This is what open borders get's you.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/27/us/kat...uit/index.html

"The suit alleges that the shooting was set in motion in March 2015, when the county and former sheriff issued a memo approving a policy that eliminated communication about undocumented immigrants with immigration authorities. The policy was in "direct contravention" of federal and state laws, according to the lawsuit.
Weeks after the memo's release, the sheriff's department transported Lopez-Sanchez from a federal prison to San Francisco to appear in court on a bench warrant for marijuana possession and sales. The drug case was dismissed.
Immigration officials had a detainer request for Lopez-Sanchez but the sheriff's department released him, according to the lawsuit.
"By prohibiting the notification to ICE necessary for custody, detention, deportation and/or removal of undocumented convicted felons, the March Memo deprived KATE of life and liberty without due process, as required under the United States Constitution," the lawsuit said.
"The March Memo amounts to deliberate indifference to federal, state, and/or local law which safeguarded KATE's constitutional rights and is the moving force behind the constitutional violation of her rights."
Lopez-Sanchez was arrested and charged with the murder on July 6, 2015.
The uproar caused extensive finger pointing, with Mirkarimi blaming federal officials for not keeping the suspect in custody."


The porous border causes death likes this. The revolting piece of shit was deported five times and still had no issue making it back over the sixth time. Liberals with their wonderful plans for 'sancutary cities' and absolute refusal to get serious about border security led tot his young woman's death.

I hadn't heard about sanctuary cities before, I wonder what the rationale behind those policies may be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I hadn't heard about sanctuary cities before, I wonder what the rationale behind those policies may be.

---

They don't like federal policy so by local ordinance they enact legislation requiring non-cooperation to whatever extent they are able. The various federal law-enforcement agencies are generally rather specialized and have limited scope in the use of their powers, they rely on interagency cooperation both with other federal agencies and with state and local law-enforcement. They also have much more limited manpower as one would expect from that degree of specialization. Which means if local law enforcement doesn't bring them in, their capabilities become far more constrained. It's basically the same problem as seen with militias and militia-cooperating local authorities on the border only in reverse.

Which open borders I wonder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I hadn't heard about sanctuary cities before, I wonder what the rationale behind those policies may be.

---

It depends on the individual city but a lot of liberals think illegal aliens have every right to be US citizens because we 'stole' the land from Mexico. For others it isn't about the principal it is just about pandering to actual citizens who view illegal immigrants with sympathy.

A lot = a few extreme organizations?

I've never heard that argument before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

A lot = a few extreme organizations?

---

I stand by my statement. Those who support illegal immigration are almost always down on America and feet like we stole land from the Indians or Mexico. In any long discussions it almost always comes up.

So, uh, what would you call it if not stealing? Unilateral ownership redesignation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I stand by my statement. Those who support illegal immigration are almost always down on America and feet like we stole land from the Indians or Mexico. In any long discussions it almost always comes up.

---

And I don't suppose you have some facts to back that up?

Oh okay I thought the idea was that these policies are implemented in the hopes of making illegals more willing to come forward and cooperate with authorities on other matters but now I understand it's because people haven't gotten over you guys stealing land :bulb:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Oh okay I thought the idea was that these policies are implemented in the hopes of making illegals more willing to come forward and cooperate with authorities on other matters but now I understand it's because people haven't gotten over you guys stealing land :bulb:

---

Lewk of course settles on a warped view, of course. Views on legal and illegal immigration are all over the place and very divisive (and I know the same is true in a number of your countries across the pond). So in areas where local sentiment is more uniform and at variance with the somewhat dysfunctional federal policies, from either side, they start trying to use local law to supplement/mitigate those federal policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Lewk of course settles on a warped view, of course. Views on legal and illegal immigration are all over the place and very divisive (and I know the same is true in a number of your countries across the pond). So in areas where local sentiment is more uniform and at variance with the somewhat dysfunctional federal policies, from either side, they start trying to use local law to supplement/mitigate those federal policies.

---

True, that very same effect we see overhere, but it doesn't mean the borders are open or that the central government changes policies. Somebody who's supported by a municipality can still be deported if he's illegal in the country. It may take a bit longer than when the municipality would fully cooperate but that doesn't change the end result.

So I repeat my question; which open borders?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

And I don't suppose you have some facts to back that up?

