FOX on "sanctuary" cities...

[GMDino]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/07/09/after-lambasting-sanctuary-cities-hannity-goes/204339

Quote:After Lambasting "Sanctuary Cities," Hannity Goes Quiet Upon Learning Giuliani Enforced Similar Policy As NYC Mayor

Blog ››› July 9, 2015 3:23 PM EDT ››› SALVATORE COLLELUORI & NICHOLAS ROGERS


After days of criticizing "sanctuary cities" and claiming they give safe haven to criminals and terrorists, Fox News' Sean Hannity had little to say on the matter while interviewing former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who enforced his own "sanctuary policies" during his eight years in office.

Following the July 1 shooting death of a San Francisco woman allegedly by an undocumented immigrant, conservative media reignited a debate on so-called "sanctuary cities," which limit local police enforcement of federal immigration laws. Hannity made his views known by declaring such cities dangerous safe havens for criminals and terrorists.

But then, on the July 8 edition of his show, Hannity hosted former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani to discuss "sanctuary cities" and the unsubstantiated claim that undocumented immigrants, in general, engage in a wide range of criminal activity. Giuliani explained that New York City's "sanctuary city" policy -- which he admitted he helped develop -- was adopted as a way to reduce crime by focusing on immigrant criminals instead of undocumented crime victims who aid police, children whose parents may be undocumented, or people seeking emergency hospital treatment. Guiliani described his city's policy as one of "don't ask." Hannity's only comment was to agree that not deporting undocumented residents who help with police investigations "makes sense" before he refocused the conversation on undocumented criminals. He neither refuted nor criticized Guiliani's explanation of the valid reasons to establish "sanctuary cities." Watch:



While Guiliani attempted to distance New York's policy from that of San Francisco, the fact is that New York's policy is nearly identical to San Francisco's and other "sanctuary cities'." As FactCheck.org pointed out after Guiliani attempted to claim that New York was never a "sanctuary city," cities like Seattle and San Francisco have similar "sanctuary policies" but if someone commits a crime, "then, in virtually all these localities and states, you're no longer protected or insulated":

New York's executive order, first issued in 1989 and later renewed by Giuliani, called for local-federal cooperation in cases of suspected criminal activity and also allowed city employees to talk to federal agencies about an immigrant when it was "required by law." Other cities on CRS' list have similar requirements. San Francisco, for instance, which declares itself "a City and County of Refuge," permits cooperation between law enforcement and federal authorities if an immigrant is arrested on felony charges or has been previously convicted of a felony. Seattle's policy says: "Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prohibit any Seattle city officer or employee from cooperating with federal immigration authorities as required by law." Police may also ask about immigration status if an officer believes a felony suspect previously may have been deported.

"There are different levels of detail in the policies. There are different goals in the policies," says Marshall Fitz of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "But for the most part, I think they are designed to provide a comfort level to immigrants that the police are, unless you're engaged in a crime, the police are not immigration agents. ... If you commit a crime ... well then, in virtually all of these localities and states, you're no longer protected or insulated."

San Francisco and other "sanctuary cities" -- like New York, which under Guiliani attempted to sue the federal government to ensure its sanctuary policies were not dismantled by federal legislation -- have been found to be in accordance with all federal and state laws. In addition, as the Congressional Research Service has noted, as long as there is no specific policy banning the transfer of information from local authorities to federal immigration authorities, which don't collect such information -- or as Giuliani said, have a "don't ask" policy -- all "sanctuary cities" are in accordance with federal law and legal precedence.

[*michaelsean*]

Bored?

[GMDino]

(07-10-2015, 09:56 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Bored?

Amused any time Sean is quieted down.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-10-2015, 10:30 AM)GMDino Wrote: Amused any time Sean is quieted down.

Do you actually watch Fox, or is your knowledge limited to edited cllips from HuffPo, MotherJones and Jon Stewart?

[GMDino]

(07-11-2015, 05:22 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Do you actually watch Fox, or is your knowledge limited to edited cllips from HuffPo, MotherJones and Jon Stewart?

I used to watch all the talking heads when I was younger...so my knowledge of what they do and how they do it is good...and then I stopped watching all of it (FOX, MSNBC, CNN) about 5 years ago.  It was a huge relief.


Do you still watch them?

[SunsetBengal]

While I do not agree with "sanctuary" policies, I think I understand why they have them in place. (bogging of legal system, monetary resources, etc.) 

Close the border...

Go ahead, spend the money on border enforcement.  Then, the amount of spending used to control activity of illegals can at least be factored into a budget as a finite quantity, at the Federal level.  This should take a good deal of pressure off of State and Local governments to spend their resources on a problem that can be controlled at the source.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(07-11-2015, 12:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: While I do not agree with "sanctuary" policies, I think I understand why they have them in place. (bogging of legal system, monetary resources, etc.) 

Close the border...

Go ahead, spend the money on border enforcement.  Then, the amount of spending used to control activity of illegals can at least be factored into a budget as a finite quantity, at the Federal level.  This should take a good deal of pressure off of State and Local governments to spend their resources on a problem that can be controlled at the source.

Personally I think if we're going to do anything at the federal level to help curb illegal criminals coming in from Mexico, it would be to legalize the selling and growing of marijuana nation wide in the US.  Cut the demand, and it screws the supplier.  Same as prohibition and organized crime in the 20's and 30's.

I don't even smoke pot and I know I'll get flamed for my above opinion, but I also think it would cut down on the ridiculous prison population in this country.

Anyway

[Rotobeast]

(07-11-2015, 03:04 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Personally I think if we're going to do anything at the federal level to help curb illegal criminals coming in from Mexico, it would be to legalize the selling and growing of marijuana nation wide in the US.  Cut the demand, and it screws the supplier.  Same as prohibition and organized crime in the 20's and 30's.

I don't even smoke pot and I know I'll get flamed for my above opinion, but I also think it would cut down on the ridiculous prison population in this country.

Anyway

I don't smoke either, but I am also all for it.
I'm not sure how much it will cut down on the illegal border crossings of individuals, but I'm sure it would affect it some.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-11-2015, 10:11 AM)GMDino Wrote: I used to watch all the talking heads when I was younger...so my knowledge of what they do and how they do it is good...and then I stopped watching all of it (FOX, MSNBC, CNN) about 5 years ago.  It was a huge relief.


Do you still watch them?

I never really have, but occasionally I see them.  Of course, I'm intelligent enough to ignore the obvious BS and don't get my panties all bunched up.

I've watched enough to know all of them have opinions with and without merit, some more than others (and often "outrage" is directly proportional to that person's difference of opinion and the BS research they believe supports it). 

I just find it comical how there are liberal watchdogs who's sole job appears to be to monitor Fox and Limbaugh for something inflammatory, and then their minions lap up the kool-aid and go around starting threads and posting in blogs.  I've often thought most of their audience must be liberals waiting to be outraged over something said.

[GMDino]

(07-11-2015, 09:02 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I never really have, but occasionally I see them.  Of course, I'm intelligent enough to ignore the obvious BS and don't get my panties all bunched up.

I've watched enough to know all of them have opinions with and without merit, some more than others (and often "outrage" is directly proportional to that person's difference of opinion and the BS research they believe supports it). 

I just find it comical how there are liberal watchdogs who's sole job appears to be to monitor Fox and Limbaugh for something inflammatory, and then their minions lap up the kool-aid and go around starting threads and posting in blogs.  I've often thought most of their audience must be liberals waiting to be outraged over something said.

There are conservative ones too.  The Blaze, Breitbart, etc.    Only the try to pass themselves off as "news".

MM and the like simply repost what was said (with their take, of course) and you can watch it for yourself.

I do like that some groups hold other responsible when they lie, make up facts, bloviate.

In this case its just fun to watch Sean expect a long time supporter to back him up...only to find out he didn't do enough (any) research on the guy he was talking to and "knows".

[*Nately120*]

I'm a pretty big Giuliani supporter, but what I seem to get from this is that he's almost accusing Hannity of doing a disservice (or at least brushing off his inflammatory assertions) by trumpeting the number of illegals and the amount of crime being committed as sensationalism over realism. If you tell people to demand we deport and convict every guy your neighbors pay to mow your law, or the guys who work in the kitchen of restaurants you aren't going to be as efficient in dealing with the real criminals that are doing those things Hannity wants to scare you with.

As with gun control, Rudy's New York policies were just too gray and results-oriented to really fall in line with the all or nothing mentality someone like Hannity has. I'm not even sure why they had him on when they could have found a safer Republican who would say "I agree, we are under attack by criminal illegals protected by liberal policies and we need to put a Republican in the White House who will crack down and keep us safe. In the mean time, buy guns. Lots of guns. The illegal immigrant criminals have guns. You need to own more guns than them."

Truthfully, if I didn't look so ethnic I would want to be a right-wing pundit. Seems simple enough.