DOJ to claw back funds from Sanctuary Cities - Impact on South Orange/Maplewood

You might want to read about updates to Federal Law regarding immigration enforcement signed by Clinton and Obama. Here is a link https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373 from Clinton and this from Obama doubling down! https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/1607.pdf Also bottom line is the FED govt does NOT have to send money.

I understand the law enforcement argument. It is a good one. But should there be NO enforcement of preventing additional illegals coming in? I wont debate the cost / benefit of illegal immigration.. but there are clearly impacts to under served citizen groups like the disabled and low skilled workers whose wages are depressed by increased supply of labor. Yes you might have to pay more for food at restaurants or to have grass cut-- but dont we want higher wages?

BG9 said:

SOguy said:


And Tom you are correct laws can be changed BUT they haven't. While we can protest and get laws changed you dont get to pick which ones to enforce. Frankly that is the problem with Marijuana laws not being enforced at Federal Level BUT NJ not being allowed to have sports betting.

State and local governments do get to pick when it is optional. There is no obligation or law that forces local government to enforce federal laws. That's a constitutional principle that has been upheld by the courts.


During prohibition, NY state had laws mirroring the Volstead act. When the state realized prohibition did not work the state laws were removed. Local and state police thereon did not enforce the federal prohibition law and refused to cooperate with federal prohibition agents..


The enforcement of federal immigration laws and rules by local government is voluntary. Yet, now we have a federal government threatening sanctions because local governments do not volunteer. So we end with the Republicans in government now trying to create an overpowering get in your face federal government while publicly talking about downsizing government and state and local rights. Again they've shown themselves to be hyprocrites.


There are good reasons for sanctuaries. Since we have have illegals, we want them to cooperate with police. We don't want them to be afraid of reporting crime. I believe the chief in LA said that crime reporting in immigrant neighborhoods has gone down significantly. Wouldn't it be a shame, for you, if someone committed a criminal act on you and a witness is some immigrant who refuses to call the police or to testify?

Buh buh but...Clinton and Obama did it firster and worster.

BG9 while I mostly oppose the Federal actions on immigration, your argument is dangerous. If state enforcement of Federal immigration laws is voluntary as you state, them what about state enforcement of Federal anti discrimination laws. Is that voluntary too?

How are states compelled to enforce federal discrimination laws?

Federal judges ordered all kinds of actions. By BG9's argument states can ignore the rulings because it is based on Federal law.

That is not the states enforcing federal law, that is the states being subject to federal law.

Steve said:

That is not the states enforcing federal law, that is the states being subject to federal law.

I'm curious, which federal law is violated by refusing to assist federal law enforcement in identifying illegal immigrants?

RobB said:

Steve said:

That is not the states enforcing federal law, that is the states being subject to federal law.

I'm curious, which federal law is violated by refusing to assist federal law enforcement in identifying illegal immigrants?

I was responding to Zoinks comment about states enforcing anti-discrimination laws

SOguy said:

I understand the law enforcement argument. It is a good one. But should there be NO enforcement of preventing additional illegals coming in? I wont debate the cost / benefit of illegal immigration.. but there are clearly impacts to under served citizen groups like the disabled and low skilled workers whose wages are depressed by increased supply of labor. Yes you might have to pay more for food at restaurants or to have grass cut-- but dont we want higher wages?

Yes, there should be enforcement.

You want real enforcement? Get after the employers. Force them to use E-verify. Have serious financial and criminal penalties when employers willfully hire illegals.

Instead, we have our government hunting down immigrants, illegal and legals waiting for citizenship.

Employers openly talk about their hiring of illegals and nothing happens. They're the real problem. They are the ones paying them to stay here. Yet, they're protected and they know it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/09/us/california-farmers-backed-trump-but-now-fear-losing-field-workers.html

MERCED,Calif. — Jeff Marchini and others in the Central Valley here bet their
farms on the election of Donald J. Trump. His message of reducing
regulations and taxes appealed to this Republican stronghold, one of Mr.
Trump’s strongest bases of support in the state.

As for his promises about cracking down on illegal immigrants, many
assumed Mr. Trump’s pledges were mostly just talk. But two weeks into
his administration, Mr. Trump has signed executive orders that have
upended the country’s immigration laws. Now farmers here are deeply
alarmed about what the new policies could mean for their workers, most
of whom are unauthorized, and the businesses that depend on them.

Mr. Trump’s immigration policies could transform California’s Central
alley, a stretch of lowlands that extends from Redding to Bakersfield.
Approximately 70 percent of all farmworkers here are living in the
United States illegally, according to researchers at University of
California, Davis.

Many here feel vindicated by the election, and signs declaring “Vote to
make America great again” still dot the highways. But in conversations
with nearly a dozen farmers, most of whom voted for Mr. Trump, each
acknowledged that they relied on workers who provided false documents.
And if the administration were to weed out illegal workers, farmers say
their businesses would be crippled. Even Republican lawmakers from the
region have supported plans that would give farmworkers a path to
citizenship.

ask the father of Kate Steinle that question

There you go again. Governing a nation of 300 millions by anecdote. All you need to know is that immigrant populations tend to exhibit lower crime rates than their native born equivalents.

Now, if I were the father of Kate Steinle, I would not be interested in a reasoned discussion of the issue. But I expect more from lawmakers and citizens who are not crime victims.

mtierney said:

ask the father of Kate Steinle that question

you should be ashamed of your continued exploitation of that poor woman's death to make a spurious argument about immigrants.

mtierney said:

ask the father of Kate Steinle that question

Just so everybody is on the same page the killer of Kate Steinle was an illegal immigrant

lord_pabulum said:

Just so everybody is on the same page the killer of Kate Steinle was an illegal immigrant

Correct. And from a policy perspective, that fact is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant. If your here legally - no worries about policy

As I said, from the point of view of establishing good immigration policy and dealing with the millions of undocumented immigrants already here, the murder of Katie Steinle is irrelevant.

lord_pabulum said:

Not irrelevant. If your here legally - no worries about policy

and there's no evidence that ICE had any interest in her killer before her murder. So they were not thwarted by the fact that SF is a sanctuary city. San Francisco would not have protected him had ICE tried to deport him.

Contrary to some views, cities are not sheltering serious criminals. What they are not doing is conducting sweeps looking or illegal residents and they are not sending people to ICE for minor offenses.

ml1 said:

and there's no evidence that ICE had any interest in her killer before her murder. So they were not thwarted by the fact that SF is a sanctuary city. San Francisco would not have protected him had ICE tried to deport him.

lord_pabulum said:

Just so everybody is on the same page the killer of Kate Steinle was an illegal immigrant

What's worse is that illegal immigrants invented murder.

ml1 said:

and there's no evidence that ICE had any interest in her killer before her murder. So they were not thwarted by the fact that SF is a sanctuary city. San Francisco would not have protected him had ICE tried to deport him.

Just for the record, I have no interest in deporting anyone.

Thank you

the caps lock makes all the difference

ice said:

ml1 said:

and there's no evidence that ICE had any interest in her killer before her murder. So they were not thwarted by the fact that SF is a sanctuary city. San Francisco would not have protected him had ICE tried to deport him.

Just for the record, I have no interest in deporting anyone.

Thank you

A legal immigrant holding a Green Card can be deported for committing murder or just about any other crime.

If the killer of Kate Steinle was a legal immigrant would it mean that all immigrants should be deported?

If the killer of Kate Steinle was inclined to commit a murder would he have committed murder if he never left the country of his birth?

He had left the country of his birth six+ times before murdering this young woman -- a resident of the SF area out walking with her dad .

