Originally posted by Surtur
Just out of curiosity..if you did somehow get confirmation the numbers were 100% legit what would your reaction be in terms of what should be done about illegal immigration?
The numbers are legit, multiple sources talk about the numbers. These people will never change their mind and if they did, it will be "put them in Ameican jail" so we can pay for it.
Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialI'm sorry time but some numbers from non-vetted sources is not great evidence to an entire movement on.
The numbers are legit, multiple sources talk about the numbers. These people will never change their mind and if they did, it will be "put them in Ameican jail" so we can pay for it.
I mean how do you know they are legit?
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Also Surtur ICE let go 36,000 illegal criminals, murders, sexual assaults, theft, and so one. One killed a public office. Guess what, they were not deported. They were just let go in the street.
Originally posted by Newjak
I'm sorry time but some numbers from non-vetted sources is not great evidence to an entire movement on.I mean how do you know they are legit?
The news just isn't getting any better. This illegal raped a girl while free on bond.
http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-sex-offender-immigration-20150721-story.html
"Dean has a long history of sexual misconduct. In 2008, he was charged with lewd conduct in public. In March 2014, patrons at Macy’s department store had their shopping experiences disrupted by the sight of Dean exposing himself. Authorities booked him for six months on indecent exposure charges and sixteen months for burglary, served concurrently. He spent time in Kern Valley State Prison before being shipped to the Adelanto detention facility — where he posted $10,000 bond on April 29 and left.
Thanks to leftist lawfare, the government couldn’t hold this illegal alien sex offender unless it definitively proved he was a flight risk or a “danger to the community.” The ACLU Foundation of Southern California successfully argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that after only six months of detention, illegals should be free to post bond and roam around the U.S. while the feds puzzle over their deportation proceedings.
“The bonds give detainees, many of whom have lived in the United States for years, a chance to reunite with their families while fighting their deportations, said Ahilan Arulanantham, deputy legal director at the ACLU of Southern California,” according to the LA Times. “This rule provides due process, and it would be a mistake to abandon that rule because you have one or even a few instances where people go out and do bad things.” Such as, say, raping a child.
Arulanantham said that the ACLU doesn’t bother to keep track of how many illegals commit crimes while out on bond, or even how many have criminal histories. In Dean’s case, his criminal history, GPS monitor, and penchant for perversion should have thrown up some red flags. But as Michelle Malkin would say: It ain’t over ’til the alien wins.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department now holds Dean with $110,000 bail. But Los Angeles is a sanctuary city, and the county sheriff’s office will not honor U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests. It’s likely that Dean will never be deported, and will serve time and be back on the streets to menace the public once more.
Email Katie at [email protected].
Read More Stories About:
Big Government, Crime, Immigration, Rape, Immigrant crime
by TaboolaSponsored LinksWe Recommend
David Cassidy's Florida Mansion Is Going on Auction Block
Realtor.com
What They Converted This Old School Bus Into Is Simply Awesome. I Want This Thing So Bad.
ViralNova
12 Celebs That Went From Hot to Heavy
PressRoomVIP
The WORST "type" of veggie for Arthritis (Are you eating it?)
Arthritis Reversed Guide
BREITBART VIDEO PICKS
Greek parliament backs more bailout reforms
Reuters
Bill Cosby sexual assault case given go ahead
Press Association
Kerry: We can't bomb Iran's knowledge away
Washington Examiner
Rick Perry Rips Donald Trump as ‘Cancer on Conservatism’
Bloomberg
Iran nuclear deal sparks New York demo
Reuters
Rick Santorum: Radical Islam Is Not About Climate
Bloomberg
Greek parliament backs more bailout reforms
Reuters
Bill Cosby sexual assault case given go ahead
Press Association
More videos:
Iran nuclear deal sparks New York demo
Rick Santorum: Radical Islam Is Not About Climate
Greek parliament backs more bailout reforms
Bill Cosby sexual assault case given go ahead
Kerry: We can't bomb Iran's knowledge away
Rick Perry Rips Donald Trump as ‘Cancer on Conservatism’
Iran nuclear deal sparks New York demo
Rick Santorum: Radical Islam Is Not About Climate
Greek parliament backs more bailout reforms
Bill Cosby sexual assault case given go ahead
Kerry: We can't bomb Iran's knowledge away
Rick Perry Rips Donald Trump as ‘Cancer on Conservatism’
Sponsored LinksYOU MIGHT LIKE
Transferring your credit card balance every 21 months is ingenious
NextAdvisor
15 Most Hilarious Moments Perfectly Captured
The Lollington Post
20 Stars Who Are Aging Terribly…#6 Will Make You Cringe!
PressRoomVIP
The WORST "type" of veggie for Arthritis (Are you eating it?)
Arthritis Reversed Guide
by Taboola
advertisement
Trump Warns 'Foolish' RNC of Third-Party Run
Should Trump Stop Running? Vote Here
New Probiotic Fat Burner Takes GNC by Storm
Two Simple Tricks to Remove Wrinkles Instantly
Divorced for Looking Too Old - See Her Revenge Makeover
Remove Eye Bags and Erase Facial Wrinkles With This One Tip
Donald Trump Credits This One Brain Pill for His Business Empire
Latest News on Donald Trump's Campaign Is Absolutely Shocking
advertisement
MOST POPULAR
Trump Threatens Third-Party Run
5879 comments · 6 hours ago
AFL-CIO Controlled Union Intervenes, Cancels Trump’s Border Tour Planned by Local Agents
2656 comments · 16 hours ago
EXCLUSIVE – Nine in Ten Conservative Activists Say Dump Boehner
730 comments · 5 hours ago
EXCLUSIVE DETAILS: Donald Trump Heading to Texas Border
7184 comments · 2 days ago
Top GOP Strategist Runs to Politico, Smears Trump Voters as ‘Clowns’
3973 comments · 1 day ago
Jeff Sessions, Ron Johnson Introduce ‘Protecting American Lives Act’ To Stop Sanctuary Cities, Illegal Re-Entry
498 comments · 5 hours ago
Trump Defiant: Still Heading to Border After Union Backs Out
631 comments · 3 hours ago
Pelosi: GOP Manufacturing Planned Parenthood Controversy
224 comments · 2 hours ago
New Video Shows Another Planned Parenthood Doctor Haggling Price of Baby Body Parts
6796 comments · 2 days ago
DPS Dashcam Reveals Real Reason for Sandra Bland Traffic Stop, Vindicates Trooper
2725 comments · 1 day ago
SEND A TIP
SEND ME THE LATEST
EXPLORE BREITBART
Breitbart
Breitbart Sports
Breitbart TV
Breitbart Texas
Breitbart London
National Security
Big Journalism
Big Hollywood
Big Government
Breitbart California
The Conversation
The Wires
Breitbart.com Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Breitbart Jobs
CONNECT
Facebook
RSS
SUBSCRIBE TO THE BREITBART NEWSLETTERSwitch to Full SiteCopyright © 2015 Breitbart
AddThis Sharing
Twitter
Still don't get how these people have kept their jobs in San Francisco.
Originally posted by Newjak
IF, and at this point that is an extremely big if, Then most illegal immigrants are not violent offenders. Effort would need to be made to make sure that violent offenders are dealt with though. And changes would need to be made to make sure we can deal with them.As it stands though those numbers are extremely suspect and most other things I have seen showcase that there have been no correlation between immigration into areas and increased crime on any meaningful level. As in they can not say that crime increases in an area because of immigration.
Fair enough, but what about these Sanctuary cities? Do you feel these cities have the right to tell the federal government to essentially piss off..and yet still expect funding? Isn't that a little ballsy, for them to not expect consequences?
For me that is like a man telling his wife he can cheat on her, but still expecting her to be faithful and getting all pissy at the mere suggestion he should have to be faithful if he expects faithfulness in return.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama said he would veto any legislation to defund sanctuary cities. Even though sanctuary cities are illegal by federal law.
Well, that's a big surprise. LOL... NOT.
Of course, he would veto it. He wants to keep them all here so Hillary and other future dumbocrats will be assured of winning any Presidential elections. Those criminals is where most of their votes come from.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama said he would veto any legislation to defund sanctuary cities. Even though sanctuary cities are illegal by federal law.
Wow, this sounds like a sick joke. He has now sanctioned people with the right to break the law. Are you still giving Obama another chance?
Originally posted by SurturWell any city or state can tell the government to go piss off. Of course that has always come with the known stipulation that federal funds would get caught off.
Still don't get how these people have kept their jobs in San Francisco.Fair enough, but what about these Sanctuary cities? Do you feel these cities have the right to tell the federal government to essentially piss off..and yet still expect funding? Isn't that a little ballsy, for them to not expect consequences?
For me that is like a man telling his wife he can cheat on her, but still expecting her to be faithful and getting all pissy at the mere suggestion he should have to be faithful if he expects faithfulness in return.
I am concerned about the notion of people being able to still demand federal funds though. Of course this is only allowed as long as the government is willing to go along with it. So while I am not totally against the idea of Sanctuary Cities I am concerned about the possible abuse/precedence that it could be hijacked for by other causes in name of equality. So it makes me weary.
Of course it still comes back to the government only allows it to happen but I could see that causing even more strife for cities and states that would want to abuse that system but are denied it.
Ultimately I think it is to early to tell what effect these cities are going to have. So perhaps a wait and see approach is best for now.
Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialIt's not a dictatorship because the veto is well within his rights as president to use. Now if Congress were to overturn his veto and he still went ahead with his objectives then I think you would have a case.
I'm staying objective. I'm more wondering why no one else cares, actually worried. This is dictatorship of you ask me.
Originally posted by Surtur
Wow, this sounds like a sick joke. He has now sanctioned people with the right to break the law. Are you still giving Obama another chance?
Check this out
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/23/house-bill-sanctuary-cities/30581643/
It passed in house.
I'm glad it passed in house and I hope if Obama vetoes it Congress undoes it.
At its core this can be summed up real easy: this is about life versus quality of life. A shaman did not place a curse on various Mexican citizens that will literally kill them unless they get across the border. They come here to improve their quality of life. If Obama is against this it means he is favoring their quality of life..over the overall life of American citizens here legally that will no doubt be killed in the future, even if its just a small percentage of illegals doing this..if we stop even one death it is worth it and from the stats we know we won't stop just one death or rape, etc.
Now with the specific case with this Kate lady..the illegal should of never been released. There is *no* excuse and someone needs to be fired/sued over it. Actually you know what someone needs to be in jail over it, but that will never happen.
Also I would honestly just have them change the law instead of our friggin president basically saying "thumbs up on breaking that federal law". What does that say about our country if we have a President saying that? It's not like we want to be isolated, we just want people to come here legally.
I don't know what you'd call it, but he'd be more or less officially saying it is okay to break federal law.
Why do I get the strange feeling though that this doesn't apply to all federal law?
We impeached Clinton because the dude lied about getting a blowjob and I find this much worse if Obama vetoes it. So much for the whole "will of the people" thing. It's the will of Obama.
Originally posted by SurturSaying if immigration costs the life of even one American is a terrible argument in this case Surtur. By that logic there should be no immigration, legal or otherwise, to America ever because you can not guarantee they won't commit a violent crime. In fact there should be no new births in America either because any one of those children could grow up to commit a violent crime. Unless you want to say it's fine as long as it is only Americans killing other Americans. In fact you're more likely to be killed by an American than an illegal. So you shouldn't interact with an American. All Americans should be on house arrest.
I'm glad it passed in house and I hope if Obama vetoes it Congress undoes it.At its core this can be summed up real easy: this is about life versus quality of life. A shaman did not place a curse on various Mexican citizens that will literally kill them unless they get across the border. They come here to improve their quality of life. If Obama is against this it means he is favoring their quality of life..over the overall life of American citizens here legally that will no doubt be killed in the future, even if its just a small percentage of illegals doing this..if we stop even one death it is worth it and from the stats we know we won't stop just one death or rape, etc.
Now with the specific case with this Kate lady..the illegal should of never been released. There is *no* excuse and someone needs to be fired/sued over it. Actually you know what someone needs to be in jail over it, but that will never happen.
Also I would honestly just have them change the law instead of our friggin president basically saying "thumbs up on breaking that federal law". What does that say about our country if we have a President saying that? It's not like we want to be isolated, we just want people to come here legally.
Now I understand that I'm taking this slightly to the extreme but I feel you did that already. Statistically any group coming into or already in America has a percentage that will commit a violent crime. We can not currently get rid of all violent crime. Now I will admit that if the percentage of illegal immigrants committing violent offenses were high then something should be done about it. The problem is there is no reliable/credible evidence to support that claim currently.
So I'm not going to say one life is more important than another or that the people who have been negatively impacted by illegals should not seek justice. I'm just going to say that saying even if one life is taken we should do something about a group of people is not realistic to me. There is always going to be some form of crime at least in the foreseeable further.
To me this is not an issue of life vs quality of life. This is about how open and embracing America is to new groups of people wanting to come to our country. Should our immigration standards be more lax or more restrictive.
Now you could say that being open to illegals has caused more crime/poverty and that we need to be more restrictive until we find a way to handle these new elements. I'm willing to listen to those arguments as legitimate ones because they are not absolutes. They are within the realm of problem solving. And we can realistically ask how much violent crime is too much before we need to nix it. And like I said the notion of no additional violent crime is simply not a realistic one because anyone already in the country legally or not could break that standard.