But honestly, I've never understood the whole sanctuary city concept. I've always been under the impression that immigration enforcement is under the sole jurisdiction of US Customs, via what used to be INS and what is now ICE--and not the local authorities. Thus to debate about it is kinda pointless.
But to play a little devil's advocate, say local gov'ts are allowed to merely inform the feds on a criminal's immigration status. Are there any reasons that a local gov't wouldn't want to do this?
But honestly, I've never understood the whole sanctuary city concept. I've always been under the impression that immigration enforcement is under the sole jurisdiction of US Customs, via what used to be INS and what is now ICE--and not the local authorities. Thus to debate about it is kinda pointless.
But to play a little devil's advocate, say local gov'ts are allowed to merely inform the feds on a criminal's immigration status. Are there any reasons that a local gov't wouldn't want to do this?
lol.
great minds think alike, I guess.
_________________ For your sake I hope heaven and hell are really there but I wouldn't hold my breath
Stupid Geraldo, this is what you get when far-left, liberal-loons, open-taliban border supporters, free-for-all wackos, kool-aid drinkers like you try to go one on one with "the best there is, the best there was and the best that ever will be," Bill O'Reilly.
Quote:
Suck on that you idiot dummy Liberals. In your dumb ugly faces hahahahahaha. Go cry in a hole or smoke-pot or whatever it is you people do to get over depression.
But honestly, I've never understood the whole sanctuary city concept. I've always been under the impression that immigration enforcement is under the sole jurisdiction of US Customs, via what used to be INS and what is now ICE--and not the local authorities. Thus to debate about it is kinda pointless.
But to play a little devil's advocate, say local gov'ts are allowed to merely inform the feds on a criminal's immigration status. Are there any reasons that a local gov't wouldn't want to do this?
Bill made a few decent points, but Geraldo won this debate. You can't make a direct connection between illegal immigration and drunk driving. Note that when Geraldo was again making the point that drunk driving has nothing to do with a person's immigration status, O'Reilly said it did because the illegal immigrant in question is "irresponsible." This is a bogus argument and Geraldo was right to call him out on the fact that there are hundreds of DUI fatalities each year but this is noteworthy only because it involved an illegal immigrant. I would have also asked O'Reilly if the story would have gotten covered the situation was reversed and the victims were illegal immigrants with the perpetrator being a naturalized citizen. I doubt it.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
I couldn't make it past about 1:15 of that video, but I certainly didn't see anything up to that point that would have prompted wingers to yap with glee like the poeple cono quoted above.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
But honestly, I've never understood the whole sanctuary city concept. I've always been under the impression that immigration enforcement is under the sole jurisdiction of US Customs, via what used to be INS and what is now ICE--and not the local authorities. Thus to debate about it is kinda pointless.
But to play a little devil's advocate, say local gov'ts are allowed to merely inform the feds on a criminal's immigration status. Are there any reasons that a local gov't wouldn't want to do this?
In regards to the question you raised....I'm friends with a cop where I live and we've discussed illegal immigration. He told me that he's received complaints about illegals "loitering" in front of home depots looking for work and when he turned to his sargeant about it he was told that ICE won't bother with it. He said they've done the "right" thing in the past and informed ICE but they don't make rounding up a few guys standing in front of a Home Depot a priority, so they don't bother calling them anymore. They will, however, if a person commits a serious crime and his citizenship comes into question, but again lots of times ICE won't bother with it.
So this does add some validity to O'Reilly's argument, but in the end he is wrong to conflate immigration status with drunk driving.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
LeninFlux wrote:
Bill made a few decent points, but Geraldo won this debate. You can't make a direct connection between illegal immigration and drunk driving. Note that when Geraldo was again making the point that drunk driving has nothing to do with a person's immigration status, O'Reilly said it did because the illegal immigrant in question is "irresponsible." This is a bogus argument and Geraldo was right to call him out on the fact that there are hundreds of DUI fatalities each year but this is noteworthy only because it involved an illegal immigrant. I would have also asked O'Reilly if the story would have gotten covered the situation was reversed and the victims were illegal immigrants with the perpetrator being a naturalized citizen. I doubt it.
Well, what got O'Reilly so steamed to start off this whole thing was the "sanctuary city" concept he talked about right before the Geraldo part:
The incidents all took place in and around Virginia Beach, which is a sanctuary city. That means the authorities do not report criminal illegal aliens to the feds, unless it's a drastic situation.
[...]
"Talking Points" says, enough is enough. President Bush should warn all the sanctuary cities, which we have listed on billoreilly.com, that, if they continue to disobey federal law, their law enforcement federal grants will be cut off. That should happen today, Mr. President.
Secondly, the good people of Virginia Beach should immediately begin a recall process for Mayor Oberndorf. It's obvious she doesn't know what's going on.
And, by the way, the mayor has refused to come on “The Factorâ€, and was called a number of times, despite her saying the opposite. She was called. We can prove it.
And the bottom line on this is that all Americans have a right to protection from irresponsible people. The Founders created government to provide that protection. But our governments generally have bowed to political correctness and are failing to protect us.
We are going to make Virginia Beach the flash point in stopping the immigration madness. We hope astute media people like Kerry Daugherty of The Pilot down there will help us out. No more sanctuary cities, period.
And that's "The Memo."
=========
But like I said, the local gov'ts don't appear to have proper jurisdiction over illegal immigration, if I'm reading Wikipedia right. So I have no idea why O'Reilly's been so pissed at this for years.
But honestly, I've never understood the whole sanctuary city concept. I've always been under the impression that immigration enforcement is under the sole jurisdiction of US Customs, via what used to be INS and what is now ICE--and not the local authorities. Thus to debate about it is kinda pointless.
But to play a little devil's advocate, say local gov'ts are allowed to merely inform the feds on a criminal's immigration status. Are there any reasons that a local gov't wouldn't want to do this?
In regards to the question you raised....I'm friends with a cop where I live and we've discussed illegal immigration. He told me that he's received complaints about illegals "loitering" in front of home depots looking for work and when he turned to his sargeant about it he was told that ICE won't bother with it. He said they've done the "right" thing in the past and informed ICE but they don't make rounding up a few guys standing in front of a Home Depot a priority, so they don't bother calling them anymore. They will, however, if a person commits a serious crime and his citizenship comes into question, but again lots of times ICE won't bother with it. So this does add some validity to O'Reilly's argument, but in the end he is wrong to conflate immigration status with drunk driving.
Well, that's ICE being lazy, but O'Reilly's anger is directed at the local authorities for having a policy on not contacting the feds, when I think he may not be aware that the locals might not be allowed to do so. If anything, he should then be yelling at the feds (which he has done), but he doesn't seem to have a point on the sanctuary city thing.
(cue reply of "O'Reilly doesn't seem to have a point on anything" comment )
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
o rly wrote:
And the bottom line on this is that all Americans have a right to protection from irresponsible people. The Founders created government to provide that protection. But our governments generally have bowed to political correctness and are failing to protect us.
Not a true statement in there.
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
But honestly, I've never understood the whole sanctuary city concept. I've always been under the impression that immigration enforcement is under the sole jurisdiction of US Customs, via what used to be INS and what is now ICE--and not the local authorities. Thus to debate about it is kinda pointless.
But to play a little devil's advocate, say local gov'ts are allowed to merely inform the feds on a criminal's immigration status. Are there any reasons that a local gov't wouldn't want to do this?
In regards to the question you raised....I'm friends with a cop where I live and we've discussed illegal immigration. He told me that he's received complaints about illegals "loitering" in front of home depots looking for work and when he turned to his sargeant about it he was told that ICE won't bother with it. He said they've done the "right" thing in the past and informed ICE but they don't make rounding up a few guys standing in front of a Home Depot a priority, so they don't bother calling them anymore. They will, however, if a person commits a serious crime and his citizenship comes into question, but again lots of times ICE won't bother with it. So this does add some validity to O'Reilly's argument, but in the end he is wrong to conflate immigration status with drunk driving.
Well, that's ICE being lazy, but O'Reilly's anger is directed at the local authorities for having a policy on not contacting the feds, when I think he may not be aware that the locals might not be allowed to do so. If anything, he should then be yelling at the feds (which he has done), but he doesn't seem to have a point on the sanctuary city thing.
(cue reply of "O'Reilly doesn't seem to have a point on anything" comment )
Well, I can't speak for every locality in the country, but where I live there is no rule or law that says that local law enforcement is not allowed to contact ICE in the event of discovering that a person is in the country illegally.
That being said, I agree that the problem lies essentially with the Feds, not the local police (who have no authority to enforce immigration laws).
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
i'm not going to bother clicking- i'm actually watching something much more worthwhile on youtube right now- ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7Qk6rJIaD4 ) but surely this fuckwad would go away if we all followed the mantra of "just don't look, just don't look"
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
)
)
