Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 17, 2017, 03:37:51 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Why isn't the Obama Administration pursuing "sanctuary cities"?  (Read 13385 times)
kcballer
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 4598


In you I feel so pretty, In you I taste God


« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2010, 10:21:42 AM »

I disagree.  Are you now saying you wanted him to bomb Iran and NK now? 

I don't think you can pin Iran on Bush.  Although he would have had a much stronger position if he had never had invaded Iraq. 
Report to moderator   Logged

Abandon every hope...
tonymctones
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 26460


« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2010, 10:37:26 AM »

borrowing trillions?
letting NK build nukes?
failing to stop iran?
lmao but when obama does these things you make excuses and point to bush? fuking moron  Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51814

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #27 on: July 14, 2010, 07:08:53 PM »

Critics Question Why Obama Administration Doesn't Crack Down on Sanctuary Cities
By Molly Henneberg
Published July 14, 2010
FoxNews.com

Now that the Obama administration is suing Arizona over its tough immigration law, some critics are asking why so-called sanctuary cities are getting a pass for ignoring federal immigration law.

There are more than 50 sanctuary cities in the U.S. Supporters of such policies say they want the local police to focus on solving crimes and leave the immigration work to the federal authorities.

"What sanctuary cities are saying is, we are not going to preempt the federal government. It's the federal government's responsibilities," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.

Sanctuary cities are not a new idea. They've been around for decades and no administration – Democrat of Republican – has really gone after them.

But the Obama administration is going after Arizona for its new law that permits officers to ask about a person's immigration status during the course of other law enforcement duties, such as a traffic stops. Opponents say the law promotes racial profiling and is unconstitutional. But supporters deny those charges.

"The Arizona law is in compliance with federal law," said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations at Numbers USA. "The Justice Department should stay out of it. They should be encouraging Arizona to be enforcing the laws. Secondly, they should be enforcing federal immigration law, which means challenging cities and states that have sanctuary policies."

The Justice Department sees it differently, saying Arizona is unconstitutionally interfering with the federal government's role in immigration control.

"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.

But to those who support the Arizona law and oppose the idea of sanctuary cities, that seems like a cop-out.

"The administration has shown again and again it has no intention of enforcing federal immigration laws," Jenks said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/14/critics-question-obama-administration-doesnt-crack-sanctuary-cities/
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 14, 2010, 07:44:51 PM »

I disagree.  Are you now saying you wanted him to bomb Iran and NK now? 

nah, but i'd be fine with letting ISR bomb iran if they feel the need.

NKorea... YES!  They have the bomb and set it off, they fired middiles at hawaii, they promised to blow up cali... what more did Bush need?  Saddam let the UN search his toilets and they found nothing...
Report to moderator   Logged

Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7004



« Reply #29 on: July 14, 2010, 08:24:57 PM »

nah, but i'd be fine with letting ISR bomb iran if they feel the need.

NKorea... YES!  They have the bomb and set it off, they fired middiles at hawaii, they promised to blow up cali... what more did Bush need?  Saddam let the UN search his toilets and they found nothing...



War with China?
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 14, 2010, 08:38:40 PM »

bush PAID THEM OFF to stop shooting ICBMs at us.

one million barrels of oil.

unbelievable.
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51814

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #31 on: July 15, 2010, 12:27:29 PM »

Justice: Sanctuary Cities Safe From Law
Thursday, 15 Jul 2010   
By: Stephen Dinan and Kara Rowland

A week after suing Arizona and arguing that the state's immigration law creates a patchwork of rules, the Obama administration said it will not go after so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, on the grounds that they are not as bad as a state that "actively interferes."

"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. "That's what Arizona did in this case."

But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration laws thinks the administration is misreading the statute and that sanctuary cities are in violation of federal law. Drawing a distinction between those localities and Arizona, he said, is "flimsy justification" for suing the state.

"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law who fail to comply with the law is absurd," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. "Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not."

Officials in Arizona say they've been unfairly singled out by President Obama and Mr. Holder, who last week sued to overturn Arizona's new law, arguing that it could lead to a patchwork of state immigration rules.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and other critics said that sanctuary cities -- localities that refuse to check on someone's legal status or won't alert immigration authorities when they encounter illegal immigrants -- are just as guilty of creating a patchwork of laws, and violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

Mr. Smith said the administration doesn't appear to understand his law, which requires localities to share information on illegal immigrants with federal authorities.

"The White House is just plain wrong on the premise since the Arizona law mirrors federal law -- it does not 'interfere' with it," he said.

The Arizona law, which goes into effect July 29 unless a court blocks it, requires authorities to inquire about the legal status of any detained person about whom they have reasonable suspicion might be in the country illegally. The law as amended specifically prohibits using race or ethnicity as a reason for suspicion.

Messages left with Mrs. Brewer's office Wednesday were not returned. But in a statement last week, she said Arizona was being targeted.

"President Obama's administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of 'sanctuary' policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local 'sanctuary' policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials," she said.

Mr. Obama took an active role in targeting Arizona, including ordering the Justice Department to get involved. But on sanctuary cities, the White House has deflected questions, first telling a reporter it would get an answer about the president's thinking but eventually shifting questions over to the Justice Department.

In his original directions to Justice to review the Arizona law, Mr. Obama asked for lawyers to look into potential conflicts with federal immigration law and potential civil rights violations, such as racial profiling.

When it was filed July 6, though, the Justice Department lawsuit attacked the law only as an infringement on federal prerogatives. It did not make any accusations that the law violates civil rights, though Mr. Holder threatened a second lawsuit on that issue during on Sunday's political talk shows.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez defended the Arizona lawsuit on Monday, telling the American Constitution Society that the federal government can't tolerate different policies.

"You cannot have a system of 50 quarterbacks in the immigration system because immigration includes issues of law enforcement, it involves decisions with implications in foreign policy, it involves incidents with humanitarian implications, and you can't have 50 states making immigration law and have a coherent system," Mr. Perez said, according to MainJustice.com, which covers the Justice Department.

But defenders say Arizona's law would be a problem only if it conflicted with Congress' immigration policy.

On Wednesday, Michigan Attorney General Michael A. Cox filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the federal lawsuit arguing that Arizona's law is consistent with what Congress intended. He was joined by attorneys general from eight states and one territory.

The Arizona law has become a flash point for the broader immigration debate, with polls showing a majority of voters supporting the crackdown.

Arizona officials have said the federal government has failed in its responsibility to police the borders, and the state is experiencing a crime wave spurred by illegal immigration. They have said the new law is meant to fill in the gaps in enforcement.

On Wednesday, two Republican senators -- Jim DeMint of South Carolina and David Vitter of Louisiana -- announced that they will introduce an amendment to a bill that would halt the Justice Department lawsuit by denying it federal funding.

Sanctuary cities are difficult to categorize, and there is no hard-and-fast rule for the label.

A 2007 report from the Justice Department's inspector general found 15 cities that don't regularly inform federal authorities when they arrest an illegal immigrant, and 10 cities that wouldn't regularly tell authorities when a known illegal immigrant was being released from custody, either of which could be viewed as shielding illegal immigrants from detection.

The IG report said two jurisdictions -- Oregon, and the city and county of San Francisco -- acknowledge themselves as sanctuaries. It also said that many cities that are categorized as sanctuaries include language in their policies requiring local authorities to cooperate to the extent required by federal law.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Justice--Sanctuary--Cities--immigration/2010/07/15/id/364702
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51814

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #32 on: May 07, 2011, 10:50:59 AM »

I'm sure the Justice Department will be all over this.  We'll also hear the president condemning this action shortly. 

San Francisco to Stop Detaining Arrested Immigrants for Deportation
Published May 07, 2011
FoxNews.com

San Francisco, one of the first sanctuary cities in the nation, plans to end its cooperation with federal immigration officials and start releasing illegal immigrants arrested for minor offenses before they can be picked up for deportation.

The city's decision is the latest development in a tug of war between several communities and the federal government over its controversial national program that automatically checks the immigration status of arrestees.

Officials in jurisdictions including Providence, R.I., and Chicago have also challenged the program, which they say undermines trust that it has taken local law enforcement years to build in immigrant communities.

California and Illinois lawmakers are considering measures to let communities retreat from the so-called "Secure Communities" program, which links up the FBI's criminal database and the Department of Homeland Security's records so that every time someone is arrested their immigration status is automatically, electronically checked.

Washington state has deferred to local governments on whether they want to join program overseen by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

But their efforts could be thwarted as federal officials argue that states have no control over what information is shared among federal agencies.

In the absence of a nationwide fix on immigration, the tension between states and the federal government has been simmering in recent years. In the last four years, states have passed a flurry of bills and resolutions on issues ranging from employer verification to access to driver's licenses, most notably Arizona's tough local immigration enforcement law.

Immigrant advocates have lambasted ICE's fingerprint sharing program for sweeping up crime victims and witnesses who are arrested during an investigation in addition to those accused of committing a crime. About 29 percent of the 102,000 immigrants deported under the program since it began in 2008 have no criminal conviction, according to federal government statistics.

Between October 2008 and March 2011, more than 7 million people who have been arrested have had their fingerprints run through the ICE program. Roughly 197,000 were identified as suspected illegal immigrants, and nearly 40 percent of those were in California, according to statistics provided by ICE.

In San Francisco, Sheriff Michael Hennessey told the San Francisco Examiner he is making the change effective June 1 to comply with the city's sanctuary ordinance.

The law, which has caused tension between local and federal authorities, prohibits officials from assisting ICE in cases that do not involve felonies.

The city currently keeps low-level offenders ICE has identified as illegal immigrants through fingerprints until immigration officials collect them. The Examiner reports that 111 inmates were detained for deportation between last June and February.

ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice told the newspaper that Hennessey's decision was unfortunate.

Immigration attorney Francisco Hernandez told Fox News on Saturday that the city still has to hold suspects for 72 hours if federal immigration officials ask.

"That is the law," he said. "The question is whether they are going to be reporting people that are committing speeding tickets or small violations rather than the felonies or criminal people that should be deported under the criminal alien program."

Hernandez said that approach is the one being used across the country.

But Mike Cutter, a former senior special agent for the now defunct U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), sought to highlight the significance of the program by estimating that about half of the FBI's 10 most wanted get arrested for motor vehicle violations.

"If you have somebody in custody who is an illegal alien, it's important that immigration does get notified," he said, arguing that the debate is minimizing the reason for immigration laws in the first place. He said the law lists categories of illegal immigrants that cross the border because they know they couldn't get through the inspections process, including terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, human rights violators and war criminals.

"So if you have somebody who ran the border, somebody whose presence is illegal and you have them in custody, it's in everyone's best interest, including the people in the immigrant communities who very often fall victim to criminal aliens, to have ICE pick them and let ICE make a determination as to whether or not these folks are a priority to remove," he said.

But Hernandez said law enforcement does not have the resources to arrest everyone stopped for a speeding ticket.

"We have to focus our resources on things that are more serious and people that have actual criminal warrants for serious offenses," he said.

The debate over the ICE program is playing out across the country as federal authorities aim to achieve nationwide coverage in 2013. It currently is in effect in more than 1,200 jurisdictions in 42 states.

Immigration officials say the goal is to ensure illegal immigrants who commit crimes are flagged and deported. Nationwide, about 26 percent of those deported under program have been convicted of major drug offenses or violent crimes.

Some communities have welcomed the program as a cost savings measure and a way to ensure illegal immigrants who commit crimes are not released back into their neighborhoods. In Colorado, for example, lawmakers were considering a measure to withhold funding from localities that refused to participate, but it failed.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/07/san-francisco-stop-detaining-arrested-immigrants-deportation/
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51814

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #33 on: May 11, 2011, 11:32:10 AM »

Texas Moves to Crack Down on Cities Protecting Illegal Immigrants
Published May 10, 2011
FoxNews.com

Four months after Gov. Rick Perry put out an urgent request to wrap up a bill cracking down on cities providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants, the Texas House passed it Monday night, advancing it to the state Senate, which is expected to approve it and send it to Perry's desk.

Under the bill, police officers in so-called "sanctuary cities" will be able to question detained suspects about their immigration status even if their bosses disapprove.

The term "sanctuary cities" is used to describe places where local officials refuse to enforce federal immigration laws and undocumented workers are free to seek jobs, housing or local government services without fear of deportation.

The bill doesn't go as far as Arizona's requirement that police check people's immigration status, but it prohibits cities or police departments from telling officers not to enforce immigration laws. Cities that fail to comply would relinquish state grant funds.

Many sheriffs and city police chiefs have criticized the bill, saying they are already helping officials prosecute and deport illegal immigrants but don't want more mandates from the state. Other critics said the bill could allow local police agencies to become de-facto immigration enforcement agents and let rank-and-file officers spend all the time they want enforcing immigration laws no matter what managers want.

But the GOP-led House looked past those objections and approved the measure 100-47 after Republicans moved to cut off all debate on the issue.

The vote came on the eve of Obama's first trip as president to the U.S.-Mexico border, where he planned to continue his recent push to revive legislative efforts to remake the nation's immigration laws.

In the absence of a sweeping national law, many statehouses have taken immigration matters into their own hands. In 2010, a record number of laws and resolutions were passed by state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which calculated that 46 states and the District of Columbia had passed 346 measures, with an additional 10 having fallen from gubernatorial vetoes.

And the U.S. House is considering legislation that would slash federal funding for "sanctuary cities."

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey released Tuesday found that 59 percent of likely voters favor the legislation, 28 percent oppose it and 13 percent are undecided. But 55 percent think Congress is unlikely to pass the bill. The poll, taken May 7, of 1,000 likely U.S. voters, had a margin of error of 3 points.

An estimated 1.6 million illegal immigrants live in Texas, according to the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington. Nationwide, the numbers declined between 2007 and 2009, from 12 million to 11.1 million, the first significant drop after two decades of growth, attributed in large part to a receding economy. But the combined population of illegal immigrants in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana went up by a statistically significant 240,000, the center reported last month.

The debate over the bill in Texas, a state heavily dominated by Republicans, has been inflamed by racial allegations.
While supporters say it's needed to stop crime committed by illegal immigrants, critics say it would lead to racial profiling, detract from real police work and allow rogue agents to harass Hispanics.

"Now you'll get stopped for driving while Mexican," said Democratic Rep. Rene Oliveira. "We know that there are people out there who will do racial profiling. ... Now they're going to have a blanket amnesty to do it."

Republican Rep. Leo Berman took offense at the suggestion that people who supported the bill were motivated by racial fears.

"I don't have a racist bone in my body," said Berman. "We have Hispanic government in San Antonio. We have many Hispanic police officers."

Rep. Jose Aliseda, a Mexican immigrant who rose to become a Republican legislator, accused Democrats of "grandstanding" and said he had "brown skin" but was not afraid to give police more authority to police in immigration matters.

Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles and a former aide to President George W. Bush, dismissed the racial allegations as politics as usual by the far left.

"Frankly, the far left is using that argument to scare Latinos," he told Fox News. "It's the historic argument of the left, that you're going to be discriminated against, they're coming after you, they're racist. Democrats are good people, compassionate. That is a very simplistic argument that civil rights groups tied to the left are trying to use."

But Aguilar said Latinos in the end will see through it.

Republican Rep. Burt Solomons, author of the bill, helped tack on softening amendments that would provide a limited exemption for hospitals and school districts. But police officers who work for hospitals or school districts would still be given authority to help enforce immigration law.

"The bill is a prohibition against policies, not a requirement to do anything," Solomons said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/10/texas-moves-crack-cities-protecting-illegal-immigrants/
Report to moderator   Logged
Soul Crusher
Competitors
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 17001


Doesnt lie about lifting.


« Reply #34 on: May 11, 2011, 11:33:23 AM »

Bama's relection base of racist blacks, illegals, gays, and govt workers wont be happy.   
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51814

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2015, 09:38:26 AM »

Megyn Kelly Eviscerates Obama Administration’s Refusal to Crack Down on Sanctuary Cities
By Curtis Houck
July 9, 2015

Fox News Channel host Megyn Kelly tore into the Obama administration at the top of Wednesday’s Kelly File for both their inability to comment on the illegal immigrant allegedly at the center of 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle’s murder in San Francisco and refusal to crack down on sanctuary cities like the far-left Bay Area city.

Kelly ruled that the American people deserve “a direct, straightforward, simple answer” to whether or not President Obama thinks San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi made a mistake in releasing illegal immigrant Francisco Sanchez prior to his alleged murder of Steinle as well as a denouncement of a police that she argued has led to “lawlessness at the local and federal level."

After laying out the facts of the murder case, Kelly then played a clip of reporter asking White Press Secretary Josh Earnest about Mirkarimi’s decision to which Earnest declined to comment “as it relates to this specific case.”

Following the clip, Kelly rebuffed Earnest by stating that “[t]his cannot be turfed to Homeland Security” and “[t]he White House owes the public an answer, a direct, straightforward, simple answer because it was this administration that apparently stopped a measure to combat sanctuary cities like the one in San Francisco in the first place.”

After having expressed the need for Congress to mandate that local authorities cooperate with ICE in a congressional hearing on March 19, Kelly explained that the Obama White House joined with “the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others” to have Saldaña undergo “a shocking about-face” on the issue and essentially reject the pleas she had made the day before.

Kelly further pointed to the likelihood that the Obama White House joined with “the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others” to have Saldaña undergo “a shocking about-face” after having expressed the need for Congress to mandate that local authorities cooperate with ICE.

Late speaking with The Five co-host and former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, Kelly demanded that the administration explain “their ongoing support for these policies” since, in the end, it’s the President who’s “in charge of all of” the executive branch.

Thus, Kelly added: “He can't dodge responsibility for the policies he refuses to support at the federal level. The laws that are on the books by saying, take it up with Saldaña or Jeh Johnson. They answer to him.”

Continuing to hold little back, Kelly castigated the administration for engaging in “lawlessness”:

He allowed this to happen. They – the administration knew the person he placed in charge of ICE was telling Congress, ‘yes, help us, get these cities into compliance’ and someone took her behind the wood shed and said you’re reversing that explicitly and now they don't want to answer for it because they know the press will be too lazy to hold them to account. It is lawlessness.

The relevant portions of the transcript from FNC’s The Kelly File on July 8 can be found below.

FNC’s The Kelly File
July 8, 2015
9:00 p.m. Eastern

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Breaking Tonight; White House Ducks San Francisco Question]

MEGYN KELLY: In the five days since an illegal immigrant shot and killed Kate, a 32-year-old woman, shot at random on a pier, this story has become increasingly ugly. First for San Francisco and now for the White House and President Obama. She was killed while walking with her dad in a popular and public location, allegedly by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times and had managed to put multiple felonies on his record as he kept coming back. Francisco Sanchez told police he had gone to San Francisco because it was a sanctuary city where he was less likely to be deported and sure enough, when he was being held on drug charges last March, the San Francisco Sheriff's Office decided to release him rather than have the feds deport him, saying that is their policy, but their policy undermines federal law.

(....)

KELLY: This cannot be turfed to Homeland Security. The White House owes the public an answer, a direct, straightforward, simple answer because it was this administration that apparently stopped a measure to combat sanctuary cities like the one in San Francisco in the first place. In fact, The Kelly File has unearthed direct evidence that the administration has no interest in cracking down on sanctuary cities and here is the proof for you to see for yourself. Listen to the head of ICE or Immigration and Customs Enforcement on this very issue less than four months ago. This is Thursday, March 19, 2015 and Ms. Saldaña on the subject of cities that put immigrant felons back on the streets.

ICE DIRECTOR SARAH SALDANA [on 03/19/15]: Last calendar year, state and local jurisdictions rejected more than 12,000 ICE detainer requests. These are convicted criminals?

UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN [on 03/19/15]: Would it help you if we clarified the law to make it clear that it was mandatory that those local communities cooperate with you?

SALDANA [on 03/19/15]: Thank you, amen, yes.

KELLY: Thank you. Amen, yes. Crack down on the sanctuary cities is what she said, but the very next day, Friday March 20, a complete reversal after the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others pressured the White House and presto, the head of ICE makes a shocking about face. This time in writing, though, saying, quote, “[a]ny effort at federal legislation now to mandate state and local law enforcement’s compliance with ICE detainers will, in our view, be a highly counterproductive step and lead to more resistance and less cooperation in overall efforts to promote public safety.” What happened to thank you, amen yes a day earlier? And now, after clear evidence that it is not interested in a sanctuary city crackdown, this administration tells reporters it can't comment on whether the President backs the sheriff or the policies in this case?

(....)

KELLY: They have to got to speak to their ongoing support for these policies. It isn't okay to try to turf it to Homeland Security. Who ultimately runs Homeland Security? President Obama is in charge of all of it. He can't dodge responsibility for the policies he refuses to support at the federal level. The laws that are on the books by saying, take it up with Saldaña or Jeh Johnson. They answer to him.

(...)

KELLY: He allowed this to happen. They – the administration knew the person he placed in charge of ICE was telling Congress, ‘yes, help us, get these cities into compliance’ and someone took her behind the wood shed and said you’re reversing that explicitly and now they don't want to answer for it because they know the press will be too lazy to hold them to account. It is lawlessness.

DANA PERINO: And note she wasn't asking for more money, okay? She was asking for a clarification of the law that the federal law trumps which the federal law does. You can’t, as a city – you don't get to pick and choose which laws you going to enforce or defend. For example, in the Bush administration comes into office in 2001, they inherit all sorts lawsuits that the Clinton administration filed. We didn't drop them. We actually had to defend the D.C. gun ban because that was the law and that’s what you had to do....She wasn't asking for money. She was asking for help from the federal government – from the Congress to help them tell the cities to do what the law already says they have to do.

KELLY: What the law requires. That’s why I say it is lawlessness at the local and federal level.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/curtis-houck/2015/07/09/megyn-kelly-eviscerates-obama-administrations-refusal-crack-down#.re5ksd:2MgC
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #36 on: July 09, 2015, 10:16:25 AM »

Megyn Kelly Eviscerates Obama Administration’s Refusal to Crack Down on Sanctuary Cities
By Curtis Houck
July 9, 2015

Fox News Channel host Megyn Kelly tore into the Obama administration at the top of Wednesday’s Kelly File for both their inability to comment on the illegal immigrant allegedly at the center of 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle’s murder in San Francisco and refusal to crack down on sanctuary cities like the far-left Bay Area city.

Kelly ruled that the American people deserve “a direct, straightforward, simple answer” to whether or not President Obama thinks San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi made a mistake in releasing illegal immigrant Francisco Sanchez prior to his alleged murder of Steinle as well as a denouncement of a police that she argued has led to “lawlessness at the local and federal level."

After laying out the facts of the murder case, Kelly then played a clip of reporter asking White Press Secretary Josh Earnest about Mirkarimi’s decision to which Earnest declined to comment “as it relates to this specific case.”

Following the clip, Kelly rebuffed Earnest by stating that “[t]his cannot be turfed to Homeland Security” and “[t]he White House owes the public an answer, a direct, straightforward, simple answer because it was this administration that apparently stopped a measure to combat sanctuary cities like the one in San Francisco in the first place.”

After having expressed the need for Congress to mandate that local authorities cooperate with ICE in a congressional hearing on March 19, Kelly explained that the Obama White House joined with “the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others” to have Saldaña undergo “a shocking about-face” on the issue and essentially reject the pleas she had made the day before.

Kelly further pointed to the likelihood that the Obama White House joined with “the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others” to have Saldaña undergo “a shocking about-face” after having expressed the need for Congress to mandate that local authorities cooperate with ICE.

Late speaking with The Five co-host and former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, Kelly demanded that the administration explain “their ongoing support for these policies” since, in the end, it’s the President who’s “in charge of all of” the executive branch.

Thus, Kelly added: “He can't dodge responsibility for the policies he refuses to support at the federal level. The laws that are on the books by saying, take it up with Saldaña or Jeh Johnson. They answer to him.”

Continuing to hold little back, Kelly castigated the administration for engaging in “lawlessness”:

He allowed this to happen. They – the administration knew the person he placed in charge of ICE was telling Congress, ‘yes, help us, get these cities into compliance’ and someone took her behind the wood shed and said you’re reversing that explicitly and now they don't want to answer for it because they know the press will be too lazy to hold them to account. It is lawlessness.

