Interesting…..
I’m sure that EVERY family in this country has rleltives that where immigrants….
I going after the concept of immigration, which follows Trump’s rants, how do they expect to counter a developing Democratic possible ‘wave’ ?
It does seem like another indication that GOP candidates are defying their leadership’s wishes to move away from the issue and trying to piggyback on Trump’s popularity with the Republican voters….
The GOP focus on immigration is particularly striking, given that it was not among the top 10 issues Republicans spent their ad dollars on at this point in the 2014 midterms. In that cycle, GOP contenders attacked President Obama, bashing the Affordable Care Act and promising to rein in government spending.
Now, immigration ranks second only to pro-Trump spots in GOP campaigns across the country — and just by a smidgen.
“Just about every survey I’ve seen shows that among Republican primary voters, immigration is one of the most important issues, if not the most important,” said Brian Murray, a GOP consultant based in Arizona.
Murray was a top adviser to Rep. Debbie Lesko in her successful bid to win the special election in April for Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.
While other GOP candidates opened with biographical spots, “our first ad during the primary was all about immigration,” Murray said. Lesko kept the focus on immigration through the general election, where she faced an unusually stiff challenge from Democrat Hiral Tipirneni in a GOP-friendly district.
Murray said he’s not surprised that Republicans in non-border states are embracing a similar strategy, particularly after Trump catapulted immigration into the national spotlight during his 2016 presidential campaign.
“I don’t see immigration going away as an issue” for Republicans, Murray said.
In Washington, House GOP leaders would like to make the immigration issue fade away. It’s tearing the GOP conference apart — and jeopardizing House Speaker Paul Ryan’s grip on power….
There is a huge difference between campaigning against sanctuary cities and campaigning against “immigration.”
….They maybe Different….But..sanctuary cities are DIRECTLY attached to immigration …..
The Good thing is that the Courts have stopped Trump from witholding funds from state and local governments that have sanctuary laws….
No they aren’t.
The issue of sanctuary cities are tied to the issue of violent crimes committed by individuals after the action of illegal immigration by them.
It is not at all related to the American principle of welcoming legal immigrants.
Police and Mayors and Gov Brown believe that that they cannot keep ties with immigrant communities if they help the Feds IN IMMIGRATION ENFORECMENT….
The sanctuary city policies are ALL about IMMIGRATION….
…’after the action of illegal immigration by them’ is of COURSE about what else?….Immigration….
dangerous and dumb outlook which puts Democrats in political peril, makes compromise less possible, and keeps our country further divided needlessly.
But as common, you misunderstand. The “after the fact” involves a violent crime committed by someone in the country illegally, which has nothing to do with their immigration status.
The logical conclusion to this is that law enforcement should not prosecute anyone in minority communities either because they may further “lose the trust” of that community for locking those among them who happen to be criminals up.
any mention of immigartion IS something to do with immigration…Looking for criminals and picking up illegals in the process IS what the issue is about…
Loocal and Stae cops do continue to catch criminals….legal’s or illegals…To suggest otherwise is naive and dumb…
I don’t think you have the standing to call people naïve or dumb. Just a suggestion.
It is a losing argument to make, in most areas of the country, for a political candidate to suggest that a violent criminal who happens to be in the country illegally should not be sent out of the country.
Of course, it is also a face that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are not violent criminals, which makes the hardline extreme position on the left so frustrating for those who want to see actual immigration reform, because it makes it seem like they make no distinction at all between who is legal and who is illegal and who is a criminal and who is not, and those on the other side, such as Trump just follow suit.
It is also true that the potential victims of dangerous illegal immigrants are most likely to be others in the immigrant community, so it would certainly be in the best interest of the innocent people in those communities to have the criminals be gone.
In some cases you’re right, CG, but this administration (DoJ, DHS, DoD, et al.) takes a much broader and looser view than most of us here would of who’s actually committed “violent” crimes.
And what is a “sanctuary” jurisdiction also varies a great deal. To many on the nativist far right (e.g. the fans of Sheriffs Joe Arpaio in Arizona and Thomas Hodgson in Massachusetts), Sanctuary jurisdictions would include any agency that doesn’t check papers of every pedestrian or passenger it has stopped for any reason, reporting any discrepancies to ICE and holding those without sufficient documentation.
On the other hand, I don’t think that anyone here would be greatly upset by local prison officials who detained and reported an illegal entrant who has been duly convicted of what most consider crimes of actual physical violence or physical menace (homicide, armed or strong-arm robbery, assault & battery, etc.), and has either waived or exhausted all possible appeals,
Both sides benefit politically from the tribalism that allows them to lump things together without the distinctions that I mentioned in an earlier post.
The solutions to the problems at hand can be addressed simply. If someone is in jail for a violent crime that local authorities know is here illegally or have paperwork to turn over to ICE, they should do so and not stand in the way of another law enforcement agency doing it’s job. Nobody should be suggesting that local cops focus on immigration status when dealing with immediate issues.
What is more likely to be a politically losing fight though? It is Democrats defending Sanctuary Cities or going out of their way to equate MS-13 with the people in everyone’s family who first came to the U.S. (whether legally or illegally.)
The overall point I was making in commenting first on this thread was that the example given of a Congressional candidate running an ad opposing Sanctuary City policies is a very different thing than running an ad saying they were opposed to immigration in general.
There are political figures who want to drastically reduce the number of legal immigrants who can come to America, and some may even run ads suggesting that, but that is very different than what this article was about, and I think such ads would be fairly rare among Republicans.
The problem comes in defining a”violent” ot a” serious” crime.
According to ICE,at various times, simple assault,ie, a minor scuffle is a “violent”crime.Other Times?Its not.
Driving Under the Influence(DWI) is a”serious” crime;however, the included offense of Driving With an Unlawful Alcohol Concentration isn’t.,at least sometimes.
All of the above are cases I have been involved in as apart time Prosecutor with a local town.
Cities and jurisdictions can get those things defined pretty easily. It would be a far easier process than establishing a “sanctuary” policy.
Let’s say aggravated assault (or worse) and DUIs should count.
That’s not the problem,nor does this have anything to do with “sanctuary cities.”
The problem is that ICE ,among other things ,is a large bureaucracy and their actions are not totally guided by hard and fast rules.Instead there are numerous interpretations,often conflicting from case to case.
It is amusing to me to listen to media stories depicting ICE as some efficient processor of illegal immigrants.Truth is it is just a typical bureaucracy.
It’s better than nothing or willful disregard of the law or what their function should be.
Since the overwhelming majority of cities do not have sanctuary policies it shouldn’t be too burdensome for those that have them to switch course and match the others.
Someone could make the same argument regarding any federal agency and local jurisdictions could disregard issues related to civil rights enforcement laws, etc. They could have declared that county in Kentucky with the Clerk, a “Sanctuary County” for traditional marriage. They do not have the right to do that.
Just to use one prominent example, that has gotten much discussion politically, there had to have been something in place in San Francisco that might have prevented the death of Kate Steinle.
To much of the rest of the country, it just looks like San Francisco just doesn’t give a damn and is more interested in protecting illegal immigrants, even the violent ones.
So, Trump and his people are going to run on that and run on MS-13, rendering the more serious and complex issues of immigration reform and things such as DACA to the backburner, and in many parts of the country will eat you guys for lunch on those matters and nothing will ever change.
Jack is on point about this ….
It adds to my comments
The ICE cops come and go
The locals hold down the fort
They have enough issues
Acting as a vehicle for the Feds that would cause them issues is NOT the thing they want…
I am aware of instances where Prosecutors (some of them Republicans and Trump supporters) Will allow illegal immigrants to plead Guilty to DUAC in a DUI case just to move their dockets.
I’m not blaming them as some of these guys have large dockets and they have to move cases.
These type of pleas to lesser charges ,so as not to involve ICE ,are very common in Republican dominated S.C. so I assume they may be even more prevalent elsewhere.
Is there an actual federal warrant that is being ignored though? To me, that seems like the crux of the problem.
The way this works ,in S.C. at least (I am not familiar with other states) is that ICE will typically put a “hold” on persons aparrested on offenses categorized as “violent” or “serious.”
Upon their conviction they will d
Be shipped to Atlanta for deportation proceedings.Sometimes there is already an existing warrant but that’s not as common.
A cottage industry has grown up among lawyers here in getting “violent”or “ serious “ charges reduced to those ICE doesn’t classify as such .Upon pleas to the lesser charges the “hold” is released.
Sometimes people with ‘holds’ don’t have someone come and get them….
Happens with warrants that could be for spitting on the sidewalk decades ago,..
Seriously ?
CG?
Who pays the bills on this?
How much room do these guys take up?
Like Jack points out
This is a hit or miss sometimes
The misses do NOT help the locals
The Feds could care less
That seems like a better situation than the deliberate political thumb in the eye that sanctuary cities are doing.
It doesn’t have to be overcomplicated. If an illegal immigrant is convicted of a felony, they should almost always be deported.
If Democrats would at least draw the line at things like murder, rape, armed robbery, and things like that, they wouldn’t be giving the other side as much political ammunition.
In regards to San Francisco and the Steinle killing, a candidate for office said the following on July 7, 2015
“The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.”
That candidate obviously got a lot of backlash with their party though because the very next day, the same campaign said the following:
“Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years.”
Talk about mixed messages, but clearly, the political pressure from the base of Democrats to defend sanctuary cities, even in the wake of what happened to Kate Steinle, is pretty powerful.
Fox News response.
If Republicans wouldn’t be so eager to throw kids out of the country whose parents brought them here when they were youngsters they wouldn’t be giving the other side as much ammunition.
See anyone can play this silly game.
The difference is I do not actually hear a lot of Republicans saying the DACA kids should be thrown out and certainly nobody has yet, while conversely sanctuary city policies are already in effect and people are being victimized because of it.
People are hung up as to what happens next.
But yes, the ammunition works on both sides, and in blue areas, the tribalism will help Democrats and in red areas, it will help Republicans, while nothing actually gets done to improve the country.
Haha!
That’s funny.
The Republican Party controls Congess and they won’t even bring a DACA bill to the floor and you haven’t “heard”Republicans wanted to throw kids out of the country?
What then is the result Of their inaction?
Or are you saying that they really don’t want to throw the kids out but their lack of positive action to protect them from such is a result of political cowardice because they don’t want to anger their Leader and their “base?”
You need 60 votes in the Senate for a law to take effect. We all know that. Republicans do not have 60 votes, so the failure to reach a compromise is on everyone.
There could have been one but Democrats said no because they did not want anything to go towards what would be called “the wall” whether it was an actual wall or not. So, the problem persists. They need to keep trying.
Republican hardliners (besides for yahoos online or on talk radio) are not talking about deporting the DACA kids but are hung up on the whole path to citizenship thing. They need to compromise too of course.
When it comes to sanctuary cities, the thinking of those who back it is is far more black and white and that is nobody should ever be deported from the United States for any reason.
So, somewhere between “deport them all” and “deport nobody” is the vast majority of the country.
and to clarify the result of the “inaction” backed up by the courts, is the status quo. No Dreamer is being deported.
At the same time, in sanctuary cities, people who have been deported before and have returned or who should clearly be deported, are free to commit further crimes, which are statistically most likely to occur against immigrants.
CG?
The Law is MOT EASY
It is often imprecise
And needs old people to decide what something so clear cut needs a judgment cal