• 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!

LAPD will not help deport immigrants under Trump, chief says

Casper said:
And I would remind you that if you refuse any federal money to a State that State would stop providing tax revenue to the Federal government and that would cut the ties between the State and the Federal government. Be care what you wish for, it ain't gonna happen anyway, many swords are double edged.
Click to expand...

Federal Government has been using federal funds against states for longer than either of us has been alive. Every single time its happened the State has always caved.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Federal Government has been using federal funds against states for longer than either of us has been alive. Every single time its happened the State has always caved.
Click to expand...

True, my state has done it to themselves several times, then whine when they need money. That said what I said could play out if they were serious enough, they aren't.
 
ocean515 said:
Oh please. You aren't really going to try and argue that liberal/socialist progressives are not supportive of, and indeed are not encouraging illegal immigration?

This should be entertaining.
Click to expand...

Illegal immigration is down so far it may be negative.

So, enough BS.

This is about having a permanent underclass. Which is nuts.

I imagine you want to throw millions out, but that simply isn't going to happen.
 
Casper said:
And I would remind you that if you refuse any federal money to a State that State would stop providing tax revenue to the Federal government and that would cut the ties between the State and the Federal government. Be care what you wish for, it ain't gonna happen anyway, many swords are double edged.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware of a single instance when a State has threatened to withhold tax revenue in response to a threat by the Federal Government to withhold funding.

For example, before California went completely over to the dark side, there was an effort to address the rampant corruption in the SEIU's In Home Support Services scam they were running. In response to the effort, Andrew Stern, then President of the SEIU appealed to his friend, President Obama, who responded with the threat to withhold stimulus funding if the California Legislature followed through with their actions.

SEIU may be linked to ultimatum on withholding stimulus funds - latimes


SACRAMENTO — Officials in the governor's office say a politically powerful union may have had inappropriate influence over the Obama administration's decision to withhold billions of dollars in federal stimulus money from California if the state does not reverse a scheduled wage cut for the labor group's workers.

The officials say they are particularly troubled that the Service Employees International Union, which lobbied the federal government to step in, was included in a conference call in which state and federal officials reviewed the wage cut and the terms of the stimulus package.

California Secretary of Health and Human Services Kim Belshe said she could not recall another instance in which the federal government invited a significant stakeholder group into such government-to-government negotiations.​


Again, one way the Feds gain control over States is to make them dependent on funding. Don't toe the line, the funding gets cut. Happens all the time.
 
Kal'Stang said:
We do not need to deport them. They will deport themselves given enough incentive. Or rather take their incentive for being here away. We already have mandated border security and we already go after employers that knowingly hire illegals. There were many things that Reagan demanded before he signed his amnesty program. Know what happened? Selfish politicians ended up not enforcing them or not enforcing them like they were meant to be enforced. Later on in life Reagan regretted signing that amnesty. Fat lot of good if our laws aren't even enforced properly huh? Not only do our laws need to be enforced but we need to make sure that our politicians are actually enforcing them. Take for example sanctuary cities. Obama went after Arizona for attempting to enforce illegal immigration laws that the federal government wasn't. But didn't do crap to make sure that sanctuary cities actually follow the law. And even then when other cities tried to follow the law the federal government often didn't hold up their end of the bargain. Often taking so long to pick up those that were picked up by local LEO's that their jails became overcrowded forcing them to release the illegals in order to make room for the more serious offenses.

Until such time as our government officials do their jobs I will never support amnesty. And yes, your idea is most certainly amnesty. Amnesty isn't just about making them citizens. But also given them a free pass for breaking the law until such time as they "become citizens". Its nothing more than a backdoor amnesty.
Click to expand...
There is a radical difference between legalization and amnesty. I dont condone amnesty. i do support legalization. For all your foot stomping, legalization is the ONLY logical process. The immigration mess is one that has been created largely by the US. At the very least it is a symbiotic nightmare. A solution MUST be found and it must be reasonable, practical, workable, and enforceable.

Obviously the laws re enforcement are inadequate. I agree COMPLETELY that any solution must have first, border security that is strictly enforced and second, enforcement of laws regarding employers, before third, legalized status for those here productive and viable. I would take it to the next level by including better economic partnership with mejico...encouraging economic growth and expansion, inviting them to adopt US currency and wage laws and in so doing remove the need for illegal immigration in the first place.
 
late said:
Illegal immigration is down so far it may be negative.

So, enough BS.

This is about having a permanent underclass. Which is nuts.

I imagine you want to throw millions out, but that simply isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

Preposterous statement.

If you refuse to deal in facts, there is nothing more to discuss.
 
late said:
Illegal immigration is down so far it may be negative.

So, enough BS.

This is about having a permanent underclass. Which is nuts.

I imagine you want to throw millions out, but that simply isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

11-20 million illegal aliens is not "in the negative".

And no, not about having an underclass. You contradict yourself when you claim such idiocy. If it was about having an underclass then I wouldn't be calling for them to leave and/or get deported. I'd be demanding that we not enforce our immigration laws. You know, like Sanctuary Cities do? Like Obama has done.

And yes, with the proper laws and proper enforcement you can certainly get that 11-20 million number down greatly.
 
VanceMack said:
There is a radical difference between legalization and amnesty. I dont condone amnesty. i do support legalization. For all your foot stomping, legalization is the ONLY logical process. The immigration mess is one that has been created largely by the US. At the very least it is a symbiotic nightmare. A solution MUST be found and it must be reasonable, practical, workable, and enforceable.

Obviously the laws re enforcement are inadequate. I agree COMPLETELY that any solution must have first, border security that is strictly enforced and second, enforcement of laws regarding employers, before third, legalized status for those here productive and viable. I would take it to the next level by including better economic partnership with mejico...encouraging economic growth and expansion, inviting them to adopt US currency and wage laws and in so doing remove the need for illegal immigration in the first place.
Click to expand...

No, there is no difference. Just semantical nonsense. If they want to be here legally then follow the proper process for coming here legally. Which means not being here illegally. Refine the immigration system all that you want. Make it easier and faster for people to become citizens. I don't care. But they have to do it properly or not at all.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No, there is no difference. Just semantical nonsense. If they want to be here legally then follow the proper process for coming here legally. Which means not being here illegally. Refine the immigration system all that you want. Make it easier and faster for people to become citizens. I don't care. But they have to do it properly or not at all.
Click to expand...
This is what they call a "difference of opinion". And I'd say we have probably done this to death.
 
RetiredNSmilin said:
Why not? Cops should be able to do sweeps of known neighborhoods. Keep them busses on standby, we will need them soon.

ILLEGAL people do not belong here, unless I need them to build something I can't do. Then they are OK.

(told you I was hypocritical about this subject)
Click to expand...

I must admit. I DO love Mexican food.

Those guys can stay. LOL! All others, "Show me ze papers!"

View attachment 67209979
 
Casper said:
I never said they cannot arrest them, I said it is Not their Job and there are few places if any that do arrest them and the Feds cannot really force them do their job for them.

Just curious, those cities that are "sanctuary cities", are they that way because the people of that community decided that is what they wanted? I thought you want the Feds out of local affairs, so which is it, in or out or based on what someone in AZ wants? Before you go off on me I am against sanctuary cities, the idea is ludicrous to begin with.
Click to expand...

As far as local/State police enforcing federal laws, depends what agreements exist with the Feds.

Glad to hear your against "sanctuary cities".

Seems then you should not object to having some illegals deported.
 
late said:
Illegal immigration is down so far it may be negative.

So, enough BS.

This is about having a permanent underclass. Which is nuts.

I imagine you want to throw millions out, but that simply isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...

Current News: Seem there is a large increase happening.

Officials: 150 US border agents being sent to South Texas | Fox News

Illegal immigrants surging to US-Mexico border in race against Election Day | Fox News

I agree that it is doubtful that all illegal aliens would be deported. I do believe it is wrong and should not tolerate those who enter the US illegally.
 
mike2810 said:
As far as local/State police enforcing federal laws, depends what agreements exist with the Feds.

Glad to hear your against "sanctuary cities".

Seems then you should not object to having some illegals deported.
Click to expand...

True.

It is an insane idea and I try not to support those.

I am not against deporting illegals, I just disagree with how some want to go about dealing with the issue, slogans are fine until one has to implement and pay for them.
 
Gaius46 said:
I don't believe the DoJ or anyone else can take Ca to court over refusing to enforce Federal law. The SC has spoken on that matter and local police agencies can not be required to enforce Federal law. Most do - and that's probably a good thing in most cases since local PD and local prosecutors are closer to the people than the Feds - but they cannot be forced to.

