• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Three Texas towns vote to make themselves "sanctuary cities" for the unborn

9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
shmogie said:
Sanctuary cities nullify and obstruct the enforcement of federal law, a crime
Click to expand...
Refusing to cooperate or limiting cooperation is not the same as obstruction.

"Obstruction" implies refusal to perform a required duty.

Nullification was a factor in the civil war. Southern states simply ignored federal law, and hindered it's enforcement.
Click to expand...
It's a bit rich to compare perpetuation of slavery with not cooperating with those who would round up people into concentration camps.

In the case of illegal aliens, they are encouraging the breaking of US law, by creating incentives and encouragement for that law breaking, a crime.
Click to expand...
What incentives?

Statistically, their policy has proven to encourage crime, and thus making their citizens less safe. Failure to provide protection to their citizens, there primary duty.
Click to expand...
I disagree, but your point is irrelevant.

Any prioritization approach for law enforcement will make it easier or harder to break the law in certain areas. A police agency that reduces the resources it expends on minor immigration offenses will have more resources available for all their other enforcement activities... just as, say, a police agency that prioritizes drugs and violent crime will have fewer resources available for, say, fraud and traffic enforcement.

Deciding on priorities is not only normal, it's absolutely required.
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Refusing to cooperate or limiting cooperation is not the same as obstruction.

"Obstruction" implies refusal to perform a required duty.


It's a bit rich to compare perpetuation of slavery with not cooperating with those who would round up people into concentration camps.


What incentives?


I disagree, but your point is irrelevant.

Any prioritization approach for law enforcement will make it easier or harder to break the law in certain areas. A police agency that reduces the resources it expends on minor immigration offenses will have more resources available for all their other enforcement activities... just as, say, a police agency that prioritizes drugs and violent crime will have fewer resources available for, say, fraud and traffic enforcement.

Deciding on priorities is not only normal, it's absolutely required.
Click to expand...
Nullification of federal law is a crime. When ICE has a federal retainer on a jailed illegal, and the local authority refuses to honor the retainer by notifying ICE, that is nullification.

Before the illegal sanctuary cities, it was normal to honor the retainers. We, as a local agency, detained illegals, notified what was then INS, and turned them over to the Border Patrol.

That was the system when ALL laws were respected.

There have been numerous cases of criminal illegals being released without honoring the retainers, and the illegals committed crimes, including murders.

I know a lot about allocating manpower in the most effective manner. I know the evaluation tools to use in identifying where the most need is, setting a standard to address it, evaluating the effectiveness of meeting the goals of the standard and correcting if required.

The constant communication between agencies would not be impacted by simple notifications, they go on around the clock regarding other issues.

Sanctuary jurisdictions go out of their way to ensure that federal law is not enforced.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
shmogie said:
Nullification of federal law is a crime. When ICE has a federal retainer on a jailed illegal, and the local authority refuses to honor the retainer by notifying ICE, that is nullification.
Click to expand...
Do you mean a detainer?

Detainers

Even ICE's own materials describe their detainers as requests. They also point out that they're not judicial warrants, and that law enforcement agencies are sometimes prohibited from complying with these requests because of federal law.

So if a detainer a request, not a duty, why would you think that refusing to honour one violates a duty?

Before the illegal sanctuary cities, it was normal to honor the retainers. We, as a local agency, detained illegals, notified what was then INS, and turned them over to the Border Patrol.

That was the system when ALL laws were respected.
Click to expand...
Before the concentration camps, you mean.

ICE is violating a number of laws itself. If local LEOs do have a duty in this area, it's to not turn over detainees in their custody to agencies that are likely to infringe on the rights of the detainee.

There have been numerous cases of criminal illegals being released without honoring the retainers, and the illegals committed crimes, including murders.
Click to expand...
There are even more cases of "illegals" being abused or killed in ICE custody.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
And, of course, they won't risk the government coming between a doctor and patient when it comes to insurance, but they have no problems putting it between a woman and her doctor. How about HIPPA be entirely and completely enforced and Uncle Sam be left in the dark about them.
 
shmogie

shmogie

Well-Known Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Do you mean a detainer?

Detainers

Even ICE's own materials describe their detainers as requests. They also point out that they're not judicial warrants, and that law enforcement agencies are sometimes prohibited from complying with these requests because of federal law.

So if a detainer a request, not a duty, why would you think that refusing to honour one violates a duty?


Before the concentration camps, you mean.

ICE is violating a number of laws itself. If local LEOs do have a duty in this area, it's to not turn over detainees in their custody to agencies that are likely to infringe on the rights of the detainee.


There are even more cases of "illegals" being abused or killed in ICE custody.
Click to expand...
Your last sentence is a flat out lie. Concentration camps, another porkie.

Yes, detainer is the correct word, but colloqually REtainer was used as in "retain the suspect", my error.

It is a request, to aid in the enforcement of federal law, not honoring it is nullification of federal law. It is the end result that counts, not parsing words. Sanctuary agencies purposely block, hinder, the federal government from enforcing federal law. It is the motive of their actions.

What rights are you speaking of re an illegal alien ? They have no right to free movement, they have no right to be in the US, the only right they have is to have a hearing, and be removed if their hearing is against them.

I know you believe in all kinds of weird stuff, like concentration camps, but what you believe is pure crap.

I know the Border Patrol, I am familiar with with INS Officers who later became ICE. I live in the Southwest, not far from the border, I know what actually is going on, and the stuff you spout is pure nonsense.

Illegals don't have to come here, so if they don't like the legal process, too bad.

I think we should transport them to your border, and ensure they cross into Canada, what do you think ? you guys would welcome them, right ? Illegals from 62 countries have been apprehended, A great opportunity for Canada.

However, your immigration laws are much tougher than ours (wisely), you would reject most flat out,.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
shmogie said:
Illegals don't have to come here, so if they don't like the legal process, too bad.
Click to expand...
No one ever had to come here (unless forced). Maybe perhaps the ancestors of the natives fleeing the Ice Age, but certainly not any Europeans.
 
Shad

Shad

Veteran Member
Cooky

Cooky

Veteran Member
I know someone who had an abortion, and they grieve every year, about that time it occurred.
 
SomeRandom

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Landon Caeli said:
Maybe this is a better link.

Depression after abortion: Understanding and coping
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed. It outlines that social stigma and religious beliefs could be contributing factors. That terminating a pregnancy interrupts the hormone cycle which can obviously lead to emotional issues as a result. That it is complex and nuanced and the link between the two is at best well....complicated and nuanced. But we should always help women who may be feeling guilt, shame, stigma or grief cope healthily.

I hope you weren’t using that as an argument against providing abortion services though. I mean right? Helping the woman, whatever her decision. Right?
 
Cooky

Cooky

Veteran Member
SomeRandom said:
Yes, indeed. It outlines that social stigma and religious beliefs could be contributing factors. That terminating a pregnancy interrupts the hormone cycle which can obviously lead to emotional issues as a result. That it is complex and nuanced and the link between the two is at best well....complicated and nuanced. But we should always help women who may be feeling guilt, shame, stigma or grief cope healthily.

I hope you weren’t using that as an argument against providing abortion services though. I mean right? Helping the woman, whatever her decision. Right?
Click to expand...

I have a problem with the having to make a decision part. There should be no decision, unless there's a serious health problem involved.
 
SomeRandom

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Landon Caeli said:
I have a problem with the having to make a decision part. There should be no decision, unless there's a serious health problem involved.
Click to expand...
Why? Are you the one pregnant?
I don’t like to see people smoke. But I mean if they’re over 18 then that’s up to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top