Social Sanctuary Cities: N.Y Released Illegal Immigrant Who Then Raped & Killed 92 Year Old Woman

I don't understand the idea of withholding funding from these sanctuary cities. There are thousands of people there who had no say in their city government's decision to disobey federal law. If there are government officials in those cities who are refusing to comply with the law, then those officials should be held accountable and arrested. I haven't read this whole thread, but I'm sure it was pointed out that if I chose to give aid and shelter to someone who committed a crime, I'd also face criminal charges for aiding and abetting, hindering prosecution, and probably a dozen other charges.

Don't punish the citizens. Punish the decision makers. If they're so gung-ho on their viewpoints, they'll gladly go to jail for their crimes. History loves martyrs.
 
It must not be crystal clear, because despite rambling like a hick on moonshine, you never explained how deporting a guy who has already been deported would have changed the outcome.

How can he come back if he has a collar that blows up if he crosses a line. That's the new wall. Implant alien prisoners with explosives.

But seriously, it would have been prevented if he could never get back in. You don't get that.

Compare America's immigration laws and sentencing with Mexico, Guatemala. If we had those strict laws he would never be able to cross the border with an illegal gun and kill citizens as well as the other 5 prior crimes he harmed citizens doing.

That is the definition of the government not protecting the citizen.
 
How can he come back if he has a collar that blows up if he crosses a line. That's the new wall. Implant alien prisoners with explosives.

But seriously, it would have been prevented if he could never get back in. You don't get that.

Compare America's immigration laws and sentencing with Mexico, Guatemala. If we had those strict laws he would never be able to cross the border with an illegal gun and kill citizens as well as the other 5 prior crimes he harmed citizens doing.

That is the definition of the government not protecting the citizen.
You really think the reason people don't migrate to Guatemala is their strict immigration policy? Or is it because that's not a desirable place to be? If we want migrants to treat the US like Guatemala, we are going to have to become a lot more like Guatemala than just our immigration laws. And I don't think a reasonable answer to preventing Guatemalans from migrating here is to become Guatemala. If that's what it takes, what's the point?

It seems like we agree insofar as deportation wasn't really doing the trick, obviously. Where I disagree with you is whether a wall will do much of anything to prevent people who want to get here from coming here. It might stop a few of the less motivated. But it won't stop people who are otherwise willing to endanger their lives to get here. They will go over it, under it, around it, or through the check points. If you are willing to risk death in a desert, your also willing to risk any of those things. Same goes with harsher punishments. Will fear of harsh punishment deter someone who is already risking their life? I doubt it.
 
You really think the reason people don't migrate to Guatemala is their strict immigration policy? Or is it because that's not a desirable place to be? If we want migrants to treat the US like Guatemala, we are going to have to become a lot more like Guatemala than just our immigration laws. And I don't think a reasonable answer to preventing Guatemalans from migrating here is to become Guatemala. If that's what it takes, what's the point?

It seems like we agree insofar as deportation wasn't really doing the trick, obviously. Where I disagree with you is whether a wall will do much of anything to prevent people who want to get here from coming here. It might stop a few of the less motivated. But it won't stop people who are otherwise willing to endanger their lives to get here. They will go over it, under it, around it, or through the check points. If you are willing to risk death in a desert, your also willing to risk any of those things. Same goes with harsher punishments. Will fear of harsh punishment deter someone who is already risking their life? I doubt it.

Could be, but trump seems motivated.
He must have played civilization games. He will put the army on the border
 

v-for-vendetta-dominos-o.gif
 
Mapping $27 Billion In Federal Funding Of America's Sanctuary Cities
By Adam Andrzejewski
Feb 2, 2017

960x0.jpg


In the President Donald Trump-era, there could be a high-cost to running a sanctuary city.

On January 25, 2017, the President issued an Executive Order denying federal funding to sanctuary cities who choose not to comply with federal laws regarding deportation of illegal entrants.

Reaction to the new policy from across the political spectrum was immediate. However, the politicians, pundits and journalists admitted that the total amount of federal funding was undetermined.

Our organization, American Transparency (website: OpenTheBooks.com) was able to identify that number. We found nearly $27 billion ($26.74 billion to be exact) in federal funding (FY2016) for America’s 106 Sanctuary Cities. Our new report, “Federal Funding of America’s Sanctuary Cites” details federal grants and other forms of federal spending that flow to those cities.

Using our OpenTheBooks interactive map, search federal funding by city. Just click a pin and scroll down to review the municipal agencies and entities (FY2016). In fact, the map is quickly shareable to any website by copy/paste of the HTML code.

Across America, there are over 300 governmental jurisdictions claiming "sanctuary status." Of those governments, there are 106 cities, while the rest are states, counties or other units of government.

Under Trump’s order, mayors defending their sanctuary city status are essentially imposing a defiance tax on local residents. On average, this tax amounts to $500 per man, woman and child. Major cities like Washington, D.C., New York and Chicago have the most to lose, and nearly $27 billion is at stake across the country.

Here are the top 10 takeaways from our findings:
  • $26.741 billion in annual federal grants and direct payments flowed into America’s 106 sanctuary cities (FY2016).
  • On average, the cost of lost federal funding for a family of four residing in one of the 106 sanctuary cities is $1,810 – or $454 per person. A total population of 46.2 million residents live in the 106 sanctuary cities according to census data.
  • Washington, D.C., and Chicago, Illinois governments received the highest amount of federal funding per resident and, therefore, have the most to lose by maintaining their sanctuary status.Washington, D.C. municipal government received the highest amount of federal funding on a per capita basis: $3,228 per person; $12,912 per family of four; or $2.09 billion total. The City of Chicago, IL received the second highest amount of federal funding on a per capita basis: $1,942 per person; $7,768 per family of four; or $5.3 billion total.
  • In cities with populations of 100,000 and above, the communities with the least per capita federal dollars ‘at risk’ are St. Paul, Minnesota ($47 per person, $14.2 million total); Downey, California ($36 per person, $4.2 million total) and Miami, Florida ($67 per person, $29.7 million total).
  • $15.983 billion in federal funds flowed into just twelve major American cities where 1 in 5 illegal entrants reside (FY2016).
  • Department of Justice grants to law enforcement – i.e. city police departments – totaled $543.97 million (FY2016). Typically, this funding was only a small percentage of the local law enforcement budgets.
  • $4.23 billion in federal funding of the 106 sanctuary cities flowed via the ‘direct payment’ type. These payments funded municipal services such as housing, education, community development, and schools.
  • $21.5 billion in federal funding of the 106 sanctuary cities flowed via the ‘grant’ payment mechanism. These payments funded local police and fire departments, schools, housing, and city services.
  • In Los Angeles, fully 1 in 5 city residents (22-percent) are illegal entrants. However, the amount of federal funding amounts to only $126 per resident; $504 per family of four; or $502.5 million total.
  • In Newark, New Jersey, 19-percent of city residents are undocumented entrants. However, the amount of federal funding amounts to $733 per resident; $2,932 per family of four; or $206.7 million.


    The threat of losing nearly $27 billion in federal funding seems to be having an effect on some cities. In fact, Miami already reversed their sanctuary city policy.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/adaman...ng-of-americas-sanctuary-cities/#3d0dd7cb7071
 
No funds for "sanctuary city" Austin, says Texas governor

abbott-hernandez.jpg

At left, Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez after being sworn into office in Austin, Texas, on January 4, 2017
At right, Governor Greg Abbott at a joint press conference February 18, 2015 in Austin, Texas.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott blocked funding over so-called “sanctuary cities” for the first time Wednesday after Austin’s sheriff said the city’s jails would no longer honor most federal immigration detainers.

The move begins a crackdown Abbott wants in Texas over criminal suspects who are in the country illegally, which comes as he pushes to sign new laws that could go even further than President Donald Trump’s new executive actions against sanctuary policies.

Travis County leaders condemned losing $1.5 million in grant money earmarked for crime victim services, courts and other programs. They stood by Sheriff Sally Hernandez, an elected Democrat in Texas’ most liberal city, who announced after Trump’s inauguration that her jails going forward would only honor immigration holds in murder, aggravated sexual assault and human trafficking cases.

Travis County Judge Sarah Eckhardt wrote in a letter to Abbott that she was confident the sheriff is within the law.

“I am certain you have come to the same conclusion; else you would not be seeking to change current State law to put all Texas Sheriffs in the service of the United States Department of Homeland Security,” Eckhardt wrote.

The revoked funds came a day after Abbott used his State of the State address to declare a “sanctuary city” ban an urgent priority for lawmakers. A Senate committee on Thursday is expected to vote on a bill that would deny state grant funds to jurisdictions that discourage “inquiring into the immigration status of a person under lawful detention or arrest.” Abbott has also called for the power to remove locally elected officials if they don’t comply.

Mr. Trump signed an order last week to withdraw funding from sanctuary cities that decline to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. It didn’t specify what kind of money could be pulled. In California, San Francisco officials sued over the order, saying it was unconstitutional and an invasion of the city’s sovereignty.

The federal government cannot “put a gun to the head of localities,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said, arguing that the order violates states’ rights and the law.

Meanwhile, Cincinnati voted Wednesday to become a sanctuary city, with Councilman Wendell Young saying he would not make “a liar of the Statue of Liberty,” CBS affiliate WKRC reports.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sanctuary-city-austin-funding-greg-abbott-texas-governor/
 
Gotta love how liberal states like Cali who all of a sudden are all for states rights instead of overreaching federal government now that it suits their purpose.
 
'Sanctuary city' ban sent to Iowa Senate floor
William Petroski
March 2, 2017

636240692043475769-McCoy-and-Garrett.JPG

Legislation that would prevent cities, counties and college campus police from enacting "sanctuary" policies to provide safe havens for undocumented immigrants cleared the Iowa Senate Local Government Committee Thursday despite strong opposition from immigrants and a host of pro-immigrant groups.

Senate Study Bill 1172 , which was sent to the Senate floor, would bar a local government or campus police agency from receiving state funds if the legislation was violated. It would require Iowa law enforcement agencies to comply with federal immigration detainer requests for persons in their custody.

In addition, the legislation would prohibit local governments or campus police from discouraging local law enforcement officers or others from activities related to enforcing immigration laws. A similar, but not identical bill — House File 265 — is pending in the Iowa House.

"I believe law enforcement should enforce the law," said Sen. Dennis Guth, R-Klemme. He supported the proposal during a Senate subcommittee debate that preceded the full committee discussion.

Sen. Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines, criticized the legislation, saying it was '"full of flaws" and unconstitutional.

"This is mean-spirited and I will not be part of it," McCoy added.

McCoy said he was particularly concerned about provisions in the bill that could hold cities and counties liable for damages if a person subject to a detainer is released from custody and commits a felony within 10 years. Such damages could total millions of dollars and could force some local governments into bankruptcy, he added. However, the bill does not apply to school districts or nonpublic schools.

Sen. Julian Garrett, R-Indianola, who chairs the committee, defended the proposal, saying, "This bill is primarily aimed at people who are already in jail for something." He also said he is open to considering amendments to the bill, including the threat of liability and damages for cities and counties.

Cities such as San Francisco have gained national attention for their sanctuary policies, especially as President Donald Trump campaigned on tougher immigration laws ahead of his election. Since taking office, Trump has issued an executive order rescinding federal money to those cities.

In Iowa, some of the debate on the issue has focused on Iowa City, where local officials recently adopted a resolution that would prevent city resources from being used to enforce federal immigration law absent a public safety threat. In addition, the Des Moines Public Schools are supporting undocumented students, barring staff from asking about their immigration status and funneling federal inquiries through the superintendent's office and district attorney. But the measure appears to stops short of blocking the district from working with immigration officials.

A host of organizations registered against the Senate bill, including the Iowa League of Cities, Iowa Police Chiefs Association, Interfaith Alliance of Iowa, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, Iowa Catholic Conference, Iowa Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church, and others. The only organization registered in support is the Iowa Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.

Daniel Zeno,a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, said the bill would undermine constitutional rights and would invite police to treat people differently because of their ethnicity. "It attacks the trust between communities and police," he said.

Tom Chapman, a lobbyist for the Iowa Catholic Conference, said the legislation represents a shift in the wrong direction for the immigration debate. "We are very much opposed. We look for merciful policies that will help people and their families," he said.

Fabiola Schirrmeister, a Spanish language radio broadcaster in the Des Moines area, spoke passionately against the bill, warning it will lead to racial profiling.

Schirrmeister, who was born in Mexico, said the legislation is already creating panic in Iowa's Latino community, and she cautioned it could hurt the state's economy. "Immigrants work hard," she said.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...ary-city-ban-sent-iowa-senate-floor/98636322/
 
Do cities like San Fran need Federal money? Seems like they do well by themselves. It would be interesting to see what the US would look like if liberal cities like LA and San Fran stopped paying federal tax.
I know what LA and San Fran would look like without highways, postal services, schools, water and power...im sure they would be doing worse than the other cities of America that don't choose to break the law
 
I know what LA and San Fran would look like without highways, postal services, schools, water and power...im sure they would be doing worse than the other cities of America that don't choose to break the law
Doesn't mean they need federal money though lol
 
Editorial: Sanctuary cities are an insult to legal immigrants
By Thomas Wheatley | March 10, 2017​

imrs.php

A basket for written testimony acts as a temporary hat rack during a March 6 hearing at Rockville City Hall on a propsal for the city to become a sanctuary city.

On Monday evening, Rockville held a public hearing to discuss local enforcement of federal immigration laws. Specifically, the hearing concerned an ordinance proposed by Rockville City Council member Julie Palakovich Carr that would preserve Rockville’s status as a safe haven for illegal immigrants.

The ordinance’s most controversial provision would prohibit city law enforcement officials from detaining any person based “on any immigration detainer or federal administrative warrant when such immigration detainer or administrative warrant is based solely on a violation of federal civil immigration law.” In addition, the ordinance would forbid city employees from assisting in any investigation into a person’s immigration status and would encourage city officials to “not disclose the citizenship or immigration status of any person.”

Predictably, the hearing attracted a diverse crowd, including a group of people normally overlooked in the illegal immigration debate: other immigrants.

To put it lightly, they are not happy with the ordinance.

Rui Dai, a Chinese American, is largely concerned about the effect of illegal immigrants on her 8-year-old daughter’s chance at the American Dream.

She has good reason to be concerned. Montgomery County has grown poorer, and illegal immigrants are at least partly to blame. According to research by the Brookings Institution, between 2007 and 2010, Montgomery County shed more than 37,000 jobs, the number of residents living below the federal poverty line grew by two-thirds, and the poverty rate increased by nearly 3 percentage points.

At the same time, the county has experienced a staggering influx of immigration — legal and illegal. In 1990, immigrants accounted for less than 20 percent of the population. Now, they make up one-third of Montgomery County’s population and almost 40 percent of residents living in poverty.

Montgomery County schools are taking the brunt of this socioeconomic decline. Writing in the Atlantic, Melinda Anderson outlined the effects of Montgomery County’s “skyrocketing growth of non-English speaking youth in suburban school districts,” concluding that Montgomery County schools are “ill-equipped to meet the rapid pace of change.” At Blair High School, for example, Hispanics make up the largest racial or ethnic group, and more than half of all students are eligible for free-and-reduced meals, a clear mark of poverty. In response, Maryland County Public Schools have vowed to make “significant investments to ensure [immigrant and refugee] students receive the resources they need to succeed.”

Such “significant investments” are cause for further concern, especially for landlords such as Nancy Shih, an immigrant from Taiwan. The Montgomery County Council recently raised property taxes, cut teachers’ and firefighters’ raises and increased the county’s tax on home sales. County Council member Marc Elrich (D-At Large) defended the measures by saying, “There are no civilizations in history that are remembered for their tax rates, none. Name one. People are remembered for what they did, good or bad, but they’re not remembered for how they taxed people.” Challenge accepted, Mr. Elrich. See the American Revolution.

There is also the underlying inequity of the proposed ordinance. “I respect peoples’ feelings, but the city is not thinking about legal immigrants,” said Zhenya Li, a founding member of the Maryland Chinese American Network. “Many of us spent years going through the legal immigration process and viewed coming to the United States as a privilege. Unlike in China, here we thought the rule of law superseded all. Unfortunately, as we see now, that is not always the case.” With a doctorate degree in biochemistry and molecular biology from Georgetown University, Li is the type of immigrant the United States should be clamoring to attract — not insulting with unfair treatment.

Sadly, I will not hold my breath. As is typical, the left-wing voices of Montgomery County retorted by spewing their ad hominem bile, with one Facebook commenter accusing the Chinese immigrants of being full of “hatred, anger, and lies.”

These immigrants are not hateful or racist. They are not bigoted or intolerant, and they certainly are not liars. Rather, they embody the American promise and are rightfully fed up with paying for the left’s tolerance of lawlessness.


Thomas Wheatley is a regular contributor to All Opinions Are Local. Follow him on Twitter @TNWheatley.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...t-to-legal-immigrants/?utm_term=.7e606d4aa75b
 
Last edited:
I just like conservatives showing their hypocrite side when they yelled states rights for so long.

I think State legislatures should be the ones to kill sanctuary cities.
 


No funds for "sanctuary city" Austin, says Texas governor

abbott-hernandez.jpg

At left, Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez after being sworn into office in Austin, Texas, on January 4, 2017
At right, Governor Greg Abbott at a joint press conference February 18, 2015 in Austin, Texas.

AUSTIN, Texas -- Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott blocked funding over so-called “sanctuary cities” for the first time Wednesday after Austin’s sheriff said the city’s jails would no longer honor most federal immigration detainers.

The move begins a crackdown Abbott wants in Texas over criminal suspects who are in the country illegally, which comes as he pushes to sign new laws that could go even further than President Donald Trump’s new executive actions against sanctuary policies.

Travis County leaders condemned losing $1.5 million in grant money earmarked for crime victim services, courts and other programs. They stood by Sheriff Sally Hernandez, an elected Democrat in Texas’ most liberal city, who announced after Trump’s inauguration that her jails going forward would only honor immigration holds in murder, aggravated sexual assault and human trafficking cases.

Travis County Judge Sarah Eckhardt wrote in a letter to Abbott that she was confident the sheriff is within the law.

“I am certain you have come to the same conclusion; else you would not be seeking to change current State law to put all Texas Sheriffs in the service of the United States Department of Homeland Security,” Eckhardt wrote.

The revoked funds came a day after Abbott used his State of the State address to declare a “sanctuary city” ban an urgent priority for lawmakers. A Senate committee on Thursday is expected to vote on a bill that would deny state grant funds to jurisdictions that discourage “inquiring into the immigration status of a person under lawful detention or arrest.” Abbott has also called for the power to remove locally elected officials if they don’t comply.

Mr. Trump signed an order last week to withdraw funding from sanctuary cities that decline to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. It didn’t specify what kind of money could be pulled. In California, San Francisco officials sued over the order, saying it was unconstitutional and an invasion of the city’s sovereignty.

The federal government cannot “put a gun to the head of localities,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said, arguing that the order violates states’ rights and the law.

Meanwhile, Cincinnati voted Wednesday to become a sanctuary city, with Councilman Wendell Young saying he would not make “a liar of the Statue of Liberty,” CBS affiliate WKRC reports.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sanctuary-city-austin-funding-greg-abbott-texas-governor/
 
I just like conservatives showing their hypocrite side when they yelled states rights for so long.

I think State legislatures should be the ones to kill sanctuary cities.

States rights argument is a moot point for illegal aliens and contraband that crosses state or international borders.
 
States rights argument is a moot point for illegal aliens and contraband that crosses state or international borders.

Not even worth responding to.
 
Back
Top