Second one isn't going to happen either. That's probably a US Constitutional violation.
Click to expand...


While the state cannot be enlisted to "do" federal work for the feds, they can be forced to keep a "ICE" hold on immigrants they arrest. California lets them go rather than let ICE have them.

They also cannot interfere with increased border control, and they may be prohibited to federal money for welfare on illegal aliens except in special cases.

They also cannot refuse to honor federal employment laws. The fed's can simply fine the business for hiring illegal labor, even when it is legal under state law. Businesses can be forced to use E Verify as a condition of paying into the SS account of that worker, and you can't pay a worker legally without a W2 except under special circumstances. (casual labor)

California is just having trouble adjusting to a life without the Clintons where "You have your laws, and we have ours".
 
mike2810 said:
birth certificate , most state drivers license, social security card, USA passport.
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/A4en.pdf

Legal aliens who are in the US are required to carry their immigration card with them.
Foreign National in the U.S.: What Documents Should I Carry With Me? - Capitol Immigration Law Group PLLC

As far as LE and illegal aliens the following is an interesting case study paper on local LE authority to enforce federal law.
"In summary, it is clear that state and local police possess substantial inherent authority to make immigration arrests, in addition to the delegated powers available through Section 287(g). It is also clear that the potential for closer cooperation with state and local law enforcement has not been fully exploited. Consequently, there has been a cost in the national security of the United States, as well as in the enforcement of immigration laws."
State and Local Authority to Enforce Immigration Law: A Unified Approach for Stopping Terrorists | Center for Immigration Studies
Click to expand...

Papers please...
 
All of those who look like they don't "belong here" need to be stopped and searched accordingly...
 
chuckiechan said:
While the state cannot be enlisted to "do" federal work for the feds, they can be forced to keep a "ICE" hold on immigrants they arrest. California lets them go rather than let ICE have them.

They also cannot interfere with increased border control, and they may be prohibited to federal money for welfare on illegal aliens except in special cases.

They also cannot refuse to honor federal employment laws. The fed's can simply fine the business for hiring illegal labor, even when it is legal under state law. Businesses can be forced to use E Verify as a condition of paying into the SS account of that worker, and you can't pay a worker legally without a W2 except under special circumstances. (casual labor)

California is just having trouble adjusting to a life without the Clintons where "You have your laws, and we have ours".
Click to expand...

The Feds could also start enforcing marijuana laws in the sanctuary cities. That would make the city leaders chose between their smokers or their illegals. I wonder who they would side with?
 
mike2810 said:
No problem., how about you?

If you don't like the current laws, work with your Reps to Congress to get them changed.
Click to expand...

I live in a neighborhood that is predominantly Hispanic. I love it! fine Mexican, Guatemalan and Equadorian food galore. Not to mention the Super Mercado's. Ya'll would be in hell surrounded by all those spanish speaking darker skinned people...:2razz:
 
HenryChinaski said:
All of those who look like they don't "belong here" need to be stopped and searched accordingly...
Click to expand...

The opinions on this will only change if they begin stopping white people.
 
volsrock said:
immigration status should be checked upon any arrest, applying for any welfare food stamps etc...
Click to expand...

It is. Most illegals get healthcare or food stamps because their children are legal and therefore help them to qualify. A single "working" illegal is not getting any benefits, it's the big families that are raking it in.
 
MaggieD said:
Police departments don't deport illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not them doing the actual deporting. It's them upholding the law. They are clearly saying that they will not be reporting people when discovered to be illegal.
 
americanwoman said:
It is. Most illegals get healthcare or food stamps because their children are legal and therefore help them to qualify. A single "working" illegal is not getting any benefits, it's the big families that are raking it in.
Click to expand...
Undocumented immigrants pay taxes every time they buy gas, clothes or new appliances. They contribute to property taxes, a main source of school funding, when they buy or rent a house, or rent an apartment. The U.S. Social Security Administration estimated that in 2013 undocumented immigrants and their employers paid $13 billion in payroll taxes alone for benefits they won't ever get. They can receive schooling and emergency medical care, but not welfare or food stamps.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I believe you are semi-correct here. The Feds cannot force CA to enforce Federal laws via laws. But they can force them to follow federal laws by denying them federal funds. They do that all the time.
Click to expand...

That's rights - though it shouldn't be so. But that's a different argument. What the Feds can't do is sue CA to enforce Federal law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom