Barr announces sweeping new sanctions, 'significant escalation'

Payback is a bitch, isn't it?

a reply to: ketsuko

Ummm.. but.. any new infected immigrants are gonna run into how many people before they get the attention of law enforcement? Most Chinese either come through our airports or through our ports via ships. Many smuggled in shipping containers that also are carrying goods being imported here. Tightening the security at our ports, increasing inspections of shipping containers and limiting people from infected areas from flying into the country would be much more effective in preventing a pandemic in our country than anything we could do with the sanctuary cities.

Controling immigration is a Federal thing. Once in this country these people can get around anywhere, so sanctuary cities must have patrolled borders on them so these illegals cannot get out. Stop every car, stop and check anyone coming out of these cities, people of any race since you do not need to be a hispanic person to be an illegal alien.

To pay for this assess the cities a deduction of federal funding and stop the funding for airports and hospitals, including medicaid and medicare for residents. Maybe take the pensions of all federal retirees to help pay for this too, including ex-congressmen in the city limits.

a reply to: rickymouse

Ya, good luck getting that one passed through the supreme court.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: rickymouse

Ya, good luck getting that one passed through the supreme court.

Well, basically, the city is saying they do not have to follow the laws of the country, so basically they are saying they are not part of the union, so they can be treated like an independant country and have borders that are patrolled.

Now becoming a 2A sanctuary city is different, they are exercising their constitutional rights, so the feds cannot go after the people or quarantine them. If the state tries to force the issue against the citizens of the 2A city, they can but it can be challenged in the federal court and the state would probably lose in a Federal court. Still though, the state cannot have it's borders blocked by the feds because they are stricter than the feds in states that take away the2A rights.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is still illegal to rape, molest. drive drunk and commit other crimes in sanctuary cities.

Perhaps if they prosecuted the ones that actually committed serious crimes, rather than going after particular ethnicities, or affiliations, or whatever qualification, that has nothing to do specifically with those crimes, they would have less overall crime?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is still illegal to rape, molest. drive drunk and commit other crimes in sanctuary cities.

Perhaps if they prosecuted the ones that actually committed serious crimes, rather than going after particular ethnicities, or affiliations, or whatever qualification, that has nothing to do specifically with those crimes, they would have less overall crime?

As usual, you have things exactly backwards.

Illegal immigrants first come here illegally,
Then (sometimes) commit further crimes.
Some are pretty bad, like rape, drug trafficing and drunk driving.
And then, because they are "illegal" they are getting special treatment and are let go by the authorities, because they don't want people (like you) claiming their LE are "racist".

Backwards/opposite of what you say.

a reply to: rickymouse

So, basically then, since the federal govt chooses to not see them as part of the country, then I guess they arent obligated to pay federal taxes...

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is still illegal to rape, molest. drive drunk and commit other crimes in sanctuary cities.

Perhaps if they prosecuted the ones that actually committed serious crimes, rather than going after particular ethnicities, or affiliations, or whatever qualification, that has nothing to do specifically with those crimes, they would have less overall crime?

So what you are saying is that you want tax dollars going to pay for a prison sentence for the illegal immigrant child molester and then let him back on the street after his sentence, rather than deport him?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: rickymouse

So, basically then, since the federal govt chooses to not see them as part of the country, then I guess they arent obligated to pay federal taxes...

Just because I don't view you as legally living in my house doesn't mean you won't be paying if you break in.

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is still illegal to rape, molest. drive drunk and commit other crimes in sanctuary cities.

Perhaps if they prosecuted the ones that actually committed serious crimes, rather than going after particular ethnicities, or affiliations, or whatever qualification, that has nothing to do specifically with those crimes, they would have less overall crime?

As usual, you have things exactly backwards.

Illegal immigrants first come here illegally,
Then (sometimes) commit further crimes.
Some are pretty bad, like rape, drug trafficing and drunk driving.
And then, because they are "illegal" they are getting special treatment and are let go by the authorities, because they don't want people (like you) claiming their LE are "racist".

Backwards/opposite of what you say.

American citizens commit these crimes too.

Should all American citizens be prosecuted because they are in an arbitrary group of people that has some criminal members? Or would it be more rational to beef up policing to deal only with those who commit actual crimes?

Remember that some of the people groups who you are calling illegals have been coming into America as seasonal workers, for a generation. Some are seeking asylum and fear to return, some simply want a better life for themselves and their families and would be happy to become citizens. They aren't all criminals, despite the recent definition of "illegals" being applied against them.

a reply to: smurfy

Rapists, molesters, drunk drivers

you forgot, drug cartel members, international gang members such as ms 13, human traffickers, arms dealers, terrorists.
just about all illegal enterprises that you can name are hold up in one. and not just from the southern reaches of the world.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is still illegal to rape, molest. drive drunk and commit other crimes in sanctuary cities.

