• 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!

Justice for Kate Steinle!

eohrnberger said:
From this administration, it's hardly a surprise. More community organizing and political activism and social warrior BS than administration and leadership from this administration. As you correctly point out, it's pretty clear that LGBT bathroom issues take a priority over immigration issues. :roll:

From previous administrations, I'm a bit more surprised, but then think of the Democratically controlled congress the last part of Bush 2's administration. However, this doesn't discount the executive order similar in nature to the bathroom one this administration's DOJ issued.

But then, neither party really wants to enforce the federal immigration laws, do they? The result is the mess that we have once again.
Click to expand...

No, they don't for a couple of reasons. Major factor though being about votes.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No, they don't for a couple of reasons. Major factor though being about votes.
Click to expand...

An interesting question is going to be if the electorate dissatisfaction, as expressed in the Trump and Bernie campaigns and their successes, is going to dislodge the rest of the establishment political elites to action on this problem or not. It is clearly an issue that many of the electorate are concerned about, and want to have addressed and resolved. The political establishment has already lost votes. How much longer are they going to not address this problem and continue to lose more?
 
I hate to say it, but I think this is why Trump is so successful.
 
eohrnberger said:
An interesting question is going to be if the electorate dissatisfaction, as expressed in the Trump and Bernie campaigns and their successes, is going to dislodge the rest of the establishment political elites to action on this problem or not. It is clearly an issue that many of the electorate are concerned about, and want to have addressed and resolved. The political establishment has already lost votes. How much longer are they going to not address this problem and continue to lose more?
Click to expand...

Hey, I didn't read past the OP. You are so much more eloquent.
 
Establishment will do nothing.

At the very worst for them, they will live with Trump for four years and resume the ride to hell after he is gone.

When they finally succeed in turning this country into a Latino hellhole, with the Black Lives Matter thugs threatening to riot for an extra excitement, the country will be de-facto one-party and will never have a Republican president again.
 
jamesrage said:
Do you have any credible links to back up that claim? I ask because California kisses these asses of illegals and those who aid or benefit from illegals. Which is why it is a sanctuary state.Its why they uses terms like undocumented or undocumented immigrant instead of illegal, illegal immigrant, or illegal alien.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you would consider credible research. Do you want evidence of instances where a municipality was sued because of an illegal detention? Or statements frim legislative members discussing why they passed the laws?
 
Cyrylek said:
You know, sometimes the level of most toxic BS is so high, you have to dispense with courtesy. What on Earth are you people talking about? In our country of 320 million (plus 11 million of "illegal immigrants"), you found one case of brutal murder, and you make it into an argument for draconian immigration policies?
Click to expand...

our laws are far from draconian. If you do not have permission to be here then you have to leave.
that is not draconian at all. in fact they are less aggressive than Canada's immigration and illegal immigration laws along with mexico.

Regardless of what you think about anything (for the record, I am a pro-amnesty libertarian, but I was ready to vote for Sen.Cruz as a MUCH lesser evil than the extant alternatives) - this is sheer idiocy.
Click to expand...

The family suffered damages by the negligence of the cities police force and the city government itself they should sue how is that sheer idiocy?

You understand (don't you?) that an equally compelling case - on the basis of one outrageous example - can be made against absolutely anyone: blacks, Jews, Baptists, Poles, stamp collectors, tennis players, people who know Esperanto, etc. I guarantee that at least one member of every such group did commit a hideous crime in the last decade.
Click to expand...

those people go to jail. they don't get out. unlike this guy that has gotten out of jail 5 or 6 times and has been deported that much as well.

By all means, let's disagree and argue, about immigration policies and everything else. But this - this is beyond the pale.
Click to expand...

not really if one of my kids was killed by these people I would be suing not only the state but the federal government as well.
 
MrT said:
I'm not sure what you would consider credible research. Do you want evidence of instances where a municipality was sued because of an illegal detention? Or statements frim legislative members discussing why they passed the laws?
Click to expand...
I want evidence of where it was actually a bad enough problem that they decided it was easier to enact sanctuary policies vs it was just a matter of them pandering to illegals. People who refer to illegals are undocumented in order to hide the illegality of what those people are doing and pushes to grant them licenses and health care and other benefits isn't motivated by lawsuits by people mistaken for illegals.
 
jamesrage said:
I want evidence of where it was actually a bad enough problem that they decided it was easier to enact sanctuary policies vs it was just a matter of them pandering to illegals. People who refer to illegals are undocumented in order to hide the illegality of what those people are doing and pushes to grant them licenses and health care and other benefits isn't motivated by lawsuits by people mistaken for illegals.
Click to expand...

Here is a Washington Post Article on the topic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...out-sanctuary-cities-and-illegal-immigration/

There is quite a bit there, but here is a short snippet on why Sanctuary cities were implemented in some locations during the late 2000s.

During the apex of the country's illegal immigration challenges, before the recession, law enforcement officials in some communities expressed concern about the practice of releasing these inmates after they had served time for state offenses. Some of those communities entered agreements to help federal authorities with immigration enforcement. This went on between 2004 and 2012.

These agreements allowed local jails to house undocumented immigrants after they had served time on state charges and bill the federal government for this service. Sometimes inmates were passed along to jails in other places without any formal notice to family members, then into the immigration court system for an expedited removal hearing. In many cases, people were returned to their home countries in weeks.

That program was widely criticized as a possible revenue stream for some local jails and a potential violation of international human rights accords. Some people were unable to communicate with embassy officials from their countries of origin or notify family members of their arrests, basically disappearing without explanation. Civil liberties groups called it a vehicle for racial and ethnic profiling. One Tennessee sheriff described it as part of his toolkit to "stack these violators like cordwood." In addition, more than one analysis of who was deported and what happened during that process showed that most were people initially arrested for minor traffic violations and who had no criminal record.
Click to expand...

That last paragraph includes the links to more detailed information that I believe may be what you seek.
 
MrT said:
Here is a Washington Post Article on the topic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...out-sanctuary-cities-and-illegal-immigration/

There is quite a bit there, but here is a short snippet on why Sanctuary cities were implemented in some locations during the late 2000s.



That last paragraph includes the links to more detailed information that I believe may be what you seek.
Click to expand...

It doesn't demonstrate that there was any financial problems with lawsuits. If anything it demonstrates that they did it because they were more concerned with kissing the butts of illegals using the liberal speil of oh poor illegals couldn't contact embassy or poor families of illegals didn't know their relative who is here illegally in the country was deported.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
It doesn't demonstrate that there was any financial problems with lawsuits. If anything it demonstrates that they did it because they were more concerned with kissing the butts of illegals using the liberal speil of oh poor illegals couldn't contact embassy or poor families of illegals didn't know their relative who is here illegally in the country was deported.
Click to expand...

I want you to re-read that third paragraph. But this time, try and read it from the prospective of an attorney for the family of one of these individuals. Do you walk away thinking that there are no grounds for a lawsuit? Potentially one worth millions of dollars?

If you can reach that conclusion while considering the potential plaintiff's side of the equation, then you can reach that conclusion while considering the potential defendant's side of the equation.
 
MrT said:
I want you to re-read that third paragraph. But this time, try and read it from the prospective of an attorney for the family of one of these individuals. Do you walk away thinking that there are no grounds for a lawsuit? Potentially one worth millions of dollars?

If you can reach that conclusion while considering the potential plaintiff's side of the equation, then you can reach that conclusion while considering the potential defendant's side of the equation.
Click to expand...

It doesn't demonstrate that lawsuits by people mistaken for illegals was such a burden that states and cities had to enact sanctuary policies to avoid these lawsuits. Those paragraphs are basically whining about what is going on with illegals and the efficiency of the deportation process, not people being mistaken for illegals. Nor does it even mention lawsuits by illegals causing such a financial burden to states and cities that they had to enact sanctuary policies. Those states and cities enacted sanctuary policies because they are trying to kiss the asses of the illegals,and those that aid and benefit from illegals.


The following does not demonstrate lawsuits by people being mistaken for illegals-


-Illegals not being able to contact their relatives and embassy while deportation processes are going on.

- Pro-illegal groups whining about their alleged civil rights being violated because illegals are in the process of being deported.

-Pro-illegal groups making bogus claims of racial and ethnic profiling.


-Alleging that states and cities are somehow getting rich off holding illegals for ICE while they are in the process of being deported.

-Alleging that illegals were arrested for minor traffic offenses or had no prior criminal records.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom