Texas bans Sanctuary Cities

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

https://archive.fo/Ph4xt

So a state has finally done the obvious and done what the Federal government should have done but refused to for reasons that can't possible be rationally explained: sanctuary cities have been banned within the state.

This rare case of a common sense law provides civil and criminal penalties in the form of $25,500 for each day the law is violated, as well as a class A misdemeanour charge for sheriffs, police chiefs and constables who fail to comply and removal from office for elected and appointed officials.

With the failure of a similar bill to be passed at the federal level due to slavers establishment politicos prioritising corporations over the people once again, it's nice to see that at least at the state level there are places where braking the law will lead to penalties instead of attention being turned elsewhere.

Didn't know Texas even had sanctuary cities to ban.

Aren't they more a feature of the Cool States For Cool People rather than Racist Jesus Land?

Zhukov:
Didn't know Texas even had sanctuary cities to ban.

Aren't they more a feature of the Cool States For Cool People rather than Racist Jesus Land?

The difference between city and rural area is far greater than between individual state. Austin is about as left leaning as los angeles.

Gotta love that they claim its all about "safety" but don't actually support that with anything (cause illegal immigrant have the exact same level of criminality than normal population).

As far as the new law, it'll probably be contested soon enough and will have to go in front of the supreme court at some point, see you next time. Interestingly enough, it's seems like the order specifically target city that call themselves sanctuary city... meaning they could just change the name of program and be totally okay.

Aren't "sanctuary" cities just cities where the cops have an unofficial policy to go for real crime instead of wasting time on illegals?

Meiam:

Zhukov:
cause illegal immigrant have the exact same level of criminality than normal population

I'm sorry, but even if we ignore the inherent criminality of illegal presence in the country and the fraud that goes along with that, that still isn't true.

As far as the new law, it'll probably be contested soon enough and will have to go in front of the supreme court at some point, see you next time.

I doubt that the Supreme Court would be insane enough to declare a law upholding existing laws and punishing illegal activity will somehow be unconstitutional.

Though then again with the outcome of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, anything's possible even if it's insane.[quote] Interestingly enough, it's seems like the order specifically target city that call themselves sanctuary city... meaning they could just change the name of program and be totally okay.

That's a pretty bad thing, having cities be allowed to continue to violate state and federal law at tax payers expense due to a loophole is something one would hope wouldn't be an issue.

Worgen:
Aren't "sanctuary" cities just cities where the cops have an unofficial policy to go for real crime instead of wasting time on illegals?

No, it's cities where criminals are permitted sanctuary because the local government never took a high school level or higher class about law. After all they are committing "real crime" since fraud and illegal entry is a real crime that has a cost both socially and monetarily, one only rich white democrats seem to be okay with.

What's odd is how specific support for such cities are. White liberals are the only demographic that do so, and not by a large enough margin for Democrats to support them by a majority. Though I suppose that since most Hispanic Democrats tent to be legal immigrants or their decedents and legal immigrants have historically hated illegals more then native borns do, that might be a factor.

Zontar:

Worgen:
Aren't "sanctuary" cities just cities where the cops have an unofficial policy to go for real crime instead of wasting time on illegals?

No, it's cities where criminals are permitted sanctuary because the local government never took a high school level or higher class about law. After all they are committing "real crime" since fraud and illegal entry is a real crime that has a cost both socially and monetarily, one only rich white democrats seem to be okay with.

What's odd is how specific support for such cities are. White liberals are the only demographic that do so, and not by a large enough margin for Democrats to support them by a majority. Though I suppose that since most Hispanic Democrats tent to be legal immigrants or their decedents and legal immigrants have historically hated illegals more then native borns do, that might be a factor.

Can anyone else explain this considering that zontar is anything but an unbiased source.

Worgen:

Zontar:

Worgen:
Aren't "sanctuary" cities just cities where the cops have an unofficial policy to go for real crime instead of wasting time on illegals?

No, it's cities where criminals are permitted sanctuary because the local government never took a high school level or higher class about law. After all they are committing "real crime" since fraud and illegal entry is a real crime that has a cost both socially and monetarily, one only rich white democrats seem to be okay with.

What's odd is how specific support for such cities are. White liberals are the only demographic that do so, and not by a large enough margin for Democrats to support them by a majority. Though I suppose that since most Hispanic Democrats tent to be legal immigrants or their decedents and legal immigrants have historically hated illegals more then native borns do, that might be a factor.

Can anyone else explain this considering that zontar is anything but an unbiased source.

You asked a loaded question, and my point was that yes, they are criminals, they are inherently criminals, that's how it works.

They have no right to be there, their being tolerated is an insult to the tens of millions who went through the process or are going through the process, tolerating them insentivises others to do the same, and municipal governments who do such policies are explicitly violating the law.

Honestly up here while the cancer of sanctuary cities is starting to spread to us, our two major metropolitan areas had recent governments collapse (with high profile arrests for one of them) over less then conspiracy and fraud.

Won't hear me say this often, but I'm with Zon on this. There's no excuse for these setups whatsoever.

Zontar:

Worgen:

Zontar:

No, it's cities where criminals are permitted sanctuary because the local government never took a high school level or higher class about law. After all they are committing "real crime" since fraud and illegal entry is a real crime that has a cost both socially and monetarily, one only rich white democrats seem to be okay with.

What's odd is how specific support for such cities are. White liberals are the only demographic that do so, and not by a large enough margin for Democrats to support them by a majority. Though I suppose that since most Hispanic Democrats tent to be legal immigrants or their decedents and legal immigrants have historically hated illegals more then native borns do, that might be a factor.

Can anyone else explain this considering that zontar is anything but an unbiased source.

You asked a loaded question, and my point was that yes, they are criminals, they are inherently criminals, that's how it works.

They have no right to be there, their being tolerated is an insult to the tens of millions who went through the process or are going through the process, tolerating them insentivises others to do the same, and municipal governments who do such policies are explicitly violating the law.

Honestly up here while the cancer of sanctuary cities is starting to spread to us, our two major metropolitan areas had recent governments collapse (with high profile arrests for one of them) over less then conspiracy and fraud.

You are a loaded answer which means that anything you say is suspect and extremely biased in one direction. You used a lot of words to say nothing also.

Worgen:

Can anyone else explain this considering that zontar is anything but an unbiased source.

A sanctuary city is a city that does not deport illegal immigrants unless there's a criminal record significant enough to warrant investing the time, energy, and money to go through the process of deportation.

See, deportation isn't just a matter of loading people onto a bus and dropping them off on the other side of the border. It's an entire legal process that has to go through a court and result in a judge deciding that deportation is warranted. And because judges are empowered to use discretion in their rulings (which is of course the point, they judge whether and to what extent the law may have been broken and what the appropriate remedy is), they are allowed to decide that deportation may not be warranted.

The same is true of law enforcement departments and even individual police officers. Police departments have finite resources and manpower and they have to decide how to best allocate those resources with the ultimate goal of protecting the community. Therefore they are allowed to decide that deporting Mexicans for utterly trivial violations isn't worth the time, the energy, or the potential harm to the community compared to the other things that police in a major city have to deal with.

So with that in mind, I find that there is an interesting dissonance in Zontar's position here. Zontar, how do you feel about the federal government penalizing colleges and universities for failing to comply with Title IX and affirmative action programs? After all, those are the law too.

What renegade7 said.

Though, with Trump in office, I feel it's important to mention just how many detainion facilities are privately owned and use their immigrant detainees as a source of, well, modern slave labor.

Hell, there's currently a class-action lawsuit winding its way through the courts about a private Colorado facility coercing inmates to work for a dollar a day under threat of solitary confinement: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2017/0301/Forced-to-work-60-000-undocumented-immigrants-may-sue-detention-center

Basically, private prisons are huge money-makers, and a crackdown on "illegal" immigrants who're otherwise not breaking any other laws has certain CEOs salivating.

Worgen:
Can anyone else explain this considering that zontar is anything but an unbiased source.

As Renegade7 says, the idea is that resources within law enforcement and the judicial system can be better used to pursue more serious crimes and not get bogged down in lengthy immigration cases. The idea behind a Sanctuary City is essentially one of fiscal responsibility mixed with some sort of humanistic idea. If the illegal immigrants don't cause trouble they are free to stay and do what they want, the police can be at hand for serious crime instead of hauling off illegal immigrants and judges can focus on important cases instead of drowning in deportation cases.

renegade7:

So with that in mind, I find that there is an interesting dissonance in Zontar's position here. Zontar, how do you feel about the federal government penalizing colleges and universities for failing to comply with Title IX and affirmative action programs? After all, those are the law too.

In the case of Title IX, I don't see how them not following it wouldn't be an issue when the real issue regarding it is how many universities are interpreting it. Follow the law as it was written and intended, that's not a problem. Problem is many places don't.

As for affirmative action, again so long as the laws are actually being followed then there's no problem. But again the problem arises that it isn't the case in a lot of places. There's a reason why black and Hispanic students can get into a program with a lower score then a white one, while an Asian one needs a higher score to do the same. While affirmative action is used as the justification, there's nothing in the law, at least at the federal level (could be some screw ups at the state level) that can be used to justify this, an in fact anti-discrimination laws make these at best legally questionable.

altnameJag:

Basically, private prisons are huge money-makers, and a crackdown on "illegal" immigrants who're otherwise not breaking any other laws has certain CEOs salivating.

You know what wouldn't cause this to be a problem? If the illegal immigrants who should be deported where actually deported.

Gethsemani:
If the illegal immigrants don't cause trouble they are free to stay and do what they want, the police can be at hand for serious crime instead of hauling off illegal immigrants and judges can focus on important cases instead of drowning in deportation cases.

I'm pretty sure fraud, which is practically an inherent crime for illegals, is very much "important" to combat. And as someone who's working class I don't appreciate the fact my kin are considered too unimportant to have our problems dealt with in the form of having to effectively pay a tax to have people who are almost entirely net-drains on the state be tolerated in the form of direct costs of tax dollars and indirect cost of depreciated wages.

Zontar:
You know what wouldn't cause this to be a problem? If the illegal immigrants who should be deported where actually deported.

As usual, I'm genuinely confused by your position and what exactly your problem here is supposed to be (beyond some alleged concern for people who go through the immigration process).

Are you concerned about financial cost? Because deporting people is extremely expensive, and making sure they stay deported is even more expensive. If you're worried about tax dollars, it's far far cheaper to just imprison people (and even cheaper to just ignore them).

Are you concerned about crime (as in actual crime) because yeah, again, there's no evidence that's affected.

Once again, this just seems to be something that's bad because it's bad (because someone on the internet says it's bad, and the internet never lies).

Zontar:

altnameJag:

Basically, private prisons are huge money-makers, and a crackdown on "illegal" immigrants who're otherwise not breaking any other laws has certain CEOs salivating.

You know what wouldn't cause this to be a problem? If the illegal immigrants who should be deported where actually deported.

...do you not know what a detention center does? There are logistics involved with deporting people, not least of which is determining what country they go back to and whether or not they have an actual right to stay. You do know that anybody in the United States, citizen or not, has the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. It's one of those niggling little things called "principles". https://maldef.org/truthinimmigration/undocumented_immigrants_do_have_legal3192008/index.html

It's also very important to note that "unlawful presence", aka, overstaying your visa and the other most common forms of illegal immigration, isn't a criminal offense. It's a civil one, and an undocumented immigrant has just as much a constitutional right to tell an ICE agent asking for papers on the street to fuck off as I do. I mean, theoretically. I can get away with it, as I speak English and pass the paper bag test.

evilthecat:

As usual, I'm genuinely confused by your position and what exactly your problem here is supposed to be (beyond some alleged concern for people who go through the immigration process).

I\m concerned about the fact that wages are depreciated, which does cost the government more then the cost of dealing with the problem since the lost tax revenue is pretty much assured to be higher then the cost of dealing with the problem.

Are you concerned about financial cost? Because deporting people is extremely expensive, and making sure they stay deported is even more expensive. If you're worried about tax dollars, it's far far cheaper to just imprison people (and even cheaper to just ignore them).

Given how they cost the government at all levels about 100 billion each year, and the fact that Trump's wall, which is estimated to be able to cut that by about 50-60% depending on the source, will cost at most 30 billion, solving the problem can be solved properly and at a lower cost then what's being spend now without the need to resort to effectively unlimited immigration, which is basically what is being advocated for in practice (if maybe not in spirit) by those who want them to be allowed to stay.

Are you concerned about crime (as in actual crime) because yeah, again, there's no evidence that's affected.

Fraud is "actual crime", as is identity theft, which is another very common crime amongst illegals. Thought the fact most are effectively stealing money from the poor through both direct and indirect costs makes this issue one that's laughably easy to frame as one of class warfare for a good reason.

Once again, this just seems to be something that's bad because it's bad (because someone on the internet says it's bad, and the internet never lies).

Illegal immigration is many things, but even ignoring the inherent illegality of it (an argument you need to stop trying to fight, no one will ever be swayed by it, you either already agree with it or you don't and won't, brining it up waste both people's time) it's also inherently immoral. Think about it, despite America's ludicrously high number of people it allows to immigrate to it each year, and with the standards set, the waiting list, if you aren't bumped by a labour shortage in your field or marriage, is 10 years. 10 years. A decade. As in most people immigrating to the US today applied before the Great Recession. And for all these people, implying that those who just showed up should be allowed to stay is a slap in the face. Hell, most of those who enter illegally wouldn't even be allowed to immigrat legally because of the fact there are standards and the long waiting line will turn many others off.

Honestly unless you're willing to dramatically increase immigration levels to where the waiting list is only about a year or two long, and then increase it again to deal with the lowering of standards to allow them in, as well as others who will now try and move in due to standards being lowered and waiting time cut, well at that point it gets to the point of why not just advocate increasing the number of legal immigrants by about 10 or 20? I mean sure, no one in their right mind would do that, but it's also the only way to make it fair for legal immigrants that you'd accept people who only showed up as their prerequisite for moving to the country.

Sure, you could argue that there's no way to make it "fair" for everyone, but then if you have to pick and choose it's hard to argue why people who are inherently criminals by definition should be prioritised for "fairness" instead of people who by comparison are actually showing that they're willing to dedicate effort into being productive members of society. I'm saying this as a guy who doesn't like immigration in general (since it's basically a 5% tax on me if my union rep is being honest) but even for workers better legal immigration then illegal immigration. Legal immigrants can only depreciate your wage so much by comparison.

Meiam:

Gotta love that they claim its all about "safety" but don't actually support that with anything (cause illegal immigrant have the exact same level of criminality than normal population).

Is it though? You have a population that is unregistered and is probably deported when caught by police rather than taken to trial (not to mention people in it complaining to the police when a crime is done to them) and a lot of minor crimes in general are not investigated. I know there are charts about legal immigrants (which are also kinda puzzling but that's besides the point) but nothing I've seen about illegal ones. The only stats I've seen is amount of immigrants vs. amount of crimes which is very much "Correlation does not imply causation".

altnameJag:
[
You know what wouldn't cause this to be a problem? If the illegal immigrants who should be deported where actually deported.

...do you not know what a detention center does? There are logistics involved with deporting people, not least of which is determining what country they go back to and whether or not they have an actual right to stay. You do know that anybody in the United States, citizen or not, has the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. It's one of those niggling little things called "principles". https://maldef.org/truthinimmigration/undocumented_immigrants_do_have_legal3192008/index.html
[/quote]So your system is so overwhemled with how many people are committing this crime that this is a problem?

Well then, better get working on that wall.

It's also very important to note that "unlawful presence", aka, overstaying your visa and the other most common forms of illegal immigration, isn't a criminal offense. It's a civil one, and an undocumented immigrant has just as much a constitutional right to tell an ICE agent asking for papers on the street to fuck off as I do. I mean, theoretically. I can get away with it, as I speak English and pass the paper bag test.

Actually if there is reasonable cause they can ask for papers, just as any other form of law enforcement can do the same.

Though it is funny how there are activists who have tried to spread misinformation about the rights of illegals if an ICE agent comes to their home to arrest them. While it's well intentionned, some of the things stated will only have more charges added, and one of them will even potentially get you killed.

Zontar:
That's a pretty bad thing, having cities be allowed to continue to violate state and federal law at tax payers expense due to a loophole is something one would hope wouldn't be an issue.

It'd be a lot more expensive if they did start enforcing these laws. It would necessitate holding very large numbers of suspected illegal immigrants in detention until ICE can come round and deport them. Not to mention the negative impact that'll have on the businesses who employ those illegal immigrants. Or how it'll impact the willingness of immigrant communities to work with the police; an immigrant isn't going to report a crime to the cops if they think it'll end up with them being deported.

Plus, y'know, it's actually unconstitutional for the White House to try and coerce states agencies into enforcing federal laws, as Trump tried to do with his executive orders and threats of withholding federal funding. But that doesn't apply here specifically, because it's the state itself instituting the ban.

Worgen:
Aren't "sanctuary" cities just cities where the cops have an unofficial policy to go for real crime instead of wasting time on illegals?

Yes.

People often forget that all police have a broad discretionary power to not charge people with a crime when they think it's a waste of time to do so.

I have no sympathy for illegals. A friend of mine was raped by a man who had previously been deported 2 times and came back in and was residing in one of these Sanctuary cities. If you're here illegally, GET OUT.

So in other words, Texas is just being Texas, as usual? I mean, seems like it'd be a bit inefficient and waste a huge amount of money expending police resources chasing people down who haven't actually committed a crime, but whatever, the more I learn about America the more I find out that inefficiency seems to be the word of the day, everyday.

Rayne360:
I have no sympathy for illegals. A friend of mine was raped by a man who had previously been deported 2 times and came back in and was residing in one of these Sanctuary cities. If you're here illegally, GET OUT.

That's incredibly bad logic. "I was harmed by member of a group, so I hate them all."

Zontar:
Honestly up here while the cancer of sanctuary cities is starting to spread to us, our two major metropolitan areas had recent governments collapse (with high profile arrests for one of them) over less then conspiracy and fraud.

That is a pretty big claim, do you have sources on this?

So is this going to actually solve anything? Make the country better in anyway? Because it isn't saving us money and it isn't reducing the crime rate. It'd be nice if the Republicans in this country actually did something to make the country better, instead of going "fuck this group of people." They're still desperately trying to make LGBT people their punching bag in some states, and now this.

Also, Trump's wall would cut illegal immigration by 50-60%? Yeah. No. Considering around half of the illegal immigrants in this country came her on legal visas and then overstayed, in order for that to be accurate, the wall would have to stop literally every other immigrant from coming to this country illegally, and I think we already know that won't happen. Where did you get that figure exactly?

Rayne360:
I have no sympathy for illegals. A friend of mine was raped by a man who had previously been deported 2 times and came back in and was residing in one of these Sanctuary cities. If you're here illegally, GET OUT.

Jill Meagher was murdered by a serial rapist who had been let out on parole despite having committed a dozen or so major sexual offences. She was literally hauled into an alleyway in Brunswick, raped, and then strangled, right in the middle of Melbourne. Just a few minutes from her house. The killer was the whitest person possible.

Immigrants don't have a monopoly on heinous crimes, and no larger category of person can be conclusively judged by the actions of a small percentage of individuals. Going by this picture, I could conclude that white men are the most dangerous criminals in Australia. But that isn't true. In any given group of people, a certain percentage are assholes. In any given group of assholes, a certain percentage are rapists and murderers. Some of them are in the US border patrol.

Should I judge the entire US border patrol by the acts of an individual? Should I judge the entire white population of Australia by the acts of an individual? Should you judge the entire immigrant population of the US by the acts of an individual? No. No, and no.

Zontar shouldn't have to worry about sanctuary cities in Canada

I'm sure they're just staging areas for mass starlight tours

erttheking:
So is this going to actually solve anything? Make the country better in anyway? Because it isn't saving us money and it isn't reducing the crime rate. It'd be nice if the Republicans in this country actually did something to make the country better, instead of going "fuck this group of people." They're still desperately trying to make LGBT people their punching bag in some states, and now this.

Also, Trump's wall would cut illegal immigration by 50-60%? Yeah. No. Considering around half of the illegal immigrants in this country came her on legal visas and then overstayed, in order for that to be accurate, the wall would have to stop literally every other immigrant from coming to this country illegally, and I think we already know that won't happen. Where did you get that figure exactly?

it's not about actually doing anything effective or smart. it's about sending a message or making a gesture. banning sanctuary cities is to the average dumb idiot that voted republican something that will help the police deport more people since "them illigals can't hide dere no more". basically it's just politicians doing to old smoke and mirrors to look better in the eyes of their voters

Man, think about all that untapped free labour with far less assumed connections to society for anybody to care enough about them. It's a fucking goldmine for profit margins. Just keep convincing the public that they're the untrustworthy enemy and we'll be rolling in it!

Xsjadoblayde:
Man, think about all that untapped free labour with far less assumed connections to society for anybody to care enough about them. It's a fucking goldmine for profit margins. Just keep convincing the public that they're the untrustworthy enemy and we'll be rolling in it!

And yet it's the places that accept them that are effectively the modern day slave states.

Funny how that worked out in practice when compared to the intent.

undeadsuitor:
Zontar shouldn't have to worry about sanctuary cities in Canada

Our two largest cities have adopted that cancerous belief (despite the fact we're even more overwhelmingly "deport them on sight" then the US since not even white liberals oppose it) so with the combination of The Bastard removing the need for a travel visa from Mexico, and the fact that this year has seen a large upturn in illegal border crossings, the problem is spreading here because you people refuse to fix it.

America fixing its illegal immigration problem would go a long way to fixing our own.

Lilani:

Zontar:
Honestly up here while the cancer of sanctuary cities is starting to spread to us, our two major metropolitan areas had recent governments collapse (with high profile arrests for one of them) over less then conspiracy and fraud.

That is a pretty big claim, do you have sources on this?

Of what, Toronto and Montreal being sanctuary cities now, or the arrests that came about as a result of the Charbonneau Commission?

Zontar:

Though it is funny how there are activists who have tried to spread misinformation about the rights of illegals if an ICE agent comes to their home to arrest them. While it's well intentionned, some of the things stated will only have more charges added, and one of them will even potentially get you killed.

The 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution apply to everybody within the borders of the United States of America, as confirmed by the Supreme Court. https://www.aclu.org/files/kyr/kyr_english_4.pdf

That includes protections against unwarranted search and seizure.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here