Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    South Western Ohio
    Posts
    5,278

    U.S. Cities Provide Sanctuary to Illegals

    U.S. Cities Provide Sanctuary to Illegals
    Friday, July 25, 2003

    By Matt Hayes

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92966,00.html


    A friend once told me how his father, who had married an English woman after WWII and decided to stay in the United Kingdom, was required to report to the local police station every six months until his residency had been approved, and periodically even after that.

    It took more than one year for his residency to be approved, and out of sheer forgetfulness, my friend's father failed to check in with the police about a year after he filed his application for residency. Six months and one day after his last visit with the local police, my friend's father and wife heard a knock on their door. It was a policeman. "I'm sorry to bother you," the policeman said, "but tomorrow would you please stop by the station and make sure all your information is up to date?"

    Things like this can occur in a place like the United Kingdom because it insists on a single, national jurisdiction over immigration . We've had the same thing here in the U.S. since 1798, when Congress claimed for itself sole power over immigration to the United States. That's why, for instance, Maine cannot decide on its own to remove a non-citizen. But you wouldn't know that today, when city after city promulgates their own rules that prevent the federal government from enforcing our immigration laws and removing non-citizens who have no legal right to be here. These rules have come to be referred to as sanctuary policies , and the cities that employ them sanctuary cities .


    Full-page Behind the Bar ArchiveAny immigration lawyer who has been practicing long enough will tell you that people who are in the U.S. with no legal immigration status know the locales where they are least likely to be apprehended by immigration authorities and where they can resort to public services without fear of being found out.

    Since 1996, it has been illegal for states and municipalities to take any action that prevents the reporting of illegal immigrants to federal immigration authorities. On July 23, the New York Times ran a 1355-word article (which used the term "illegal alien" exactly four times) on New York City's response to a recent Federal Court ruling that compels the city to change a policy it has had for more than a decade. That policy prevented city agencies from reporting illegal aliens to federal immigration authorities.

    But rather than do what the court has stated he must, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (search) has developed a new policy -- city agencies now won't inquire as to a person's immigration status except in the most extraordinary circumstances. The goal is for the city to have nothing to report.

    Mayor Bloomberg's new policy, which is mimicked in major cities throughout the country, seems ironic coming from a mayor who never stops complaining that the city pays too much money to people injured on its poorly-maintained sidewalks. In December 2002, a wife and mother of two was overpowered near Shea Stadium by five men who sexually assaulted her over a period of hours. Every one of the perpetrators are reportedly illegal aliens, and four of them had been in the custody of the New York City Police Department before the rape but were released rather than being turned over to INS (now BCIS) Investigations.

    If mayors whose cities employ sanctuary policies are truly concerned with exposure to lawsuits, they might reconsider their sanctuary policies and do what the law requires: report illegal aliens to federal immigration authorities.

    The days of the sanctuary policy might be numbered. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. , has offered an amendment to two appropriations bills that would bar federal funding to states and localities that restrict any government agency from sending information to, or receiving information from, federal immigration authorities regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status.

    Though many are bound to complain that the effect of the amendment would be to deprive cities of much needed law enforcement money, the opposite is probably true. If the city does what the 1996 immigration law requires, and does not take measures that would prevent the city from informing immigration authorities of illegal aliens in their custody or using their public services, the funding will be available.

    "Is every city in America going to establish its own immigration policy?" asks Tancredo. "We pretend that we have a single immigration law, and in fact, we do. But sanctuary cities are in effect creating many different immigration jurisdictions. There are cities in America where having no legal immigration status is meaningless." When it was last put to a vote, Tancredo's amendment picked up another 20 votes, showing that this common sense measure is picking up momentum.

    But in places like New York, where Mayor Bloomberg continues to circumvent the clear obligations of the 1996 immigration reforms by employing a "don't ask, so we have nothing to tell" policy, it will only be the inevitable $40 million plaintiff's verdict against the city (which will come from the Shea Stadium rape case or some similar tragedy) that will open eyes.

