for minor crimes, or in the day-to-day interactions with police.
"L.A. no longer turns over people arrested for low-level crimes to federal agents for deportation and moved away from honoring federal requests to detain inmates who might be deportable past their jail terms.
"low level crimes" means whatever you tards want it to mean. its not a legal category in immigration law, but its always means that in effect the state and not congress decides who is actually deportable and who isn't.
libtards love the illegal who commits multiple "low level crimes", not any one of which qualifies for deportation but combined do. of course, you probably consider rape as a "low level crime".
you people have got to stop lying about the law.
I have no problem cutting off all federal funding. That should help with getting federal spending under control.
Hey, I seem to remember another time where Democrats unilaterally decided to go their own way before the President they hated was even inaugurated.
Party like it's 1860.
The move here is to focus the criminal illegal aliens and demand state and local law enforcement turn them over before releasing them from custody.
But Trump should also emphasize that local police will not be asked or encouraged to report or inquire into immigrations status of non-criminal individuals. Do this to ensure that those that have only violated immigration law can still count on local police protection against those who would prey upon them or others. This is to restore law and order in the cities.
Then let the sanctuary politicians stand on protecting rapists, murderers, drug dealers, drunk driving homicides, etc.
On and for cities that won't turn over the criminal illegal aliens, stop federal funding.
Zack has grossly misrepresented the issue, probably intentionally, because no one who reads Printz can be that wrong.
Will Bithers: no one who reads Printz can be that wrong.
We'd be happy to hear your understanding of Printz v. United States.
Scalia, majority opinion: "Enactments of the early Congresses seem to contain no evidence of an assumption that the Federal Government may command the States' executive power in the absence of a particularized constitutional authorization."
glad you bothered to read the case. you probably missed the day they taught constitutional law in third grade, so let me explain:
the case doesn't apply to immigration holds because the states aren't enforcing federal immigration law. "release the convict to federal custody" isn't the same as "prosecute vermin".
Will Bithers: the case doesn't apply to immigration holds because the states aren't enforcing federal immigration law. "release the convict to federal custody" isn't the same as "prosecute vermin".
During the campaign, Trump promised that he would deport 12 million undocumented aliens. While felonious aliens should be deported, the vast majority of undocumented aliens have not committed crimes.
take it up with congress if you don't like grounds for deportation.
if the feds use fed agents to round up illegals, so what?
unless you can explain why an immigration hold invokes the rule in Printz.
Will Bithers: if the feds use fed agents to round up illegals, so what?
Will Bithers: unless you can explain why an immigration hold invokes the rule in Printz.
Because the federal government can't issue orders to local governments. However, if there is a court order, then they must comply.
you're saying that immigration holds are unconstitutional?
I'm just trying to pin down your claim.
Will Bithers: you're saying that immigration holds are unconstitutional?
The federal government can ask, but not demand. There's nothing unconstitutional about asking, and most localities will cooperate when dealing with a violent criminal.
The state of Texas spent $12 Billion on illegal immigration in 2015. By all means, please New York and Illinois---take ALL the illegals off our hands. Texas would be delighted to spend that $12B on something else.
Who let the illegals in? We the Peeps did. We voted for our Sens and Reps and Prezs, who chose in our name to not enforce the laws extant. And did We punish our Sens/Reps/Prezs for failing to do their duty? We did not. Well, perhaps we just did.
If I was a State, I'd send a bill to the Feds for every crimillegalalien incarceration. That is, if I weren't a sanctuary city or State. In which case, if a sanctuary polity sent a bill to me the Feds, I'd refuse to pay it.
1. Build the wall and get the borders under control. The language in the Constitution couldn't be more clear: "and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion".
2. Feds agree to pay for incarceration costs and victim reparations for felony crimes committed by illegals, provided that the State give 'em up at the end.
3. With Item #2, the Feds have a huge incentive to get their costs under control by maintaining control of the border and stifling uncontrolled immigration.
4. Unfortunately, with #2 the States remain disincentivized to pursue the crimillegalaliens and turn 'em in before they commit crimes against our People. An old technique: the Feds pay a bounty for MS-13 SalvaTrucha types. Yes, it's a dirty business but so what? All of government is dirty jobs. Make the bounty high enough and the sanctuary cities will fold. Make it too high and they'll start sweeping up "innocents", nominally law-abiding illegals.
5. Once the wall is built and the border and immigration under control, then we can talk about what to do with the peaceful illegal immigrants. You don't worry about the cuts and scrapes until the squirting arteries are dealt with.
its the Department of Homeland Security who writes the administrative rules that implement the Immigration and Nationality Act.
if you don't understand how the game is played, you'll never fix the problem. except in the most superficial, preach-to-the-choir way, you don't have a grasp on these issues. and outside here, in the functioning world, your position is laughable.
The DHS is disciplined (or not) by Congress (through laws, budget cycles, and oversight), and by the Executive (faithfully execute blah blah blah).
What of this is not the real world?
1. the Federal government is not protecting the States from invasion,
2. the Immigration laws are not being faithfully executed. Illegal immigration is being abetted, not prevented.
3. There is not yet the will and consensus to change our government's priorities.
So we will bumble along as we are until something makes this situation intolerable.
here are the problems:
1. prosecutorial discretion by direction of the president is bullshit. the president controls prosecutorial discretion by ordering the US Attorneys to allocate resources to particular types of cases USAs are responsible for. there aren't enough USAs to handle all the immigration, civil, tax, criminal cases already there so these directives are inevitable. spend the budget prosecuting criminal RICO cases rather than sending Hose A and Hose B the gardener twins back to Mex. unfortunately, this is a difficult argument to address without budget increases.
2. Withdrawn federal court review of immigration law judges is bullshit. congress has steadily withdrawn administrative judge decision making from review by Article III courts, meaning an immigration court judge / bureau of immigration appeals panel can decide cases by very weak "discretionary" standards that are immune from correction by real judges. could be fixed with the right kind of congress.
3. Illegals' abuse of administrative law court procedure is bullshit. the constitution doesn't allow deportations without a minimal level of due process (meaning a hearing and review). An illegal who makes a claim under existing law to cancel removal, claim asylum, temporary asylum, etc etc etc can force the case into months if not years of litigation. and if you want to deport millions of people, millions of cases in court you will get, with hearing dates years away. drumhead tribunals are probably no good, so this is another budget issue.
4. calling this mass migration an invasion is bullshit hyperbole and adds nothing of value to the debate unless you're arguing that illegals should be shot on sight and the southern borders mined and wired. I am not disagreeing with this concept, but it will not pass constitutional muster.
I think reform should address the above and more particular:
1. Bracero program. a return to something like the bracero program where immigrant labor gets temporary work visas that expire and require the worker to return to whatever shithole he came from.
2. Fines and prison impose grossly heavy and disproportionate fines against companies and prison sentences for executives that hire undocumented workers in order to destroy the economic incentive to be here illegally.
3. understand the tactics of ALL pro-illegal groups to deal with them in open debate. These outfits want nothing more than a citizenship paths to every illegal alien here or foreign peasants in the rest of the world. there is no compromise like temporary work visas. they form and control the public debate by assuming and making you argue this presumption that all visas are permanent resident visas (which lead to citizenship). thus, the reasonable compromise of allowing a fixed number of workers that the US economy could use provided that they get the fuck out once their necessity is over is never on the table. this is the worst variant of "do it for the chil'run" argument.
4. bar all islams from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia and whatever 'stan is problematic until they get their shit sorted out or kill themselves. if ever.
these are reasonable solutions Trump might consider.
Those undocumented "immigrants" need to be very careful where they go in Chicago; the locals might just shoot them.
Good discussion, just a few additional points.
Why did some Republican governors resist the immigration control bandwagon? This is speculation on my part but without histrionics. Is it because many northern tier states are losing population and these states have major infrastructure and debt to support. Are they trying to shore up their tax base? In my business this is called having a mouth to big to feed.
How much is it due to Big Ag, Big Chemical, industrialized farming cutting millions of people off from their livelihoods? If this is the case, there are billions more economic refugees/migrants out there.
One other thing I have been musing over in regards to the pipeline protests. My first thought is, are the protesters not aware that there are @ 2 million miles+ of pipelines crisscrossing the Northern Hemisphere? (I don't know if this includes all the miles of distribution under the cities.) Also, I am assuming, that these same pipeline protesters are the same folks who avidly embrace open borders. How do you expect to increase the population rapidly and cut back on energy? And what about the environment. Some of you may be too young to remember the sky is falling "over population will destroy the environment" mantra; there are tipping points from which a damaged ecosystem, may never recover etc. What ever happened to that?
"Why did some Republican governors resist the immigration control bandwagon?"
Because illegals and their families vote. Simple as that. Not about populations or tax bases it is votes pure and simple. The best example of this is the claim that Hillary actually won the popular vote but that illegal voting was double her margin. Without that huge illegal vote she would even be able to make that claim.
I'm not saying that what you allege never ever occurs, just that it is not adequate to explain Republican governors. Are you going to stick with that, as your only response? Did you not notice the qualifier Republican?
Let the "sanctuaries" work ... think of them as natural corrals for ICE personnel to go into and gather them up for deportation.
Its much easier to round them up if they all congregate together in a few locations.