Perhaps if they prosecuted the ones that actually committed serious crimes, rather than going after particular ethnicities, or affiliations, or whatever qualification, that has nothing to do specifically with those crimes, they would have less overall crime?

So what you are saying is that you want tax dollars going to pay for a prison sentence for the illegal immigrant child molester and then let him back on the street after his sentence, rather than deport him?

I would be happy for real criminals to be prosecuted and handed over to the law enforcement of their originating countries, or, if they will not be treated properly as criminals by that other country, prosecution and incarceration in the US is also a possible second option.

The implication that these people are still going to commit criminal actions after incarceration can equally be applied to criminals who happen to be US citizens. Incarceration is a deterrent but cannot make someone do the right thing even under the best of situations.

Are you happy to spend tax dollars rounding up and deporting those who are not guilty of any crime other than being in the country without citizenship or equivalent?

a reply to: chr0naut

American citizens commit these crimes too. Should all American citizens be prosecuted because they are in an arbitrary group of people that has some criminal members? Or would it be more rational to beef up policing to deal only with those who commit actual crimes? Remember that some of the people groups who you are calling illegals have been coming into America as seasonal workers, for a generation. Some are seeking asylum and fear to return, some simply want a better life for themselves and their families and would be happy to become citizens. They aren't all criminals, despite the recent definition of "illegals" being applied against them.

if they don't have work visas, green cards, or any of the other legal means to be in the U.S. they are illegally here and they are breaking U.S. law. hence the term illegal.

a reply to: chr0naut

Don't you understand, they are getting away with these crimes because of their illegal status?

Illegals are actually not held to the same standards as citizens, native born criminals. They are given preferential treatment because of people like you, who keep repeating lies about law enforcement in America targeting brown people.

Legal, native born citizens DO NOT GET AWAY WITH CRIMES , they are held accountable .

Again, it's opposite of what you keep saying.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: chr0naut

American citizens commit these crimes too. Should all American citizens be prosecuted because they are in an arbitrary group of people that has some criminal members? Or would it be more rational to beef up policing to deal only with those who commit actual crimes? Remember that some of the people groups who you are calling illegals have been coming into America as seasonal workers, for a generation. Some are seeking asylum and fear to return, some simply want a better life for themselves and their families and would be happy to become citizens. They aren't all criminals, despite the recent definition of "illegals" being applied against them.

if they don't have work visas, green cards, or any of the other legal means to be in the U.S. they are illegally here and they are breaking U.S. law. hence the term illegal.

Do you have a green card or work visa?

You do realize that for ages, no-one cared if they crossed the border. Hence there are lots who did so. Now, they have been declared illegal due to policy change. Most aren't guilty of breaking any law in place at the time they migrated.

Did the Pilgrim fathers have all the required paperwork registered with the American Native nation/s? Because my guess is that most people in the US, of European origin, arrived illegally without the explicit permission of the Native peoples.

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: chr0naut

Don't you understand, they are getting away with these crimes because of their illegal status?

Illegals are actually not held to the same standards as citizens, native born criminals. They are given preferential treatment because of people like you, who keep repeating lies about law enforcement in America targeting brown people.

Legal, native born citizens DO NOT GET AWAY WITH CRIMES , they are held accountable .

Again, it's opposite of what you keep saying.

Then why are there more people of non-European origin incarcerated in the US?

The actual situation is the reverse of what you say.

Democrats need victims. It's the fuel for their boilers. If we had strong borders, commitment to slice cartels they would have no victims. We would achieve fair wages, fair trade, economic tourism boom. NO. They don't want that, they want victims.

a reply to: chr0naut

Because you are making up # out of the # you believe. You don't know what the hell you are talking about but that never seems to stop you.

a reply to: chr0naut

Democrats could fix immigration and give seasonal visas to seasonal workers any time they wanted, they refuse to do so.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I would be happy for real criminals to be prosecuted and handed over to the law enforcement of their originating countries, or, if they will not be treated properly as criminals by that other country, prosecution and incarceration in the US is also a possible second option.

That is who we are talking about. Criminals that these sanctuary cities refuse to hand over for deportation.

The implication that these people are still going to commit criminal actions after incarceration can equally be applied to criminals who happen to be US citizens. Incarceration is a deterrent but cannot make someone do the right thing even under the best of situations.

Yes, and we have enough home grown criminals without taking in the rest of the world's criminals too. There are no good options for many American criminals, for illegal criminals we have a great option, deportation. Democrats actively block that.

Are you happy to spend tax dollars rounding up and deporting those who are not guilty of any crime other than being in the country without citizenship or equivalent?

I am for spending the money wisely. The first group should be criminals. Removing birthright citizenship for illegals
(which multiple Supreme Court decisions already imply they have no right to) and cracking down on businesses that hire them is a better option than targeting the illegals themselves.

The topic of this thread is the refusal of Democrat sanctuary cities to turn over criminal illegals for deportation.