    Matt Hayes began practicing immigration law shortly after graduating from Pace University School of Law in 1994, representing new immigrants in civil and criminal matters. He teaches at Berkeley College, and is author of The New Immigration Law and Practice, a textbook to be published by West Legal Publications in October, 2003.

  2. #2
    Senior Member crazybird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Joliet, Il
    Posts
    10,175
    Is every city in America going to establish its own immigration policy?" asks Tancredo.
    I wonder that myself. I mean here we are already an official English speaking state.....but towns are having to fight and vote again for something that is already there. I don't get it. I'm fed-up with it. I mean this whole fiasco is insane. There's no consistancy between state to state and now not from county to county or city to city.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member Paige's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City Utah
    Posts
    2,847
    They are still breaking the Consitution. Each city is not a nation. If they decide to do this then all Federal Funding, Social Services, National Guard ect should be removed from them.
    <div>''Life's tough......it's even tougher if you're stupid.''
    -- John Wayne</div>

  4. #4
    Senior Member BorderLegionnaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by Paige
    They are still breaking the Consitution. Each city is not a nation. If they decide to do this then all Federal Funding, Social Services, National Guard ect should be removed from them.
    True its still against the Constitution and it is against the law to aid and abet criminals but cities and states can have the right to make laws that limit or prohibit illegal immigration but not support it, because they are illegal aliens!!
    Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
    -Ron Paul

  5. #5
    Senior Member Gogo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Alipacers Come In All Colors
    Posts
    9,909
    Yep, we need to keep on the Congress we need this stuff stopped. Boycotting those cities wouldn't hurt my feelings.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #6
    Senior Member jp_48504's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,168
    This is a news Sotry and it belongs in the News Section. I am moving it there now.
    I stay current on Americans for Legal Immigration PAC's fight to Secure Our Border and Send Illegals Home via E-mail Alerts (CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP)

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    193
    These sanctuary cities may have a rude awakening:

    "An amendment to HR 2638 offered by US Representative Tom Tancredo which passed the House by 234-189 with strong bipartisan support cuts funding from the Department of Homeland security (DHS) to cities that employ a "sanctuary policy" to illegal aliens.

    " The Times, they are a changing," said Tancredo, "This should serve as a warning sign to the White House and supporters of re-introducing an amnesty bill from the Senate. If that legislation makes it to the house, it is in serious trouble." "


    The amendment to HR 2638 would prevent cities like Denver and San Francisco, who employ a sanctuary policy for illegal aliens from receiving first responder funds, including law enforcement and terrorism prevention grants, along with other programs.

    Related information:
    {The Library of Congress HR 2638}--

  8. #8
    Senior Member BorderLegionnaire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    960
    Quote Originally Posted by WesternMA
    These sanctuary cities may have a rude awakening:

    "An amendment to HR 2638 offered by US Representative Tom Tancredo which passed the House by 234-189 with strong bipartisan support cuts funding from the Department of Homeland security (DHS) to cities that employ a "sanctuary policy" to illegal aliens.

    " The Times, they are a changing," said Tancredo, "This should serve as a warning sign to the White House and supporters of re-introducing an amnesty bill from the Senate. If that legislation makes it to the house, it is in serious trouble." "


    The amendment to HR 2638 would prevent cities like Denver and San Francisco, who employ a sanctuary policy for illegal aliens from receiving first responder funds, including law enforcement and terrorism prevention grants, along with other programs.

    Related information:
    {The Library of Congress HR 2638}--
    Thats a step in the right direction! Then have there citizens complain to there local governments to remove the illegals out and revoke the sanctuary status on the city... Its a great first step!
    Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.
    -Ron Paul

  9. #9
    Senior Member Paige's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City Utah
    Posts
    2,847
    These government officals in the cities are left wingers. Teach the states that better be careful who they are voting into office.
    <div>''Life's tough......it's even tougher if you're stupid.''
    -- John Wayne</div>

  10. #10
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,443
    Do we realize this story was from 2003?
    Not that anything has changed since then...
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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