KenDckey
Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/sanctuary-cities-shield-immigrants/2015/07/09/id/654155/
"These state and local jurisdictions have policies, laws, executive orders, or regulations allowing them to avoid cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement authorities," the center wrote in a July study.
"These [jurisdictions] 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."
San Francisco, for example, passed a law in 1989 called the City and County of Refuge ordinance. That legislation has for decades prohibited city employees from assisting federal immigration enforcement unless compelled by court order or state law, CNN reported.
Many sanctuary laws were passed in the 1980s, when many churches and other organizations sought to provide safe harbor to Mexican and Central American immigrants fleeing violence at home. In some cases, local jurisdictions took such measures when the federal government refused to grant some groups formal refugee status.
Those in favor of sanctuary laws argue that they encourage law-abiding immigrants to work with the police without fear of deportation, while opponents say they provide safe havens for criminals.
Special: An Extremely Brilliant Way to Pay Off Your Mortgage
Last week, an illegal immigrant, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, shot and killed San Francisco woman Kathryn Steinle, 32, as she was walking in public — a seemingly random killing. Lopez-Sanchez had a lengthy criminal history, and had been deported five times. Just this year, city police arrested him on drug charges. ICE wanted to take custody of him and deport him, issuing a detainer in March, however that was not honored by the city.
quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070
The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (introduced as Arizona Senate Bill 1070 and thus often referred to simply as Arizona SB 1070) is a 2010 legislative Act in the U.S. state of Arizona that at the time of passage in 2010 was the broadest and strictest anti-illegal immigration measure in a long time.[2] It has received national and international attention and has spurred considerable controversy.[3][4]
U.S. federal law requires all aliens over the age of 14 who remain in the United States for longer than 30 days[5] to register with the U.S. government,[6] and to have registration documents in their possession at all times; violation of this requirement is a federal misdemeanor crime.[7] The Arizona act additionally made it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents,[8] required that state law enforcement officers attempt to determine an individual's immigration status during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest", when there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal immigrant.[9][10] The law barred state or local officials or agencies from restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws,[11] and imposed penalties on those sheltering, hiring and transporting unregistered aliens.[12] The paragraph on intent in the legislation says it embodies an "attrition through enforcement" doctrine.[13][14]
Critics of the legislation say it encourages racial profiling, while supporters say the law prohibits the use of race as the sole basis for investigating immigration status.[15] The law was modified by Arizona House Bill 2162 within a week of its signing with the goal of addressing some of these concerns. There have been protests in opposition to the law in over 70 U.S. cities,[16] including boycotts and calls for boycotts of Arizona.[17] Polling has found the law to have majority support in Arizona and nationwide.[18][19][20][21] Passage of the measure has prompted other states to consider adopting similar legislation.[22]
The Act was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010.[2] It was scheduled to go into effect on July 29, 2010, ninety days after the end of the legislative session.[23][24] Legal challenges over its constitutionality and compliance with civil rights law were filed, including one by the United States Department of Justice, that also asked for an injunction against enforcement of the law.[25] The day before the law was to take effect, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that blocked the law's most controversial provisions.[26] In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the case Arizona v. United States, upholding the provision requiring immigration status checks during law enforcement stops but striking down three other provisions as violations of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.[27]
So when a state is incorrectly involved in immigration (SB 1170) because of the supremacy clause and a city violates the supremacy clause, we should reward the city/area with federal funding. That is basically what I am hearing from some here. Oh, all those illegals who don't have documentation have commited a crime, a misdemeanor, but a crime no less. I just don't understand how it is good for one side to ignore federal mandates while the other side is attempting to enforce them for the fed and those attempting to enforce those federal laws are the only ones wrong.
|
RE: Defunding ‘Sanctuary Cities’ - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread