• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up...

Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

spud_meister said:
Any illegal aliens in America should be given residency and forced to live in North Dakota.
Click to expand...

Meh, ship em to the places that actually want them. NY, DC, and California. All three are crapholes anyways.
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Update.....They now have actually let out 1000 each week. Since Feb 15th 2013. Evidenced.....

DHS freed over 2,000 immigrants since February

16a08e50424fec072a0f6a7067008fc5.jpg


The Homeland Security Department released from its jails more than 2,000 illegal immigrants facing deportation in recent weeks due to looming budget cuts and planned to release 3,000 more during March, The Associated Press has learned.

The government documents show that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement released roughly 1,000 illegal immigrants from its jails around the U.S. each week since at least Feb. 15. The agency's field offices have reported more than 2,000 immigrants released before intense criticism this week led to a temporary shutdown of the plan, according to the documents.

The states where immigrants were released include Arizona, California, Georgia and Texas.

As of last week, the agency held an average daily population of 30,733 in its jails. The internal budget documents reviewed by the AP show the Obama administration had intended to reduce those figures to 25,748 by March 31.

The White House did not comment immediately Friday on the higher number of immigrants released.....snip~

DHS freed over 2,000 immigrants since February. - Yahoo! News

hmmm.gif
No word from Team Obama!
f_whistle.gif
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

So what do you do when the fed's won't enforce the laws?
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Kal'Stang said:
So what do you do when the fed's won't enforce the laws?
Click to expand...

I would think it falls to the state and those local communities to do what they can. It affects them directly. As in this case so far it is Cali, Texas, Arizona, and Georgia.
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Kal'Stang said:
One thing I can say about democratic politicians, they do know how to plan for the future....their own personal future.

PS: If I was Jan Brewer I'd be waiting at the gates of those federal prisons and pick up every single person that they let out and then determine if they are illegals or not. If they are deport them, if not, let em go unless there is sufficient cause to keep them.
Click to expand...

I don't think the state can deport anybody.

The state would have to turn them over to the feds and that would be a revolving door.
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Kal'Stang said:
So what do you do when the fed's won't enforce the laws?
Click to expand...

That's been tried.

The States are now pretty much under the control of the Feds, which is not what the Founders wanted as they realized the risks that would inevitably occur. It really is a shame.
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Mason66 said:
I don't think the state can deport anybody.

The state would have to turn them over to the feds and that would be a revolving door.
Click to expand...

Not hard to buy them a one way ticket to some other country and tell them to get on the plane or else.
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Kal'Stang said:
Not hard to buy them a one way ticket to some other country and tell them to get on the plane or else.
Click to expand...

Funny how some peoples desire to have the govt enforce the law leads them to suggest that the govt break the law in order to enforce the law
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

sangha said:
Funny how some peoples desire to have the govt enforce the law leads them to suggest that the govt break the law in order to enforce the law
Click to expand...

Whats illegal about a state running a person out of their borders? Since when are they not allowed to do that?
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Kal'Stang said:
Whats illegal about a state running a person out of their borders? Since when are they not allowed to do that?
Click to expand...

What's illegal about it?

Simple, it's against the law
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

sangha said:
What's illegal about it?

Simple, it's against the law
Click to expand...

Show me the law prohibiting the state from booting someone out of thier territory.
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Kal'Stang said:
What part of the Constitution are you looking at? I've read it several times and I've not once seen where it says that the States will not be allowed to kick people out of their territories.
Click to expand...

The power to regulate immigration is reserved to the federal govt
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

sangha said:
The power to regulate immigration is reserved to the federal govt
Click to expand...

Are you refering to Article 8 section 4..."To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

1: That has to do with naturalization. Nothing in there denying the states the ability to kick people out of their territory.

2: By current law all illegal aliens, when caught must be deported at the end of their time served, if any. So if ANYONE is breaking the law it is the Federal government. And if the Federal government will not uphold the law then it falls to the individual states to do so.
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Kal'Stang said:
Are you refering to Article 8 section 4..."To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

1: That has to do with naturalization. Nothing in there denying the states the ability to kick people out of their territory.
Click to expand...

Again, it is a well established fact that the constitution reserves the power to regulate immigration to the federal govt. Therefore, the states cannot regulate immigration

2: By current law all illegal aliens, when caught must be deported at the end of their time served, if any. So if ANYONE is breaking the law it is the Federal government. And if the Federal government will not uphold the law then it falls to the individual states to do so.
Click to expand...

Whether or not the feds are breaking the law is irrelevant. What matters is that even if they are breaking the law, that does not mean that the states now have the power to regulate immigration.
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

sangha said:
Again, it is a well established fact that the constitution reserves the power to regulate immigration to the federal govt. Therefore, the states cannot regulate immigration
Click to expand...

They cannot regulate immigration into the country. No where does it say that the individual states cannot kick people out of their state.

sangha said:
Whether or not the feds are breaking the law is irrelevant. What matters is that even if they are breaking the law, that does not mean that the states now have the power to regulate immigration.
Click to expand...

Ah but it is not regulating immigration. It is enforcing current immigration laws.
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Grant said:
Arizona SB 1070 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Not sure why you're showing us this? The only parts that were scrubbed from SB 1070 were the parts where Arizona tried to make it a state crime regarding not carrying documents showing their legal ability to be in the US, arrests without warrants in some situations, and applying for work without federal authorization. Naturally making a federal crime regarding immigration a state crime would violate the supremacy clause. But nothing else about SB 1070 was ruled against because much of it is based on federal law and are just ways in which the state can help federal officials with upholding the federal laws on immigration.

If anything this actually helps me. If that was your intent then thanks. ;)
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Kal'Stang said:
Not sure why you're showing us this? The only parts that were scrubbed from SB 1070 were the parts where Arizona tried to make it a state crime regarding not carrying documents showing their legal ability to be in the US, arrests without warrants in some situations, and applying for work without federal authorization. Naturally making a federal crime regarding immigration a state crime would violate the supremacy clause. But nothing else about SB 1070 was ruled against because much of it is based on federal law and are just ways in which the state can help federal officials with upholding the federal laws on immigration.

If anything this actually helps me. If that was your intent then thanks. ;)
Click to expand...

Yea, they deleted the effective portion of the law.
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Fisher said:
My understanding is that a lot of them are being released with ankle bracelets saving about $125/day/prisoner and these are people who are illegal but were picked up on minor charges like driving without a license. It isn't like murderers are being turned loose.
Click to expand...


Ankle bracelets for illegal aliens? What good does that do?
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Kal'Stang said:
They cannot regulate immigration into the country. No where does it say that the individual states cannot kick people out of their state.
Click to expand...

Wrong. They cannot regulate immigration anywhere.

And the people who were released were not guilty of any crime in that state. Not having been convicted by the state means that they are innocent, or did you forget about that? Being innocent means the state cannot punish them for any crime

Ah but it is not regulating immigration. It is enforcing current immigration laws.
Click to expand...

Enforcing the immigration laws are a power reserved to the fed. This is well-established. Concurrent enforcement is allowed, but the state is not allowed to further "criminalize" immagration

That's why the "show your papers" laws in AZ did not contain any charges for people who were discovered to be undocumented. It only held them for transfer to ICE.
 
Last edited:
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

sangha said:
Wrong. They cannot regulate immigration anywhere.

And the people who were released were not guilty of any crime in that state. Not having been convicted by the state means that they are innocent, or did you forget about that? Being innocent means the state cannot punish them for any crime
Click to expand...

1: Not being convicted by the state means that they are innocent? Do you know how silly that sounds? Lets put it this way....If I break a law and I am convicted in Washington does that mean that if I move to Idaho I am considered "innocent" and have my full rights restored? Likewise if I commit a federal crime are the states incapable of enforcing that I am not allowed to buy a gun? You're trying to put a seperation that just simply is not there.

sangha said:
Enforcing the immigration laws are a power reserved to the fed. This is well-established. Concurrent enforcement is allowed, but the state is not allowed to further "criminalize" immagration

That's why the "show your papers" laws in AZ did not contain any charges for people who were discovered to be undocumented. It only held them for transfer to ICE.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. But if current law says that anyone that is here illegally must be deported after their time is served in prison (if any) then how is the state "further criminalizing" immigration by deporting illegals? They are just following federal law. There is no additional criminalizing going on.
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Kal'Stang said:
1: Not being convicted by the state means that they are innocent? Do you know how silly that sounds? Lets put it this way....If I break a law and I am convicted in Washington does that mean that if I move to Idaho I am considered "innocent" and have my full rights restored? Likewise if I commit a federal crime are the states incapable of enforcing that I am not allowed to buy a gun? You're trying to put a seperation that just simply is not there.
Click to expand...

No, I should have worded that more clearly. You are not innocent of all crime, but you are innocent of breaking any state laws. In the case you describe, you are guilty of a WA state law, but you are innocent of breaking any Idaho state law. Idaho state cannot sentence you to any punishment. All they can do is detain you until you can be transferred to Washington

The same thing applies when the feds release an immigrant in a state. The immigrant broke a fed law, not a state law, so the state cannot punish the immigrant by forcing them to leave the state.

I agree 100%. But if current law says that anyone that is here illegally must be deported after their time is served in prison (if any) then how is the state "further criminalizing" immigration by deporting illegals? They are just following federal law. There is no additional criminalizing going on.
Click to expand...

Again, it's the feds decision, not the states. All the state can do is detain the immigrant until they can be transferred to fed custody, at which time, they will just be released again

The state has no authority to carry out the provisions of federal law. If they try to carry out the provisions of a fed law, then they are not "just following the law"
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

sangha said:
No, I should have worded that more clearly. You are not innocent of all crime, but you are innocent of breaking any state laws. In the case you describe, you are guilty of a WA state law, but you are innocent of breaking any Idaho state law. Idaho state cannot sentence you to any punishment. All they can do is detain you until you can be transferred to Washington

The same thing applies when the feds release an immigrant in a state. The immigrant broke a fed law, not a state law, so the state cannot punish the immigrant by forcing them to leave the state.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I did not word myself correctly either. By "convicted" I also meant already served my time in prison in Washington. And by full rights restored i'm talking about my right to carry a gun, right to vote etc etc if I moved to Idaho.

sangha said:
Again, it's the feds decision, not the states. All the state can do is detain the immigrant until they can be transferred to fed custody, at which time, they will just be released again

The state has no authority to carry out the provisions of federal law. If they try to carry out the provisions of a fed law, then they are not "just following the law"
Click to expand...

First, the feds already made their decision, illegal aliens are suppose to be deported, that is the law. That is the decision.

So the states don't have to carry out the regulations that the EPA demands? They don't have to carry out the federal ban on machine guns? With your logic the States can ignore any federal law there is because they can't carry out any of it without going beyond their capacity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom