Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895

    Sanctuary Cities Torch Fingerprint Sharing, Protect ILLEGALS

    Sanctuary Cities Ready to Torch Fingerprint Sharing to Protect Illegal Aliens

    Dan Stein Report

    The inevitable endpoint of sanctuary cities desire to protect illegal aliens is now in sight - a halt of all fingerprint sharing by localities with state and federal authorities.


    The Huffington Post has a report from Santa Clara county, California, where supervisors are plotting on how they can prevent ICE from deporting illegal aliens taken into custody.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renee-fel ... 69528.html


    "The county is also looking into ways to put limits on the fingerprints sent to the state's database, which is monitored by ICE. This has been done in El Paso County, Texas, where the sheriff says he only shares fingerprints from Class B misdemeanors and above."

    The end point of these types of policies will mean an end to effective criminal identification once criminals realize they can commit crimes in Santa Clara and other counties without worrying that a check of their records will reveal outstanding warrants or other reasons to hold them.

    The move to stop fingerprint sharing will not stop with low-level crimes; the inevitable push will be to allow cities to withold any and all fingerprints from being sent to state and federal fingerprint identification centers.

    Source:--steinreport(.)com
    Last edited by working4change; 07-19-2013 at 09:27 AM. Reason: deactivated steinreport
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Forced Into Immigration Enforcement, A County Considers Plan B

    Huffington Post
    Renee Feltz

    When a single-mother of three got into a car accident while driving without a license in Hayward, California, she met a fate common to undocumented immigrants.

    "A police officer told me he needed to take me to the police department where my fingerprints would be taken, said the woman, who shared her story with Deportation Nation by way of Somos Mayfair, but asked to remain anonymous.
    http://www.deportationnation.org/
    http://www.somosmayfair.org/

    While she was at the jail, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents saw her prints in the state DOJ database. She now faces deportation and the question of what to do with her children, who are all US citizens.

    Stories like this have become common, but counties that feel forced into the data-sharing partnership called Secure Communities are exploring ways to avoid them. A key place to watch is Santa Clara, a California county of 1.8 million, where a third of residents are foreign-born.

    Even though Secure Communities has a mandate to target dangerous immigrants, recent data available for Santa Clara County shows non-criminals account for 26 percent of those transferred into ICE custody, and 34 percent of those deported. (see graph)
    http://crocodoc.com/yvuNWw

    This rubs salt in the wounds of Santa Clara officials, who made it clear to ICE that it wasn't interested in the program but got enrolled anyway this past May.

    So shortly after Homeland Security Napolitano told reporters, "we do not view this as an opt-in, opt-out program," the county went ahead and sent its opt-out letter. Now a meeting with ICE to discuss the request is scheduled for November 9.
    http://crocodoc.com/9RKjb

    In the meantime, Santa Clara's Board of Supervisors has asked the county counsel to look into other possible actions.

    "I think some local governments are starting to feel painted into a corner to the point. We don't want to have to make our own determination about who is worthy of being held for ICE and who is not," said Anjali Bhargava, Deputy Counsel for Santa Clara County.

    Bhargava is researching whether the county can ensure that "funds are only used to comply with requests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the extent they are subject to reimbursement or required by law." This would apply only to the Sheriff and Probation departments, but not to the 15 city police departments in the county.

    On a recent day the county's Department of Corrections held 375 immigrants in its jail at the request of ICE, most of whom would be held the full 48 hours before federal agents picked them up. This means it could incur the costs of an additional 18,000 hours of detention, none of which would be covered by ICE.

    Other counties have looked for ways to put limits on the fingerprints sent to the state's database, which is monitored by ICE. This has been done in El Paso County, Texas, where the sheriff says he only shares fingerprints from Class B misdemeanors and above. This may not be allowed by California Penal Code.

    But one thing county officials can control, is their budget. Depending on how ICE responds to its concerns, Santa Clara County may refuse to spend county resources detaining people on ICE's request.

    "That option is certainly still on the table," said Bhargava.

    Editor's note: This story has been updated for clarity.

    This story originally appeared on Deportation Nation, a news website dedicated to covering the expanding merger of immigration and local law enforcement.
    http://www.deportationnation.org/



    Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/renee-fel ... 69528.html
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895

    SANCTUARY CITIES PROTECT ILLEGAL ALIEN SEX OFFENDERS

    The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants

    By Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, Ph.D. Violent Crimes Institute, LLC Atlanta, Georgia

    After conducting a 12 month in-depth study of illegal immigrants who committed sex crimes and murders for the time period of January 1999 through April 2006 , it is clear that the U.S. public faces a dangerous threat from sex predators who cross the U.S. borders illegally.

    There were 1500 cases analyzed in depth. They included: serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides, and child molestation committed by illegal immigrants. Police reports, public records, interviews with police, and media accounts were all included. Offenders were located in 36 states, but it is clear, that the most of the offenders were located in states with the highest numbers of illegal immigrants. California was number one, followed by Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, New York, and Florida.

    Based on population numbers of 12,000,000 illegal immigrants and the fact that young males make up more of this population than the general U.S. population, sex offenders in the illegal immigrant group make up a higher percentage. When examining ICE reports and public records, it is consistent to find sex offenders comprising 2% of illegals apprehended. Based on this 2% figure, which is conservative, there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States.

    This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day. The 1500 offenders in this study had a total of 5,999 victims. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study.

    If you are not yet disgusted, you will be. Not only are criminal immigrants coming from cultures that are misogynistic, but they are changing U.S. culture in response to their sickness. Many illegal aliens join violent gangs which take over neighborhoods and terrorize innocent citizens. These gangs are highly organized with tentacles spread through several countries. The mantra of the deadly MS13 gang is: blood in, blood out. And the chilling effects of the illegal aliens participation in these gangs are very far reaching. For example, on December 19, 2002, Victor Cruz, Jose Hernandez, Armando Juvenal, and Carlos Rodriguez were involved with the drawn out gang rape of an unsuspecting 42 year old New York woman. These illegal aliens were well known to police for their prior crimes of assault, attempted robbery, drug offenses, and illegal gun possession. No deportation followed their lesser offenses because of the sanctuary policy.

    http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#Illegals
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  4. #4
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895
    Sanctuary Cities Defy the Law

    NewsMax
    James H. Walsh

    The U.S. Constitution does not have a provision for immigration sanctuary, and there is no legal precedent for it in the history of the United States of America.

    When U.S. cities and even entire states declare themselves to be "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens, they act outside the law, and by their actions could be charged with a felony for each violation of federal law by "concealing, harboring, or sheltering illegal aliens" (8 U.S. Code, sections 1324 and 1325; Immigration and Naturalization Act sections 274 and 275).

    Illegal entry into the United States — entry without inspection — is a misdemeanor, INA section 275, (8 USC Section 1324). Repeated illegal entry is a felony.

    Sanctuary cities and states demonstrate a complete contempt for the laws of the United States, a contempt that threatens to undermine the Republic. Among those residing in U.S. sanctuary cities are sleeper terrorists and others whose purpose is to destroy the United States.

    Knowing full well that the concept of sanctuary has no legal standing in the United States, some cities claim instead to be "civil liberties safe zones." These renegade sanctuaries/safe zones attack the validity of the United States government and encourage anarchy.

    Sanctuary is an insidious cancer rotting the sinew, muscle, and bone of the republic, and the result increasingly promises to be a corpse-like balkanized third-world mish-mash of city-states.

    U.S. immigration laws are not something being forced on cities and states but the thoughtful legislative products of their own elected representatives. Though pock-marked by the powerful immigration lobby, these laws still manage to speak loud and clear for those who do not cover their ears. For example, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) states the following without equivocation:

    Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

    — Section 642 (a) of IIRIRA, 1996, and Section 5434 of the Welfare Reform Act 1996; extended 2003

    The INS was replaced, of course, by the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm (ICE) in 2003, in the aftermath of 9/11.

    The flawed concepts of sanctuary cities being preached and practiced by well-funded neo-progressives can be traced most directly to the religious-oriented Sanctuary Movement of the 1980s. That movement, also without legal standing, was designed to assist foreign nationals entering the United States illegally in their flight from civil wars in Central America.

    As it turned out, however, many of those illegal aliens thus assisted were Mexicans and others from around the globe seeking at best a better quality of life and at worst the opportunity to do America harm. The 1980s movement, in its do-gooder zeal, did not shirk from harboring anti-American revolutionaries, criminal gang members, and "sleeper terrorists."

    Present-day sanctuary cities thumb their municipal noses at U.S. immigration laws by adopting a "don't ask–don't tell" policy for foreign workers. The motivation for local sanctuary policies is the same as that for national politicians — party a leftist-liberal mindset, partly the platform of the Democratic Party, partly corporate greed and the profit to be had from low-cost labor, partly the promise of future votes (legal or illegal), and partly a pervasive anti-American mentality fostered by academia and a well-heeled open-society oligarchy augmented by news media on the take.

    Illegal protective measures for illegal aliens include municipal resolutions, city executive orders, law enforcement departmental orders, city commission recommendations, a governor's order, or merely unspoken but understood orders of "no cooperation with federal authorities."

    Sanctuary states include Alaska, California, Maine, and Oregon. In New Mexico, Rio Arriba County has declared itself a sanctuary; and among the sanctuary cities are Anchorage, Ala.; Los Angeles, Calif.; Chicago and Evanston, Ill.; Cambridge, Mass.; Portland, Maine; Takoma Park and Garrett Park, Md.; Detroit, Mich.; Minneapolis, Minn.; Durham, N.C.; New York City; Gaston, Ore.; Austin and Houston, Texas; Seattle, Wash.; and Madison, Wis.

    These state, county, and municipal governments are defying the U.S. immigration laws passed by their own elected representatives. In addition to the 60 to 70 localities that have promulgated sanctuary policies, a larger number of local and state governments choose to simply ignore their illegal alien populations — pretending that illegal aliens are citizens.

    As a result, a multitude of sanctuary policies exist either by "official" (though illegal) fiat or by sub-rosa non-enforcement of federal immigration laws. Virginia Beach, Va., and Nashville, Tenn., have been in the headlines recently bringing home the tragic cost of pandering to the illegal alien lobby.

    On the evening of March 30, 2007, in Virginia Beach, an illegal alien driving drunk killed two teenagers. He had an illegal driver's license and a history of drunk driving violations, which the local police chief disregarded. Had this illegal alien been deported, the deaths would not have occurred; but the local police department policy forbids asking criminals their citizenship.

    In Nashville, Tenn., an illegal alien pled guilty to drunk driving and the death of two more innocent people. This driver was arrested 14 times, four of them for drunk driving. Across the nation, U.S. citizens are dying at the hands of lawbreakers, who having crossed the border illegally, see no reason why they should obey any laws.

    Meanwhile politicians hide behind arguments that enforcement of immigration laws is a federal obligation or that reporting illegal aliens to federal authorities infringes on states rights. At the same time, though, sanctuary cities demand federal money to subsidize education, environmental damage repair, more and more water treatment plants, police and fire protection, social handouts, and welfare benefits required by the growing ghost population of illegal aliens.

    The cost and benefits of illegal aliens do not balance. The cost of cheap labor is anything but. U.S. sanctuary policies are supported by persons acting individually or by those acting under color of title or law: governors, mayors, elected or appointed governing officials, law enforcement officers, judicial officers — who purposely and knowingly fail to obey U.S. immigration laws. Sanctuary policies shield illegal aliens from rightful detention and/or deportation for violations of federal immigration laws.

    The Sanctuary Movement of the 1980s–1990s faded in the last year of the 20th century. After 9/11, anti-American activists, One-Worlder leftists such as George Soros, anarchists, anarchist wanabees, certain religious-oriented globalists, and self-styled humanitarians revived elements of the movement as a means of forcing multiculturalism on the American society. Officials and advocates, who fail to report illegal aliens for any reason, still are committing a crime or crimes.

    Historical Sanctuary The concept of sanctuary, however, can be traced back to biblical days.

    Law dictionaries define historical sanctuary as "a consecrated place which had privileges annexed to it, and to which offenders were accustomed to resort for refuge, because they could not be arrested there, nor the laws be executed. In general, any holy or consecrated place." The term is also defined as "a place of refuge where the process of the law cannot be executed." Current sanctuary advocates cite biblical passages to justify their actions in defiance of U.S. law. They quote Leviticus: "The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you." Moses established six cities as refuges for those who committed involuntary homicide. Such refuges were connected with temples or shrines.

    The ancient Greeks and Romans also had forms of sanctuary attached to temples. Unlike the Hebrew, the Greek and Roman refugees were not limited to those who involuntarily committed crimes. The Greek and Roman sanctuaries protected criminals from the harshness of the law, affording them a form of banishment or extended imprisonment. Officially recognized by the Theodosian Code in 392 A.D., sanctuary was limited to the altar of the church or the "frith." A chair was set aside the altar for the fugitive. The sanctuary was extended to the church property — cloister, courtyards, and clergy residences. Excluded were heretics, apostates, and public debtors. The Catholic Church continued the Greek and Roman practice of extending sanctuary to all criminals.

    In the sixth century, the Justinian Code excluded murders, adulterers, and rapists. The Anglo-Saxon code of laws, complied by Ethelbert, King of Kent in 597 officially recognized sanctuary, and the first laws to regulate sanctuary were those of Ine, King of the West Saxons, in 688 to 725. In its final days in England, sanctuary was limited to 40 days and then, the fugitive had to sign an oath abjuring the realm and accepting perpetual banishment.

