The Salem News reports voters yesterday upheld a city-council ordinance to not have local police and officials ask people seeking official help about their immigration status.
to not have local police and officials ask people seeking official help about their immigration status
Good. Nor about their tax status with the IRS, nor about whether their house is in compliance with building codes, nor about whether or not they have overdue library fines, I hope. .
Immigration is a federal matter. Period. And, until such time as Congress chooses to make presence in the US without authorization an actual crime, it's not a matter for criminal law enforcement either.
I mean, I live in Boston and we don't have a lot of people who came here without "authorization." It's not a "problem" like folks in other cities claim it is. And maybe it really is a problem for some cities and maybe they do really need a solution to this problem. I just don't see how being against a law like Salem's is a solution to their problem. In other words, even if you feel your city has "too many" people that we call undocumented immigrants why would you be against a law like the one in Salem? How does a local police officer asking about immigration status help to fix your "problem?"
it's about giving tacit approval to the idea that we're OK with having one set of people who live under our common set of laws and another set of people who live outside of it.
We can get into a name-calling contest about the relative merits of open borders and empty gestures till we're blue or red in the face, but can we at least agree that what I described above is not a desirable situation for a democratic society, or any society for that matter?
People should not cross borders illegally.
People should pay their Federal taxes.
I don't want my local law enforcement involved in either matter.
and understand it, but submit for your consideration that pure federalism, as in a complete division of responsibility between local and federal law enforcement, is not the best bang for your tax dollar.
I'd want a fed to, for example be able to legally arrest a purse snatcher if he's in the right place at the right time to help out local law enforcement, and for the same reason I'd want a local cop to be able to assist federal law enforcement if he's in a position to do so. Not to the exclusion of their primary responsibilities of course, but not categorically prohibited from doing so either.
The local PD isn't prohibited from helping the Feds, they just can't make it their primary mission.
If the FBI calls and asks them to detain someone who they think has or is about to commit a serious crime they certainly will do so. They just won't go out of their way to enforce immigration laws when there's no more serious crime.
Cities and towns cooperate with the Federal government BUT THEY CANNOT BE TAKEN OVER BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Requiring that our state and local police funds and resources be spent to fulfill the mission of a federal agency without compensation IS A TAKEOVER.
"....asking for official help." Official being the operative word, what does that mean? Since these ordinances are usually written by lawyers, does asking for official help mean hiring an immigration lawyer to help with your immigration status?
it means going to the police as a witness to or victim of a crime or otherwise cooperating or seeking help.
people don't report crimes when they think they will be deported or will inadvertently cause a friend or family member to be deported. therefore, they become more vulnerable and crime only increases.
Sanctuary city "status" basically only means that local police won't do the Feds' job for them with local money and time, and that they prioritize at least a semi-functional relationship with the community over crackin' skulls and intimidating brown people.
And remember, MAGAts, apart from being a general statement of municipal priorities, it doesn't mean anything legally - which is why you have "sanctuary" "welcoming", " inclusive", cities etc.. that all mean different things but that don't carry legal weight. A person residing in a "sanctuary" city is not somehow magically protected. ICE can still do its job using its usual deceptive and frequently illegal methods. Fret not.
Immigration status is much like smoking pot: Technically illegal (federally) but most local police aren't going to care unless you're doing something more serious. Someone in this country without papers is about as threatening as someone smoking pot.
Why there isn't there a crackdown on the people who employ them?
If word got out that work was scarce, and employers started seeing meaningful consequences instead of economic incentives to pay under the table, maybe the tide would turn.
Why would you want that? Who's hurt in that situation?
They're not necessarily paid under the table or untaxed.
candidate Geoff Diehl.
Imagine Boston Fire refusing to respond to assist Massport Fire at a plane crash at Logan because of political correctness. That's about the size of it with sanctuary cities. Someone who is here illegally, who commits a new crime(s) and the local police are told by politicians not to help ICE.
We saw DA Dan Conley's office agreeing to an absurd 364 day sentence for two counts of armed bank robbery, to help an African immigrant avoid deportation, only to have him brutally murder two great doctors. Sickening.
Congrats to the Dems on their coastal wins in VA, NJ and Lynn but I don't think the policy plays well with most. Keep it up.
Congrats on your 80's era plan to use anecdotal evidence to say all brown people are violent and to be scared of.
How many scripts do you have?
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2019 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy