Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 24, 2017, 04:58:15 AM *
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 13617 times)
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51845

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


« Reply #50 on: October 09, 2015, 09:38:58 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

States don't have the right to violate federal law.  
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


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


WWW
« Reply #51 on: October 09, 2015, 09:55:40 AM »

State don't have the right to violate federal law. 

THIS is what is wrong with the modern day republican party.

Shit all over dems/liberals all day long, but happily shit on states rights.
Report to moderator   Logged

Vince G, CSN MFT
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 19011

getbig.COM!


WWW
« Reply #52 on: October 12, 2015, 05:22:53 AM »

State don't have the right to violate federal law.  


Texas has been doing it with abortion.  Despite it being legal, the state has used everything from injunctions to banana peels to outlaw it completely.....all to score political points
Report to moderator   Logged

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



« Reply #53 on: October 12, 2015, 07:59:34 AM »


Texas has been doing it with abortion.  Despite it being legal, the state has used everything from injunctions to banana peels to outlaw it completely.....all to score political points

Ohio as well...John Kasich has conspired to shut down a lot of abortion clinics in the state....he smiles befoe the cameras but he's a snake oil salesman
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51845

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


« Reply #54 on: October 12, 2015, 10:37:23 AM »


Texas has been doing it with abortion.  Despite it being legal, the state has used everything from injunctions to banana peels to outlaw it completely.....all to score political points

Not the same at all.  States are allowed to place restrictions on certain kinds of abortion.  Completely different than a state or city willfully violating federal immigration law. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51845

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


« Reply #55 on: October 20, 2015, 09:27:46 AM »

Rubio veers right in latest immigration twist
After largely disavowing his attempt at comprehensive reform, the 2016 GOP hopeful backs a bill to crack down on 'sanctuary cities.'
By SEUNG MIN KIM
10/20/15

Marco Rubio’s complex history on immigration will be back in the spotlight when the GOP-led Senate takes up the sanctuary cities measure. | AP Photo

Marco Rubio’s support for comprehensive immigration reform two years ago remains a major question mark hovering over his presidential campaign, even as he’s cracked top-tier status in the GOP field. On Tuesday, the freshman senator’s tightrope walk on the issue will continue, when the Senate takes up a bill, co-sponsored by Rubio and favored by the party’s staunchest immigration opponents, to crack down on so-called sanctuary cities.

But Rubio’s attempts to explain his trajectory on immigration — from chief GOP advocate of sweeping reform to largely disavowing that effort and now advocating an enforcement-first approach — is drawing criticism from all sides.

“He’s being very sloppy in the way he’s answering questions,” said Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the American Principles Project’s Latino Partnership, which pushes conservative causes among Latinos. “He’s being very vague.”

Immigration advocates who were Rubio’s allies just two years ago are now threatening electoral retribution if he becomes the Republican nominee next year. To them, Rubio’s pro-reform role in the 2013 immigration battle and his Latino heritage won’t be enough to make up for his distancing himself from his chief legislative initiative.

And among the hard right, critics of his immigration stances say Rubio’s views have changed little in the campaign: The Florida senator still espouses positions on the high-octane issue that are largely unpopular with Republican primary voters.

“At this point, there’s very little he’s backed off” of, said Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, one of Rubio’s chief GOP nemeses on immigration. “On a series of issues, I don’t think he’s ever backed off of the fundamentals of the bill.”

Rubio’s complex history on immigration will be back in the spotlight when the GOP-led Senate takes up the sanctuary cities measure, which was spearheaded by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), one of the most hard-line opponents of looser immigration policies. Sanctuary cities are localities that decline to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, believing their policies can invite racial profiling and harm local policing strategies. When Vitter rolled out the bill earlier this month, Rubio was one of more than a half-dozen Republican co-sponsors.

The measure on the Senate floor Tuesday would impose a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for some immigrants who repeatedly try to enter the United States illegally. Vitter and other conservative Senate Republicans — such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — have been on the attack against sanctuary cities since July, when authorities say a Mexican immigrant in the country illegally shot and killed a young woman in San Francisco. Most Senate Democrats will vote to block it, aides said Monday.

Understanding Rubio’s immigration views requires grasping his positions on both policy and procedure.

Rubio has not disavowed his stances on immigration during his presidential campaign. He still supports bolstering security measures, like more resources on the border and a mandatory employment-verification system. He also wants to reform the immigration system for highly skilled workers, seeing it as an economic boon to the United States. Finally, he would ultimately find a way for the 11 million undocumented immigrants here to obtain legal status.

All those provisions were essentially in the Senate bill Rubio pushed two years ago, and they are the three prongs of his immigration platform outlined in his book, “American Dreams.” Rubio said the lesson he took from his 2013 experience is that it’s impossible to get a comprehensive bill through a divided Congress, so a piecemeal approach is more effective.

But breaking up the issue into chunks — Rubio’s current refrain — would only ensure that a pathway to citizenship would never actually begin, veterans of immigration battles in Washington say.

Rubio emphasizes border security and stopping illegal immigration, but declines to lay out specifics on what that would look like. In an interview last month with Fox News, he said the debate about legalization shouldn’t even begin until after illegal immigration is halted and the legal immigration system is fixed – and it's difficult to discern what the overall time frame would actually be because he isn't specific about what it means to stop illegal migration.

“The big difference between Rubio’s views in 2013 versus Rubio of 2015 is that he does not want to be pinned down on when exactly legalization would begin,” said Kerri Talbot, former chief counsel for Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and one of the key staffers behind the Senate "Gang of Eight" bill. “It seems he does not want legalization to begin while he would be president.”

On the campaign trail, Rubio also stresses opposition to a so-called special pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants – meaning a way to eventually become a citizen that isn’t offered to other immigrants. Talbot said Senate negotiators wrote the Gang of Eight bill in a way that would allow Rubio to say there was no special path, because other immigrants – such as refugees who had already been in the United States – could technically also qualify for that pathway to citizenship.

“If you create a special pathway, you make it impossible to do anything on immigration,” Rubio told CNBC this month. “The argument you hear from people is: ‘Why should someone who came here illegally be able to access citizenship or a green card faster than someone who came here legally?’”

Still, Rubio’s tactics have allowed him to play both sides of the immigration divide, argued Frank Sharry, a longtime immigration advocate who leads the left-leaning pro-reform group America’s Voice.

“He’s saying to donors and to Latinos that I’m still for a path to citizenship, I’m still for immigration reform. But I’ve learned the hard way” regarding a comprehensive bill, Sharry said. “It’s very clever. It sounds reasonable. But for people who actually know what it takes to pass legislation, especially immigration reform legislation, it’s so hollow. It has all the substance of Cheetos.”

Aguilar, an immigration official under President George W. Bush, agreed.

“How long will it take? Give us an idea. How long it will take to get there?” he said. “Ten years, he supports a path to a green card which means a path to citizenship. The debate happens 10 years then? Or now? This is the problem.”

Aguilar added: “That is the kind of sloppiness that I think opens the door for a lot of people, Democrats in a general election, to question if he’s really committed to immigration reform.”

Rubio's campaign spokesman, Alex Conant, pointed to the senator’s book when asked about Rubio’s immigration positions. He declined to respond when asked how a President Rubio would deem the border secure, or how long the entire immigration process under Rubio’s presidency would take.

Kica Matos, director of immigrant rights and racial justice at the Center for Community Change, argued that Rubio’s positions will spur a backlash among key voting blocs in 2016, adding: “Being Latino is not enough. You have to show some level of commitment to issues that affect the Latino community.”

When asked how Rubio has handled immigration on the campaign trail, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) responded: “Poorly.”

“He should just affirm what he believed in and what he worked with his colleagues on,” Gutierrez said. “I was very, very grateful to him and said so publicly on numerous occasions … You know, in these days, you have to have backbone.”

On the sanctuary cities issue, Rubio’s sponsorship of that bill came after the conservative outlet Breitbart News pummeled the Florida senator for not yet signing on to an enforcement-focused immigration bill.

Conant indicated that the coverage wasn’t a factor, saying the senator co-sponsored the Vitter legislation as soon as it was available. Rubio’s Senate aides, Conant said, had long been in contact with other key GOP offices, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, on crafting a sanctuary cities measure.

But Rubio has his defenders. Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, a Gang of Eight member who has had his own quibbles with the sanctuary cities measure, said Rubio’s endorsement of the immigration crackdown bill did not violate “at all” the basic principles of the 2013 bill.

“Most of us would still move ahead with comprehensive reform if we could,” Flake said. “But absent that, most of us are willing to move ahead piecemeal if we can."

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/marco-rubio-immigration-sanctuary-cities-214931#ixzz3p7spkLNh
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51845

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


« Reply #56 on: October 20, 2015, 12:10:46 PM »

When a woman in West Virginia defies a court order, the sky falls.  When cities defy federal law, aided by the president, this is somehow acceptable.

Senate Dems block anti-sanctuary city bill
Published October 20, 2015
FoxNews.com

Senate Democrats on Tuesday blocked a Republican-backed bill that would crack down on so-called sanctuary cities by threatening to withhold funds to local governments that don't cooperate with federal immigration officials.

The bill failed on a 54-45 vote. It needed 60 to advance.

The Stop Sanctuary Cities Act became a lightning rod issue ahead of the vote, as GOP sponsors tried to peel off just a few Democrats to support it while Democratic leaders blasted the legislation as counterproductive. The White House issued a formal veto threat Tuesday morning, while the chamber's top Democrat tried to discredit the measure by calling it "The Donald Trump Act."

But GOP backers cast the legislation as a critical first step toward reining in the exploding, and risky, practice of cities and counties ignoring federal immigration law.

"Sanctuary cities and the associated violent crimes by illegal immigrants are reaching a critical point, and we cannot wait any longer to take action to protect Americans here at home," sponsor Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said in a statement.

The bill was considered months after a young woman's murder in San Francisco allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant touched off a national debate over immigration law.

Vitter had urged colleagues to "remember Kate Steinle's vicious murder and the tens of thousands of crimes committed by illegal immigrants within our borders."

Steinle, 32, was killed July 1 while walking with her dad along a San Francisco pier. The suspect, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, had a felony record and had been deported five times -- but despite a federal immigration detainer request, the city sheriff released him once an old marijuana charge was dropped. San Francisco is among hundreds of so-called sanctuary cities that do not cooperate fully with federal immigration officials

The White House, though, claimed in a written statement that the bill "fails to offer comprehensive reforms needed to fix the Nation's broken immigration laws and undermines current Administration efforts to remove the most dangerous convicted criminals and to work collaboratively with State and local law enforcement agencies."

According to the White House, it would "essentially turn State and local law enforcement into Federal immigration law enforcement officials, in certain circumstances."

The legislation would have made it illegal for local governments to ignore immigration-related detainers -- federal requests to notify them before releasing an illegal immigrant so they can take custody -- and to bar local officials from sharing immigration information with federal agents.

The bill called for withholding certain federal funding to any local governments that flout the policy.

The issue, though, became a political football not only on the presidential campaign trail but on Capitol Hill.

In advance of the vote, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on the floor:

"This vile legislation might as well be called 'The Donald Trump Act.' Like the disgusting and outrageous language championed by Donald Trump, this legislation paints all immigrants as 'criminals and rapists.'"

As Congress stalled on the sanctuary city matter, some state governments already are taking action. North Carolina lawmakers recently voted to make their state the first prohibiting such policies at the local government level.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/20/republicans-push-for-sanctuary-city-crackdown-in-key-senate-vote/?intcmp=hpbt1
Report to moderator   Logged
Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6723


In God We Trust !


« Reply #57 on: October 20, 2015, 12:25:19 PM »

Rubio's "complex history on immigration"?  Why don't they call it what it is?
Report to moderator   Logged

240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


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


WWW
« Reply #58 on: October 20, 2015, 12:58:58 PM »

Rubio's "complex history on immigration"?  Why don't they call it what it is?

LOL @ complex.   He's a flip flopper.

He wants to end sanctuary cities... Weird, he's been senator for quite some time now... hasn't mentioned much about  5 major cities/7 counties in his own state Wink


Florida is home to seven “sanctuary counties.” The sanctuary counties are: Pasco, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Hernando, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach.

They ignore federal law authorizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to administratively deport illegal aliens without seeking criminal warrants or convictions from federal, state, or local courts.

http://drrichswier.com/2015/07/09/forget-sanctuary-cities-florida-has-7-sanctuary-counties/
Report to moderator   Logged

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


the Media is the Problem


« Reply #59 on: October 21, 2015, 07:20:20 AM »

When a woman in West Virginia defies a court order, the sky falls.  When cities defy federal law, aided by the president, this is somehow acceptable.

Senate Dems block anti-sanctuary city bill
Published October 20, 2015

this is the key point and it is astounding. especially when unlike the gay marriage thing, it is directly responsible for the deaths of American citizens.

the fact that the Dems can openly block this and totally get a pass with the media...is sickening beyond belief. anyone voting against this should be strung up for treason.
Report to moderator   Logged
headhuntersix
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 17264

Our forefathers would be shooting by now


« Reply #60 on: October 21, 2015, 07:32:26 AM »

Its friggen ridiculous and before we get into so BS states rights thing....this is an inherent power of the US central Gov..to defend the borders and they are not.
Report to moderator   Logged

L
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


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


WWW
« Reply #61 on: October 21, 2015, 08:40:59 AM »

Rudy was on MSNBC this morning, trying to defend his own use of sanctuaty cities.

He said him keeping NYC was okay - because he only allowed "law abiding illegals" to stay.  Um, if you're *undocumented*, you are illegal and breaking the law DAILY just by being here, much less all the paperwork you're fudging to stay here.

Rudy said sanctuary cities were okay, as long as you actually deported the violent criminals.  bag of shit.  Rubio and Jeb were the same way tho - illegals are everywhere in FL and nobody kicks them out.  We had a cop killed a few years back (feet away from the zombicon shooting, ironically) - cop killed by an illegal who had done prison time here... ugh.   why the F wasn't the illegal deported after doing his time?
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51845

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


« Reply #62 on: October 21, 2015, 02:26:13 PM »

this is the key point and it is astounding. especially when unlike the gay marriage thing, it is directly responsible for the deaths of American citizens.

the fact that the Dems can openly block this and totally get a pass with the media...is sickening beyond belief. anyone voting against this should be strung up for treason.

Bizarre world we live in sometimes. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51845

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


« Reply #63 on: October 21, 2015, 02:27:03 PM »

Its friggen ridiculous and before we get into so BS states rights thing....this is an inherent power of the US central Gov..to defend the borders and they are not.

Correct.  States don't have the right to violate federal law.  Except when Emperor Obama says it's ok. 
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


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


WWW
« Reply #64 on: October 21, 2015, 04:28:05 PM »

Correct.  States don't have the right to violate federal law.  Except when Emperor Obama says it's ok.  

states rights.  
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51845

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


« Reply #65 on: October 21, 2015, 05:25:56 PM »

states rights.  

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


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


WWW
« Reply #66 on: October 21, 2015, 06:15:41 PM »

the constitition > politics.



* 51asvISonoL._SX258_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (27.39 KB, 260x327 - viewed 368 times.)
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51845

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


« Reply #67 on: October 21, 2015, 06:21:52 PM »

the constitition > politics.



Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51845

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


« Reply #68 on: November 05, 2015, 12:59:08 PM »

Good.

San Francisco sheriff known for 'sanctuary city' defense loses re-election bid
Published November 04, 2015
FoxNews.com

The San Francisco sheriff who over the summer became embroiled in a national debate over "sanctuary city" policies on Tuesday lost his bid for re-election amid a host of local controversies.

Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, 54, was defeated by Vicki Hennessy, a former sheriff's official who had the endorsement of San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and the sheriff deputies association. As of early Wednesday morning, Hennessy had received 62 percent of the vote to just 31 percent for Mirkarimi.

Mirkarimi was the subject of national criticism after Mexican illegal immigrant Francisco Sanchez allegedly shot and killed 32-year-old Kate Steinle on San Francisco's waterfront July 1. Sanchez had been released from Mirkarimi's jail in March even though federal immigration officials had requested he be detained for possible deportation.

But since then, the sheriff's oversight of the department has been plagued by other high-profile mishaps and controversies seen as contributing to his defeat. He had his driver's license briefly suspended for failing to properly report a minor accident while driving a department-issued car, and he also flunked a marksmanship test.

