Active Now

my2cents
Discussion » Questions » Politics » Do SANCTUARY CITIES protect DANGEROUS criminals from being deported??? Do they just let them walk around?? I wouldn't wanna live in one.

Do SANCTUARY CITIES protect DANGEROUS criminals from being deported??? Do they just let them walk around?? I wouldn't wanna live in one.

Hello:

Oops.  I DO live in one..  Should I be scared??

excon

Posted - December 9, 2016

Responses


  • 34291
    Ask Kate Stein's family what they do with illegals. 
      December 9, 2016 11:11 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    Right, because no American citizen has EVER accidentally killed anyone while discharging a firearm...OH WAIT!

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/09/08/1524566/-Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot-That-rifle-is-Lima-Oscar-Alpha-Delta-Echo-Delta-GunFAIL-CXCIII
      December 9, 2016 11:25 AM MST
    0

  • 34291
    The point is that if SF would follow the laws, he would not have been released to have his accident....
      December 10, 2016 2:20 PM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @m2c -- No, the point is no legal framework will ever stop all crime from happening. Yes, some illegal immigrants will commit crimes. So will some citizens. On both an absolute numbers and proportional basis, you are signficiantly more likely to be the victim of a crime by a citizen. Hence, the reaction to Kate Steinle's death is just emotional politicking, not rational immigration policy.

    Two other related arguments which demolish your nonsense are:

    1) "Sanctuary cities" are an example of federalism, which RAWFs usually claim to favor...except when states/localities implement policies not favored by RWAFs.

    2) If you were to argue immigration policy is a federal prerogative, you'd have a point. The problem is examples of localities implementing MORE AGGRESSIVE immigration enforcement than that conducted by the federal government (such as the State of Arizona imposed) is either ignored or overtly supported by RAWFs.

    I am sorry for Kate Steinle and her family. But rare exceptional emotionally-charged incidents are not a good basis for social policy.
      December 10, 2016 4:05 PM MST
    0

  • 34291
    Deflecting....they ignored they law. ICE had an order to detain him for deportation. SF choose to ignore that and release him.....
    We have laws. We should enforce them or change them if we don't like them. Cities don't get to make laws contradictory to Federal laws. 
      December 10, 2016 7:28 PM MST
    0

  • 3934
    @m2c --  Re: "We have laws. We should enforce them or change them if we don't like them."

    Oh, I agree. I think the laws against EMPLOYING illegal immigrants should be STRONGLY enforced, since evidence suggests removing sources of income is a truly effective deterrent to illegal immigration. When I see the CEOs of Wal-Mart, Hilton Hotels, Ryland Homes, Con-Agra, Tyson Foods, etc. perp-walked because their companies (or their subcontractors) employed illegal migrant labor, THEN I'll believe we're serious as a country about restricting illegal immigration. Until that happens, appeals to instances like the Kate Steinle shooting are just ideologically-driven (or racism-driven) hypocritical selecitve indignation. This post was edited by OldSchoolTheSKOSlives at December 10, 2016 8:04 PM MST
      December 10, 2016 7:54 PM MST
    1

  • 34291
    I agree 100%
      December 10, 2016 8:05 PM MST
    0

  • 3907
    Hello my:

    So, those sanctuary cities LET him stay, huh??  No, they didn't.  He was deported 5 times.. 

    excon

    PS>  https://www.petition2congress.com/18159/the-kate-steinle-law
      December 9, 2016 11:38 AM MST
    0

  • 34291
    They had just released him before the shooting...ICE had an order to get him back after he faced his drug charges.
    And the 5 times he was previously deported it was NOT from San Fran or even from CA.  It was other states and 2 times caught at the border. 
    So NO the sanctuary city did not deport him even once.
      December 10, 2016 2:19 PM MST
    0