Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


#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 Including the people who want the law repealed, like these Sheriffs.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.


#539

Are you just feigning being that dense? Your Party publicly attacked 3 deputies since 2017 for merely taking a call from ICE and answering a question, your Party attempted to say (like you are in this thread) that this 3 decade old law went much farther than the text declares and not only prohibits using State resources to enforce immigration laws but also bans all communication with the Feds; effectively saying that Oregon law enforcement officials are obligated to PROTECT criminals from the federal immigration laws.

These 3 officers were NOT convicted of this crime because what they did WAS NOT a crime and your Party KNEW THAT.

The point was to publicly accuse the officers and then sell the lie that they were only exonerated because of their ignorance. This means that ALL law enforcement in Oregon now must live with the concern that simply doing their job could make them subject to similar public accusations that while false will still require defending themselves.

So a Law that for 3 decades was not a problem has NOW become a concern to honest law officers who are just doing their job in good Faith.

THAT is why they are now trying to get the law repealed or clarified, they fear becoming victims of the judicial terrorism that your Party inflicts on the innocent CONSTANTLY when you can’t get the actual laws passed that you want.

You can pretend that this is not your strategy all you want, anyone that follows the long, bloody trail of innocent citizens who were humiliated and bankrupted defending themselves against non existent “crimes” will not be fooled for a second by your claims that laws like the Oregon law go infinitely further than their clear text.

You force the innocent to fear the law when they aren’t breaking it and you encourage the guilty to break the laws as much as possible.

I really wish that I could get decent conservatives like these officers in Oregon to STOP trying to protect themselves by fixing laws that are not broken, people like you will never stop ignoring the clear limits described in the law so this is as big a waste of time as those who want to amend the Constitution to make it say what it already says.

The answer is to STOP pretending that the judiciary has integrity and start treating them like the political entity they have bastardized themselves into; “lawyering up” does nothing but lend these jackals credibility that they have long ago exhausted.

You guys are well on your way to destroying states like Oregon but you just can’t wait to do it within the system so you try to get there through intimidating the innocent until they start acting like the laws you want are already on the books.

You aren’t fooling anyone who follows your Party closely, this is your playbook everywhere on every one of your agenda items; I wish someone besides Trump on a national level understood that so we could finally start condemning the guilty instead of the innocent.


#540

That’s my question to you; here we have the ******* DA saying it’s a sanctuary law, that it disrupts their relationship with the Feds, and still you deny it.

Yet you can’t deny it RET, you made a mistake.

Here’s what you did RET: You read the first description of the law you found, one which didn’t convey everything, and you’ve pretended with me that that’s all the law was.

You pretended to know more about their situation than you did, and you pretended the only ones calling this a sanctuary law were leftist.

In doing this you’ve only compounded your original error.

You should have been honest at the start, and admitted what’s clearly obvious; it’s a sanctuary law.

I was expecting you to downplay it for being Oregon, just one small state, who did it in 1987, not this nonsense you’re feeding me where you call Conservatives liars, and deny what words mean.


#541

The text of the law and its first 30 years in use speak for itself, you hang your hat on a nickname for the law that even your leftist media heroes always put in quotation marks.

I made no mistake, and neither did you; everything you have offered since trying to run from being exposed over your Friedman claims was misdirection and evasion.

That, as always, is entirely intentional on your part.


#542
  1. Just like they tried to do to President Trump
  2. Just like they did do for Hillary Clinton.

This pattern is repeated over and over and over, to people great and small in all walks of life. The American political struggle has condensed down to between corruption and integrity, and corruption is winning because their side is in charge of (selectively) enforcing the rules.


#543

From its official description on the day it was passed:

Prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing immigration laws. Permits law enforcement agency to [contact] exchange information with United States Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to verify immigration status of person arrested for criminal offense or request criminal investigation information about persons named in service records. Specifies that Bureau of Labor and Industries is not law enforcement agency for purposes of prohibition. "

There you have the truth RET. You made a mistake.


#544

Yep, it clearly allows for communication with the Feds.

Yep, you still know the whole fairy tale you told about Friedman was a product of your own desire to find some support for your ideas besides Pelosi, Schumer, Sanders and Cortez.