Sanctuary Cities: Who's to blame?

Giovanni Jones

Giovanni Jones

2,500+ Posts
I can't say that I'm surprised that the SC legislation failed to pass in either the Regular Session or the Special Session, even though 1) the Governor was all in favor of it; 2) the Republican legislators said they were all in favor of it; and 3) the GOP has strong majorities in both the House and the Senate. That legislation should have shot through the Legislature like crap through a goose.

But it didn't. And so Gov. Perry blames Sen. Robert Duncan (R-Lubbock) for not attaching it to the fiscal matters bill in the Special Session. Duncan says he didn't want to jeopardize the fiscal matters bill by attaching unrelated legislation to it. Lt. Gov. Dewhurst says the Senate passed SB-9 2 weeks ago, so blame the House for dropping the ball (the House failed to vote it out of committee). Joe Strauss retorts that the House approved SC legislation the Regular Session and the Senate failed to act on it at all.

LINK

This strikes me as an exercise in legislative sleight-of-hand to prevent a bill from becoming law that the politicians spoke highly in favor of (to win favor with their constituents) but didn't really want to see pass (because Bob Perry and Charles Butt are against it). Very slick. Gov. Perry can take credit with the voters, saying "Well, I tried! But those darn Legislators messed things up!" (since the GOP has an overwhelming majority, he can't really blame it on the Democrats). And the Senate and House members can blame it on each other.

And although Perry considered this important enough to include as an emergency item on a Special Session, apparently it's not emergency enough for him to call a 2nd Special Session.
 
For better or worse, Texas has always taken advantage of other states' misfortunes.

It would be silly now for Texas not to see Georgia's incredible agricultural labor force depletion as a major opportunity. The anti-immigration crowd can always try again after the harvest season, but I'll take my 50 cent Texas peach (sweet, too) over the soon-to-be $10 rotting-in-the-fields Georgia peach in the meantime.
 
Would it really have made a difference if it passed? In one interview, Perry almost completed a coherent sentence by saying "Look you can pass all the immigration laws you want but until we stop the revolving doors.." Maybe he was going for...these bills wouldnt have any noticeable effect perhaps?
 
Well it would made it law, so yes, I think it would have made a difference..... on paper at least. And then there could be some force of law when situations arose when an illegal is caught and not just let go.
 
For people who think the only way to get immigrant labor for farms etc
Just to be clear
there is NO reason to use illegal aliens for agriculture work. Unlimited visas are available for agri work.
UNLIMITED
 
Have a few questions. How many illegals are working in agriculture? What would be the reason for them to go around the legal way of applying for these jobs? Or for any other type of work for that matter?

My other question is what happens when an officer pulls someone over and they lie about their ID or cant produce any evidence (ID, DL, Insurance) ? Arent they arrested and taken to jail? I support closing the loop (Detention center dont use secure communities). But if these steps are already, taken. What does the SC bill do?
 
CPFan
"Perhaps in the near future we can have sanctuary cities for other crimes as well"
I think this is a great idea
Cities could choose which broken law they should support.
One city could support bank robbers, who were only robbing banks to give their families a better life
Another city could support car thieves who only steal cars to sell them so their families can have a better life
etc etc etc
I think you have hit on something

and of course just like we can never deport anyone with an baby born here ( at our expense) we can never send any citizen to jail as that breaks up the family and causes hardships.
Who needs laws?
 
I am pro minimum wage, but attacking illegal immigration on a state by state basis, is like trying to plug a leak with duct tape. And trying to plug it with race-baiting laws is like adding a couple of thumb tacks for good measure.
 
Well said Horn.

Two reasons I think this law was purely for political gain.
1)The Link
The author of the Hb 12 during regular session, states based on what he has read we dont have any SC's and probably didnt need the law.
2) Perry on Arizona's immigration law; “I fully recognize and support a state's right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas,” Perry said in a written statement.“For example, some aspects of the law turn law enforcement officers into immigration officials by requiring them to determine immigration status during any lawful contact with a suspected alien, taking them away from their existing law enforcement duties, which are critical to keeping citizens safe.”The Link

Of course Perry changed his stance and Texas needed sancuary city laws despite all the major city police chiefs arguing against a law that takes away their ability to prioritize certain calls for service.
Look, we need immigration reform but this isnt the best way. Policy based on political gain only serves the interest of a select group of folks. And in this case may invite or infringe on an American citizen's rights.
 
How are the laws race-baiting? Are they race-baiting because the majority of the illegals are Hispanic? The law is meant for everyone. Just because a certain ethnic group has a disproportionate people who are in violation of a law means that enforcement of the said law is race-baiting????? Come on now. That's just whining. Time for people to cease playing the victim.
 
Illegal immigrants remain in this country for a reason. Illegal immigrants, by and large are not pro-actively found and deported.

Why? All you have to do is figure out who gains by having them here. Many powerful people do not want the well to dry up.

one could argue, regardless of the criminality of their being here, they do more good than harm, for the country as a whole. That would be a pretty good excuse for not actively enforcing the law. What other reason would there be to not tighten the laws that already exist if people truly believe illegal immigration is a drain on our nation? hmmm..

But let's say you are of the opinion, illegal immigration does more harm than good. Is this a majority opinion? If so, one must then believe that those who benefit from illegal immigration are a very powerful minority. People that either make laws or are in the pockets of those who make/enforce laws.
 
Just to add a little fuel to the fire, do illegal alien supporters have a problem with scholarships for "undocumented students?"

Some are simply in-state tuition but there are even scholarships for illegals.

This just feels slimy to me
LINK

I suppose this could be a brilliant sting operation. All winners get a certificate and deportation papers?
 
Illegal immigrants remain in this country for a reason. Illegal immigrants, by and large are not pro-actively found and deported.

*The main reason for this is probably the limited resouces (Man power, money, and space to detain).

Why? All you have to do is figure out who gains by having them here. Many powerful people do not want the well to dry up.

* Lets throw in voting real quick. Since the republicans have held the majority for some time, it might be logical to conclude that illegals arent showing up in large numbers AT THE POLLS to vote republican. Id also ask if Perry and a large number of republicans can be part of the group that wouldnt want the well to dry up? Couldnt they could have called a 2nd special session and pass it. I do think there are others with influence like Charles Butt and Bob Perry who might rely on this workforce though and who are in the pockets of Perry and co..

one could argue, regardless of the criminality of their being here, they do more good than harm, for the country as a whole. That would be a pretty good excuse for not actively enforcing the law. What other reason would there be to not tighten the laws that already exist if people truly believe illegal immigration is a drain on our nation? hmmm..

* Good possibility. But I'd also say that the SC bill wouldnt tighten the laws. It would be a cluster F* for law enforcement, opening them up to lawsuits. Not to mention chain of comand issues. By that I mean an officer could say to his CO"You cant prohibit me from focusing on immigration issues" and give his or her CO the finger.

But let's say you are of the opinion, illegal immigration does more harm than good. Is this a majority opinion? If so, one must then believe that those who benefit from illegal immigration are a very powerful minority. People that either make laws or are in the pockets of those who make/enforce laws.

* All the debate in the legislature seems to indicate the republicans think they do more harm then good (Except the maids and lawn care workers, they're decent folks-Thanks Rep. Riddle). So then we're left looking at the democrats or a small group of folks with a lot of power. One might say the democracts are just throwing out the race card to scare the republicans. That's fine, but what do you do with all the real stories of racial profiling, and Americans who have been mistakenly deportated?

I'm just saying that when the author of the bill cant name a sanctuary city and says we probably dont even need it, and see the Gov. flip-flop on the issue, I'm led to beleive that this is purely political. We should do a better job at the boders and come up with a better way to deal with those who are here illegaly and not pass law that panders to a specific group of voters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top