Rape focuses critical attention on 'sanctuary' states

Which federal law do you get to blatantly disregard and also have no fear of law enforcement asking you if you are in compliance with this law?

 

I follow this story quite a bit, since I live in the area. This, coupled with a few recent murders by the gang MS-13, including the death of a 15 year old girl who's body was dumped in a local park makes it a pretty relevant conversation around here.

I think this would be a good case study. The public deserves some details about how the process works. How can an 18 year old illegal alien be identified in Texas as someone who recently crossed the border, have a hearing date set, and then seven months later ends all the way up in Montgomery County, Maryland, attending high school in one of the nation's best school districts along side 14 year old kids? Is really the modus operandi for situations like this? Is this really the intent of whatever laws are on the books to allow this (assuming there are some laws that permitted this)?

With the bureaucratic nightmares that most normal, LEGAL Americans have to go through to get their children into good schools, to get vaccines, to prove their residency, to legally drive a car, to pay their taxes, etc. It's hard for most Americans to imagine that someone who just walked over the border and can't speak a lick of English can just navigate/bypass all that with a lot of assistance and preferential treatment.

I'm not sure what agency would lead the investigation, but a thorough timeline followed by a press conference that explains the laws and bureaucratic process at the federal, state, and local levels that allow this to happen should be highlighted. From there, we can look at which of those laws or processes is not working as intended and needs to be changed.

 

The law never stated that local law enforcement is required to enforce immigration policy. WTF are you talking about?

 

When you mean 'case study' do you actually mean 'anecdote'?

 

You people do not have the most basic idea of what a sanctuary city is.

All 'sanctuary city' means is that local pd does not go out on raids/shakedowns with ICE. In fact, sanctuary cities still point out illegal immigrants. If local pd in a sanctuary city detains someone who is flagged by ICE, they are informed and the onus is on ICE to go there if they chose to enforce. This is how it's worked for decades. Local pd doesn't go out with ICE because it hinders the trust factor that the local community has resulting in them running like roaches when local pd shows up because they are afraid of deportation. Local pd would rather them be willing help to their end game of making a neighborhood safer.

Provide some nuanced emperical evidence that sanctuary cities are more dangerous and stop using anecdotes to push your **** narrative.

 

Hey look, actual data instead of anecdotes.

http://www.citylab.com/crime/2017/01/sanctuary-cities-are-safer-and-more-productive/514508/

It speaks volumes to how discredited the opposition to 'sancturary cities' comes from outside conservative rural Sheriffs. Haven't heard an argument against sanctuary cities for cops who actually work in sanctuary cities. Hmmm... Maybe that should give someone perspective to some of you Trump acolytes.

 

Which other laws are you OK with people breaking in this country?

 

So you aren't willing to have a genuine debate here.

I'm for what makes a community safer. That's what I'm for. Did you read:http://www.citylab.com/crime/2017/01/sanctuary-cities-are-safer-and-more-productive/514508/?

 

Huh? No. I mean a case study. A case study usually studies an "anecdote" to provide insight into how something happened. With the expectation that it could shed some light on how the system works to process illegal aliens. The main questions would be why do we have laws or processes in place that allow an illegal alien who is most likely going to be imminently deported after his court hearing to attend our public schools?

 

I read it just now. Does the author have an issue using the word illegal?

Would you agree that if all illegal aliens were out of the country then crimes committed by illegal aliens would be fewer thus increasing safety?

 

Why an indivudal 'case study' when we have a large set of data that has been thoroughly analyzed? http://www.citylab.com/crime/2017/01/sanctuary-cities-are-safer-and-more-productive/514508/

Is it because one draws a conclusion that you desire?

Because that would be the only rational conclusion here because we all well understand that a large set of data is going to be more valued over indivudal anecdotes.

 

For someone who complains about others not reading your convoluted, small-fry study as proof that illegal immigration should be ignored, you're sure missing my point.

For what is' worth, the biggest local new stories in the suburbs of DC the past few months has been this, and the killings by the Hispanic gang MS-13. So call them anecdotes if you'd like. They're quite extraordinary events for this area, and they are essentially imported here by the processes that allow this to happen. But feel free to go find some more PO-dunk studies from some small-time professor in California that "proves" illegal immigration should be ignored.

And back to my point. I'm not even talking about the crime or sanctuary city aspect of this. I'd like to understand the process and laws in place that allow near adult illegal aliens to be caught in Texas, have a deportation hearing scheduled, and then end up at a high school in the affluent suburbs of DC seven months later, unable to speak a lick of english? What exactly is the risk/reward here? Do the laws really intend for this to happen? That is what I would like to understand.

 

Great dismissive strategy there.

You don't want to play the anecdote game. You can argue for any argument with anecdotes. Muslims are overly oppressed in the United States. I can back that claim up with anecdotes.

 

All I want to do is understand how illegal aliens are processed through the system. A lot of times the easiest way to explain something like this is to provide an interesting real-life case that demonstrates it. Do you follow, or do I need to slow down? Is your easily-swayed, unperceptive mind not comprehending this?

It could be this case. It could be another one that didn't end in a brutal crime. I don't care. It would be nice to have a detailed understanding of the laws and process that permit it. And then maybe we can draw some conclusions as to whether those laws and processes are working as intended, need to be tweaked, provide any benefits, have any risks, how much risk, etc.?

If you still don't get my point and think I just care about "anecdotes," then I give up. You really suck as a poster, by the way.

 

I believe the issue is that people with strong political beliefs (ie. "sanctuary cities are evil!" or"need a 30 foot wall on the border!") use these anecdotes to support their political position, even though studies show the contrary. So perhaps instead of "studying" the anecdote, perhaps its better to examine the study?

 

Rocketslegend like much of the Trump supporters lives in an alt fact I,e fact free alternative universe.
Nothing can penetrate their consciousness Perhaps if he was saved personally from being raped by an undocumented person in a sanctuary city, but even then it would be 50-50 as he would probably just excuse it as it just being the work of a "good one".

However, those interested in facts and research showing that sanctuary cities have less crime and better economies.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/sd-me-sanctuary-study-20170127-story.html

A University of California San Diego professor who served as an adviser to former President Barack Obama released a study Thursday saying that “sanctuary counties” have significantly lower crime rates and stronger economies than those that cooperate fully with federal immigration enforcement efforts

 

Again, it's not an anecdote I'm interested in. It's a single case to demonstrate the laws and processes in place that processes illegal aliens through our system. I thought this would be an interesting case to show whether all of the laws and processes were followed. And also shed some light on those processes so they can be looked at closely.

If you're of the mind that enough studies have been done to prove illegal aliens are a net benefit to the country, so there's really no need to even bother looking closely at our illegal immigration policies/laws/processes, then I can see why you wouldn't care. I personally, don't think that has been proven and find it hard to believe. Both Democrats and Republicans don't seem to think maintaining the status quo is a solution either.

 

I don't really see the problem. These two guys were caught, will be prosecuted, and will did a lot of time in a US prison, and will then be deported upon release. Do you think this would not have happened had these guys been deported already? The implicit assumption there is that a Central American is materially more likely to commit a rape than a US citizen or resident. I have seen studies that concluded illegal aliens are less likely to commit crimes than citizens; I have not seen anything that says they are more likely to. If these guys are MS-13 or something, maybe that's an aggravating factor, but how many of illegal immigrants are, and how is it that they still have lower offending rates if they have MS-13 bringing up the average?

And how does the sanctuary city policy fit in? Did they have past interactions with law enforcement in Maryland in which they were not reported to ICE? The only interaction I know of is where they were arrested for raping a girl, and that interaction will result in their deportation (when their sentence is complete decades from now). And what if Maryland cops took an aggressive stance on enforcement, did raids, checked all the ESL kids in high school, etc. They would have found a couple of illegal immigrants who have not yet committed any crime and are awaiting their hearing for deportation. So I don't see why sanctuary policy is relevant.

This story is just emotional anecdote to paint illegal immigrants as rapists and then advocate for policy changes that are not actually relevant. To DC's point, there is something broken about a system that lets an illegal immigrant bounce around the country for 7 months without processing. That's not a speedy trial. We apparently do not have enough capacity in our court system. But that's not a sanctuary city problem. Nor does it mean our illegal immigrant population is some kind of public health hazard.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that illegal immigration should not be looked at. Me personally, I don't believe the current republican/Trump approach is the right approach. But that position disclosed, I don't think "studying" a single incident is the most effective way to study our immigration processes and laws. Especially when studies show a different conclusion (that sanctuary cities have less crime and better economies).

 

Good point. And I suspect that many of those that would like to exploit this incident to support their political cause are also those that would argue that people shouldn't "exploit" school shootings as an argument for stricter gun laws...