Border Patrol Will Deploy Elite Tactical Agents to Sanctuary Cities

Except the crime rate is lower for those “violent criminals with extensive records”

 

The Constitution states that any authority that is not specified in the Constitution belongs to the state. But the Constitution requires the Executive Branch to enforce of federal statutes, and to regulate immigration and border security. So the authority does not reside with the states.

On the other hand, Republican Mayors and Governors in border states have tried to claim the authority to enforce border security.

 

Harm US citizens? How does deporting illegal criminal harm US citizens? As I pointed in another thread, the Acting Assistant Director for ICE removal operations testified before the Senate that 40 to 80 percent of all illegal criminals that are released back into society go on to commit more crimes. Deporting them before the commit more crimes makes US citizens safer.

 

Then perhaps illegal aliens should cease getting involved in illegal activities that would warrant them being deported for their crimes.

 

Sanctuary cities are releasing hardened illegal alien criminals and gang bangers -- the reason for the pilot program. May BORTAC grow to the sky's the limit.

 

Oh...you're saying BORTAC is a pilot program? Or that only having 100 special officers is a pilot? I wasn't sure what you meant. As Blaster posted, BORTEC has been around since 1984.

I would say that starting with a small number of 100 special agents, some of whom are BORTEC could simply be a test to see how many illegals will self-deport and/or this announcement sends a message to discourage other's from forming caravans and travelling north.

It definitely sends a message to Trump supporters that he's still working on his 2016 promises.

 

Be that as it may it's not my point. The left loves them some central govt in D.C. running things until they don't....then they try and cling onto the rights of the states. Hypocritical to the core the left...

 

Sorry, I meant the 100 dispatched to sanctuary cities.

 

Only when the Feds refused to do their constitutional duty.

 

Come here legally for those jobs and all will be well.

 

Who cares about golf courses. And people who pick vegetables are more likely here on USh2-A visas of which they are plenty, These visas allow them to come here and work 6 months and send the money home. And if industry needs workers, there are millions that are waiting to come here legally ready and willing to fill those jobs. I am not anti immigration by any means, I am against illegals coming here, working under the table and competing for work with domestic workers, if there are 5 workers for 4 jobs, the jobs get paid min wage if there are 3 workers for 4 jobs the jobs get paid $15.00. Illegal immigration is the tool that the rich agribus and meat packaging and service industries use to depress wages. I don't feel bad for anyone who breaks the law and gets caught.

 

The federal government is responsible for enforcing federal laws.

 

They haven't said they were exempt. They claim they're under no compulsion to spend state money enforcing federal law.

 

And yet, still not non-existent. Which it would be if they didn't come here illegally.

 

It is basic courtesy for one jurisdiction to let another jurisdiction know when one of their criminals has been apprehended. Just as it is basic courtesy to not impeded efforts at apprehending said criminals by the appropriate jurisdiction.

Perhaps the department of justice should intervene and tell these sanctuary states that they can no longer enforce their firearm-related restrictions against private citizens with no criminal records, and will indeed provide free of charge, whatever measure of legal defense the accused may need to beat the charges in court.

 

If

And Trump is doing so without cooperation from the leftist states with this move

 

They aren't obliged to be courteous.

There are federal laws banning "partial birth abortion" I believe put the health of some women (not a lot, frankly) at risk unnecessarily. I have no interest in helping the federal government enforce that law.

The feds can do as they please within the law.

 

Yes, and...?

 

Yes and Trump supporters are heartened.

 

I support the cities and states in this particular issue. I believe we were founded on a concept of a union of states and instead we have become a central government with provinces. The stronger the central the government the weaker the freedom of its citizens. This isn't winnable because the left sees it as future votes. It becomes a political issue rather than as law enforcement issue.

 

Then those who are critical of a centralized government have no one to blame but themselves when a state takes the same approach with regard to the scope of constitutional rights, such as the second amendment, and declare that they will not enforce any firearm-related restrictions.

 

We're a long ways from deciding who wins.

 

Democrats have no viable candidate so unless there is some dramatic event Trump will be reelected.

 

Trump is behind in the polls.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/

 

Trumps always behind in the polls but still wins. Obviously polls are meaningless.