• 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!

Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter?

Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter?

  • Total voters
    20
jamesrage

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals I.E. criminals they shelter?


I say yes. It would be like a security guard who allows trespassers into the building and then tries to act like it is not his fault when one of the trespassers assaults someone,steals and or vandalizes property. Most people with at least a ounce of common sense would say the security guard should be fired and forced to reimburse the property owner for the theft and damage that occurred and sued by the victims. The judge would be right that the city can not prevent crime but in the case of an illegal alien the city did not have to shelter that criminal,those people were victimized as a direct result of the city allowing trespassers/criminals to stay. Had that illegal been deported those people would have not been victimized by that illegal.



Judge tosses sanctuary suit in S.F. killings
The family of a father and two sons who were shot dead on a San Francisco street in 2008 can't hold the city responsible for failing to turn their alleged killer over to immigration authorities after earlier arrests, a judge has ruled.
The city isn't legally to blame for any crimes Edwin Ramos, a suspected illegal immigrant from El Salvador, committed after his release for the offenses he committed as a juvenile, Judge Charlotte Woolard of San Francisco Superior Court said Monday.

Cities "generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime," Woolard said.

Read more: Judge tosses sanctuary suit in S.F. killings
 
Last edited:
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

I somewhat agree with you. My change is the elected officials should personally be held responsible. Holdling the city responsible opens the door to law suites that the tax payer may have to pay for. I like in Arizona and its amazing how some politicians cater to the illegals.
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

Not only should they be held legally responsible, but all federal money should be withheld from any sanctuary city while they are protecting criminal illegal aliens. They want to do it? Fine. They can pay their own way.
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

So called "sanctuary" cities should be denied all federal funding for all projects, being permanently lost on a daily pro-rated basis, until the sanctuary policy is reversed and the politicians who implemented them resign.
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So called "sanctuary" cities should be denied all federal funding for all projects, being permanently lost on a daily pro-rated basis, until the sanctuary policy is reversed and the politicians who implemented them resign.
Click to expand...

Makes good sense but how would you accomplish that when its the 'wolf' who has set the stage to allow this to happen in the first place!
 
Last edited:
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

Boomyal said:
Makes good sense but how would you accomplish that when its the 'wolf' who has set the stage to allow this to happen in the first place!
Click to expand...

That's beside the point, while Americans refuse to admit the real purpose of the Second Amendment.
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
That's beside the point, while Americans refuse to admit the real purpose of the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...
:confused:

Please explain.
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

mike2810 said:
I somewhat agree with you. My change is the elected officials should personally be held responsible. Holdling the city responsible opens the door to law suites that the tax payer may have to pay for. I like in Arizona and its amazing how some politicians cater to the illegals.
Click to expand...

But didn't the city elect the officials?
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

jamesrage said:
But didn't the city elect the officials?
Click to expand...

yes, my point is would you want your tax dollars used to pay off some "santuary city" lawsuit. If we held the elected official personally resonsible, I would bet some of the bs laws would quickly get off the books.
Withholding fed tax dollars is ok with me. Living in a border State, I am tired of the illegals.
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

The Mark said:
:confused:

Please explain.
Click to expand...

Historically the final resolution of the problem they have with tyrants involves a bunch of men with rifles and the tyrant in front of a brick wall, though the details vary.
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Historically the final resolution of the problem they have with tyrants involves a bunch of men with rifles and the tyrant in front of a brick wall, though the details vary.
Click to expand...

Isn't the Devil in the details?:2razz:
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Historically the final resolution of the problem they have with tyrants involves a bunch of men with rifles and the tyrant in front of a brick wall, though the details vary.
Click to expand...
So you are saying the real purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide the means for citizens of the USA to protect themselves from a tyrannical government?

That’s how I see it.
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

The Mark said:
So you are saying the real purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide the means for citizens of the USA to protect themselves from a tyrannical government?

That’s how I see it.
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly. So it is recorded! It happened once before and it could happen again. That is why the Founders included it in the Constitution.
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

In Texas, we deal with this open invasion daily. Believe me when I say, you don't want it in your Neighborhood. but you soon will, ---I hand them all maps, to your house. :mrgreen:
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

Boomyal said:
Isn't the Devil in the details?:2razz:
Click to expand...

The brick wall is optional. Rope costs more than bullets, but is re-usable.
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

The Mark said:
So you are saying the real purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide the means for citizens of the USA to protect themselves from a tyrannical government?

That’s how I see it.
Click to expand...

That's the specific purpose as described in the Federalist Papers. #28, I believe.
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

It is totally scarey how woefully ignorant our population has become about the founding philosphies and principles of this country. (thank you NEA) In absence of that knowledge, anything that smacks of 'tough love, meanness or unfair in outcome, have become targets of the 'rank and file'!

I might go onto to add, that the abuses of our 'central government', against liberty and freedom, have gone light years beyond the abuses of King George III.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

First, there shouldn't be any sanctuary cities. We ought to pass a Federal law outlawing that. I also like the people's ideas about withholding all Federal funding to states that have sanctuary cities. However, to the question asked, yes, those cities should be held responsible.

Illegal immigration is a strange situation. A lot of people seem to feel that the laws against illegally immigrating are not real laws and should therefore be ignored. However, they are real, and are vital to the well being of the nation and therefore should be enforced.
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

Luna Tick said:
First, there shouldn't be any sanctuary cities. We ought to pass a Federal law outlawing that. I also like the people's ideas about withholding all Federal funding to states that have sanctuary cities. However, to the question asked, yes, those cities should be held responsible.

Illegal immigration is a strange situation. A lot of people seem to feel that the laws against illegally immigrating are not real laws and should therefore be ignored. However, they are real, and are vital to the well being of the nation and therefore should be enforced.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If a city declared itself a sanctuary for murderers or child molesters, would anyone take them seriously or respect it? Of course not. So why would anyone respect a city who is protecting another class of law-breakers?

I'm all for arresting the city council, going in and clearing out the illegal aliens. You cannot vote to ignore the law.
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

jamesrage said:
Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals I.E. criminals they shelter?


I say yes. It would be like a security guard who allows trespassers into the building and then tries to act like it is not his fault when one of the trespassers assaults someone,steals and or vandalizes property. Most people with at least a ounce of common sense would say the security guard should be fired and forced to reimburse the property owner for the theft and damage that occurred and sued by the victims. The judge would be right that the city can not prevent crime but in the case of an illegal alien the city did not have to shelter that criminal,those people were victimized as a direct result of the city allowing trespassers/criminals to stay. Had that illegal been deported those people would have not been victimized by that illegal.



Judge tosses sanctuary suit in S.F. killings
The family of a father and two sons who were shot dead on a San Francisco street in 2008 can't hold the city responsible for failing to turn their alleged killer over to immigration authorities after earlier arrests, a judge has ruled.
The city isn't legally to blame for any crimes Edwin Ramos, a suspected illegal immigrant from El Salvador, committed after his release for the offenses he committed as a juvenile, Judge Charlotte Woolard of San Francisco Superior Court said Monday.

Cities "generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime," Woolard said.

Read more: Judge tosses sanctuary suit in S.F. killings
Click to expand...

Their leadership should be fired, criminally charged, and State Congress not allowed to perform any other function until strong never-expiring anti-illegal regulations become law.
 
Re: Should sanctuary cities be held legally responsible for the illegals they shelter

Deny them any and all federal money and projects. Then arrest them for aiding and abiding, a federal crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom