Search This Blog

August 2, 2017

ICE to consider charging sanctuary city leaders with smuggling! 1-150

  1. Boards
  2. Current Events
  3. ICE to consider charging sanctuary city leaders with smuggling!!
--kresnik-- 1 day ago#1
BillyKidd 1 day ago#2
Well, aiding and abetting is a crime.
Tho I walk through the valley of death, I shall fear no evil. For I'm the meanest mofo in the whole f'n valley
http://i.imgur.com/4GzX1.jpg
--kresnik-- 1 day ago#3
Very true. I think their actions are treasonous.
Trump 2020
(edited 1 day ago)reportquote
s0nicfan 1 day ago#5
Kind of a fair, next. You can disagree with federal laws, but as a government official actively declaring that your city is just sort of arbitrarily going to ignore specific ones is just bad practice.
"History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz
Tezlok 1 day ago#6
Good. I'd like to see the mayors go to prison
Sir Will 1 day ago#7
Yeah gl with that.
River Song: Well, I was off to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled when I thought 'Gosh, the Third Reich's a bit rubbish, I think i'll kill the Fuhrer'
I mean it is aiding and abetting
ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya
ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya
--kresnik-- 1 day ago#9
I'm glad to see you guys agree that these people should be punished. They are actually drawing more attention to their illegal population by making such a fuss. Meanwhile, ICE is probably getting ready to strike. 

We cannot have this treasonous, mutinous level of dissent in our government.
Trump 2020
OrtegaTron 1 day ago#10
People that are opposed to this don't realize they are taking an ideological stance similar to the confederacy, states rights over federal law, which was the basis of the rebellion that led to the civil war.
The red flag is false hope
Tezlok posted...
Good. I'd like to see the mayors go to prison

And the police chiefs and the city councils and any other public officials thumbing their nose at the law.

And if CA becomes a sanctuary state then I hope they lead Brown away in cuffs too. God I would record that and play it over and over again.
FFVII Remake: A disaster in the making.
I'll laugh at whatever I find funny whether you like it or not.
(edited 1 day ago)reportquote
--kresnik-- 1 day ago#12
These people are acting like Trump was the first president to declare illegal immigration a crime. They are committing crimes by allowing so many immigrants to skip the legal process. Why? No other reason than to be defiant.
Trump 2020
JE19426 1 day ago#13
--kresnik-- posted...
They are committing crimes by allowing so many immigrants to skip the legal process.


How so?
Asherlee10 1 day ago#14
I'll take devil's advocate here.

Sanctuary Cities - a city that limits its cooperation with the national government effort to enforce immigration law. 

- Supporters of sanctuary cities argue that enforcement of federal law is not the duty of localities. Legal opinions vary on whether immigration enforcement by local police is constitutional.
- Crime is not increased in Sanctuary Cities: A 2017 study found that sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime.The findings of the study were misinterpreted by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a July 2017 speech when he claims that the study showed that sanctuary cities were more prone to crime than cities without sanctuary policies.
- Another study also concluded that sanctuary cities build trust between local law enforcement and the community, which enhances public safety overall.[49] The study evaluated sanctuary and non-sanctuary cities while controlling for differences in population, the foreign-born percentage of the population, and the percentage of the population that is Latino."

---
Questions
1. Is it not better to gather illegal immigrants into one location, contained? At that point we might could push them onto the track of legal immigration
2. Is it truly the responsibility of local authorities to police on a federal level?
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."
OrtegaTron 1 day ago#15
Asherlee10 posted...
1. Is it not better to gather illegal immigrants into one location, contained? At that point we might could push them onto the track of legal immigration

They don't do that though. They just sign up for welfare and live off the county. 

Asherlee10 posted...
2. Is it truly the responsibility of local authorities to police on a federal level?

Most police officers swear an oath that includes upholding the constitution. This means following federal law as well as state and local.
The red flag is false hope
--kresnik-- 1 day ago#16
JE19426 posted...
--kresnik-- posted...
They are committing crimes by allowing so many immigrants to skip the legal process.


How so?

There's a legal process, and whether people like it or not, being in this country illegally is a crime. Therefore, the cities are harboring criminals while specifically doing so to defy an order of the president. 

They are screwing over so many people who tried to immigrate legally and since we've defined illegal aliens as criminals, they are subjecting their citizens to living amongst them. 

We get it; you guys like trump.
Trump 2020
(edited 1 day ago)reportquote
JE19426 1 day ago#17
OrtegaTron posted...
Most police officers swear an oath that includes upholding the constitution. This means following federal law as well as state and local.


There's a difference between following the law, and enforcing the law.

--kresnik-- posted...
Therefore, the cities are harboring criminals while specifically doing so to defy an order of the president.

And that's a crime how?
--kresnik-- 1 day ago#18
Harboring criminals is illegal.
Trump 2020
OrtegaTron 1 day ago#19
JE19426 posted...
There's a difference between following the law, and enforcing the law.

As a police officer, their job is to enforce the law.
The red flag is false hope
And guees what Sanctuary Cities have their own police force, so they run the risk of breaking Sanctuary City Law.
#NotMyPresident #JusticeDemocrats #PathOfExile #WolfPAC #Bitcoin
#WeAre12 #12thMan #Seahawks #Belieber #UBI #PokemonGo #twitterfriends #MMA #PopularHashtags
OrtegaTron posted...
Asherlee10 posted...
1. Is it not better to gather illegal immigrants into one location, contained? At that point we might could push them onto the track of legal immigration

They don't do that though. They just sign up for welfare and live off the county. 

Asherlee10 posted...
2. Is it truly the responsibility of local authorities to police on a federal level?

Most police officers swear an oath that includes upholding the constitution. This means following federal law as well as state and local.


Citation needed about welfare
JE19426 1 day ago#22
--kresnik-- posted...
Harboring criminals is illegal.


Even when there's no warrant out for there arrest? Which law does that violate?

OrtegaTron posted...
As a police officer, their job is to enforce the law.


Yes, state law not Federal law.
Sir Will posted...
Yeah gl with that.
No one gets in the way of my frisbee games! NO ONE!
--kresnik-- posted...
They are screwing over so many people who tried to immigrate legally and since we've defined illegal aliens as criminals, they are subjecting their citizens to living amongst them.


Legal Immigrants have to live with them? Since when?
OrtegaTron 1 day ago#25
JE19426 posted...
As a police officer, their job is to enforce the law.

Yes, state law not Federal law.


The oath says the constitution specifically. You're either dense or trolling.
The red flag is false hope
Blue_Inigo 1 day ago#26
Talk like TC's sure is similar to the people who were hating on abolitionists
"This is your last dance."
--kresnik-- 1 day ago#27
Look, man. You break the law and you're a criminal. You can't interpreter it any other way. Being here undocumented is a crime, and for good reason.
Trump 2020
--kresnik-- 1 day ago#28
Blue_Inigo posted...
Talk like TC's sure is similar to the people who were hating on abolitionists


Oh, here we go...
Trump 2020
JE19426 1 day ago#29
OrtegaTron posted...
The oath says the constitution specifically.


And?
OrtegaTron 1 day ago#30
JE19426 posted...
OrtegaTron posted...
The oath says the constitution specifically.


And?

Connect the dots. I can't critically think for you. Sorry, that may be beyond your capability. Reading comprehension and all.
The red flag is false hope
JE19426 1 day ago#31
OrtegaTron posted...
Connect the dots. I can't critically think for you. Sorry, that may be beyond your capability. Reading comprehension and all.


2/10 trolling. Make it less obvious you are trolling in future.
OrtegaTron 1 day ago#32
JE19426 posted...
OrtegaTron posted...
Connect the dots. I can't critically think for you. Sorry, that may be beyond your capability. Reading comprehension and all.


2/10 trolling. Make it less obvious you are trolling in future.

I'm calling out your poor reading comprehension. This just solidifies my point.
The red flag is false hope
JE19426 1 day ago#33
OrtegaTron posted...
I'm calling out your poor reading comprehension. This just solidifies my point.


Come on you troll better then this. Believe in yourself. Make it less obvious.
Asherlee10 1 day ago#34
OrtegaTron posted...
Asherlee10 posted...
1. Is it not better to gather illegal immigrants into one location, contained? At that point we might could push them onto the track of legal immigration

They don't do that though. They just sign up for welfare and live off the county. 

Asherlee10 posted...
2. Is it truly the responsibility of local authorities to police on a federal level?

Most police officers swear an oath that includes upholding the constitution. This means following federal law as well as state and local.


1. Do you have a source that they sign up for welfare?

2. Follow != enforce though.
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."
lmao wasting money attacking sanctuary cities (which have lower crime rates) is always going to be ridiculous, asking local and state officers to enforce federal law will always be ridiculous, and people who get excited over f***ing with sanctuary cities will always sound ridiculous
Support local music.
But not if it sucks.
gunplagirl 1 day ago#36
Smuggling entails intent and willfully harboring whatever.

Those charges will never see the light of day.
Pokemon Moon FC: 1994-2190-5020
IGN: Vanessa
Put those sanctuary leaders in prison. They will not stop, if there are no consequences. It's a human nature thing.
...
Balrog0 1 day ago#38
s0nicfan posted...
Kind of a fair, next. You can disagree with federal laws, but as a government official actively declaring that your city is just sort of arbitrarily going to ignore specific ones is just bad practice.


asherlee kind of covered this, but the issue is the extent to which federal authorities can force police to do their bidding

for instance, I don't think most people would be okay with the federal government forcing local police to raid marijuana dispensaries and then charging state and local government with money laundering and drug charges. But you could use the same logic to say that they should.
He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.
Balrog0 1 day ago#39
the drug thing is actually much more egregious, because local authorities usually just ignore immigration status as part of sanctuary policies, whereas with pot you need to get actual authority to do a thing from a governing body
He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.
Sage JJ 1 day ago#40
JE19426 posted...
OrtegaTron posted...
Most police officers swear an oath that includes upholding the constitution. This means following federal law as well as state and local.


There's a difference between following the law, and enforcing the law.


But there is no difference between enforcing the law and following it. You have to follow the law to enforce it
First, undocumented presence isn't a crime. Even illegal entry is a misdemeanor. Second, nothing these leaders are doing fits any reasonable definition of the felony of human smuggling. So you guys are fine with elected officials being jailed for crimes they did not commit because of your political opposition to them?
AIDSbeam 1 day ago#42
legendary_zell posted...
First, undocumented presence isn't a crime. Even illegal entry is a misdemeanor. Second, nothing these leaders are doing fits any reasonable definition of the felony of human smuggling. So you guys are fine with elected officials being jailed for crimes they did not commit because of your political opposition to them?


Of course they are. Racists will go to whatever lengths they must to punish non-white people and white people aiding them.
s0nicfan posted...
Kind of a fair, next. You can disagree with federal laws, but as a government official actively declaring that your city is just sort of arbitrarily going to ignore specific ones is just bad practice.


"We republicans believe in small government except when small government tries to help brown people."
Asherlee10 1 day ago#45
sktgamer_13dude posted...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/numbers-usa/


Dang...
"Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."
s0nicfan 1 day ago#46
Asherlee10 posted...
sktgamer_13dude posted...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/numbers-usa/


Dang...


That puts them roughly equivalent on the right to CNN on the left:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/
"History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz
s0nicfan 1 day ago#47
ChromaticAngel posted...
s0nicfan posted...
Kind of a fair, next. You can disagree with federal laws, but as a government official actively declaring that your city is just sort of arbitrarily going to ignore specific ones is just bad practice.


"We republicans believe in small government except when small government tries to help brown people."


"We democrats believe in large government except when large government tries to enforce laws"

See, I can do it too.
"History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz
s0nicfan posted...
ChromaticAngel posted...
s0nicfan posted...
Kind of a fair, next. You can disagree with federal laws, but as a government official actively declaring that your city is just sort of arbitrarily going to ignore specific ones is just bad practice.


"We republicans believe in small government except when small government tries to help brown people."


"We democrats believe in large government except when large government tries to enforce laws"

See, I can do it too.


Difference here is democrats try to change the laws of big government where as republicans overrule small government with big government when it fits them better.
s0nicfan 1 day ago#49
ChromaticAngel posted...

Difference here is democrats try to change the laws of big government where as republicans overrule small government with big government when it fits them better.


And when democrats change the laws of big government do they expect local government to follow them? Should southern states arbitrarily ignore trans rights, or gay rights, or abortion rights, simply because they don't personally agree with them?

The law is the law, and if you don't like the law you make new laws or remove old ones. You don't just arbitrarily skip the ones you don't like, and that applies to all parties.
"History Is Much Like An Endless Waltz. The Three Beats Of War, Peace And Revolution Continue On Forever." - Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz
(edited 1 day ago)reportquote
Gojak_v3 1 day ago#50
ChromaticAngel posted...
s0nicfan posted...
Kind of a fair, next. You can disagree with federal laws, but as a government official actively declaring that your city is just sort of arbitrarily going to ignore specific ones is just bad practice.


"We republicans believe in small government except when small government tries to help brown people."


lol what a s*** post.

How about the United States is a nation of laws. Yeah doesn't really fit yer narrative does it.

I mean these are federal laws being willfully ignored. So I guess they should just throw their hands in the air and simply go oh well according to you.
(edited 1 day ago)reportquote
  1. Boards
  2. Current Events 
  3. ICE to consider charging sanctuary city leaders with smuggling!!
    1. Boards
    2. Current Events
    3. ICE to consider charging sanctuary city leaders with smuggling!!
    s0nicfan posted...
    And when democrats change the laws of big government do they expect local government to follow them? Should southern states arbitrarily ignore trans rights, or gay rights, or abortion rights, simply because they don't personally agree with them?

    Democrats aren't really in favor of small government doing whatever the f*** they want for the most part, so I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

    We think it's nice that Colorado legalized weed, but we actually want it to be federally legal.

    s0nicfan posted...
    The law is the law, and if you don't like the law you make new laws or remove old ones. You don't just arbitrarily skip the ones you don't like, and that applies to all parties.


    And democrats have been arguing for immigration reform. We're not ignoring them. We're trying to change federal government.
    I don't think people understand how sanctuary cities work...

    They're designed to protect the citizens. If you're an illegal immigrant and you witness a crime... Do you call the cops and risk deportation? Or do you look the other way and let it happen?

    If you're running a city and you find an increasing number of your crimes is going unreported, what's more important to you? The safety of your citizens or deportation laws?
    We are living in a world today where lemonade is made from artificial flavors and furniture polish is made from real lemons.
    Balrog0 1 day ago#53
    s0nicfan posted...
    And when democrats change the laws of big government do they expect local government to follow them? Should southern states arbitrarily ignore trans rights, or gay rights, or abortion rights, simply because they don't personally agree with them?


    I mean, southern states are constantly passing laws that limit and restrict abortion rights.

    The difference is that courts typically strike those down, while the sanctuary city issue is less clear constitutionally. 

    Oh, also, abortion restrictions that are de facto rather than de jure are fine (e.g., excessive regulations regarding the provision of abortions) which is pretty much how localities handle sanctuary policies.
    He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.
    Lordsai 1 day ago#54
    OrtegaTron posted...
    People that are opposed to this don't realize they are taking an ideological stance similar to the confederacy, states rights over federal law, which was the basis of the rebellion that led to the civil war.

    Actually the ideological stance of the confederacy was the ownership of human beings; not giving sanctuary to immigrants.
    No time to freeze undercovers ease up in Grand Prix,
    and seize packages and pocket the currency - GZA
    Balrog0 1 day ago#56
    Gojak_v3 posted...
    lol what a s*** post.

    How about the United States is a nation of laws. Yeah doesn't really fit yer narrative does it.

    I mean these are federal laws being willfully ignored. So I guess they should just throw their hands in the air and simply go oh well according to you.


    http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/files/1-medical-marijuana-images/29-medical-marijuana-states-map.png

    lots of work to do enforcing those federal laws
    He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.
    --kresnik-- 1 day ago#57
    legendary_zell posted...
    First, undocumented presence isn't a crime. Even illegal entry is a misdemeanor. Second, nothing these leaders are doing fits any reasonable definition of the felony of human smuggling. So you guys are fine with elected officials being jailed for crimes they did not commit because of your political opposition to them?


    No, it's a crime. 

    http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/crime-enter-illegally.html
    Trump 2020
    Gojak_v3 1 day ago#58
    Balrog0 posted...
    Gojak_v3 posted...
    lol what a s*** post.

    How about the United States is a nation of laws. Yeah doesn't really fit yer narrative does it.

    I mean these are federal laws being willfully ignored. So I guess they should just throw their hands in the air and simply go oh well according to you.


    http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/files/1-medical-marijuana-images/29-medical-marijuana-states-map.png

    lots of work to do enforcing those federal laws


    So ignore all federal laws then gotcha. Tell me, what do you think is a more pressing issue: Marijuana or immigration?
    Taxer 1 day ago#59
    CE is so f***ing stupid it hurts
    The Deadpool posted...

    They're designed to protect the citizens. If you're an illegal immigrant and you witness a crime... Do you call the cops and risk deportation? Or do you look the other way and let it happen?

    How about if an illegal immigrant commits a crime? Do these sanctuary cities call up ICE and deport them?

    No, of-f***ing-course they don't. Hence the problem.
    The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
    Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
    (edited 1 day ago)reportquote
    Balrog0 1 day ago#61
    Gojak_v3 posted...
    So ignore all federal laws then gotcha.


    haha, jesus christ conservatives really do have no principles at all.

    Gojak_v3 posted...
    Tell me, what do you think is a more pressing issue: Marijuana or immigration?


    what do you mean? we need more of both.
    He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.
    HypnoCoosh 1 day ago#62
    s0nicfan posted...
    Kind of a fair, next. You can disagree with federal laws, but as a government official actively declaring that your city is just sort of arbitrarily going to ignore specific ones is just bad practice.


    Obama did it so he set a precedence.
    We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. - C.S. Lewis
    Gojak_v3 1 day ago#63
    Balrog0 posted...
    Gojak_v3 posted...
    So ignore all federal laws then gotcha.


    haha, jesus christ conservatives really do have no principles at all.

    Gojak_v3 posted...
    Tell me, what do you think is a more pressing issue: Marijuana or immigration?


    what do you mean? we need more of both.


    This is what really hurts you. You go all s*** posting at time when you've demonstrated better. If you can't defend sanctuary cities then just ignore the topic.
    (edited 1 day ago)reportquote
    Balrog0 1 day ago#64
    Gojak_v3 posted...
    This is what really hurts you. You go all s*** posting at time when you've demonstrated better.


    I'm not s***posting, you are. Literally nothing I posted can be interpreted as "so ignore all federal laws," so if that's how we're going to proceed why on earth shouldn't I "s*** post"? 

    Gojak_v3 posted...
    If you can't defend sanctuary cities than just ignore the topic.


    But no one has formulated a response that attacks sanctuary cities ITT other than stupid strawman posts like yours that couch it in terms of being law-abiding. The logical conclusion of your own argument -- which is that we should follow all federal laws to the letter, because none of you have presented anything substantive above and beyond us being a nation of laws -- is uncomfortable to you and your side, so you're selectively misconstruing what the other side is saying.
    He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.
    (edited 1 day ago)reportquote
    HypnoCoosh 1 day ago#65
    Wtf is balrog going no on about now?
    We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. - C.S. Lewis
    Sephiroth1288 posted...
    How about if an illegal immigrant commits a crime? Do these sanctuary cities call up ICE and deport them?


    They arrest them for the crime.
    We are living in a world today where lemonade is made from artificial flavors and furniture polish is made from real lemons.
    Balrog0 1 day ago#67
    HypnoCoosh posted...
    Wtf is balrog going no on about now?


    just opposing unfunded mandates from the federal government
    He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.
    Balrog0 posted...
    But no one has formulated a response that attacks sanctuary cities ITT

    Sanctuary cities refuse to deport illegal immigrant murderers.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-murder-prompts-reviews-of-sanctuary-cities/

    San Francisco's sanctuary ordinance largely prohibits city personnel from helping enforce immigration laws.

    "It was never contemplated that our sanctuary city would give protection to serious repeat felony offenders," Mayor Ed Lee says.

    San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi insists he had no choice but to free Sanchez without alerting Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

    There's an attack on sanctuary cities. Now go ahead and defend this, @Balrog0
    The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
    Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
    (edited 1 day ago)reportquote
    Sephiroth1288 posted...
    The Deadpool posted...

    They're designed to protect the citizens. If you're an illegal immigrant and you witness a crime... Do you call the cops and risk deportation? Or do you look the other way and let it happen?

    How about if an illegal immigrant commits a crime? Do these sanctuary cities call up ICE and deport them?

    No, of-f***ing-course they don't. Hence the problem.

    Yes they do. 

    Sanctuary City doesn't mean "we don't deport you" it means "we don't deport you just because you called the police to report a different crime."
    ChromaticAngel posted...
    Sanctuary City doesn't mean "we don't deport you" it means "we don't deport you just because you called the police to report a different crime."

    Wrong

    Sephiroth1288 posted...
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-murder-prompts-reviews-of-sanctuary-cities/
    The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
    Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
    (edited 1 day ago)reportquote
    Balrog0 1 day ago#71
    Sephiroth1288 posted...
    Balrog0 posted...
    But no one has formulated a response that attacks sanctuary cities ITT

    Sanctuary cities refuse to deport illegal immigrant murderers.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-murder-prompts-reviews-of-sanctuary-cities/

    San Francisco's sanctuary ordinance largely prohibits city personnel from helping enforce immigration laws.

    "It was never contemplated that our sanctuary city would give protection to serious repeat felony offenders," Mayor Ed Lee says.

    San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi insists he had no choice but to free Sanchez without alerting Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

    There's an attack on sanctuary cities. Now go ahead and defend this, @Balrog0



    http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-immigration-sanctuary-kathryn-steinle-20150723-htmlstory.html

    Sanchez was in federal prison for re-entering the country after his fifth deportation. But on March 26, as the date neared for him to be released into ICE custody, prison officials in Victorville shipped him north to the San Francisco Sheriff's Department on an outstanding drug-related warrant despite an immigration detainer. The San Francisco district attorney's office declined to prosecute what authorities said was a decade-old marijuana possession case, and Sanchez was released April 15.

    This event was tragic, but locating the issue with sanctuary city policies is misleading at best. The federal government was not only complicit, but is obviously incompetent. Are we really arguing that we should put a strain on local law enforcement and prison/jail budgets just so ICE can let someone re-enter the country for a 6th time?
    He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.
    HypnoCoosh 1 day ago#72
    Balrog0 posted...
    HypnoCoosh posted...
    Wtf is balrog going no on about now?


    just opposing unfunded mandates from the federal government


    I oppose I funded illegal border jumpers who drain on our economy and infrastructure.

    Guess we have something in common.
    We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. - C.S. Lewis
    Sephiroth1288 posted...
    ChromaticAngel posted...
    Sanctuary City doesn't mean "we don't deport you" it means "we don't deport you just because you called the police to report a different crime."

    Wrong

    Sephiroth1288 posted...
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-francisco-murder-prompts-reviews-of-sanctuary-cities/


    Did you read the article?

    1. They're forced to cooperate if the ICE has a warrant
    2. an ICE can get a warrant with a phone call
    3. The murderer was deported 5 times previously

    All outlined in the article you posted.

    Any other proposals?
    Asherlee10 1 day ago#74
    The Deadpool posted...
    They're designed to protect the citizens. If you're an illegal immigrant and you witness a crime... Do you call the cops and risk deportation? Or do you look the other way and let it happen?


    Good point. Thanks for bringing that up.
    "Opinions should be a result of a thought, not a substitute for it."
    Balrog0 posted...
    This event was tragic, but locating the issue with sanctuary city policies is misleading at best. The federal government was not only complicit, but is obviously incompetent. Are we really arguing that we should put a strain on local law enforcement and prison/jail budgets just so ICE can let someone re-enter the country for a 6th time?

    Did we read the same article? I even posted the relevant part for you. If SF had deported this scumbag it's unlikely he'd have had an opportunity to murder that girl.

    San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi insists he had no choice but to free Sanchez without alerting Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.
    The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
    Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
    Balrog0 1 day ago#76
    Sephiroth1288 posted...
    Did we read the same article? I even posted the relevant part for you


    yeah, I just read more than you on top of that 

    it lets me get a better understanding of the situation than you have, no big deal
    He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.
    ChromaticAngel posted...
    1. They're forced to cooperate if the ICE has a warrant

    Right, and they're not to alert ICE that they have an illegal in custody, meaning ICE has no way to procure a warrant for that person.

    ChromaticAngel posted...
    3. The murderer was deported 5 times previously

    So I guess if someone has been deported enough times before, they should just get to stay! Is that what you're saying? If you get deported too many times we should just stop enforcing the law?
    The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
    Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
    Sephiroth1288 posted...

    Right, and they're not to alert ICE that they have an illegal in custody, meaning ICE has no way to procure a warrant for that person.


    If ICE can't procure a warrant for someone that was deported 5 times then every employee in that organization needs to be fired and replaced.

    Sephiroth1288 posted...
    So I guess if someone has been deported enough times before, they should just get to stay! Is that what you're saying? If you get deported too many times we should just stop enforcing the law?


    No. What I'm trying to say is he was deported so your argument that you can't get deported from a sanctuary city is totally f***ing bogus.
    Balrog0 posted...
    yeah, I just read more than you on top of that

    All you did was quote a part that shows SF refused to prosecute AND deport a guy who would go on to murder a girl.

    I'd like to know why you think this is an argument in favor of sanctuary cities.
    The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
    Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
    ChromaticAngel posted...
    If ICE can't procure a warrant for someone that was deported 5 times then every employee in that organization needs to be fired and replaced.

    LOl yeah, Sanchez clearly would have alerted the Feds that he has re-entered the country again so they would know to procure a warrant for him as soon as he got arrested by the police department which doesn't alert the Feds when an illegal is arrested.

    Brilliant logic there, sport.

    ChromaticAngel posted...
    No. What I'm trying to say is he was deported so your argument that you can't get deported from a sanctuary city is totally f***ing bogus.

    1. He wasn't necessarily in a sanctuary city when he got deported
    2. SF still refused to deport a repeat criminal and a murderer

    Your real argument seems to be he had too easy of a time coming back into the country. Perhaps he would be less inclined to come back if he knew that there were no cities willing to protect illegals?
    The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
    Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
    (edited 1 day ago)reportquote
    NadYobWoc 1 day ago#81
    Trump cultists calling anyone else treasonous is at the same laughable and pathetic
    Cowboy Dan's a major player in the cowboy scene
    Sephiroth1288 posted...
    LOl yeah, Sanchez clearly would have alerted the Feds that he has re-entered the country again so they would know to procure a warrant for him as soon as he got arrested by the police department which doesn't alert the Feds when an illegal is arrested.

    Brilliant logic there, sport.


    Sanchez doesn't need to alert anyone. He was arrested and it's documented as so. The ICE has access to this knowledge, they could use it to procure a warrant. The fact that they didn't is a failure on the ICE, not the SFPD.

    Sephiroth1288 posted...

    1. He wasn't necessarily in a sanctuary city when he got deported
    2. SF still refused to deport a repeat criminal and a murderer

    Your real argument seems to be he had too easy of a time coming back into the country. Perhaps he would be less inclined to come back if he knew that there were no cities willing to protect illegals?


    The argument is as you say, but it is also that it would have happened with or without the sanctuary city. The current laws against immigration did absolutely nothing to stop a girl from being murdered. What happens to the murderer after the fact is irrelevant as the girl can't be brought back to life.

    The justice system failed to deal with a repeat felon that was deported 5 times. failing to deal with it a 6th time doesn't change anything. Going all crazy regarding banning immigration is equivalent to banning all guns because one f***ing moron shot up a school.
    NadYobWoc 1 day ago#83
    Also, good luck with that.
    Cowboy Dan's a major player in the cowboy scene
    ChromaticAngel posted...
    Sanchez doesn't need to alert anyone. He was arrested and it's documented as so. The ICE has access to this knowledge, they could use it to procure a warrant. The fact that they didn't is a failure on the ICE, not the SFPD.

    Ok, now you're just talking out your ass. Sanctuary cities like SF do not alert ICE when they have an illegal in prison. That's why they're a problem, and that's why that girl is now dead.

    ChromaticAngel posted...
    The argument is as you say, but it is also that it would have happened with or without the sanctuary city.

    No, I'm rather confident that it would be much less likely he could murder anyone in the US if he were simply deported.

    And of course I also support bolstering border security. But there's no reason we can't go after cities that try to subvert the law as well.
    The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
    Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
    --kresnik-- 1 day ago#85
    NadYobWoc posted...
    Trump cultists calling anyone else treasonous is at the same laughable and pathetic

    Why? We uphold the constitution; you want to destroy it. Who's treasonous?
    Trump 2020
    Sylph 1 day ago#86
    Oh? How does this propose to charge towns like mine, where there is no town leader, and everything is done by town council voting by popular vote? We became a Sanctuary Town months ago. We don't have town leaders, just organizers.
    ZSB: We look so much better in a dress than you.
    I wouldn't mind being alone if I could stand my own company.
    --kresnik-- posted...
    NadYobWoc posted...
    Trump cultists calling anyone else treasonous is at the same laughable and pathetic

    Why? We uphold the constitution; you want to destroy it. Who's treasonous?


    The people who wrote the constitution did so under the pretense that people would change it, not uphold it.
    Sylph posted...
    Oh? How does this propose to charge towns like mine, where there is no town leader, and everything is done by town council voting by popular vote? We became a Sanctuary Town months ago. We don't have town leaders, just organizers.

    You goin to jail, bro.
    The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
    Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
    --kresnik-- posted...
    NadYobWoc posted...
    Trump cultists calling anyone else treasonous is at the same laughable and pathetic

    Why? We uphold the constitution; you want to destroy it. Who's treasonous?

    The Constitution is a living document

    Also Trump has been violating it left and right like he violated those women he grabbed without their consent
    El Psy Congroo
    3DS FC: 3952-7469-6840
    Sephiroth1288 23 hours ago#90
    EmeralDragon23 posted...
    The Constitution is a living document

    That's right. That's why we have an amendment process.

    Saying "it's a living document" doesn't mean to ignore the parts of it that you personally don't like.
    The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
    Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
    --kresnik-- 23 hours ago#91
    ChromaticAngel posted...
    --kresnik-- posted...
    NadYobWoc posted...
    Trump cultists calling anyone else treasonous is at the same laughable and pathetic

    Why? We uphold the constitution; you want to destroy it. Who's treasonous?


    The people who wrote the constitution did so under the pretense that people would change it, not uphold it.

    XD
    Trump 2020
    --kresnik-- 23 hours ago#92
    EmeralDragon23 posted...
    --kresnik-- posted...
    NadYobWoc posted...
    Trump cultists calling anyone else treasonous is at the same laughable and pathetic

    Why? We uphold the constitution; you want to destroy it. Who's treasonous?

    The Constitution is a living document

    Also Trump has been violating it left and right like he violated those women he grabbed without their consent

    Bill Clinton and Anthony wiener say hi
    Trump 2020
    EmeralDragon23 23 hours ago#93
    --kresnik-- posted...
    EmeralDragon23 posted...
    --kresnik-- posted...
    NadYobWoc posted...
    Trump cultists calling anyone else treasonous is at the same laughable and pathetic

    Why? We uphold the constitution; you want to destroy it. Who's treasonous?

    The Constitution is a living document

    Also Trump has been violating it left and right like he violated those women he grabbed without their consent

    Bill Clinton and Anthony wiener say hi

    You added two more pieces of s*** to the list, congrats.

    What was that supposed to prove?
    El Psy Congroo
    3DS FC: 3952-7469-6840
    --kresnik-- 23 hours ago#94
    Because trump has done nothing to violate the constitution. He is providing for the common defense and ensuring the general welfare of the people. 

    The people I listed are violators of the constitution.
    Trump 2020
    ChromaticAngel 23 hours ago#95
    --kresnik-- posted...
    Because trump has done nothing to violate the constitution. He is providing for the common defense and ensuring the general welfare of the people. 

    The people I listed are violators of the constitution.


    Thomas Jefferson and the 3 presidents that followed him just had another heart attack in the afterlife after reading this
    --kresnik-- 23 hours ago#96
    ChromaticAngel posted...
    --kresnik-- posted...
    Because trump has done nothing to violate the constitution. He is providing for the common defense and ensuring the general welfare of the people. 

    The people I listed are violators of the constitution.


    Thomas Jefferson and the 3 presidents that followed him just had another heart attack in the afterlife after reading this

    Yeah, I guess they're still a bit shocked than nearly half the country wanted to follow in venezuelas footsteps and go with socialism.
    Trump 2020
    OrtegaTron 22 hours ago#97
    Etherealfare posted...
    OrtegaTron posted...
    People that are opposed to this don't realize they are taking an ideological stance similar to the confederacy, states rights over federal law, which was the basis of the rebellion that led to the civil war.

    Actually the ideological stance of the confederacy was the ownership of human beings; not giving sanctuary to immigrants.

    Another poor reader. This topic is full of them haha.
    The red flag is false hope
    JE19426 22 hours ago#98
    Sephiroth1288 posted...
    Sanctuary cities refuse to deport illegal immigrant murderers.


    Of course they do. No stare has the power to deport people, only the Federal government does. If a state is deporting people, it is violating the law.
    daftpunk_mk5 22 hours ago#99
    IMO ICE needs to big a few community centers in sanctuary cities, raid them without warning, and ship a few thousands illegals back. Just to show the mayors who's in charge and send the message to the illegals that they arent as safe as they think.
    Some say that his voice can only be heard by cats, and that he has two sets of knees... all we know is, he's called the Stig.
    --kresnik-- 21 hours ago#100
    daftpunk_mk5 posted...
    IMO ICE needs to big a few community centers in sanctuary cities, raid them without warning, and ship a few thousands illegals back. Just to show the mayors who's in charge and send the message to the illegals that they arent as safe as they think.

    That's a good plan. I think they're up to it, just letting the "sanctuary cities" grow.
    Trump 2020
    1. Boards
    2. Current Events 
    3. ICE to consider charging sanctuary city leaders with smuggling!!
      1. Boards
      2. Current Events
      3. ICE to consider charging sanctuary city leaders with smuggling!!
      --kresnik-- 19 hours ago#101
      Direct defiance of the government, with disregard to citizens should be a crime. We will see how ICE proceeds with this.
      Trump 2020
      JE19426 19 hours ago#102
      --kresnik-- posted...
      Direct defiance of the government, with disregard to citizens should be a crime.


      What does that even mean?
      --kresnik-- 19 hours ago#103
      Defying Trump's decree to deport illegal citizens (every illegal person is technically a criminal). Harboring them in such mass numbers is a drain on the taxpayers' funds (who oppose this) and this exposes the legal citizens to danger.
      Trump 2020
      JE19426 19 hours ago#104
      --kresnik-- posted...
      Defying Trump's decree to deport illegal citizens (every illegal person is technically a criminal). Harboring them in such mass numbers is a drain on the taxpayers' funds (who oppose this) and this exposes the legal citizens to danger.


      So basically, the President becomes a dictator.
      --kresnik-- 19 hours ago#105
      No. That's deflection and completely false.
      Trump 2020
      JE19426 19 hours ago#106
      --kresnik-- posted...
      No. That's deflection and completely false.


      You are arguing it should be a crime to disobey the President's orders even orders with no basis in the constitution. That makes the President a dictator.
      --kresnik-- 18 hours ago#107
      Providing for the common defense is what he's doing, which is in the preamble to the constitution.
      Trump 2020
      anth0ny 17 hours ago#108
      just gotta' hold on until these Republicans that don't do anyone any good get the f***ing boot
      moo
      JE19426 17 hours ago#109
      --kresnik-- posted...
      Providing for the common defense is what he's doing, which is in the preamble to the constitution.


      What part of the constitution lets him do so in that manner?
      MangaFan462 17 hours ago#110
      They really should, illegal immigration just brings crime and poverty
      daftpunk_mk5 17 hours ago#111
      JE19426 posted...
      --kresnik-- posted...
      Defying Trump's decree to deport illegal citizens (every illegal person is technically a criminal). Harboring them in such mass numbers is a drain on the taxpayers' funds (who oppose this) and this exposes the legal citizens to danger.


      So basically, the President becomes a dictator.


      Apparently enforcing existing laws = being a dictator 

      Also asking the DoJ for money while refusing to aid their investigations is f***ing absurd.
      Some say that his voice can only be heard by cats, and that he has two sets of knees... all we know is, he's called the Stig.
      --kresnik-- 17 hours ago#112
      daftpunk_mk5 posted...
      JE19426 posted...
      --kresnik-- posted...
      Defying Trump's decree to deport illegal citizens (every illegal person is technically a criminal). Harboring them in such mass numbers is a drain on the taxpayers' funds (who oppose this) and this exposes the legal citizens to danger.


      So basically, the President becomes a dictator.


      Apparently enforcing existing laws = being a dictator 

      Also asking the DoJ for money while refusing to aid their investigations is f***ing absurd.
      Trump 2020
      Cj_WlLL_VVlN 17 hours ago#113
      Without reading the topic it won't go anywhere. 

      Federal laws can't be enforced by local police. 

      What sanctuary cities are doing is not giving ice a call and not detaining. 

      They're under no obligation to do either.
      Give me your tired, your poor,Your masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed, to me.
      Sephiroth1288 17 hours ago#114
      Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...
      Without reading the topic it won't go anywhere. 

      Federal laws can't be enforced by local police. 

      What sanctuary cities are doing is not giving ice a call and not detaining. 

      They're under no obligation to do either.

      Actually they are, otherwise they're aiding and abetting a criminal.
      The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
      Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
      Etherealfare 17 hours ago#115
      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...
      Without reading the topic it won't go anywhere. 

      Federal laws can't be enforced by local police. 

      What sanctuary cities are doing is not giving ice a call and not detaining. 

      They're under no obligation to do either.

      Actually they are, otherwise they're aiding and abetting a criminal.

      nope
      No time to freeze undercovers ease up in Grand Prix,
      and seize packages and pocket the currency - GZA
      Capn Circus 17 hours ago#116
      Cj_WlLL_VVlN posted...
      Without reading the topic it won't go anywhere. 

      Federal laws can't be enforced by local police. 

      What sanctuary cities are doing is not giving ice a call and not detaining. 

      They're under no obligation to do either.


      They may not be under obligation, but Trump and his administration certainly have the right to withhold funding and they should do whatever measures possible to curtail cities that are knowingly releasing illegal aliens who have committed crimes, sometimes violent, back onto the streets. 

      They did it with drunken driving, for example. Not all states were complying with the 0.08 standard---they started losing funding and now in every state driving drunk is very illegal.

      As Trump said, we have a border or we don't. Allowing them to all just gain citizenship while surpassing others who have been waiting fairly is unacceptable. And then what? The cycle just continues? Once they've made it to the U.S. they're a citizen? No thank you. That is open borders, and it's pretty much what we have right now.
      "I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom Hanks
      (edited 17 hours ago)reportquote
      JE19426 17 hours ago#117
      daftpunk_mk5 posted...
      Apparently enforcing existing laws = being a dictator


      Lmao. The President doesn't get to give whatever order he wants and "this is the law now break it and you get arrested".

      Also asking the DoJ for money while refusing to aid their investigations is f***ing absurd.


      ICE isn't part of the DoJ.

      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      Actually they are, otherwise they're aiding and abetting a criminal.


      Wrong. Look up what "aiding and abetting" means.
      (edited 17 hours ago)reportquote
      Sephiroth1288 17 hours ago#118
      JE19426 posted...
      Wrong. Look up what "aiding and abetting" means.

      Protecting a criminal from the law?
      The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
      Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
      JE19426 17 hours ago#119
      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      Protecting a criminal from the law?


      Wrong.
      Sephiroth1288 17 hours ago#120
      JE19426 posted...
      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      Protecting a criminal from the law?


      Wrong.

      Yeah, if you assist a person in committing an illegal act I'm rather certain that's what aiding and abetting is.
      The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
      Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
      JE19426 17 hours ago#121
      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      Yeah, if you assist a person in committing an illegal act I'm rather certain that's what aiding and abetting is.


      What did you mean by "Protecting a criminal from the law" in that case?

      Edit: and how are Sanctuary Cities assisting a person in committing an illegal act.
      (edited 17 hours ago)reportquote
      Sephiroth1288 17 hours ago#122
      JE19426 posted...
      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      Yeah, if you assist a person in committing an illegal act I'm rather certain that's what aiding and abetting is.


      What did you mean by "Protecting a criminal from the law" in that case?

      By not alerting the Fed that a person is in the country illegally, they are assisting him in continuing to circumvent the law

      Therefore, they are aiding and abetting criminals
      The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
      Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
      JE19426 17 hours ago#123
      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      By not alerting the Fed that a person is in the country illegally, they are assisting him in continuing to circumvent the law


      Wrong. That's not a crime.

      Therefore, they are aiding and abetting criminals


      Even if continuing to stay in the USA was illegal, refusing to alert the Federal authorities wouldn't be aiding and abetting.
      Sephiroth1288 17 hours ago#124
      JE19426 posted...
      Even if continuing to stay in the USA was illegal,

      It is, if you're an illegal immigrant

      JE19426 posted...
      refusing to alert the Federal authorities wouldn't be aiding and abetting.

      Given that their policy is specifically intended to not deport illegals, not on the principal of state's rights, yes of course it is.
      The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
      Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
      JE19426 17 hours ago#125
      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      It is, if you're an illegal immigrant


      Cite the law in that case.

      Given that their policy is specifically intended to not deport illegals, not on the principal of state's rights, yes of course it is.


      Wrong. Refusing report a criminal isn't aiding and abetting regardlesd of your reason.
      Capn Circus 17 hours ago#126
      JE19426 posted...
      Refusing report a criminal isn't aiding and abetting regardlesd of your reason.


      If you've arrested them and they are housed at your jail facility, while knowing they are illegal aliens--I'd say that would be harboring a criminal.
      "I think that man will be president right about the time when spaceships come down filled with dinosaurs in red capes" - Tom Hanks
      (edited 17 hours ago)reportquote
      Sephiroth1288 16 hours ago#127
      JE19426 posted...
      Cite the law in that case.

      The law that makes it illegal to enter the country illegally?

      If you need help with this then I'm afraid I can't do much more to help you.

      JE19426 posted...
      Wrong. Refusing report a criminal isn't aiding and abetting regardlesd of your reason.

      If you hide a wanted criminal from the police in your house, you are aiding and abetting a criminal.

      Yet, strangely, hiding an illegal immigrant in a jail cell from the Fed and do your best to release them before the Fed knows they're there isn't aiding and abetting a criminal?

      Weird!
      The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
      Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
      JE19426 16 hours ago#128
      Capn Circus posted...
      If you've arrested them and they are housed at your jail facility, while knowing they are illegal aliens--I'd say that would be harboring a criminal.


      Only if there's a warrant out for that persons arrest. In that case the city should (and according to the link Sephiroth posted will) hand them over.

      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      The law that makes it illegal to enter the country illegally?

      If you need help with this then I'm afraid I can't do much more to help you.


      They aren't entering the country illegally. They already are in the country.

      If you hide a wanted criminal from the police in your house, you are aiding and abetting a criminal.

      Yet, strangely, hiding an illegal immigrant in a jail cell from the Fed and do your best to release them before the Fed knows they're there isn't aiding and abetting a criminal?

      Weird!


      That isn't aiding and abetting. It's harboring a fugitive. Assuming that by "wanted criminal" you mean "someone with a warrant out for their arrest".
      (edited 16 hours ago)reportquote
      Sephiroth1288 16 hours ago#129
      JE19426 posted...
      They aren't entering the country illegally. They already are in the country.

      omfg

      Being in the country when you aren't supposed to be is also a crime, you f***ing simp

      JE19426 posted...
      That isn't aiding and abetting. It's harboring a fugitive. Assuming that by "wanted criminal" you mean "someone with a warrant out for their arrest".

      Yeah, and they do their best to hide their presence from the Fed so that the Fed doesn't have an opportunity to create a warrant in the first place.

      This is a clear attempt to hide a criminal and I can't believe any sane person doesn't see this as a clear attempt to subvert the law.
      The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
      Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
      (edited 16 hours ago)reportquote
      JE19426 16 hours ago#130
      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      omfg

      Being in the country when you aren't supposed to be is also a crime, you f***ing simp


      Cite the law.

      Yeah, and they do their best to hide their presence from the Fed so that the Fed doesn't have an opportunity to create a warrant in the first place.

      This is a clear attempt to hide a criminal and I can't believe any sane person doesn't see this as a clear attempt to subvert the law.


      Does it break any laws?
      Sephiroth1288 16 hours ago#131
      JE19426 posted...
      Cite the law.

      udsbnS5
      The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
      Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
      (edited 16 hours ago)reportquote
      JE19426 16 hours ago#132
      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      JE19426 posted...
      Cite the law.

      udsbnS5


      So you have nothing? Thanks for admitting I'm right.
      Tropicalwood 16 hours ago#133
      If I illegally enter JE19426's house and eat his food, does that mean I can't be removed from his property.

      Deportation in a nutshell, breaking and entering.
      ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya
      ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya
      (edited 16 hours ago)reportquote
      JE19426 16 hours ago#134
      Tropicalwood posted...
      If I illegally enter JE19426's house and eat his food, does that mean I can't be removed from his property


      Nope. I could phone the police and they could remove you.
      Sephiroth1288 16 hours ago#135
      JE19426 posted...
      So you have nothing? Thanks for admitting I'm right.

      Being in the country as an illegal immigrant is illegal.

      I'm not going to indulge your pigheadedness.
      The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
      Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
      JE19426 16 hours ago#136
      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      Being in the country as an illegal immigrant is illegal.

      I'm not going to indulge your pigheadedness.


      All you'd have to do is cite the law. Instead you're just repeating yourself again and again.
      (edited 16 hours ago)reportquote
      Tropicalwood 16 hours ago#137
      JE19426 posted...
      Tropicalwood posted...
      If I illegally enter JE19426's house and eat his food, does that mean I can't be removed from his property


      Nope. I could phone the police and they could remove you.

      No you couldn't, it's not illegal to be in your house, according to you.
      ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya
      ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya
      JE19426 16 hours ago#138
      Tropicalwood posted...
      No you couldn't, it's not illegal to be in your house, according to you.


      Where did I claim that?

      Furthermore even if it was legal to be in my house they'd arrest you for breaking and entering or theft.
      (edited 16 hours ago)reportquote
      Sephiroth1288 16 hours ago#139
      JE19426 posted...
      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      Being in the country as an illegal immigrant is illegal.

      I'm not going to indulge your pigheadedness.


      All you'd have to do is cite the law. Instead you're just repeating yourself again and again.

      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      I'm not going to indulge your pigheadedness.
      The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
      Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
      Tropicalwood 16 hours ago#140
      JE19426 posted...
      Tropicalwood posted...
      No you couldn't, it's not illegal to be in your house, according to you.


      Where did I claim that?

      "IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO BE IN A COUNTRY ILLEGALLY" - JE19426
      ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya
      ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya
      JE19426 16 hours ago#141
      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      JE19426 posted...
      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      Being in the country as an illegal immigrant is illegal.

      I'm not going to indulge your pigheadedness.


      All you'd have to do is cite the law. Instead you're just repeating yourself again and again.

      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      I'm not going to indulge your pigheadedness.


      Instead you'll repeat again and again. 

      Tropicalwood posted...
      "IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO BE IN A COUNTRY ILLEGALLY" - JE19426


      Is my house a country? No it isn't.
      Tropicalwood 16 hours ago#142
      JE19426 posted...
      Is my house a country? No it isn't.

      Is the country not the federal government's property? If it's not illegal to enter a country illegally, it's not illegal to break into a private citizen's home
      ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya
      ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya
      JE19426 16 hours ago#143
      Tropicalwood posted...
      If it's not illegal to enter a country illegally, it's not illegal to break into a private citizen's home


      Wrong different laws apply to countries and houses. Even if what you said is true where did I claim "it's not illegal to enter a country illegally"?
      (edited 16 hours ago)reportquote
      Tropicalwood 15 hours ago#144
      JE19426 posted...
      Tropicalwood posted...
      If it's not illegal to enter a country illegally, it's not illegal to break into a private citizen's home


      Wrong different laws apply to countries and houses. Even if what you said is true where did I claim "it's not illegal to enter a country illegally"?

      You're telling people it isn't illegal to be in a country illegally. Probably because your poverty pimp politicians benefit from breaking the law.
      ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya
      ayy lmao ayy lmao || oaml oaml yya yya
      JE19426 15 hours ago#145
      Tropicalwood posted...
      You're telling people it isn't illegal to be in a country illegally. Probably because your poverty pimp politicians benefit from breaking the law.


      Wrong, I'm telling that it's not illegal to be in the USA without permission because it's true. Feel free to cite the law that states otherwise if I am wrong.
      untrustful 15 hours ago#146
      ICE was better when it was micromanaged by Obama. They spent all of their time on illegal immigrants who were criminals. Now they're just wasting time.
      "It's as simple as A-B-C Mr. Baskin...lock your windows."
      "Hey, we were just getting into the significance of nuclear love!"
      Sephiroth1288 15 hours ago#147
      untrustful posted...
      ICE was better when it was micromanaged by Obama. They spent all of their time on illegal immigrants who were criminals. Now they're just wasting time.

      Illegal immigrants are criminals...
      The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
      Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
      JE19426 15 hours ago#148
      Sephiroth1288 posted...

      Illegal immigrants are criminals...


      Not all of them.
      Sephiroth1288 15 hours ago#149
      JE19426 posted...
      Sephiroth1288 posted...

      Illegal immigrants are criminals...


      Not all of them.

      Hey JE

      If a criminal is someone who does something illegal, then what does that make illegal immigrants?
      The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
      Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248
      JE19426 15 hours ago#150
      Sephiroth1288 posted...
      If a criminal is someone who does something illegal, then what does that make illegal immigrants?


      That depends on how you define "illegal immigrants". Most commonly it's used to mean "people currently in country x without permission", which isn't automatically illegal.
      1. Boards
      2. Current Events 
      3. ICE to consider charging sanctuary city leaders with smuggling!!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Public Comments