Author Topic: Hartford Conneticut joins list of Illegal Sanctuary Cities (Read 3632 times)

Cabin4 · « **on:** August 19, 2008, 05:34:16 AM »

The mayor of Hartford Con signed an order that forbides the Hartford Police from verifying criminals residency and cooperating with Federal authorities. This is the 70th city in the USA to put such policies in effect. All while our do nothing congress run by Pelosi & Reed & the DOJ do nothing to stop these mayors from outright violating federal law. Our law makers make the law and perform selective oversight of them.

These mayors are providing safe harbor for illegal aliens and illegals that may have Federal arrest warrants out for them. Imagine that, the mayor of a city hiding an illegal alien from federal authorities. And they do this as a "policy" and they are not being pursued by congress or the DOJ!!

We have secession happening in our country today and this is an example of it. These mayors should be forced to recind the policy or go to jail. If you or I provided safe harbor to a criminal we go to jail, but not these mayors!!

woodchukhntr · « **Reply #1 on:** August 19, 2008, 05:44:30 AM »

I have never heard of this, why are they doing it? Lack of funds, would be the only condition that would make any sense. Are they breaking any laws, or sworn oath of office? I would seem that they must have broken some law, and if so, they need to be prosecuted by the Feds, or don't they care if some laws are so blatently broken?

Cabin4 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 19, 2008, 06:52:08 AM »

Quote from: woodchukhntr on August 19, 2008, 05:44:30 AM

I have never heard of this, why are they doing it? Lack of funds, would be the only condition that would make any sense. Are they breaking any laws, or sworn oath of office? I would seem that they must have broken some law, and if so, they need to be prosecuted by the Feds, or don't they care if some laws are so blatently broken?

These are Liberal Communist mayors that have chosen to openly violate Federal law. Since the Feds never take any action against them, more mayors are doing it because they can get away with it.

This is an example of the cultural war that's going on in our country. Its the big city culture versus the rural culture. These illegal aliens are a great source of votes for these mayors and city council members.They are providing safe harbor for illegal activity including illegals aliens with outstanding federal arrest warrants. As an American citizen, if you are arrested in Hartford or any one of these 70 so called "sanctuary Cities", you will be turned over to federal authorities if their is either a warrant for your arrest or they simply want to talk to you about a particular crime. So in actuality, as an illegal alien, you get huge special privilege of safe harbor in a sanctuary city. So if your an illegal alien that commits federal capitol murder, say you kill a federal agent, all you have to do is flee to a sanctuary city like Hartford. If you get arrested for say car jacking, your safe. the feds can't touch you unless the Feds seek you out on their own accord. The police are Prohibited from alerting Federal authorities even if the illegal alien admits there's a warrant for their arrest!!!

These mayors are not only criminal, they are committing high treason. And in many cases as in the case recently in San Francisco, they are accomplices to murder! An illegal alien arrested for another local crime was let out on bail then shot and murdered a father and his 2 sons in an apparent road rage incident. This pig has a Federal arrest warrant out on him and the city never turned him over to the feds.

Liberal communist run a muck........and Pelosi, Reed and Obama love it. There answer is, learn how to speck Spanish.

woodchukhntr · « **Reply #3 on:** August 19, 2008, 08:31:43 AM »

I would have thought that the rank and file police officers would rebel against orders that condone lawlessness and will put them at more risk. What about citizen lawsuits?

Cabin4 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 19, 2008, 09:57:59 AM »

All these cities have adopted the same political tag line. They all claim their inability to support Federal authorities is due to failed immigration policy. They claim they don't have the funding to help the feds. In other words, make ALL the illegals citezens, then they can support the feds.....The yet more condensed version is AMNESTY for all 20million illegals. The logic here is make them citizens and somehow the funding will appaer to support the Feds.. dahhhh

Since most Americans are stupid, they actually believe this BS!! Its all back door pressure to try and get amnesty for illegals. In the meantime, innocent Americans are getting raped, killed and robbed while the liberal communists advance their crusade to let in any slime ball that wants to call this home.

These mayors and their city attorneys are nothing more then common criminals hiding criminals from justice.

ms · « **Reply #5 on:** August 19, 2008, 10:49:22 AM »

Just cut the money it will stop.

Troyboy · « **Reply #6 on:** August 20, 2008, 02:54:37 PM »

Just another example of the cancer that is ruining our great country. It is destroying itself from within the liberal pinko commie gungrabbers are a scourge. When an immigrant gets a pass beceause he is in this country illegally that is a travesty.It' part of the manifasto they want break the back of the middle class. This they are doing at an alarming rate.Go to a jobsite sometime and see how many anglo construction workers there are. They are destroying this country. Mexico is a corrupt nation but thats ok. Break the law commit a crime come to America illegally . We will educate you, feedyou, provide medical care for you. Do what you want we will even speak your language. Never mind about your drugs, crime, lower standard of living,ethics whathaveyou. The politicians are selling us out. If you so dare as to speak the truth you are a racist. I am an americian and i speak the official language ENGLISH. WHAT HAS HAPPENED? SANCTUARY CITIES? When are the lawmakers gonna do something? They curropt mayors need to be voted out of office.America needs to hear the voice of her citizens VOTE!!!!!!!!!!!

Dee · « **Reply #7 on:** August 20, 2008, 03:44:31 PM »

While we watch in wonder at such cities that provide sanctuary for illegal aliens, UNDERSTAND, that which ever presidential candidate wins, (McCain or Obama), THEY BOTH WANT TO GIVE AMNESTY TO THESE SAME FOLKS. Which is worse? Sanctuary cities, or SANCTUARY PRESIDENTS?
Only ONE CANDIDATE, (Barr) wants to protect our borders, but he is not of the two POPULAR parties. Hmmmmm,

Cabin4 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 20, 2008, 05:02:04 PM »

Quote from: Dee on August 20, 2008, 03:44:31 PM

SAME FOLKS. Which is worse? Sanctuary cities, or SANCTUARY PRESIDENTS?

Thats a great one Dee.

beemanbeme · « **Reply #9 on:** August 21, 2008, 05:31:38 AM »

"since most Americans are stupid" Does that mean we don't agree with you or that we drool when we talk. I'd hate to think that most Americans are stupid. Or that we drool when we talk.
What reasons are given for making these cities sanctuaries?
Are you suggesting that the Feds order tanks and troops to assault Hartford and crush them? What do you suggest? Have you read much about the soviernty of the individual states? Or does that not count for much since it doesn't fit your agenda?
And, for the record, the Feds have a pretty good track record of imposing restrictions and requirements on states and cities and towns without any idea of how to implement them nor fund them. Maybe it is time for the states to start standing up to Big Brother.
As far as "cut off the money". It was our money to begin with. You know, we send it in to begin with and the feds poke as much in their pockets as they can and send a LITTLE of it back. Anyone that suggest they cut off the "Federal Money" hasn't thought things thru.

magooch · « **Reply #10 on:** August 21, 2008, 05:46:26 AM »

Seems to me it's just more of the inmates running the prisons syndrome.

Dee · « **Reply #11 on:** August 21, 2008, 09:43:35 AM »

I believe the state of Oklahoma has already solved this illegal alien problem in their state, and it would work nation wide, IF, our government wanted it to.

BBF · « **Reply #12 on:** August 21, 2008, 11:49:17 AM »

Since most Americans are stupid, they actually believe this BS!!
[/quote]

Not stupid but complacent. More interested in football,baseball or NASCAR scores, paying for stuff they couldn't afford in the first place. Voting for the same bunch of characters election after election, you get what you deserve 'til the bottom drops out.

deltecs · « **Reply #13 on:** August 21, 2008, 12:02:20 PM »

This solution can be implemented immediately. Just refuse all government subsidy and/or matching federal funds to all States that have santuary cities within them. If those cities refuse to cooperate and ignore federal law, then the feds should refuse all government money from those States totally until their cities comply and conform to uniform application of law.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #14 on:** August 21, 2008, 06:17:49 PM »

Quote from: beemanbeme on August 21, 2008, 05:31:38 AM

"since most Americans are stupid" Does that mean we don't agree with you or that we drool when we talk. I'd hate to think that most Americans are stupid. Or that we drool when we talk.
What reasons are given for making these cities sanctuaries?
Are you suggesting that the Feds order tanks and troops to assault Hartford and crush them? What do you suggest? Have you read much about the soviernty of the individual states? Or does that not count for much since it doesn't fit your agenda?
And, for the record, the Feds have a pretty good track record of imposing restrictions and requirements on states and cities and towns without any idea of how to implement them nor fund them. Maybe it is time for the states to start standing up to Big Brother.
As far as "cut off the money". It was our money to begin with. You know, we send it in to begin with and the feds poke as much in their pockets as they can and send a LITTLE of it back. Anyone that suggest they cut off the "Federal Money" hasn't thought things thru.

Yes, I think most of America has become a bunch of weak whinning crying dependant babies. And yes, sometimes they drool like morons.

The feds should file suit in federal court against these cities. If the court rules in the feds favor, they will have to reveres the process and implement regulation and local policy to comply with the federal ruling. No city is going to defy a federal court ruling. There's nothing irrational or unreasonable with expecting local law enforcement to cooperate with federal authorities. If we expect federal authorities to support the local jurisdictions we should have no less expectation in reverse. This is what I'm suggesting and there are no excuses for any big or small city passing a law that is specifically designed to hide criminals.

ironglow · « **Reply #15 on:** August 21, 2008, 11:50:30 PM »

Problem is (IMO) that even though the US is still better by far than most other nations, too much rot has settled in to the core of culture. Last night on Fox, Laura Ingram
interviewed the primary attorney that wrote the law giving illegals "amnesty" in San Francisco. Now, it seems I can recall that something in the codes of the various BAR
assns. expressly forbids an attorney from assisting an individual in committing a crime, in this case, the crime of illegal entry..say nothing about the various crimes of perhaps
false or stolen identity, failure to pay various taxes and a host of other related crimes.
It would seem that simply aiding them in avoiding ICE authorities, one would then be subject to "aiding and abetting" a crime. Surely the BAR would only need a single citizen complaint in order to investigate the situation, and if the "aiding & abetting" charge were proven (looks like a slam-dunk) out they go, as an accessory to the crimes.
...But alas, I am operating under "what used to be" and crooked officials seem only to be brought to justice if someone has enough $$$, and proceeds to go after them,
as in the infamouis Nifong case in NC.
Yes; some Americans are either stupid or distracted, but many I believe, like we on GB's, can clearly see the problem, but feel powerless to stop it..so we come on here
simply to vent !

beemanbeme · « **Reply #16 on:** August 22, 2008, 03:30:38 AM »

Once again, boys and girls, just to hijack this thread a moment, when you talk about "federal money" and cutting off "federal money" and "matching funds" and so forth, you seem to think the gov'ment is doing you a big assed favor. You seem to forget that money started out in your pocket. And after some politician had stuffed all of that money he could in his pocket and given all he could to some low-lifed riff-raff that had never worked a day in his life and sent all he could overseas to some third world country full of the same sort of riff-raff like our home grown riff-raff and endowed a few billion on the study of the mating habits of the speckled wood louse, he sez "oh yeah, maybe I'd better send a few bucks back to those chumps back home so's they'll think I'm doing them a big-assed favor and keep working their butts off and electing me to this jelly-roll job".
Yeah, maybe Americans are stupid.

Let's look at the other side of the coin. What would happen if the USA tried that crap and Conneticut said "okay, we ain't sending in our Federal taxes. We're gonna keep them and use them ourselves instead of letting you rake off a bunch before sending back a little." As densely populated as Conneticut is and as upscale as their workforce is, I daresay they send in more money than they receive back. It would be cool to see it happen. Maybe spur an uprising of all the states against the steamroller tactics of the federal gov'ment.

Dee · « **Reply #17 on:** August 22, 2008, 04:39:33 AM »

Gosh bemanbeme, I think I need counciling. I agree with everything you said on that last post.

BBF · « **Reply #18 on:** August 22, 2008, 07:42:53 AM »

seems to me that a federal agency could initiate an arrest warrant for any State official that breaks federal law. Am I too naive here? A number of Governors and Mayors cooling their heels in a fed slammer might get the message to the rest of them real fast. Now who has the Stones to do it in the fed govt??

Cabin4 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 22, 2008, 08:09:20 AM »

I certainly have no false illusions that tax money doesen;'t come form the pocket of the people that make it. The government (fed,state & local) need to stop. This will cause de-funding of our intrusive government and its BS programs. Gov should first focus its attention on protecting us from outside & inside illegal activity.

MGMorden · « **Reply #20 on:** August 22, 2008, 08:14:24 AM »

I think you guys are missing the basics of the situation. The Federal government isn't likely to do anything because they likely just don't care too much. As stated, both likely presidential candidates support amnesty, and that is a fairly common sentiment at the Federal level - not universal, but common. The higher up in the chain that things work though, the slower the wheels move on passing laws. Cities/Counties are faster than States, and States are faster than Federal.

So, what you're seeing a city implementing a policy very similar to what the Federal government will be doing itself anyways in time - they just don't move as fast so they haven't caught up. As such it's just not likely for the Feds to lash out against a policy that so many of them see as a good idea anyways.

For instance in my state (SC) interracial marriages were technically illegal until only a few years ago (it was past 2000 before that law was repealed). Now, this law was by no means enforced, and interracial married couples were/are very common. In the same way all the local municipalities granting marriage licenses for such couples were technically ignoring state law. Obviously, nobody at the state was going to go off trying to enforce this law because it was one that most legislators didn't agree with it anyways, and it was one that would be (and was) eventually struck down - just takes a while to get the wheels moving for big changes.

Dee · « **Reply #21 on:** August 22, 2008, 11:13:07 AM »

Think about it gentlemen. Illegals use FAKE S.S.#s, and pay into the system, BUT! The money stays in the system, because the illegal NEVER FILES A TAX RETURN.
Why would our government want to stop that?

Cabin4 · « **Reply #22 on:** August 22, 2008, 02:27:14 PM »

Quote from: MGMorden on August 22, 2008, 08:14:24 AM

I think you guys are missing the basics of the situation. The Federal government isn't likely to do anything because they likely just don't care too much. As stated, both likely presidential candidates support amnesty, and that is a fairly common sentiment at the Federal level - not universal, but common. The higher up in the chain that things work though, the slower the wheels move on passing laws. Cities/Counties are faster than States, and States are faster than Federal.

So, what you're seeing a city implementing a policy very similar to what the Federal government will be doing itself anyways in time - they just don't move as fast so they haven't caught up. As such it's just not likely for the Feds to lash out against a policy that so many of them see as a good idea anyways.

For instance in my state (SC) interracial marriages were technically illegal until only a few years ago (it was past 2000 before that law was repealed). Now, this law was by no means enforced, and interracial married couples were/are very common. In the same way all the local municipalities granting marriage licenses for such couples were technically ignoring state law. Obviously, nobody at the state was going to go off trying to enforce this law because it was one that most legislators didn't agree with it anyways, and it was one that would be (and was) eventually struck down - just takes a while to get the wheels moving for big changes.

The only issue here has nothing to do with amnesty. Sanctuary cities allow safe harbor for illegal aliens that have commited crimes elsewere in our country. No one is served good by this including our federal government. The only issue here are a rouge group of liberal communist mayors that want to prove a political point to their local voting block of minorities and other like minded liberals.

The overwhelming majority of Americans do not support sanctuary cities. But since its a big city thing, it plays well with their voters.

ironglow · « **Reply #23 on:** August 22, 2008, 11:45:52 PM »

Only my opinion;
...But I think cabin4 summed up the situation quite well, it is a big city vote-getting scheme. Most cities are basically composed of left leaning voters and the ones
that have enacted the sanctuary sleight of hand are for the most part, extremely left.
Most federally elected representatives, unless specifically backing "amnesty", are guilty of the old "don't rock the boat" syndrome. We know that one political
party figures that by encouraging this illegal activity, they will add to their voter base. The other party is likely either playing the old "don't rock the bost" game and
perhaps some are benefitting from the cheap labor.
A shameful performance by both !

beemanbeme · « **Reply #24 on:** August 25, 2008, 04:11:26 AM »

Seems like a bunch of idle name calling to me. I don't know that any of the mayors are communist or even liberals for that matter. But, of course, if you haven't any facts, it always helps to call names and make personal attacks. I'm surprised that the various mayor's sexual orientation hasn't been brought into question.
And, of course, it's unheard of for an elected official to do what the folks that elected him want him to do. I'm sure that you pro-life zealots that elected a politican on a pro-life platform who then voted for a pro-choice law, would go quietly to the polls and reelect him for another term. Right?

beemanbeme · « **Reply #25 on:** August 25, 2008, 04:25:03 AM »

45-70, IMO, if the Feds were to toss a few mayors and gov's in the slammers it might be the best thing that could happen to us. I think it would create such an enraged, fire-storm of outrage from the population that the Federal Gov'ment would be hammered back into it's proper role of a instrument of the States.
No mayor/governor/police chief/sheriff/etc wants to give up their turf (read power aka money) and the Feds had been undermining and eroding all of those people for years until the time will come, perhaps not in my lifetime, when the Feds will say, why do you need those folks. Why all the duplication?? We can save you money without them. Trust us. We're from the gov'ment, we're here to help you. Don'tchaknow.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #26 on:** August 25, 2008, 04:46:20 AM »

Quote from: beemanbeme on August 25, 2008, 04:11:26 AM

Seems like a bunch of idle name calling to me. I don't know that any of the mayors are communist or even liberals for that matter. But, of course, if you haven't any facts, it always helps to call names and make personal attacks. I'm surprised that the various mayor's sexual orientation hasn't been brought into question.
And, of course, it's unheard of for an elected official to do what the folks that elected him want him to do. I'm sure that you pro-life zealots that elected a politican on a pro-life platform who then voted for a pro-choice law, would go quietly to the polls and reelect him for another term. Right?

I've been following this situation very closely for years. if you look at the mayors that are champions of this cause, like Mayor Newsome of San Francisco, he's is a proclaimed liberal. Look at Mayor Bloomberg another proclaimed Liberal. The list goes on and on. The only thing stopping Newsome from exercising his full communist desires, is our constitution.He's a communist in democratic clothing using the constitution when it serves him and discarding it when it does not.

As far as their sexual orentaion, I could care less. This is nothing more then a diversion tactic for you becasue you really don't have a clue as to whats going on with this issue in our country or you fully suport sanctuary cities and your just not willing to admit it....

Cabin4 · « **Reply #27 on:** August 25, 2008, 05:41:57 AM »

Quote from: TM7 on August 25, 2008, 04:49:24 AM

Sanctuary cities, non-enforcement of immigration laws, de facto amnesty, etc. exist simply for the fact that local and national industries (read those that contribute to politicians) want malleable large amounts of cheap labor and to dump indigenous labor. It is just that simple, imo. All else is hot air.

But what they don't want to acknowledge is that sane and contolled immigration is key to survival.....just ask any American Indian.

..TM7

Post #4 above I called this a defacto amnesty ploy by these mayors. But the only reason they do it is to appease local voters. Colltrolled legal immigration is perfectly fine. Uncontrolled illegal immigration is well, Illegal. Not to mention the risks and dangers it brings upon us is unfair for all Americans and anyone here in this country legally.

I'm sick an tired of this issue. Our federal gov has done little to seal our boarders and enforce current immigration law. Building a wall and enforcement should be the priority.These sanctuary cities are illegal and the DOJ should be in full swing to shut them down. Its like a cancer.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #28 on:** August 25, 2008, 07:11:58 AM »

Its a self leveling market factor. If we enforce immigration law and get rid of low cost illegal labor, all employers will have to equally reset their cost structure and pay the higher wage. What makes it difficult for employers is when one city enforces the laws and the city next door provides sanctuary. The city with the sanctuary creates a low cost labor pool for the employers in that area. Those employers enjoy the low operating cost and offer their customers a more competitive price which puts cost structure stress on those employers who can't enjoy the same low cost labor. This is unfair and all cities and all employers should be forced to enforce the law. It is illegal to hire undocumented worker but the law is simply not enforced by the states and the feds in most cases. Its also illegal when illegal aliens use my identity to get through the system and appear to be legal and employers simply don't do any proper verification.

torpedoman · « **Reply #29 on:** August 25, 2008, 01:37:06 PM »

Quote from: woodchukhntr on August 19, 2008, 05:44:30 AM

I have never heard of this, why are they doing it? Lack of funds, would be the only condition that would make any sense. Are they breaking any laws, or sworn oath of office? I would seem that they must have broken some law, and if so, they need to be prosecuted by the Feds, or don't they care if some laws are so blatently broken?

If the feds did'nt agree with this policy thay would cut off federal funding to the entire city and it would be gone in a second. Yes they are breaking their oath of office that requires them to uphold the law. The VOTERS are TOO STUPID to make them pay for their acts.