2025 Looking like 2020 - Wonder What They Have In Common

[Markk]

Nonsense. The bill allows desecration to local and state authorities to help illegal alien criminals and accused criminals to walk free. Making up these lame excuses and attempted rabbit trails won't change that. It restricts cooperation, and allows criminals to walk free who otherwise would and should be in custody for their crimes and alleged crimes. I concede you believe this is okay, I do not, I believe that all law enforcement should work together to keep criminals off the streets and behind bars, and again you do not.

Back to the topic, in context, this is a law that when enforced, helps cites in their efforts to become sanctuary cities, which was in regard to Gunnar's question that you jumped in on.

If the State sees no need to charge someone for something, they will release that person.

If the State charges someone but determines that they can be released on their own recognizance, they will release that person.

The State is under no requirement to verify citizenship, given that this is Federal jurisdiction.

Nothing about this bill removes State charges for any reason, nor removes Federal charges or claims against the individual, nor prevents the Federal government from exercising their duties.

You can take issue with the law on ideological grounds, but as I asked previously: if anything above is incorrect, please show which item and how it is not correct. Merely stamping your feet, making erroneous claims and then building straw men about what others ‘must be thinking’ - simply because they don’t agree with your misuse of the English language - isn’t cutting it.

The bill allows criminal to walk free, when they should be held over for their crimes. spinning and twisting the intent and realities of the law, and pretending that there is not actually a law in acted is noted.

Why was the bill and law enacted in your opinion?

[canpakes]

If the State sees no need to charge someone for something, they will release that person.

If the State charges someone but determines that they can be released on their own recognizance, they will release that person.

The State is under no requirement to verify citizenship, given that this is Federal jurisdiction.

Nothing about this bill removes State charges for any reason, nor removes Federal charges or claims against the individual, nor prevents the Federal government from exercising their duties.

You can take issue with the law on ideological grounds, but as I asked previously: if anything above is incorrect, please show which item and how it is not correct. Merely stamping your feet, making erroneous claims and then building straw men about what others ‘must be thinking’ - simply because they don’t agree with your misuse of the English language - isn’t cutting it.

The bill allows criminal to walk free, when they should be held over for their crimes. spinning and twisting the intent and realities of the law, and pretending that there is not actually a law in acted is noted.

Why was the bill and law enacted in your opinion?

There’s no ‘get out of jail free’ card, here. The bill simply leaves immigration enforcement to the Feds. That’s it.

The State will not need to expend funds or manpower to enforce federal immigration law, because immigration law is federal jurisdiction, and enforced by the federal government.

That’s as far as it goes.

ICE has been spending significant time and resources waiting outside of courtrooms to snatch women and children without any criminal history, and then deporting them, if their citizens application cases are dismissed pending appeal. They can do the same for any person walking out of a State facility for any reason.

Nothing in the bill you presented prevents ICE from doing its job.

[Markk]

The bill allows criminal to walk free, when they should be held over for their crimes. spinning and twisting the intent and realities of the law, and pretending that there is not actually a law in acted is noted.

Why was the bill and law enacted in your opinion?

There’s no ‘get out of jail free’ card, here. The bill simply leaves immigration enforcement to the Feds. That’s it.

The State will not need to expend funds or manpower to enforce federal immigration law, because immigration law is federal jurisdiction, and enforced by the federal government.

That’s as far as it goes.

ICE has been spending significant time and resources waiting outside of courtrooms to snatch women and children without any criminal history, and then deporting them, if their citizens application cases are dismissed pending appeal. They can do the same for any person walking out of a State facility for any reason.

Nothing in the bill you presented prevents ICE from doing its job.

Why was the bill enacted?

CFR on their spending spending significant time and resources waiting outside of courtrooms to snatch women and children without any criminal history, and what that has to do with the bill.

[canpakes]

There’s no ‘get out of jail free’ card, here. The bill simply leaves immigration enforcement to the Feds. That’s it.

The State will not need to expend funds or manpower to enforce federal immigration law, because immigration law is federal jurisdiction, and enforced by the federal government.

That’s as far as it goes.

ICE has been spending significant time and resources waiting outside of courtrooms to snatch women and children without any criminal history, and then deporting them, if their citizens application cases are dismissed pending appeal. They can do the same for any person walking out of a State facility for any reason.

Nothing in the bill you presented prevents ICE from doing its job.

Why was the bill enacted?

To make you mad that the State won’t spend time and resources doing ICE’s job for them.

CFR on their spending spending significant time and resources waiting outside of courtrooms to snatch women and children without any criminal history, and what that has to do with the bill.

The comment is presented as a counter to your assertion that the bill somehow keeps ICE from doing its job. It doesn’t.

Here’s an example:

https://www.newsweek.com/marine-green-c ... ed-2086677

[Gunnar]

The comment is presented as a counter to your assertion that the bill somehow keeps ICE from doing its job. It doesn’t.

Here’s an example:

https://www.newsweek.com/marine-green-c ... ed-2086677

I don't think there is any moral justification whatsoever for splitting up a loving, married couple, especially if they already have children, merely because one of them was not a U.S. citizen at the time of marriage, and there shouldn't be any legal justification for doing so either. Keeping such a family together and providing a clear path to citizenship for the non-citizen spouse should always take precedence over deporting them if they have not committed any crime other than merely being an undocumented resident. To split up a loving family like that is unconscionably cruel and unjust; I don't care what anyone else has to say about it!

[canpakes]

As a way to thank the people who helped American soldiers in Afghanistan, we will now deport them, because Cheetolini needs to pad the deportation numbers to keep his MAGA voter base’s appetite sated.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghan-all ... ion-court/

… Naser was legally paroled into the U.S in 2024, according to his lawyer, Brian McGoldrick. In addition to an active asylum case, he has a pending Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) case because of his long history supporting the U.S. military. SIVs are provided to foreign nationals who worked with U.S. military forces in war zones including Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. Naser has no criminal record in the U.S. or Afghanistan, according to court records reviewed by CBS News.

"This man served with our troops. He came through the front door. He followed every rule. And we locked him up anyway," said Shawn VanDiver, executive director for #AfghanEvac, a nonprofit that advocates for U.S. wartime allies. He said it's unknown how many Afghan allies have been detained by ICE officials.

The Department for Homeland Security and ICE did not respond to a request for comment.

Naser served as a civilian interpreter for the U.S. military in Afghanistan from 2015 to 2018. He and his brothers also co-owned a logistics company that provided anti-mining support to American troops, according to employment records viewed by CBS News.

"This individual was an important part of our Company commitment to provide the best possible service for our clients, who were the United States Military in Afghanistan," says one employment document submitted as part of Naser's SIV application.

But after the U.S. withdrew from the country in August 2021, his partnership with American forces put targets on the backs of Naser and his family. In 2023, Taliban fighters killed his brother and abducted his father at a family wedding. The attack drove Naser out of the country and forced his wife and children to flee their home.

"I cannot return to Afghanistan under any circumstances because I am accused of collaborating with U.S. forces. From the Taliban's perspective, anyone who worked with foreign forces during the past 20 years is a spy, an infidel, and must be killed," Naser wrote in his asylum declaration. His family remains in hiding outside of Afghanistan.

After his brother was killed, Naser fled to Brazil, where he was granted a humanitarian visa. He then made the more than 6,000 mile journey on foot through the Darién Gap before reaching Mexico. In 2024, he set up an appointment with U.S. Customs and Border Protection through the app formerly known as CBP One — which allowed migrants to schedule appointments at legal ports of entry — where he was granted lawful parole into the U.S.

As part of his asylum process, Naser was required to attend an in-person hearing last week in front of a judge and a lawyer from the Department of Homeland Security. But when Naser showed up to court, the DHS lawyer said that his case was "'improvidently issued."

"Nobody knows what that means," said McGoldrick, who tried to dispute the ruling. When pressed, the DHS lawyer refused to clarify further.

"'Improvidently issued' is becoming ICE's new catch-all — a vague, unchallengeable justification being used to clear dockets and meet removal and detention quotas," said VanDiver. "It's being weaponized to put lawful, parole-compliant asylum-seekers in cells."

[Markk]

Why was the bill enacted?

To make you mad that the State won’t spend time and resources doing ICE’s job for them.

CFR on their spending spending significant time and resources waiting outside of courtrooms to snatch women and children without any criminal history, and what that has to do with the bill.

The comment is presented as a counter to your assertion that the bill somehow keeps ICE from doing its job. It doesn’t.

Here’s an example:

https://www.newsweek.com/marine-green-c ... ed-2086677

The Article is talking about a Federal Green Card interview, what does that have to do with SB54?

Even A.I. understands what the Bill does, and why it was created and signed into law, which you asked me to produce.

SB 54, also known as the California Values Act, is a state law that restricts California law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement, effectively creating a "sanctuary state" policy. The law limits the extent to which state and local resources can be used for immigration enforcement purposes.

Limited Cooperation:
.
SB 54 restricts state and local law enforcement from using their resources to assist in federal immigration enforcement.
No Detention for Immigration:
.
It prohibits local law enforcement from detaining individuals based on immigration status or warrants issued by federal immigration authorities.
No Information Sharing:
.
The law restricts the sharing of information about individuals' immigration status with federal immigration authorities.

You had no idea there was such a bill and are to proud, I guess, to admit there are is a law that helps create Sanctuary states and cites, which was my original point to Gunnar which you jumped in on, ignorantly.

This was my assertion to Gunnar...

Lol....then why is it called a sanctuary city, and why are laws passed to let illegal immigrants walk free from their breaking federal immigrations laws?

Bringing up articles on other subjects, does not change the reality of what SB54 allows, and why it was created and signed into law.

[canpakes]

The comment is presented as a counter to your assertion that the bill somehow keeps ICE from doing its job. It doesn’t.

Here’s an example:

https://www.newsweek.com/marine-green-c ... ed-2086677

The Article is talking about a Federal Green Card interview, what does that have to do with SB54?

This incident doesn’t need to have anything to do with SB54. The example shows that ICE can enforce federal law when it wants to. Or, in this case, when it’s hardly necessary.

Even A.I. understands what the Bill does, and why it was created and signed into law, which you asked me to produce.

A.I. may also tell you to glue pizza and eat rocks.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd11gzejgz4o.amp

But, let’s see what A.I.’s opinion is here:

SB 54, also known as the California Values Act, is a state law that restricts California law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement, effectively creating a "sanctuary state" policy. The law limits the extent to which state and local resources can be used for immigration enforcement purposes.

Limited Cooperation:
.
SB 54 restricts state and local law enforcement from using their resources to assist in federal immigration enforcement.

No Detention for Immigration:
.
It prohibits local law enforcement from detaining individuals based on immigration status or warrants issued by federal immigration authorities.

No Information Sharing:
.
The law restricts the sharing of information about individuals' immigration status with federal immigration authorities.

That sure seems to echo what I’ve been saying. The bill does not prevent the Federal government from exercising its Federal authority or Federal jurisdiction. What it does do is restrict the State from doing so on behalf of the Federal government. It doesn’t remove charges for anything, either. And it certainly doesn’t give ‘aid and comfort’, as you previously asserted.

And it sounds pretty Constitutional, at that. But you don’t seem to be much of a fan of the Constitution these days, if you can push it aside for partisan reasons.