---

Just out of curiosity do you actual talk to liberals in favor of sanctuary cities? Because they are pretty much the left of the left.

I lived and went to college in New York city. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I lived and went to college in New York city. What do you think?

---

And you honestly don't hear that once the discussion progresses long enough?

What you might hear is people pointing out the spectacular hypocrisy of bigots talking shit about immigrants when their ancestors were themselves unwelcome immigrants. See for example one Donald Drumpf :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

And you honestly don't hear that once the discussion progresses long enough?

---

Not once. You'd need to go to certain societies for that (the kind that complain about Israel non-stop, which is incidentally something they care more about than Mexican migrants), and those clubs have very narrow membership. Also, keep in mind that most people don't give a damn about foreign policy, except some recent war America is fighting. There are only a few tiny Mexican nationalist groups who make the points you mentioned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

What you might hear is people pointing out the spectacular hypocrisy of bigots talking shit about immigrants when their ancestors were themselves unwelcome immigrants. See for example one Donald Drumpf :o

---

That's mainly a Native American talking point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

That's mainly a Native American talking point.

---

Not really, it occurs to most of us who know that the country was built on waves of immigration, waves which were always composed primarily of the poor and dispossessed who didn't have work to keep them on their land back where they emigrated from. Any decent history education actually points out the not-infrequent political cartoons/editorials whereby contemporaries pointed out that the English and Dutch had been in the same boat as the Germans they were despising, how the North and Western Europeans were reacting to the Italians, Greeks, and Spaniards exactly as they themselves had been reacting to, etc. Asians trying to get into the country? Time for a quota system, it would be abominable to welcome them like us Irish and Italians were welcomed. So on and so forth. A far more regular pattern than the Great Revivals.

Most of us with a solid history education? So not very many. :)

It's a common enough meme both on- and offline. Any liberal with an internet connection and some sort of social media or discussion board presence and a fondness for John Oliver will feel on some level that there's something dodgy with the descendants of actual thieving immigrants talking shit about non-thieving immigrants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

like we stole land from the Indians or Mexico.

---

I'm pretty certain you didn't steal land from the Indians, considering they're on a different continent on the other side of the Earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Most of us with a solid history education? So not very many. :)

---

Decent by the standards of general US history education (which is awful yes, so even by crappy standards it's taught). Whether they retain it is another matter of course, but it's inevitably part of a unit in most-to-all state's US History curriculum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Not once. You'd need to go to certain societies for that (the kind that complain about Israel non-stop, which is incidentally something they care more about than Mexican migrants), and those clubs have very narrow membership. Also, keep in mind that most people don't give a damn about foreign policy, except some recent war America is fighting. There are only a few tiny Mexican nationalist groups who make the points you mentioned.

---

Was there even a discussion of sanctuary cities? Because I feel like your point is that it wasn't discussed at all as opposed to what I was saying that liberals who support sanctuary cities using the logic of it wasn't America's land to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

I'm pretty certain you didn't steal land from the Indians, considering they're on a different continent on the other side of the Earth.

---

Do me a favor and do a google search for Indians and click on images. That ought to clear it up for ya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Was there even a discussion of sanctuary cities? Because I feel like your point is that it wasn't discussed at all as opposed to what I was saying that liberals who support sanctuary cities using the logic of it wasn't America's land to begin with.

---

I RAed on a Immigration in New York class. :o But it's just not a major issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

I'm pretty certain you didn't steal land from the Indians, considering they're on a different continent on the other side of the Earth.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Do me a favor and do a google search for Indians and click on images. That ought to clear it up for ya.

---

http://thumbsnap.com/s/X6hYvzTM.gif

Missed it completely. Have a whoosh parrot.

No, he gets it, he just prefers to be a dick about it. Lewk is the American equivalent of those Swedes who think chocolate balls should be called "negro balls" or worse because "that's what they're called".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

No, he gets it, he just prefers to be a dick about it. Lewk is the American equivalent of those Swedes who think chocolate balls should be called "negro balls" or worse because "that's what they're called".

---

In his defense on the topic, there is still a lot of use of the term "American Indian" including at the federal level, and plenty of the people of indigenous descent don't care for "Native American" either.

American Indians are correctly called flight attendees now.

Lewk, the US doesn't have an "open border". :rolleyes: But we do have fragmented policies, which means our borders are porous, and can be exploited by any number of criminals.

Those "sanctuary cities" you're criticizing are trying to use community policing techniques to crack down on the crimes you claim to hate -- like rape, murder, armed robbery, human trafficking, drug cartels, gang activity, etc.

Again, make up your mind! If these weren't already federal felonies.....what makes you think your home state of Texas would be doing a better job?

Also, I've never seen someone fuck up the apostrophe so badly. WTF is up with that? Should we blame your Texas education?

GGT we have outright refusal of the Federal Government to enforce border security. The problem won't ever be fully solved but you can easily cut down 90% of illegal immigration quite swiftly. Building a wall (or increasing border patrol funding, electronic surveillance, etc) is actually not the best solution. You want to make it nearly impossible for illegals to get employment. Crack down on businesses that hire them. Go to any major city in the south and it is easy to find day laborers who are illegal immigrants. Offer them work under false pretenses, check their citizenship and then deport. Shut down companies who refuse to e-certify their employees. This isn't rocket science.

We would also have fewer murders and rapes if we got rid of illegal immigrants. That isn't bigotry, it is absolute fact (you can't commit a crime if you aren't in the country!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

GGT we have outright refusal of the Federal Government to enforce border security. The problem won't ever be fully solved but you can easily cut down 90% of illegal immigration quite swiftly. Building a wall (or increasing border patrol funding, electronic surveillance, etc) is actually not the best solution. You want to make it nearly impossible for illegals to get employment. Crack down on businesses that hire them. Go to any major city in the south and it is easy to find day laborers who are illegal immigrants. Offer them work under false pretenses, check their citizenship and then deport. Shut down companies who refuse to e-certify their employees. This isn't rocket science.

---

And yet the "Federal Government" has deported more people than ever.....so it's not true that the "Federal Government" won't enforce border security. :bored:

If southern cities aren't cracking down on businesses that hire undocumented immigrants, it's because they profit from it. You can blame the federal government all you want, but the truth is that "states rights" and corporate lobbyists make it so.

Quote:

---

We would also have fewer murders and rapes if we got rid of illegal immigrants. That isn't bigotry, it is absolute fact (you can't commit a crime if you aren't in the country!).

---

But the majority of crimes are NOT committed by illegal immigrants, but card-carrying citizens! :picard:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

And yet the "Federal Government" has deported more people than ever.....so it's not true that the "Federal Government" won't enforce border security. :bored:

If southern cities aren't cracking down on businesses that hire undocumented immigrants, it's because they profit from it. You can blame the federal government all you want, but the truth is that "states rights" and corporate lobbyists make it so.




But the majority of crimes are NOT committed by illegal immigrants, but card-carrying citizens! :picard:

---

Give Texas the authority to deport. That being said I absolutely do blame local governments and their sanctuary city bull shit. I blame liberals in local governments, state governments and at the federal government levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Give Texas the authority to deport. That being said I absolutely do blame local governments and their sanctuary city bull shit. I blame liberals in local governments, state governments and at the federal government levels.

---

Texas already has "authority" over its border activity. They don't need 'permission' from the federal government to screen people coming into their state, looking for jobs. But Texas employers have already decided that illegal/undocumented workers benefit their corporate profit margins....they already have the authority to hire, so they don't need the authority to deport.

Choose your alliance, Lewk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

We would also have fewer murders and rapes if we got rid of illegal immigrants. That isn't bigotry, it is absolute fact (you can't commit a crime if you aren't in the country!).

---

We would have far fewer murders if we locked up all black people or all men in general for life (harder to commit crimes if you're in jail) or gave poor people free and easy access to birth-control and abortion-services (you can't commit crimes if you aren't born in the first place). The bigotry is demonstrated by your choice to focus on a tangential issue and to analyze it in a way that would be deeply problematic in any other situation. In reality, if anything, immigration--illegal or otherwise--seems to be associated with an unchanged or lower crime rate, locally. Sure, we could perhaps make a case for absolute numbers being lower (we don't know for sure, but it might be lower or the economic impact of severely restricting all forms of immigration may have unwanted knock-on effects) but I don't think it's fruitful to have a discussion about that without you first establishing how many innocents you'd like to shaft in order to prevent one crime within your borders.