link (http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?id=31136&siteSection=1)

CHICAGO -- Despite a federal effort to enlist help from local police to catch illegal immigrants, some of the USA's biggest cities are declining to enforce immigration laws.

Police chiefs, mayors and city councils are ordering local cops not to get involved as federal agents crack down on people in the country illegally.

"Vulnerable people have always needed to see the police as being there to protect and serve, and that can't happen when the first words out of a cop's mouth are, 'I need to see your papers,'" Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak said

It's not their job. It's the federal government's job. Local governments shouldn't have to pay for the enforcement of federal laws.

Thank you!

It's not their job. It's the federal government's job. Local governments shouldn't have to pay for the enforcement of federal laws.i agree, but since the feds are absolutely refusing to do their job, local cops should at least be able to ask if you belong here.

It's policy in my state to ignore those breaking immigration laws...sort of a can't ask, can't report mentality and here-take-our-tax-dollars philosophy

Immigration has become a pass-the-buck issue. States have the responsibility to police their own and don't then they turn around and ask the feds for help, financial assistance, and a solution to the problem

i agree, but since the feds are absolutely refusing to do their job, local cops should at least be able to ask if you belong here.

not if it means taking up local resources from other needs

cops need to obey the law

It's policy in my state to ignore those breaking immigration laws...sort of a can't ask, can't report mentality and here-take-our-tax-dollars philosophy

Immigration has become a pass-the-buck issue. States have the responsibility to police their own and don't then they turn around and ask the feds for help, financial assistance, and a solution to the problem

I'll bet that there is no such policy that says ignore it.

Are we just going to say that the cops can't question any law breakers so that they can feel safer? :confused:

When the Fed no longer enforces the law, it's up to states to do so, and in any way they see fit. If the Feds, or criminal illegal aliens, or parasite anchor baby families, or their employers don't like it, they can always leave.

It's refreshing to see many Mayors and Governors getting ready to enforce the laws in their states.

not if it means taking up local resources from other needs

cops need to obey the law.what resources? i'm talking about people already in custody. if you pull over someone who's speading and they don't have a license or insurance, is it too much of a ****ing stretch to ask if they have a greencard?

what resources? i'm talking about people already in custody. if you pull over someone who's speading and they don't have a license or insurance, is it too much of a ****ing stretch to ask if they have a greencard?

i oppose it. it's offensive to legal citizens who don't carry their license or insurance papers for starters. if i'm in custody for breaking a law then go ahead and ask. local enforcement has plenty to keep them busy. i pay both federal and state taxes and i want what i want how i want it. :)

i oppose it. it's offensive to legal citizens who don't carry their license or insurance papers for starters.well, that's illegal, right? if i'm in custody for breaking a law then go ahead and ask.you mean like the law that requires you to have your license and insurance with you in the car? local enforcement has plenty to keep them busy.they'd have less to keep them busy with less illegals around. i pay both federal and state taxes and i want what i want how i want it. :)this ain't burger king.

well, that's illegal, right?
yes.
you mean like the law that requires you to have your license and insurance with you in the car?
and the law that protects me from getting pulled over without cause or being mirandized.
they'd have less to keep them busy with less illegals around.
by just doing their job instead of worrying about what the feds are clearly in charge of they'd do fine. a law man who believes and acts as if he should be all things to all people is no longer a servant of the public.

this ain't burger king.
the "invasion persuasion" will be coming to an end friend. enjoy the hate it while it lasts.

and the law that protects me from getting pulled over without cause or being mirandized.pay attention. i'm talking about people that are already pulled over.

pay attention. i'm talking about people that are already pulled over.

How about passing a law that requires all citizens pulled over to be asked the same questions?

racial profiling = good idea.

I thought it was within the limits of the law to arrest someone who was driving with no drivers license or any other form of identification?

I'll bet that there is no such policy that says ignore it.Tell me jo jo....politicians sit around and try to find ways to give our tax dollars, via education money, to illegals and you tell me it's not official policy? How come schools can't ask or report about the residency status of students? Why aren't they deported instead of supported? (We obviously pay for their education) How come health care providers can get your visa and do a credit check on you to make sure you can pay but can't check to see if you are illegal and report you to the proper authorities? (illegals DO present a health risk) Prop 187 made it illegal to support illegals with public funds and was approved by the voters yet tossed out in the courts....so much for democracy.

here is your official policy:

current law requires:

Free public K--12 education for all school-age children in California, regardless of alienage; and
Compulsory school attendance of each person in California between the ages of six and eighteen, regardless of alienage.
Although age and residency must be established, there is no requirement that citizenship be established. As discussed below, even inquiring about citizenship as a condition of enrollment is currently prohibited.

As educators concerned with the provision of quality education for all children and for the improvement of society through an educated population, the California State Board of Education believes strongly that there is no rational educational or fiscal purpose in excluding children of illegal aliens from receiving the educational opportunities available to all other children. (Amicus Curiae Brief at p. 27)


http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fb/yr03immgstatus.asp

good post, but no cigar

The precedent set in Plyler v Doe in no way ignores anything.

Think about it.

SCOTUS is on my side buddy.