The relevant portions of the transcript from FNC’s The Kelly File on July 8 can be found below.

FNC’s The Kelly File
July 8, 2015
9:00 p.m. Eastern

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Breaking Tonight; White House Ducks San Francisco Question]

MEGYN KELLY: In the five days since an illegal immigrant shot and killed Kate, a 32-year-old woman, shot at random on a pier, this story has become increasingly ugly. First for San Francisco and now for the White House and President Obama. She was killed while walking with her dad in a popular and public location, allegedly by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times and had managed to put multiple felonies on his record as he kept coming back. Francisco Sanchez told police he had gone to San Francisco because it was a sanctuary city where he was less likely to be deported and sure enough, when he was being held on drug charges last March, the San Francisco Sheriff's Office decided to release him rather than have the feds deport him, saying that is their policy, but their policy undermines federal law.

(....)

KELLY: This cannot be turfed to Homeland Security. The White House owes the public an answer, a direct, straightforward, simple answer because it was this administration that apparently stopped a measure to combat sanctuary cities like the one in San Francisco in the first place. In fact, The Kelly File has unearthed direct evidence that the administration has no interest in cracking down on sanctuary cities and here is the proof for you to see for yourself. Listen to the head of ICE or Immigration and Customs Enforcement on this very issue less than four months ago. This is Thursday, March 19, 2015 and Ms. Saldaña on the subject of cities that put immigrant felons back on the streets.

ICE DIRECTOR SARAH SALDANA [on 03/19/15]: Last calendar year, state and local jurisdictions rejected more than 12,000 ICE detainer requests. These are convicted criminals?

UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN [on 03/19/15]: Would it help you if we clarified the law to make it clear that it was mandatory that those local communities cooperate with you?

SALDANA [on 03/19/15]: Thank you, amen, yes.

KELLY: Thank you. Amen, yes. Crack down on the sanctuary cities is what she said, but the very next day, Friday March 20, a complete reversal after the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others pressured the White House and presto, the head of ICE makes a shocking about face. This time in writing, though, saying, quote, “[a]ny effort at federal legislation now to mandate state and local law enforcement’s compliance with ICE detainers will, in our view, be a highly counterproductive step and lead to more resistance and less cooperation in overall efforts to promote public safety.” What happened to thank you, amen yes a day earlier? And now, after clear evidence that it is not interested in a sanctuary city crackdown, this administration tells reporters it can't comment on whether the President backs the sheriff or the policies in this case?

(....)

KELLY: They have to got to speak to their ongoing support for these policies. It isn't okay to try to turf it to Homeland Security. Who ultimately runs Homeland Security? President Obama is in charge of all of it. He can't dodge responsibility for the policies he refuses to support at the federal level. The laws that are on the books by saying, take it up with Saldaña or Jeh Johnson. They answer to him.

(...)

KELLY: He allowed this to happen. They – the administration knew the person he placed in charge of ICE was telling Congress, ‘yes, help us, get these cities into compliance’ and someone took her behind the wood shed and said you’re reversing that explicitly and now they don't want to answer for it because they know the press will be too lazy to hold them to account. It is lawlessness.

DANA PERINO: And note she wasn't asking for more money, okay? She was asking for a clarification of the law that the federal law trumps which the federal law does. You can’t, as a city – you don't get to pick and choose which laws you going to enforce or defend. For example, in the Bush administration comes into office in 2001, they inherit all sorts lawsuits that the Clinton administration filed. We didn't drop them. We actually had to defend the D.C. gun ban because that was the law and that’s what you had to do....She wasn't asking for money. She was asking for help from the federal government – from the Congress to help them tell the cities to do what the law already says they have to do.

KELLY: What the law requires. That’s why I say it is lawlessness at the local and federal level.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/curtis-houck/2015/07/09/megyn-kelly-eviscerates-obama-administrations-refusal-crack-down#.re5ksd:2MgC

Megyn Kelly.......isn't she cute?
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 09, 2015, 10:37:35 AM »

BUSH used to really crack down on sanctuary cities, which is why I'm so angry Obama isn't doing it.

Right?
Report to moderator   Logged

andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2015, 11:35:13 AM »

BUSH used to really crack down on sanctuary cities, which is why I'm so angry Obama isn't doing it.

Right?

Not to mention we all know Megyn Kelly is a genius and knows what Obama should be doing Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2015, 12:48:36 PM »

Not to mention we all know Megyn Kelly is a genius and knows what Obama should be doing Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

the best thing about Meygn Kelly is the mute button.
Report to moderator   Logged

andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #40 on: July 09, 2015, 01:53:05 PM »

the best thing about Meygn Kelly is the mute button.

but then we wouldn't hear such gems as Santa Claus must absolutely be white Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Skip8282
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7004



« Reply #41 on: July 09, 2015, 05:39:18 PM »

BUSH used to really crack down on sanctuary cities, which is why I'm so angry Obama isn't doing it.

Right?



But, but...Bush did it.

Weak shit according to you.

Except when you're doing it.

Right?
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #42 on: July 09, 2015, 08:36:43 PM »



But, but...Bush did it.

Weak shit according to you.

Except when you're doing it.

Right?

the Q is, why isn't a lib president that wants amnesty, enforcing a policy wanted only by the far-right wing of the repubs party?

lol, i mean, when you phrase it that way....
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51814

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2015, 04:42:34 PM »

Courts could give San Francisco sanctuary in potential suit over illegal immigrant policy
By Perry Chiaramonte
Published July 13, 2015
FoxNews.com

While Kathryn Steinle's parents are still reeling from their loss and San Francisco and federal authorities point fingers at each other, the possibility of a lawsuit overturning the city's illegal immigration policy would appear to be remote, based on past attempts in other cities.

The parents of Steinle, whose death allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant in San Francisco sparked a national debate about so-called sanctuary cities, said they have not begun to consider the politically-charged policy that some blame for their daughter’s death.

Liz Sullivan, Steinle's mother, said she and her husband, who held his daughter as she died after being shot while strolling through a tourist area on July 1, are still grieving for their 32-year-old daughter. Although critics blame the policy embraced by San Francisco and more than 100 other cities of blocking federal deportation of illegal immigrant criminals, Sullivan said she hasn’t considered legal action.

“We’re still reeling from the loss,” Sullivan told FoxNews.com. “We weren’t even speaking about political [ramifications] until after the memorial service.”

“Bottom line, Congress needs to shut down the civil law. The American public is in danger.”

- Dan Stein, President of Federation for American Immigration Reform

Families of other victims of illegal immigrant killers have sued sanctuary cities for violating federal law and putting their loved ones in danger, but no such cases have been successful. However, in the Steinle case, federal officials have placed the blame for five-times-deported Francisco Sanchez being on the streets squarely on San Francisco’s “sanctuary” policy. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had asked the San Francisco Sheriff's Officer to turn Sanchez over after his marijuana possession charge was adjudicated so he could be sent back to Mexico, but the city freed him instead.

"Here's a jurisdiction that's not even honoring our detainer for someone who clearly is an egregious offender," an ICE official told FoxNews.com.

The city of San Francisco has been sued in a similar situation once before. On June 22, 2008, illegal immigrant and MS-13 member Edwin Ramos killed Anthony Bologna and his sons, Michael and Matthew, near the family's home in the city. Two months later, Bologna's widow, Danielle Bologna, sued San Francisco, claiming that its sanctuary city policy contributed significantly to the three deaths. The case bounced around, moving from federal court to state court before a judge ruled in 2010 that the city wasn't at fault, in part because the sanctuary city policy was intended "to improve immigration controls" rather than prevent crime.

In another California case, Jamiel and Anita Shaw sued the city of Los Angeles for wrongful death after their son, Jamiel Jr., a high school football star with a scholarship offer from Stanford, was killed by an illegal immigrant gang member. That case also was thrown out by a state judge. The parents and their supporters next sought to pass a law that would deny sanctuary city protections to illegal immigrants if they are members of gangs, but "Jamiel's Law" never made it onto the ballot.

If Steinle's family sues, it could be a tough case to win, said Anna R. Yum, a criminal defense attorney based in San Diego and a Fox News contributor.

“The main issue is whether the Steinle family could file a lawsuit against the city on the theory that it provided sanctuary to illegal immigrants by shielding them from deportation and thereby causing the murder of Kate Steinle,” Yum said. “State law typically protects cities from being sued for injuries unless a city violated a law and caused harm that a statute was designed to prevent."

The key, according to Yum, would be showing that the city violated a state or federal law aimed at preventing violent crimes by illegal immigrants.

The real solution, according to Dan Stein, president of Federation for American Immigration Reform, is for the federal government to pressure cities to comply with federal policy and detain illegal immigrants until they can be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

“The American public is in danger,” Stein said. “Congress has a right to keep the detainers mandatory. These laws were created for cities and Congress to work together and what you are seeing is a breakdown of that system. And it’s intentional and for political reasons.”

On Friday, San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi blasted back at Mayor Ed Lee and federal officials who have blamed his department for Sanchez's release, and said he would review how his department and federal authorities communicate.

"A tragedy of this dimension requires us all to step back and look at our policies," he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/13/courts-could-give-san-francisco-sanctuary-in-potential-suit-over-illegal/?intcmp=latestnews
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51814

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #44 on: October 08, 2015, 10:41:20 AM »

Number of sanctuary cities grows to 340; thousands of illegals released to commit new crimes

Jim Steinle, second from left, father of Kathryn Steinle, in photograph, testifies next to Montgomery County (Md.) Police Department. Chief J. Thomas Manger, right, before a Senate Judiciary hearing to examine the Administration’s immigration enforcement policies, in Washington, Tuesday, July ... more >

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Thursday, October 8, 2015

The list of sanctuary cities has grown to more than 340, and they shielded an average of 1,000 immigrants a month from deportation last year — and more than 2,000 of those released have already been arrested for yet more crimes, according to a report being released Thursday by the Center for Immigration Studies.

Among those released are illegal immigrants accused of murders and brutal assaults, said Jessica Vaughan, the author of the report, which comes just as the Senate is poised to begin debating legislation to try to crack down on sanctuary jurisdictions.

Santa Clara County Jail in California alone released some 1,349 immigrants that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents had asked be held for pickup, the new report says. Los Angeles released 572.

“Our elected officials must not sit back and watch these sanctuary jurisdictions continue to release thousands of criminal aliens back into our communities in defiance of ICE efforts to deport them, and then witness the harm that inevitably ensues when these removable offenders strike again,” said Jessica Vaughan, the report’s author.

Sanctuary cities exploded onto front pages in July, when a Kathryn Steinle, a 32-year-old woman, was killed while walking with her father in San Francisco, and an illegal immigrant released by the county was charged with the shooting.

Ms. Vaughan said San Francisco ranked eighth worst on the list of offenders, releasing some 252 immigrants in 2014 that federal officials had asked be held.

All told, there are now 340 jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate to some extent with federal deportation requests, Ms. Vaughan said, citing ICE numbers. She keeps a tally listing most of those jurisdictions, and recently added nine new names to its list, including Prince George’s County and Montgomery County in Maryland, and Chesterfield County in Virginia.

Ms. Vaughan keeps a map of the known sanctuary jurisdictions at: http://cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map, giving residents a chance to see if they live under one of the controversial policies.

Immigrant-rights advocates defend sanctuary cities, saying that worrying about deportations is a job for the federal government, not local officers. The advocates also say that when local police do cooperate with ICE, it strains relationships with Hispanic communities in particular, who then fear reporting other serious crimes.

The conflict has left Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson in the middle. He scrapped the mandatory Secure Communities program that had pushed state and local prisons and jails to hold illegal immigrants, bowing to legal challenges to the program.

But he has instead tried to earn buy-in for a voluntary approach, known as the Priority Enforcement Program or PEP, which asks communities to cooperate, and promises to only ask for the most serious of criminals to be turned over.

On Wednesday, Mr. Johnson defended progress in getting jurisdictions to sign up, saying 13 of the 25 biggest sanctuary localities have expressed interest in cooperating in the PEP.

“More are coming on line and I expect we will reach agreement with major cities in the near future,” the secretary said in a briefing on the state of immigration enforcement, delivered to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute.

Mr. Johnson said sanctuary cities’ refusal to cooperate has dented his deportation efforts, and it’s one reason why deportations in fiscal year 2015, which ended Oct. 1, are at their lowest level in a decade, down nearly 50 percent from their peak in 2012.

The secretary said between January 2015 and June 2015 localities released more than 16,000 illegal immigrants that his agents had wanted held for deportation.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/8/number-of-sanctuary-cities-grows-to-340-thousands-/
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #45 on: October 08, 2015, 11:51:19 AM »

Number of sanctuary cities grows to 340; thousands of illegals released to commit new crimes

Like most self-proclaimed conservative getbiggers, I never saw Sanctuary cities are a problem when they were in states like Mass (Romney, NY (Guiliani) and alaska (Palin)... it's only when 2009 arrived that I truly realized they were bad.


* sarah-palin-glen-rice.jpg (14.06 KB, 300x150 - viewed 170 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged

JOHN MATRIX
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 13296


the Media is the Problem


« Reply #46 on: October 08, 2015, 02:07:52 PM »

this is a national outrage and that fact that nothing is being done about it shows how sick of a state America is currently in

funny how that lady was arrested for not complying with the supreme court's gay ruling...yet this city's officials intentionally ignored the law and intentionally released felons onto the street who then murdered americans, and NOTHING AT ALL was done to THEM.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51814

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #47 on: October 08, 2015, 02:15:18 PM »

this is a national outrage and that fact that nothing is being done about it shows how sick of a state America is currently in

funny how that lady was arrested for not complying with the supreme court's gay ruling...yet this city's officials intentionally ignored the law and intentionally released felons onto the street who then murdered americans, and NOTHING AT ALL was done to THEM.

Yep.  Agree. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Vince G, CSN MFT
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 18984

getbig.COM!


WWW
« Reply #48 on: October 08, 2015, 08:50:43 PM »

So the GOP complains about "states rights" and now bitches at Obama for not stepping in to squash state's rights for sanctuary cities.   Roll Eyes
Report to moderator   Logged

A
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #49 on: October 09, 2015, 08:08:53 AM »

So the GOP complains about "states rights" and now bitches at Obama for not stepping in to squash state's rights for sanctuary cities.   Roll Eyes

Vince...people make fun of you...but every now and then you say something quite amazing....good job
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!