Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


#519

There is nothing in the 1986 law that makes it a crime to enforce immigration law, there is nothing in that article that says the 1986 law makes it a crime to help ICE; if this officer broke any law by calling ICE it was a law passed later than the 1986 law.

You cannot rewrite history, I would think at some point your Party would learn that; this officer spent no State money in simply answering a question that was asked of him and no “report” was given to ICE.

But your Party does make ludicrous claims to use the judicial system to commit terrorism against law abiding citizens all of the time, that is also a development that Friedman was not alive to see.


#520

In fact in further reading I guess Portland has never even passed a sanctuary city law for their city, they are enforcing “sanctuary policies” that do not carry the authority of law; just the political whims of the current authorities.

But by all means keep claiming that Friedman was fully aware of the political strategies that your Party has been employing decades after his death.


#521

? Yes there is, I posted the text of it right there RET.

" No law enforcement agency… shall use agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws,

You can’t cooperate with ICE or federal law, simply for them being here illegally. Being here illegally is not seen as a crime in Oregon.

It’s reduced to a civil offense you get, at worst, a fine for.

Seems like a shield from the law to me.


#522

They just can’t use agency money, your Party has TRIED to punish officers for assisting ICE in any way and FAILED to make the charges stick.

I have no doubt that your party will eventually succeed in Oregon and suffer the same consequences as every other place that condemns their citizens to 3rd class status but they have not done so yet and they most certainly had not done so when Friedman was alive.

Those officers are still free men, they would be convicted criminals in Kalifornia where your ideas dominate but not yet in Oregon.


#523

Or personnel. or Equipment. Or hold people for ICE just because they’re here illegally.

If they do, they get punished. The deputies who messaged ICE this time weren’t punished because they were able to prove that they weren’t aware of what the law demanded. Their training hadn’t included it.

Had they been, they would have been held accountable.


#524

BS, they were not punished because they are NOT responsible to protect illegal immigrants from prosecution; they are ONLY barred from using State resources to do so.

There are NO LAWS that are only punishable if you are aware of them; you are citing a Leftist opinion designed to preserve a lie about the 1986 law that is told by Oregon Leftist’s. They tried to fry these deputies and failed so they tell a narrative that is designed to scare the rest of law enforcement into permitting these crimes.

The second they get a genuine sanctuary law these ridiculous fairy tales will move to another agenda item.


#525

I missed this earlier, this is a complete lie based on the text of the law that you even quoted; the law specifies the use of resources only and NOTHING about the sanctity of illegal immigrants.

You guys used the same lie to destroy the baker in Colorado, claiming that the “law” eradicated his Constitutional Right to not create art that violated his personal Faith; you guys destroyed him financially in spite of the Supreme Court finally putting and end to your nonsense.

You use Judicial Terrorism to punish the innocent into serving the guilty and the decadent who make up your voting bloc.


#526

It’s not RET, it’s in the text of the law. The person has to be guilty of committing some other legal offense.

If it’s just them here illegally, It’s busted down to a civil offense.

I didn’t lie, you just didn’t know.


#527

No matter how much liberal BS you try to throw at it this is not true, not in the law and a complete fabrication on the part of your Party who refuses to respect any law that stands in the way of their total dependency agenda.

The law begins and ends with a focus on spending State resources, your political agenda is not there and all of the sanctuary language that you and your Parties corrupt lawyers try to spin does not exist and so far they have not found a court corrupt enough to say otherwise.

But I know you guys won’t give up, I have seen how far you will go to destroy the innocent without a hint of conscience or regret.

Maybe you can get the 9th circuit to hear your revision, I am sure they can find a sanctuary law in there somewhere.


#528

It’s in the law, it’s in the ballot measure, it’s in the article.

Claiming I’m lying is hollow when I’m quoting my sources saying the same thing, verbatim.

Everyone else calls this a sanctuary law RET. Including the people who want the law repealed, like these Sheriffs. You’re pretty much the only one insisting it isn’t one.


#529

The Law addresses resources, non of your Kalifornia dream language is in there and none of your kangaroo courts has found any either.


#530

All of your “sources” do say what you’re saying and I have been condemning them right along with you; but the written Law and every attempt to enforce your view so far have never found your sanctuary crap in there.

But I know you guys don’t quit, it took you 200 years to find the Right to murder 60 million babies in the Constitution but eventually you found a court that would say “oh yeah, it’s right in there plain as day!”


#531

Nope, more than that:

" No law enforcement agency… shall use agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws,”

As the ballot measure states, the exception to the law is if the person committed other crimes.

Only then may you arrest or apprehend them, or notify ICE that you have them.


#532

Including the Sheriffs who want the law repealed:

Santuary%20law

They’re saying that this is a sanctuary law, that blocks law enforcement from coordinating with Federal authorities.

If you call these people “leftists” I’m going to laugh at you RET.


#533

Keep quoting the law all that you want, you can’t make it say what you claim without rewriting the dictionary.

Which is a common tactic for your side so I guess you have to; at least until your Party manages to get a real sanctuary law passed.

And restricting law enforcement from doing their job will always inspire their protest; so thank you for staying in your red herring wheel house as usual.


#534

It proves you wrong RET.

Detection” includes communication with ICE.

The Sheriffs calling for repeal equally show this. They vouch the law interferes with their ability to talk to Federal Authorities, and most of them live in Red counties.

I’m certainly going to believe them over you. They operate in the State; you’re just an outsider looking in.


#535

Sure it does AS, context doesn’t matter so the fact that it prefaces your individual words with the clear statement that the law is specifically about what State resources cannot be used for is not relevant at all; it is entirely appropriate to insert “all communication” to the prohibited list (/sarcasm)

But I do love the consistency of your side, it’s always the same fallacious strategy when the actual law does not allow you to do what you want.

The 2nd Amendment only allows for Militias!

Babies have no Right to due process!

Bakers are exempt from religious liberty and freedom of association Rights!

Affirmative Action is fine because Racism is allowed as long as it punishes the right people!

The President has no authority to declare an emergency if his opposition party does not give him permission… If he is a Republican… But not if the President is a Democrat… And the opposition party is Republican!

You have no Right to speak and assemble if AS’s Party does not approve of the content!

The great thing about opposing a group that only has one card to play is never being surprised at their arguments.


#536

It’s sheriffs who want the law repealed who confirm this.

Your attempt to play them off as leftists is hilarious.


#537

They are not Leftist’s, they just don’t want to be hunted and dragged into court by your Party who is using the court system for terrorism; they have been doing their job under this law for over 3 decades before your people started making false claims about what was required of them.

Which is having the same effect as judicial terrorism always has, they fear being prosecuted for simply doing their job.


#538

For saying the law is not a sanctuary law?

That’s just stupid; they’re saying it’s a sanctuary law, because it’s a sanctuary law.

"Simply put, Oregon’s sanctuary status declaration directly contravenes federal immigration law and threatens public safety. This has put many sheriffs in the position of choosing whether to violate state or federal law. It’s an untenable position. "

– Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney for the District of Oregon

If anything, they’d be dragged into court for trying to repeal the law. You’re all mixed up RET.