Send him to visit Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi...
Which is why they are a sanctuary state - to get more cooperation from their resident immigrant population and to focus law enforcement resources on violent offenders.
Bullshit. They are a sanctuary state in order to attract New Democrat party voters and you dang well know it. You insult the intelligence of everyone on this board when you spout off such crap.
I think you do it only as a means of self entertainment, and I guess I could ignore you if I wanted to, but I can’t seem to quit responding to your posts, especially the totally ridiculous ones.
Following the shooting death of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco (a sanctuary city) by an undocumented immigrant, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY) told CNN that "The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on."[27] The following day, her campaign stated: "Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years."[28]
This says it all. The 'craps are using the issue to recruit voters. Period.
And you should study the legal history of sanctuary cities. This movement was grassroots led by churches and pro bono associafions.
American Baptist Churches (along with other religious and pro bono organizations) were front and center in responding to the humanitarian crisis caused by asylum seekers in the 1980s, when America finally passed its Refugee Act.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amer...ment_Agreement
But providing a place of legal sanctuary has deep roots in Christian history, especially in the Catholic Church since at least the Middle Ages.
The ‘craps use every wrongheaded Republican issue to recruit voters. Period.
Whatever the origin of sanctuary cities, that is not their purpose today.
They are not a Democrat conspiracy to create new Democrat voters. They still serve their same purpose and most citizens in these districts understand and accept them. Like I said many times, the average undocumented immigrants are less violent than the average American citizen and we would rather participate in law enforcement rather than not report matters for fear of deportation.
You guys are just falling for Trump and right-wing scare tactics. Try growing a pair and man up to your fears.
Honest question about sanctuary cities:
The stated purpose is as Guisslapp says: to allow the illegal immigrant community to interact with law enforcement without fear of deportation. I could actually get on board with that.
It seems to be portrayed that the sanctuary cities do not cooperate with ICE under basically any circumstances. Not sure if that is an accurate portrayal. But that is the impression that I get.
If someone has a history of violence or crime, I see no reason local authorities shouldn't hold the person for ICE to take into custody. Seems like that would be better for the community (legal and illegal).
“What the law does: It prohibits alerting federal immigration agents of an inmate’s release from a county jail — unless the information is already available to the public, or if the person has been convicted of any of the 800 offenses outlined in a 2013 state law, the Trust Act.
That list includes serious or violent felonies, arson, registered sex offenses and domestic violence. Many other crimes are on the list, including nonviolent drug charges and “wobblers,” criminal offenses that can be charged under California law as a felony or misdemeanor. In those cases, cooperation with federal immigration officials is allowed.
The sanctuary law also permits state prison officials to continue working with federal immigration agents on deportations — a key concession Brown demanded — and immigration agents are still allowed to enter county jails to question immigrants.”
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-p...htmlstory.html