Before those two incidents, a drug gang leader escaped from jail, and guards were accused of staging and gambling on inmate fights.

In November 2014, Mirkarimi also was forced to apologize for the bungled search for a San Francisco General Hospital patient whose body was found in a stairwell weeks after she wandered from her room. The sheriff is in charge of the hospital's security, but deputies didn't search the building until nine days after her disappearance. The city paid the patient's family $3 million to settle a lawsuit.

But Mirkarimi is now known nationally for his strident defense of sanctuary city policies, taking the practice to a new level under his leadership.

San Francisco declared itself a sanctuary city in 1989, passing an ordinance that bans city officials from enforcing immigration laws or asking about immigration status unless required by law or court order. A follow-up ordinance in 2013 allows detention only under a court order targeting violent felons. Last month, San Francisco's board of supervisors unanimously approved a resolution to maintain the city's sanctuary status.

San Francisco and other cities and counties have routinely ignored requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to keep people in custody. The jurisdictions say they can't hold arrestees beyond their scheduled release dates without probable cause.

Hennessy has previously said the sheriff's order barring the San Francisco jail from cooperating with immigration officials is misguided. There are cases, she said, when federal immigration officials should be notified that the jail is about to release an inmate who is in the country illegally.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/04/san-francisco-sheriff-loses-re-election-bid-amid-sanctuary-city-controversy/
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51845

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


« Reply #69 on: May 31, 2016, 01:07:17 PM »

Family of Murdered Woman Sues San Francisco over ‘Sanctuary City’ Policy

Kathryn Steinle (Screenshot / Facebook)
by Joel B. Pollak
27 May 2016

According to the local CBS News affiliate in San Francisco, the lawsuit “names the city of San Francisco, former Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement” and “alleges that officials allowed Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant with a history of drug offenses, to go free and obtain the gun that killed her.”

The family’s lawyer said: “The Steinle Family hopes that their actions today will serve to highlight the lax enforcement of gun safety regulations among the law enforcement agencies involved and bureaucratic confusion so that this will not happen to others.”

According to the Los Angeles Times, the lawsuit largely focuses on a memorandum issued in March 2015 by then-Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, in which Mirkarimi prevented local authorities from communicating with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about detainees.

Mirkarimi was replaced by the voters. The new sheriff, Vicki Hennessy, promised to expand the city’s cooperation with federal officials.

However, she was opposed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and local amnesty activists, who dismissed Steinle’s death as a mere unfortunate occurrence. They placed the blame at the feet of the BLM, from which the murder weapon was stolen. (The BLM is named in the lawsuit.)

On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors approved a compromise in which local authorities would be permitted to contact ICE in  cases where an inmate “has been convicted of a serious felony in the past five years or has been convicted of three felonies in specified state penal codes, such as robbery or assault with a deadly weapon, arising out of three separate incidents in the past five years,” the San Francisco Examiner reported. Other crimes, including some felonies, would still not result in an inmate being reported to ICE.

Hennessy acknowledged that the new sanctuary city policy would not have saved Kate Steinle.

The Steinle family has also expressed disappointment at being unable to convince Congress to pass “Kate’s Law,” which would prevent similar occurrences in the future by applying mandatory five-year sentences to illegal aliens who are deported and return illegally to the U.S.

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/05/27/sanctuary-city-steinle-family-sues-san-francisco/
Report to moderator   Logged
Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6723


In God We Trust !


« Reply #70 on: May 31, 2016, 01:28:57 PM »

Another guy just had his car broken into, lost his gun plus his FBI badges and ID and some other stuff.
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 6723


In God We Trust !


« Reply #71 on: May 31, 2016, 01:46:12 PM »

I really don't know what these guys are thinking.  If you insist on leaving stuff like that in your vehicle, then better make it so a thief must figure out a way to steal the whole damn car in order to get it.
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51845

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


« Reply #72 on: January 17, 2017, 06:05:42 PM »

SF Doubles Down on Sanctuary Policy after Steinle Lawsuit Dismissal
by Lana Shadwick
17 Jan 2017

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee has just announced a new campaign to support illegal aliens in his city. The announcement comes one week after a federal judge poured out the Kathryn Steinle family in the lawsuit against the city of San Francisco.
The city’s mayor is doubling-down on its commitment to illegal aliens and its sanctuary city policies.

“San Francisco is a sanctuary city and will not waiver in its commitment to protect the rights of all its residents,” Lee said as reported by KRON 4.

The mayor says the city will work together with the Human Rights Commission and the Office of Civic Engagement and Immigration Affairs in this “Equity and Immigration Services Campaign.” KRON 4 also reported that city departments will work with community organizations “to expand education and outreach, provide multilingual legal services and full scope representation for detained and non-detained clients.”

A lawyer for then-Sheriff Mirkarimi’s office was reported in September 2015 to say “Federal courts have actually held that detaining someone for ICE is unconstitutional, it’s unlawful.”

The sheriff’s department, headed by then-Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, released the 32-year-old woman’s alleged killer from custody approximately three months before she was shot. There was an immigration detainer on him at the time he was released and the seven-time felon had been deported five times previously.

Kathryn Steinle was walking on San Francisco’s Pier 14 with her father when she was gunned down. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez has been charged with her murder.

As reported by Breitbart News in late May, the Steinle family filed a lawsuit against the city, Sheriff Mirkarimi, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Just last week, the judge ruled that the family can sue the BLM if they can show that the killer stole the gun from the agent’s unlocked car but dismissed the claims against the city.

Congress has not passed “Kate’s Law” which was designed to hinder such tragedies in the future by requiring mandatory five-year sentences to be imposed on illegal aliens who are deported but unlawfully return to the United States. As reported by Breitbart News, the Republican-controlled Senate failed to advance legislation defunding sanctuary cities and increasing minimum punishments for previously-deported illegal aliens who return. Democrats effectively blocked its passage. As reported, the Senate voted 53-44 on Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-PA) “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act,” and 55-42 on Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) “Kate’s Law.” Each bill needed 60 votes to advance.

The trial of Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez was delayed until after the 2016 presidential election. It had been set for early December but under an agreement by Sanchez’ lawyer and prosecutors, it has been postponed until February 17.

Sanchez said he chose San Francisco because it was a sanctuary city. Breitbart’s Michelle Moons reported that the San Francisco police union posted its criticism of the city’s sanctuary city policies on Facebook: “Bottom line is a young innocent woman has been murdered in cold blood, in front of her father, by a 5 time deported illegal alien drug dealer. He is an ILLEGAL ALIEN not an undocumented immigrant and if he was where he belonged (Mexico) this innocent victim would still be alive.”

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/01/17/sf-doubles-sanctuary-policy-steinle-lawsuit-dismissal/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51845

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


« Reply #73 on: January 26, 2017, 10:44:34 AM »

What a difference a president makes.

Trump creates name-and-shame list to embarrass sanctuary cities
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Thursday, January 26, 2017

President Trump on Wednesday ordered the Homeland Security Department to begin releasing a name-and-shame list of sanctuary cities, listing the specific crimes such as murder or robbery committed by those who have been released back into their communities under the sanctuary policies.

That was one of a number of less-noticed but potentially far-reaching moves tucked inside two new executive orders erasing decades of previous immigration enforcement policy and replacing it with the Trump plan, which calls for aggressive enforcement of existing laws.

Border Patrol and interior enforcement agents have been unshackled from the limits imposed by former President Barack Obama, as Mr. Trump said he wants to see them doing the jobs they were hired for.

He said he wants to enlist those local police and sheriff’s offices that are eager to enforce immigration law, and will punish those that throw up roadblocks — including the new name-and-shame list.

Some 279 cities and counties refused to cooperate on at least some deportations in 2016, accounting for 2,008 immigrants who were shielded, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Each of those immigrants’ convictions will now be publicly listed so residents can see the level of crimes committed by those released into their communities, under the Trump orders.

Analysts said that list could help rally internal opposition to sanctuary cities, which are already rallying to defy Mr. Trump.
 
“We will fight against attempts to undermine our values and the security of our cities,” said the group Cities for Action, a coalition of big municipalities that support sanctuary policies. “As mayors and county executives nationwide have made clear today, we will continue to provide for all in our communities — regardless of where they come from — and work to continue building trust between city residents and law enforcement.”

In addition to the shame list, Mr. Trump ordered Homeland Security to produce a list four times a year of all illegal immigrants serving time in federal or state prisons, or being held for trial.

And in another striking move, Mr. Trump ordered Homeland Security officials to begin releasing more information on illegal immigrants. He said the Privacy Act, which has regularly shielded information about illegal immigrants from public disclosure, will no longer apply to anyone who isn’t a citizen or green card holder.

That could give the public a new depth of transparency, enabling them to see the types of illegal immigrants the government is encountering.

One part of the new orders would allow Homeland Security to ship illegal immigrants caught crossing the border from Mexico back into Mexico, even as they await the outcome of their deportation cases in the U.S.

That’s allowed under existing law, but legal analysts said they’d never heard of it being used, and debated how far it might be used. But immigrant-rights advocates said it could hurt migrants who need protections.

“Given that many of the people crossing the border today are children and families fleeing violence in the Northern Triangle countries of Central America, invoking this provision threatens to undermine our commitment to refugee protections,” said Tom Jawetz, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress.

The Mexican Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment on the provision Wednesday night.

Experts said it’s an open question whether Mexico could stymie that part of Mr. Trump’s orders by refusing to take back those who crossed over its northern border into the U.S.

Another lesser-noticed provision of the new orders would push Homeland Security to collect fines from both illegal immigrants and “those who facilitate their presence” in the U.S.

That could potentially include sanctuary colleges and universities that protect illegal immigrants, and businesses that hire unauthorized workers.

Current law calls for fines of more than $20,000 per illegal immigrant for companies that are repeat offenders.

Conspiracy to harbor an illegal immigrant carries potential jail time or a fine of up to $10,000.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-creates-name-and-shame-list-embarrass/?
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 51845

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


« Reply #74 on: February 02, 2017, 11:07:40 AM »

‘We Will Ban Sanctuary Cities’, Says Texas Governor
Texas Governor Greg Abbott's State of the State AddressAP Photo/Stephen Spillman
by BOB PRICE
1 Feb 2017

Texas Governor Greg Abbott declared ending sanctuary cities to be an emergency item for the 85th session of the Texas Legislature.

During his State of the State address on Tuesday, Abbott said, “This is the session we will ban sanctuary cities,” to the joint session of the Texas Legislature. Specifically, the governor referred to State Senator Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) who filed SB4, calling for sanctions against sanctuary jurisdictions within the Lone Star State.

“I am excited that Governor Abbott stood up for the rule of law by declaring the banning of Sanctuary Cities an emergency item during his State of the State Address,” Sen. Perry responded. “Texans everywhere expect their elected officials to uphold the rule of law. We cannot allow local officials to implement dangerous policies that make it easier for individuals who commit serious crimes to be placed back into our communities.”

Governor Abbott has already taken action to end sanctuary jurisdictions in Texas by threatening to withhold state law enforcement grants from cities and counties that refuse to honor immigration detainers from federal agents. Most recently, when the new sheriff of Travis County stated she was changing the county’s policy on cooperating with immigration officials in January, Abbott responded via Twitter, “I am about to up the ante. No more sanctuary cities in Texas.”

“Some law enforcement officials in Texas are openly refusing to enforce existing law,” Abbott stated during his State of the State Address. “That is unacceptable.”

“Elected officials don’t get to pick and choose which laws they obey,” the governor concluded. “To protect Texans from deadly danger, we must insist that laws be followed. Sen. Perry, this is the session we will ban sanctuary cities. I’m declaring this an emergency item.”

Texas law prohibits bills from being brought to the floor of the State’s House and Senate Chambers during the first sixty days of the legislative session. By declaring the sanctuary city issue as an emergency item for the legislature, bills dealing with the subject can be considered immediately.

The five key provisions of Perry’s SB 4 were discussed by the senator’s staff with Breitbart Texas. Those provisions are:

Municipalities are forced to comply with immigration detainers;
Municipalities cannot prohibit or discourage officers from inquiring about immigration status during a lawful stop;
State grants will be withheld if the Texas Attorney General finds an entity is in violation of law;
The immigration status must be recorded in a person’s case file; and
The bill protects witnesses and victims of crimes if they are here illegally.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/02/01/will-ban-sanctuary-cities-says-texas-governor/
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!