    Thus the sanctuary of ancient and medieval times had nothing to with illegal aliens entering a country. By the Middle Ages, the concept of sanctuary was focusing on helping debtors or people accused of crimes.

    U.S. Sanctuary

    The pilgrims did not recognize "sanctuary," nor was it part of the common law that they brought to the new world. Some argue that the pilgrims viewed the new world as a whole sanctuary, but such a claim is undocumented. Colonial history is silent on the question of sanctuary, and nowhere is sanctuary found in the writings of the time. If there were any question concerning the institution of sanctuary in the founding of the nation, it is not recorded.

    Sanctuary has never been recognized in the United States. Those who today espouse sanctuary policies, using religious connections and protection postures, are the same people who support the oft cited separation of Church and State in the U.S. Constitution. There the Liberals go again, being inconsistent in their thinking. During the Civil War and the days of the underground railroad for runaway slaves, the abolitionists made no move to institute sanctuary as a legal privilege.

    The underground railroad was a form of civil disobedience, whose practitioners risked punishment for violating existing laws.

    The Vietnam War saw a form of symbolic sanctuary in the protection of draft dodgers, but no claim was made for any legal recognition of the privilege. In fact, the very illegality of the act, an act of civil disobedience, gave the concept of sanctuary its symbolic power as a confrontation with an unpopular war.

    Two cases in the 1970s illustrate the point that sanctuary was never seen in terms of a legal privilege: Bridge v. Davis and United States v. Beyer. Violators of the Selective Service laws (the Draft) and persons absent without leave from the military were taken from churches where they were staying to avoid the authorities.

    The military police were sent into the churches to take the men out and return them to their bases. No sanctuary defense was raised in their cases, even though in the Bridge case, Sanctuary Movement members were plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

    The Appellate Court decisions turned on the right of military base commanders to control their base and its members, and sanctuary as a legal defense was never raised.

    In another case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed U.S. immigration laws and did not consider sanctuary as a defense (USA v. Francine La May).

    The seminal case involving criminal convictions of religious sanctuary advocates for violating immigration laws is U.S. v. Aquilar. In that case, the Court of Appeals upheld the convictions of these advocates for "bringing in or landing aliens," "transporting or moving undocumented aliens within the United States," and "concealing, harboring or shielding aliens."

    In short, the Court denied and sanctuary defense.

    U.S. history provides no legal precedent or justification for sanctuary cities or states. Why then are sanctuary advocates so strident and unrelenting with their vitriolic epithets of "racist" or "Nazi" toward anyone who holds that immigrants must play by the rules and obey the law?

    The lack of civility is spreading from the new Democratic-controlled Congress, to the talk shows, to the schools, from the elementary grades to colleges. Could it be the sanctuary advocates know they are wrong, yet hide their heads in the sand to achieve political power? Their ostrich mentality could be fatal to the United States, not only by vehicular deaths and gang shootings but by breaches in national security.

    The author is a former federal prosecutor and U.S. German Marshall Scholar.

    Source: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/art ... shtml?s=us
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Senior Member uniteasone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    north carolina
    Posts
    4,638
    These are the ones that need to be sued and federal aid cut off for these types practices. That is evading the justice system.
    "When you have knowledge,you have a responsibility to do better"_ Paula Johnson

    "I did then what I knew to do. When I knew better,I did better"_ Maya Angelou

  6. #6
    Senior Member HAPPY2BME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    17,895

    LOOK *WHO* IS CALLING THE SHOTS IN SANCTUARY CITIES

    Quote Originally Posted by uniteasone
    These are the ones that need to be sued and federal aid cut off for these types practices. That is evading the justice system.
    LOOK *WHO* IS IN POWER CALLING THE SHOTS IN SANCTUARY CITIES! They are either direct relatives of illegal aliens or the ones HIRING THEM.

    "I think some local governments are starting to feel painted into a corner to the point. We don't want to have to make our own determination about who is worthy of being held for ICE and who is not," said Anjali Bhargava, Deputy Counsel for Santa Clara County
    Join our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & to secure US borders by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mexifornia
    Posts
    9,455
    While she was at the jail, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents saw her prints in the state DOJ database. She now faces deportation and the question of what to do with her children, who are all US citizens.
    "What to do" with her anchor babies is simple! She needs to take her minor anchor babies with her as she is responsible for them as their parent! This is exactly why they have litters of anchor babies so when faced with deportation, they can cry, “you cannot deport me, my children are American citizens!â€
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •