The hunt for illegals is on.

[gplracer]

I do not think people who evade taxes should be arrested. They are just trying to make a better life for themselves and their children. Besides their children are inoccent.

 

[alien42]

I do not think people who evade taxes should be arrested. They are just trying to make a better life for themselves and their children. Besides their children are inoccent.

most illegal aliens pay taxes, i have personally known quite a few and they owned houses, cars, and had full time jobs.

i do know someone who doesn't pay taxes, but he is otherwise just an average white American male.

 

[gplracer]

Whose more racist or culturally biased- the person who demands equal rights and privledges or the person who calls out that person for being part of the problem because they are white, do not understand the life of a minority.

 

[Sea Ray]

Why does it have to stop? Icky brown people scare you?

Icky brown people? You mean like Jennifer Lopez and Eva Longoria? I nothing against brown people.

 

[Sea Ray]

I said that local police have their hands full enforcing other laws & limited resources. If we sic them on illegals they'll just be able to do less in areas that matter more, same as if we made apprehending speeders a top priority.

Local officials are not being asked to arrest people due to their legal status but if the FEDs ask them to hold someone they've already arrested for other crimes then they ought to comply

 

[fskimospy]

Local officials are not being asked to arrest people due to their legal status but if the FEDs ask them to hold someone they've already arrested for other crimes then they ought to comply

So they should expend city resources (jail cells, guards, etc) to enforce federal law is what you're saying. How about we leave that choice up to them?

 

[Sea Ray]

Y

So they should expend city resources (jail cells, guards, etc) to enforce federal law is what you're saying. How about we leave that choice up to them?

Yes I do. In many cases they're keeping the criminal anyway. If that's really such an imposition, how 'bout they at least inform the feds that they came across an illegal?

Let's just follow the law as it's written:

In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, including section 8 U.S.C. 1373, which provided that no state or local entity can in any way restrict its law-enforcement officials from communicating with federal immigration authorities regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...congress-power-purse-incentivizes-cooperation

All I'm asking for is communication.

 

[fskimospy]

Y

Yes I do. In many cases they're keeping the criminal anyway. If that's really such an imposition, how 'bout they at least inform the feds that they came across an illegal?

How about they do what they think is best for their city, as that's their job?

Let's just follow the law as it's written:

In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, including section 8 U.S.C. 1373, which provided that no state or local entity can in any way restrict its law-enforcement officials from communicating with federal immigration authorities regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...congress-power-purse-incentivizes-cooperation

All I'm asking for is communication.

Unfortunately that law is unconstitutional as it violates the anti-commandeering separation of powers in the Constitution. To quote the late justice Antonin Scalia in Printz v. United States: 'federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-on-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.213571902199

The federal government is not permitted to tell states what it may do with their employees in the performance of their duties to the state or with information that is in the sole possession of the state. That would violate the 10th amendment, something conservatives were very fond of until sometime in mid-January of this year.

 

[Jhhnn]

most illegal aliens pay taxes, i have personally known quite a few and they owned houses, cars, and had full time jobs.

i do know someone who doesn't pay taxes, but he is otherwise just an average white American male.

Trump pays no taxes. Why should anybody else?

 

[Jhhnn]

Again, the parents have no right to live in this country. They are not citizens or in any way authorized to be here. If we tell some kid from a slum in Haiti they aren't allowed to move here, are we "sentencing them to be raised in a slum in Haiti"? No, of course not. The parents are not here legally, they have to go. They can take their kid with them if they want, but the US is under no obligation to let them stay here simply because they broke the law and then had a kid.

That kid from Haiti isn't a citizen.

Again with the racist crap. You can always tell when a lefty doesn't have a logical argument, they'll resort to projecting their own racism onto others. I've made specific arguments based on logic and reason, you've basically argued that feels are more important.



Yeah, and now idiot leftists are moving back to wearing hijabs to show their allegiance The ironing is delicious.

You've made specific arguments based on the self righteous principles of punishing the oh-so dreadful & dangerous evildoers regardless of who else gets hurt, specifically millions of American Citizen children. It makes no sense at all, indicating you hide your true motivations, perhaps even from yourself.

 

[PokerGuy]

That kid from Haiti isn't a citizen.

Nor did I say he/she was. A citizen is entitled to all the privileges and responsibilities that come with being a US citizen. The parents, however, are not. The parents are here in violation of the law, and the consequence of that violation is to be deported. The child is a citizen and cannot be deported, but the parents can choose to take their child with them to their home country.

You've made specific arguments based on the self righteous principles of punishing the oh-so dreadful & dangerous evildoers regardless of who else gets hurt, specifically millions of American Citizen children. It makes no sense at all, indicating you hide your true motivations, perhaps even from yourself.

Again just emotional ranting. I'm calling for the law to be applied evenly to everyone. The consequences of violating the law are very clear. You are essentially saying "yeah, but we should ignore it because I don't like the consequences". You don't get to pick and choose who you think should follow the law and who can ignore it based on your preferences.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nor did I say he/she was. A citizen is entitled to all the privileges and responsibilities that come with being a US citizen. The parents, however, are not.



Again just emotional ranting. I'm calling for the law to be applied evenly to everyone. The consequences of violating the law are very clear. You are essentially saying "yeah, but we should ignore it because I don't like the consequences". You don't get to pick and choose who you think should follow the law and who can ignore it based on your preferences.

If the law were applied evenly to everybody Trump probably wouldn't be Prez but rather a federal inmate for fraud & tax evasion. He's too big to bring down but illegals are a whole different story. In throwing them out of the country the cure is worse than the disease.

 

[PokerGuy]

If the law were applied evenly to everybody Trump probably wouldn't be Prez but rather a federal inmate for fraud & tax evasion. He's too big to bring down but illegals are a whole different story. In throwing them out of the country the cure is worse than the disease.

More emotional ranting, hating on Trump etc. That's fine, it's just not relevant to the actual topic. If you think the cure (applying the laws equally to all) is worse than the disease (unfettered illegal immigration with no control over our borders and no enforceable immigration policy), that's fine, but it's not a rational perspective.

 

[Svnla]

In other news, income test for immigrants in UK - https://www.yahoo.com/news/britains...rnment-immigration-income-test-112930927.html

Time for one here?

 

[alien42]

More emotional ranting, hating on Trump etc. That's fine, it's just not relevant to the actual topic. If you think the cure (applying the laws equally to all) is worse than the disease (unfettered illegal immigration with no control over our borders and no enforceable immigration policy), that's fine, but it's not a rational perspective.

your view that there is a disease to cure isn't a rational perspective.

 

[PokerGuy]

your view that there is a disease to cure isn't a rational perspective.

Yeah, because 12+ million illegal residents being exploited is perfectly fine Of course, that's completely rational. /s

Either you allow someone to come in legally and provide them with the benefits and protections of being a legal worker, or you don't let them come in. As it stands now you're letting in a group of workers to be exploited and undercutting legal citizens in the process with no control over who comes into the country. That's a problem that needs solving, no matter how you slice it.

 

[Sea Ray]

How about they do what they think is best for their city, as that's their job?



Unfortunately that law is unconstitutional as it violates the anti-commandeering separation of powers in the Constitution. To quote the late justice Antonin Scalia in Printz v. United States: 'federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.'

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-on-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.213571902199

The federal government is not permitted to tell states what it may do with their employees in the performance of their duties to the state or with information that is in the sole possession of the state. That would violate the 10th amendment, something conservatives were very fond of until sometime in mid-January of this year.

I'm sure that the sanctuary cities will argue that Scalia's comments refer to them but I don't see it. As a matter of fact, Loretta Lynch didn't see it that way either. She OK'd withholding fed funds in July last summer:

Today, at the urging of Representative John Culberson (TX-07), the Department of Justice (DOJ) released updated guidelines that disqualify sanctuary cities from receiving DOJ grant money. This policy change is in direct response to Rep. Culberson’s pressure on the Department of Justice since he became Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Today, the DOJ notified local and state law enforcement agencies across America that they will no longer be eligible for federal law enforcement grants unless they certify under oath that their local or state laws do not interfere “in any way” with requests for immigration information from federal authorities.

The letters documenting all of this can be found here:

http://culberson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398522

 

[gplracer]

About 5 years ago in my area a Hispanic builder who was very successful and wealthy was arrested and deported. He was using illegal aliens for his workforce and paying them lower than allowed wages. He even brought people into the country to work for him. This has to be stopped.

 

[agent00f]

Whose more racist or culturally biased- the person who demands equal rights and privledges or the person who calls out that person for being part of the problem because they are white, do not understand the life of a minority.

I'm sure that the sanctuary cities will argue that Scalia's comments refer to them but I don't see it. As a matter of fact, Loretta Lynch didn't see it that way either. She OK'd withholding fed funds in July last summer:

Today, at the urging of Representative John Culberson (TX-07), the Department of Justice (DOJ) released updated guidelines that disqualify sanctuary cities from receiving DOJ grant money. This policy change is in direct response to Rep. Culberson’s pressure on the Department of Justice since he became Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Today, the DOJ notified local and state law enforcement agencies across America that they will no longer be eligible for federal law enforcement grants unless they certify under oath that their local or state laws do not interfere “in any way” with requests for immigration information from federal authorities.

The letters documenting all of this can be found here:

http://culberson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398522

Again, the parents have no right to live in this country. They are not citizens or in any way authorized to be here. If we tell some kid from a slum in Haiti they aren't allowed to move here, are we "sentencing them to be raised in a slum in Haiti"? No, of course not. The parents are not here legally, they have to go. They can take their kid with them if they want, but the US is under no obligation to let them stay here simply because they broke the law and then had a kid.



Again with the racist crap. You can always tell when a lefty doesn't have a logical argument, they'll resort to projecting their own racism onto others. I've made specific arguments based on logic and reason, you've basically argued that feels are more important.



Yeah, and now idiot leftists are moving back to wearing hijabs to show their allegiance The ironing is delicious.

So why does this not apply to other criminals? Rob a bank, sorry can't thrown the criminal in jail, he has kids he can't leave behind. Murdered someone? Sorry, no jail, he has kids. How about the parents not be the dumbshits in the first place by committing a crime? Wait in line like all the other law abiding citizens who are trying to get into this country legally? My parents and I came to the US from another country, guess what, we did it legally. We didn't hop a fence, stowaway on a ship, smuggle ourselves in. You don't reward criminals just because they had kids, doesn't matter if they are brown, yellow, black, white, purple.

I'm genuinely curious. How it does feel to always be on the same side of the argument as the crowd whose mental processes are limited to "hurr durr, dat's ILLEGAL"?

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sure that the sanctuary cities will argue that Scalia's comments refer to them but I don't see it. As a matter of fact, Loretta Lynch didn't see it that way either. She OK'd withholding fed funds in July last summer:

Today, at the urging of Representative John Culberson (TX-07), the Department of Justice (DOJ) released updated guidelines that disqualify sanctuary cities from receiving DOJ grant money. This policy change is in direct response to Rep. Culberson’s pressure on the Department of Justice since he became Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee on Appropriations.

Today, the DOJ notified local and state law enforcement agencies across America that they will no longer be eligible for federal law enforcement grants unless they certify under oath that their local or state laws do not interfere “in any way” with requests for immigration information from federal authorities.

The letters documenting all of this can be found here:

http://culberson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398522

What don't you see? The state and local officials have information that is solely in their custody. The feds can't make them turn it over.

As for Lynch, there's nothing in her action that compels state and local officials to turn over information they hold, she was attaching relevant conditions to the receipt of federal grants. Trump could do the same thing if he wanted to and he very well might, although he might be sad to see that the scope of grants that he can constitutionally withhold is actually quite small. This is due in significant part to NCIB v. Sebilius. Thanks again, Scalia!

 

[agent00f]

Icky brown people? You mean like Jennifer Lopez and Eva Longoria? I nothing against brown people.

The empirical well defined racial resentment is largely targeted at lower status minorities, basically them indigenous looking ones and a-rabs are the source of the country's problems/weakness, to be solved by some right wing fascist.

 

[gplracer]

I'm genuinely curious. How it does feel to always be on the same side of the argument as the crowd whose mental processes are limited to "hurr durr, dat's ILLEGAL"?

It probably feels better that being on the side of the perpetual victim who thinks you are always at a disadvantage because of your race. You seem well educated and able to express yourself. Has society really treated you that bad? I guess you are one that feels like only following laws you like. And I am sure you will come back with "laws are not equally applied to all" because once again you are the victim and treated unfairly. And we do not know what it is like to be like you. And would we be willing to trade places with you. Do you really want equality or do you want special treatment because someone treated minorities badly before I was born. I am sorry I forgot that is what a morally responsible society does.

 

[Sea Ray]

What don't you see? The state and local officials have information that is solely in their custody. The feds can't make them turn it over.

As for Lynch, there's nothing in her action that compels state and local officials to turn over information they hold, she was attaching relevant conditions to the receipt of federal grants. Trump could do the same thing if he wanted to and he very well might, although he might be sad to see that the scope of grants that he can constitutionally withhold is actually quite small. This is due in significant part to NCIB v. Sebilius. Thanks again, Scalia!

So is it illegal for the feds to mandate a drinking age of 21?

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah, because 12+ million illegal residents being exploited is perfectly fine Of course, that's completely rational. /s

Either you allow someone to come in legally and provide them with the benefits and protections of being a legal worker, or you don't let them come in. As it stands now you're letting in a group of workers to be exploited and undercutting legal citizens in the process with no control over who comes into the country. That's a problem that needs solving, no matter how you slice it.

Giving them green cards would solve that so-called problem entirely.

 

[gplracer]

So is it illegal for the feds to mandate a drinking age of 21?

The Feds can do stuff like cut off highway funds unless you give it to them.