"At 6:30 p.m. on July 1, 2015, Francisco Sanchez allegedly fired three shots from a .40-caliber handgun at Pier 14, a tourist attraction area at the Embarcadero waterfront district. One of the bullets struck Steinle in the back and pierced her aorta. She collapsed to the pavement while screaming for help to her father Jim, who was accompanying her at the pier.[1] Jim performed CPR on Kathryn before paramedics arrived and took her to an ambulance. She died two hours later at San Francisco General Hospital.[1]
Sanchez was arrested about an hour after the shooting at Pier 40, about one mile south of Pier 14 and divers from a police boat found the gun in the bay alongside Pier 14, the next day.[2][3][4]Following his arrest, Sanchez was booked into San Francisco County Jail on suspicion of murder.[5][6]
The gun used by Sánchez had been stolen in downtown San Francisco from a Bureau of Land Management officer's personal vehicle on June 27, 2015, according to the Bureau of Land Management.[2] The car's window had been broken."[7][8]

This is the country of my birth. I have left it more than six times. I have never killed anyone.

Ahhh yes "remember that one time that one thing happened?"

Any comment from Willie (he actually went by William) Horton?

so I guess you aren't ashamed of your cynical exploitation of this tragedy.

mtierney said:

He had left the country of his birth six+ times before murdering this young woman -- a resident of the SF area out walking with her dad .





"At 6:30 p.m. on July 1, 2015, Francisco Sanchez allegedly fired three shots from a .40-caliber handgun at Pier 14, a tourist attraction area at the Embarcadero waterfront district. One of the bullets struck Steinle in the back and pierced her aorta. She collapsed to the pavement while screaming for help to her father Jim, who was accompanying her at the pier.[1] Jim performed CPR on Kathryn before paramedics arrived and took her to an ambulance. She died two hours later at San Francisco General Hospital.[1]
Sanchez was arrested about an hour after the shooting at Pier 40, about one mile south of Pier 14 and divers from a police boat found the gun in the bay alongside Pier 14, the next day.[2] [3] [4]Following his arrest, Sanchez was booked into San Francisco County Jail on suspicion of murder.[5] [6]
The gun used by Sánchez had been stolen in downtown San Francisco from a Bureau of Land Management officer's personal vehicle on June 27, 2015, according to the Bureau of Land Management.[2] The car's window had been broken."[7] [8]

Awful, awful tragedy for her family.

But beyond that, what is your point.

mtierney said:

He had left the country of his birth six+ times before murdering this young woman -- a resident of the SF area out walking with her dad .

"At 6:30 p.m. on July 1, 2015, Francisco Sanchez allegedly fired three shots from a .40-caliber handgun at Pier 14, a tourist attraction area at the Embarcadero waterfront district. One of the bullets struck Steinle in the back and pierced her aorta. She collapsed to the pavement while screaming for help to her father Jim, who was accompanying her at the pier.[1] Jim performed CPR on Kathryn before paramedics arrived and took her to an ambulance. She died two hours later at San Francisco General Hospital.[1]
Sanchez was arrested about an hour after the shooting at Pier 40, about one mile south of Pier 14 and divers from a police boat found the gun in the bay alongside Pier 14, the next day.[2] [3] [4]Following his arrest, Sanchez was booked into San Francisco County Jail on suspicion of murder.[5] [6]
The gun used by Sánchez had been stolen in downtown San Francisco from a Bureau of Land Management officer's personal vehicle on June 27, 2015, according to the Bureau of Land Management.[2] The car's window had been broken."[7] [8]

mtierney said:


"The gun used by Sánchez had been stolen in downtown San Francisco from a Bureau of Land Management officer's personal vehicle on June 27, 2015, according to the Bureau of Land Management.[2] The car's window had been broken."[7] [8]

why don't you highlight the fact that this is about the proper care and storage of firearms? If the owner of this gun had been responsible and stored his or her firearm properly, Steinle would still be alive today.

Lost - Presumably you are a legal resident and travel out of the country for business or pleasure. I too have had the good fortune to visit many countries around the world over the past 30 years.

I would never a foreign country without a passport.

That factor is one that liberals appear unable to understand. I am very much in favor of legal immigration. America is or was a melting pot for our entire existence.

We just need to know who is here and why. We need to ensure we offer residency to those who will make our country grow and prosper . We need the right to not give shelter to those who hate us and wish us harm.

It is not complicated.

Before you all bring up the 13M already here, Democrats and Republicans working together will resolve this issue together or not at all.

mtierney said:

I would never [enter] a foreign country without a passport.

Very nice. I believe that you have never known economic desperation. I haven't either.