Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


He died in 2006. Obama loosened some restrictions, but the system pre-1996 held out more to people without asking questions.

Sorry RET, but you’re wrong here. Other economists affirm the same thing: Legals use more than illegals.

If everyone’s on the take, everyone is subsidized. Thus, there is no “privileged workers” as you claim.

I did not. You just want wallpaper over what Milton Friedman said, because you want simplify both him, and reality.

But I don’t need your simplifications.


Please list all of the sanctuary states that existed in 2006.

I expect that list will appear at about the same time as your Friedman quote that says he thought importing Welfare rats was good for the economy ; which is never.


Yeah, you got plenty of your own.


I don’t need any. RET does it because he won’t admit where he disagrees with Friedman.

OTOH I’m perfectly willing to do so; because I only respect the man, I don’t treat him as infallible.


Please, that’s a side step so you don’t have to acknowledge that [large] sanctuary cities were very much a thing. San Francisco declared themselves one in 1989.

And of course, so did Oregon two years earlier.

You’ve never answered my question:

Why did he call illegal immigration good? What is the actual reason, verbatim? Can you even state it?

As far as I’m concerned, his reasoning is something you’ve never addressed. As it would mean admitting that you disagree with him.


So that’s a no on a sanctuary state and still no quote about how importing Welfare rats is good for the economy, why am I not surprised.


You didn’t read very carefully:

That means 1987 RET.

And still no answer from you for why Milton Friedman said illegal immigrants were good.

I know why you avoid it RET. You don’t want to admit you disagree with him.


Oregon is not a Sanctuary State, Oregon simply passed a law saying they would not use their FUNDS helping the Federal Government enforce the immigration laws; this law does not criminalize cooperation with ICE or provide ANY safe haven for those who are spitting on the United States immigration laws.

So there were NO Sanctuary States at any time in Friedman’s life and he never once uttered the ridiculous position of your Party that importing Welfare rats is good for the economy.

As I have said numerous times, you misdirect and invent narratives to simply avoid admitting that you want open borders to create a large enough dependent population to keep your Party in power without a single vote from the private sector productive class.


They call it a sanctuary law, including the people trying to repeal it.

Under this law, being in the State illegally is not a crime.

Not sure where the semantic difference here is.


It is not “semantic”, a sanctuary is protection from the law; Oregon just said that they would not spend their own money enforcing a federal law.

If they were a sanctuary state they would be protecting the criminals from the feds like Kalifornia does, in Kalifornia it is illegal for law enforcement to contact ICE when they apprehend an illegal alien.

That is a Sanctuary State and NONE existed during Friedman’s lifetime.


No law enforcement agency of the State of Oregon or of any political subdivision of the state 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,

That’s the text of the law right there; it pretty much does this RET.

We stand by our policy and do not, and will not, notify or alert immigration officials or agencies regarding individuals with whom we come into contact,

– Multnomah County District Attorney

Oregon investigates and disciplines its agents who talk to ICE about people who don’t have other criminal history.

From what I’m reading, California based its own Sanctuary law on this one.


Which is exactly what I said, they will not spend their money enforcing immigration law.

Kalifornia is not that law, it is a crime for law enforcement officials to assist the feds in any way regarding immigration enforcement; it is State law that illegals be PROTECTED from the federal governments attempts to enforce immigration laws.

The “Santuary” status is based on scripture, it is a place that exists OUTSIDE of law enforcement for specified crimes under specific circumstances; it has nothing to do with fiscal concerns.

No Oregon police officer is violating the 1986 law if he notifies ICE of an illegal immigrant; in Kalifornia (and all sanctuary states) he would be violating the law as his duty would be to shield the criminal from law enforcement officials in regards to immigration.

Oregon may have become a sanctuary state since 1986 since they are run by Communists who also would love to never have to worry about losing an election like Kalifornia but the 1986 law was specific to fiscal concerns and did NOT criminalize the act of enforcing immigration laws or assisting the feds in doing so.


It’s more than that; they block all enforcement of the law. They won’t even hold people in custody for ICE to collect.

Again, they’ve investigated their own officers for doing this, because it was viewed as violating the law:


So are you claiming that the city of Portland sanctuary city law is what makes Oregons 1986 law sanctuary?

Or are you completely aware that this was NOT a violation of the State law but just a city of Portland law (passed years afterward) but you are just trying to keep your false claims about Friedman on life support?


It’s not a city law:

"Portland police decided that providing public records is barred by the state’s sanctuary law, a spokesman says. The bureau now charges federal immigration officials for the reports and redaction.

“Now more than ever,” Police Chief Danielle Outlaw tells WW, “we must ensure our immigrant community does not see us as a source for fear.”"


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.


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.


? 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.


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.


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.