Discussion for article #241953
Although Obama was willing to make a quasi-exception for Notre Dame.
Vitter --------he doesn’t Always wear diapers
but when he does it’s Huggies …or maybe Depends when he’s in the movemen—I mean moment as the expression on photo face indicates.
1 Like
“WE’RE GONNA GET THAT NI-(CLANG1) I mean The President to VETO SOMETHING!!!”
1 Like
Why cure the disease when a band-aid in the likeness of John Birch looks so good?
2 Likes
The White House should troll this one by offering to sign it as long as it includes an amendment establishing a national gun registry. I mean, if we’re going to punish cities for not collecting information on immigrants, why not collecting information on other things too?
7 Likes
just another big gov’t statist in search of a federal solution to a local issue.
San Francisco and hundreds of other jurisdictions nationally have adopted policies of disregarding federal immigration requests, or “detainers,” which advocates say can unfairly target innocent immigrants and hurt relations between immigrant communities and law enforcement authorities.
This will probably get me flamed especially by newer TPMers who may not know me, but how is this different from a locality ignoring federal gun laws? Or federal land-use laws? I agree completely with the positions and goals of cities like San Francisco, but it’s difficult to let slide the ignoring of federal laws when doing so matches my views, but not letting it slide when it conflicts.
Thought experiment: the city of Shreveport decides to ignore federal law allowing undocumented immigrants with children to remain in the country under a guest worker program, and packs them on buses and deports them. We (rightly) decry the lawlessness of Shreveport local authorities, and Gov. Jindal who no doubt supports them, and we cite the supremacy clause among others.
Is the difference only that we think immigrants should be treated differently (better), and so in one case ignoring federal law is fine, but in the other it is a travesty? I need to think this through a bit; it makes me uncomfortable…
Also, San Francisco is the best city. OF THEM ALL. My favorite place in the USA. So I want to be on their side, but…
Young woman shot by undocumented immigrant: The sky is falling! Something must be done!
Toddlers shooting mothers, grandmothers, siblings: Meh, nothing can be done.
Mass shooting of kindergarteners: Meh, nothing can be done.
More preschoolers killed by guns than cops in the line of duty. Meh, nothing can be done.
Fuck you, Vitter.
1 Like
I may be wrong about this, but my understanding is that sanctuary policies do not violate federal law. They simply leave enforcement of immigration laws to the feds. They don’t interfere with federal enforcement, but they choose not to voluntarily assist. If, say, the Bureau of Land Management requested the assistance of local law enforcement in removing Cliven Bundy’s cattle, and the locals declined, I don’t think they would be ignoring federal law, or behaving in a lawless manner. Just saying, “Not my job, and it would create all kinds of problems for me, which I don’t need. You’ll have to do it without me.” I’m not a lawyer, but that’s how I understand the situation.
1 Like
There is endless crap about some court clerk not issuing marriage licenses for gay folks. However, if some city refuses to cooperate with ICE, and people get killed as they did in SF and many other places, you hear nothing but praise for the illegals. It’s truly disgusting.
I used to agree with that. We visited SF in 2009. Incredibly crowded. I got an $80 ticket in Chinatown for 1 minute overdue at the meter. I didn’t like the crowding, and the traffic, and the prices. The H-1Bs have inflated rents beyond comprehension. The only thing that is still nice is the Japanese Garden.
Thanks, GAJake, that gives me something to think about.
Oops, looks like your keyboard cut out on you there. You probably meant to add, “…which is a required function of her job and which she was ordered to do numerous times by a federal judge.”
2 Likes
I think we disagree on a great many things, ND, but I honestly admire your willingness to spend your money for Prime and hang around us libs, discussing your viewpoint.
I grew up in northern California and go to S.F. about once a year. I can’t actually think of a time, in the last 30 years anyway, when property values in S.F. weren’t extraordinarily high even for CA standards. Did it used to be cheap to live in The City, and only the “H-1Bs” (aka “human beings”) have ruined it for the middle class?
I’m pretty sure it’s about how to spend limited resources. I think the local governments want to avoid expending their budgets enforcing federal laws (when in most cases the harm is not immediate). Most illegal immigrants aren’t committing felonies and when they do, the local governments enforce the laws. What they don’t want to do is hold illegal immigrants simply for being illegal immigrants. I don’t really blame them. The feds don’t exactly play nice with the locals either.
I’ve sat with magistrates who deal with illegal immigrants and crime and they aren’t shy about enforcing immigration law when the immigrant has broken other laws, but local law enforcement simply do not have the same resources to pursue immigrants because they’ve broken immigration law. I expect if the feds were a little more giving with a budget, you might see a change. In the mean time, the local LEOs have other things to do they deem far more immediate.
1 Like
Yes, tech workers are doing this, and a whole bunch are H-1Bs. The recent OPT proposal by your friend and mine (if you are a foreign worker), B Obama, is going to make it much much much worse too.