Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


#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.


#545

Exactly, and the Left is not even trying to hide this anymore; they are proud of the innocent they butcher and have no conscience over the evil ones that they let run rampant.


#546

For people charged with a criminal offense, not people simply here illegally.

“arrested for criminal offense”

Sorry RET, but you should have done your homework.


#547

Sure, they cannot communicate if ICE calls them; only if they call the Feds. If the Feds call them they are supposed to slam the phone down and beg forgiveness for saying “hello” when it rang.

It is right there in the law if you read between the lines and ignore the entire context which deals exclusively with State resources.

It is just a coincidence that nobody noticed your sentient understanding for 30 years until Trump got elected and your Party lost all grip on sanity as they realized a crackdown on importing Welfare rats would destroy their last hope of ever gaining any appreciable power.

That is some mighty fine homework you did, good for an A+ in every Leftist indoctrination mill on American soil and probably 70 percent of our current courtrooms.


#548

You’re ignoring context; they can’t talk to the Feds about people who are just here illegally.

They have to be arrested for something else.

Prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing immigration laws.

Apparently, you don’t take what they’re saying here seriously, and it’s dumbfounding.


#549

So today I get a call from a dispatch service that is looking for 6 trucks to haul 1 load apiece into a local military base, this dispatch service has access to dozens of trucks so I asked why he was calling me?

The reason was he could only find 2 truck drivers that would be qualified to enter the military base; you must be in the United States legally to make deliveries to a military base; I laughed my ass off.

I also told him that I was too busy to bail out his criminal trucking companies who get a pass from my State on all of the draconian regulations that I have to follow at the point of a gun. This was just one small job but it is the first time I have seen the tables turned, normally it is the legal companies that are locked out of work by the illegals who can operate their dilapidated junk with impunity.

Oregon is not a sanctuary state yet, their laws provide no sanctuary from their crimes; they only protect Oregon taxpayers from having to pay for enforcement of laws that Oregons citizens decided in 1986 were not enough of a concern to bother with.

That is the truth, just as your claims about Friedman are false and just as your fairy tale about illegals coming here to work “farm jobs” is false.

The Extreme Left buy your fairy tales so I hope Trump can ship every illegal to the States that give them sanctuary; those States are a lost cause anyway although I suppose they are Utopia to you and your party.


#550

They provide sanctuary from Immigration law. Which to everyone else breathing, is what a sanctuary law means.


#551

They do no such thing, there is not one single Oregon state employee that is required to protect illegal immigrants from the Feds; that is what sanctuary means and that does not exist in Oregon.

It does exist in Sanctuary States, and is in fact the definition of offering sanctuary.

The evidence of this is pretty obvious, your judicial terrorists tried to hang 3 Oregon state deputies for not protecting illegals and all 3 were exonerated.

But I am sure that sooner or later your people will find a judge with the same lack of respect for the law that you have and “find” all of your concoctions are in the existing law.


#552

It’s in official description of the law in the House Calendar from when it was passed.

Prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing immigration laws.

You need to read these things RET, not ignore them.


#553

That’s grasping for straws RET; the Sheriff in charge of them said this was wrong (before the judge said anything), and that he personally followed up with them to ensure they knew what the law was going forward.


#554

Keep whittling down the context all you want, you guys are doing great favors for my side by sticking with your obvious fabrications no matter what; I am relieved that the days of your party hiding who they are have ended and your media has finally been widely exposed for the indoctrinated hacks they are.

2016 was a good start at cleaning out the GOP, 2020 will mark the beginning of some significant changes to your corrupt, deep state enablers.


#555

That’s what you did.

You claimed this was a reinterpretation of the law, yet here we have a description from 1987 saying it was intended to [prohibit enforcing immigration law.]

Those words I have in brackets? Are all in the description. Would you mind reading it already?


#556

Yeah, actual officers who were actually accused of doing what you say is a criminal act and who admitted without hesitation to doing what you say is a crime in Oregon are exonerated without so much as a mark on their record.

That is “grasping at straws” to you, but having to carve a 30 year old law down to individual words so you can leave out the very premise of the law is “solid ground”?

In your world yes, but that is only because Liberals are insane.


#557

Because they could prove they weren’t trained on it.

Once again, you ignored context; the Judge still ruled their actions were wrong.

Had they been trained, they would have been held accountable, as the Sheriff, their boss, said.


#558

There is no exception in the law for ignorance, those who offered ignorance as justification for their innocence are the ones “grasping at straws” ; that is their only hope to preserve their lie that these officers were committing a crime by simply doing their job.

Same old strategy from the same old Leftists with the same old agenda.


#559

I don’t write nor pass down judgements RET, that’s their law, and how they handled it.

I’m just telling you what their decision was.

Here’s the Sheriff:


#560

Not one fact or reference, just an anecdotal opinion offered by the commander designed to tamp down your zealot buddies who are bent on judicial terrorism and poetic license from your Leftist reporter.

The FACTS are that they were not infracted in ANY WAY, that is because they committed NO CRIME.

You are the one grabbing at straws because the FACTS, history and the dictionary all condemn your claims.

By the way, where is this “decision from the judge that said they broke the law” that you mentioned earlier? Seems like you would have posted that instead of the PR exchange between the head sheriff and a reporter.


#561

I already listed the reference RET.

And here’s an email chain showing the Sheriff Office’s communication with ICE:

? You talked about the judge before I did, are you telling me you did that off the cuff?

I want to see your source RET. You’ve talked alot, but have offered no sources.


#562

I said they were judged innocent and received absolutely NO admonishment of any kind which is what the investigation determined, I also said that NO JUDGE had ever found anyone guilty of any crime for communicating with the FEDS in over 30 years of this law being on the books.

YOU SAID that A judge had found them GUILTY, I knew when you wrote it that you pulled that out of the same place you got the idea that Friedman advocated importing Welfare rats to improve the economy but I thought I would give you a chance to prove me wrong.

I could tell by how long it took you to respond that you were frantically googling in the hopes of finding SOMETHING that would support your claim; I also knew there was nothing.

You quote an article written after the Sheriff’s department decided how they were going to spin this to both let the innocent officers off and still deflect your buddies, there is nothing in that spin that changes the FACTS that in spite of clearly and immediately admitting to have done precisely what you say is a crime under this law they received absolutely no blemish of any kind on their record.

Because they broke NO LAW.


#563

Ok. Source please?

? I went to bed, I do that around 10:00 now.

Should I expect you to spend hours googling before I see your source?