DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Philadelphia terminates ICE contract after activists storm city hall; DHS rips 'misguided' move

Philadelphia terminates ICE contract after activists storm city hall; DHS rips 'misguided' move

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/...uided-move.html

Philadelphia has announced it will end a major information-sharing contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), bowing to intense pressure from activist groups and drawing immediate condemnation from federal officials.

The move means that the city will not renew a decade-long arrangement to share real-time arrest information with ICE when it expires at the end of August.

The information, contained in Philadelphia’s Preliminary Arraignment Reporting System (PARS), alerts authorities when new arrests are made, and includes arrestee's full names, countries of origin, and Social Security numbers. While PARS does not indicate immigration status, Democrats charged that ICE nevertheless abused the database to investigate potential immigration violations.

Anyone who interacts with law enforcement is entered into the database, including those who are arrested, victims and witnesses, with some limits on what ICE officers can view.
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

“I cannot in good conscience allow the agreement to continue,” Democratic Mayor Jim Kenney told the Philadelphia Inquirer about Friday's announcement. "We're not going to provide them with information so they can go out and round people up."

He added: "If I could abolish ICE, I would. But we can abolish this contract, and we are."

The city's decision comes after "Occupy ICE" protesters established a tent-filled encampment outside city hall and staged weeks of raucous demonstrations.

On Wednesday, more than a dozen activists stormed city hall and blockaded an internal stairwell for more than an hour after police rebuffed their attempt to rally directly outside the mayor's office.

U.S. Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman called the decision irresponsible and said the city will end up "harboring criminal aliens."

"Sanctuary-city policies make American communities like Philadelphia less safe by putting the rights of criminal aliens over the safety and security of American citizens," Waldman said. "Despite the misguided action taken by Philadelphia today, DHS will continue to work to remove illegal aliens and uphold public safety."

Kenney claimed immigration officers are wrongly using the database to go to homes and workplaces of people who list foreign countries of origin and arresting other people who are in the country illegally but are otherwise not accused of any other crimes.


But in a statement to Fox News, ICE officials reiterated that the agency had not breached its agreement with Philadelphia in any way, including by engaging in racial profiling or accessing information without the city's approval. They added that they were "deeply disappointed" in the city's decision, saying the city had not pointed to any specific instances of alleged misconduct by ICE.

Two of three stakeholders in the contract — the city, the district attorney and the city courts — had to vote to end it. District Attorney Larry Krasner had said this month he would oppose the contract's renewal, saying it promotes oppressive practices.

Kenney said the federal agency's actions have created fear and distrust in the city's immigrant community.

The Trump administration has long railed against sanctuary cities like Philadelphia, but its efforts to put words into practice have run into legal trouble.

On Friday, a federal district court judge ruled that the administration cannot withhold public safety grants from Chicago to pressure the city to stop providing sanctuary to immigrants, saying the policy amounted to unconstitutional coercion by the federal government. And last year, a federal judge issued an injunction against Trump's executive order denying federal funding to sanctuary cities on Tenth Amendment grounds.

In Philadelphia, Kenney was videotaped last month dancing and singing, "We're a sanctuary city!" after a similar court win there.

ICE has previously said it would focus on immediate deportation for people in the country illegally who had felony convictions or who were suspected of felonies.

Calls to abolish the agency -- including some from top Democrats and presidential hopefuls Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Sen. Elizabeth Warren -- grew into a frenzy after the Trump administration's "zero-tolerance" illegal immigration policy resulted in more separations of adults from accompanying minors at the border. Though Trump signed an executive order to end the separations, reuniting some families remains a work in progress.

Still, efforts to get rid of ICE have fizzled since earlier this month, when the GOP-controlled House called a vote on a resolution expressing support for the agency.

The vote effectively dared Democrats to go on the record with opposition to the agency. The measure passed, with a total of 133 Democratic representatives voting "present" -- amounting to a procedural refusal to take a position despite weeks of heated anti-ICE rhetoric from party leaders.

As a sanctuary city, Philadelphia had already limited cooperation with immigration enforcement. It won't release inmates to ICE without a judicial warrant.

Philadelphia entered into the contract in 2008, city solicitor Marcel Pratt said, and revised it in 2009 to shield witness and victim information from the agency, as well as to eliminate immigration status.

In a termination letter sent to ICE on Thursday, Pratt said the contract "has created the false perception that the city is willing to be an extension of ICE."

Several colleges with ties to ICE are also being pressured to split with the agency. Earlier this month, students and community activists marched at Northeastern University in Boston, demanding the school cancel a multimillion-dollar research contract with ICE. The school was hired by ICE to research U.S. technology exports.

A division of the government that kidnaps children and deports their parents who are asking for asylum from corrupt governments without due process needs to be disbanded. This is Nazi warfare policies used during WWII killing millions.

But it doesn’t surprise me that you support those type of policies here on this board.

I'm pretty sure that this is some Mengele-level stuff.
What research could ICE need?

"The Effects of Sequestration on Tender-Age Detainees"
-A Study of 'Separation Anxiety' In Sub-Humans



-yeah, sounds about right.

I'm the odd liberal out on ICE. I don't want it disbanded, I want it reshaped and run ethically by sane non-partisan people.

Who would that be?

Good luck with that. Trump policies not only corrupted this agency it is now committing crimes against humanity.

For Vambo.... Post all the willy nillys’ You want Vambo but you are on the wrong side of history here bro. Perhaps a few history lessons could set you straight but I don’t reckon any learn’n goin to help you.

They keep tearing down all the history!

Having any politician appoint the heads of Justice, or have the power to unilaterally fire them is insane in my opinion. I think when we need to fill these roles it should be done by a court appointed panel that looks at applicants and decides who is most qualified for the job. Then that selected person is put in that role for a defined period of time like a SCOTUS Judge. I'd also like to see judges selected this way.

A new panel for every appointment would at least insure varied partisanship and beliefs of those doing the selecting. Naming then sequestering that panel would also keep the thumbs of power off the scales.

Yeah removing statues of treasonous American Confederate soldiers and putting them in museums for all to learn from is not your style right? Standing and marching around those statues in a rally wearing masks and armed with shelds and clubs while yelling racial slurs teaches you so much more, right?

Statues are things, not History. History is found in books.

If one could hide those statues inside of books, those who love them so much would never find them.

Next thing you know they'll be demanding that statues be erected of Hitler in East Germany since he's a part of history.

Good history or bad history it's still history, hiding it away in museums doesn't change that.

Teaches you every American citizen has the right to protest, just because you don't agree with them you destroy history.

Actually they just erected a statue of Hitler praying for his own soul in Poland at the Warsaw ghetto. Google it.

Hey everybody... look at this:





Don't that tell you all you need to know?

Well at least you admit you are fine with people yelling racial slurs marching around treasonous confederate statues wishing slavery was still a thing, while wearing masks, shields and swinging clubs. That you probably don’t go to museums and think they are just hiding places for culture, art, and history. And that your are all good with a federal agency kidnaping kids and not returning them to their families even after being ordered to do so by federal judge.

Vambo writes his own jokes.

As long as they are not physically harming others they have the right to protest just as NFL players do.


Are you doing you best to end slavery that's going on today? Or are you all talk?

You can't even spell kidnapping let alone know when it's being committed.

Zing-------->

Spelling smack...lol. Nice going ref.

You can't change history that the Confederates were treasonous slave owners. You can choose how you want to acknowledge that fact. And people are choosing to stop celebrating their actions.

So what are you doing to end the slavery going on today?

Voting for liberal progressives, what are you doing on your end?

How will that end slavery today?

I think I have an answer for the whole statue debate. We should remove them from the view of the general public to prevent offending people who dislike what they represent.

Then we should donate them to the groups that advocate for their preservation to use as they see fit as long as they do not display them publicly.

Then hopefully those cult-like advocates will drag them back to their holes and worship them in secrecy.

Heck I'd even offer up some public land out in the desert where they could have burning man like gatherings on private property dedicated to their cult beliefs.

Fantastic news.

Philadelphia has made a lot of great strides lately with ending cash bail for non-violent Crimea and refusing to prosecute marijuana offenses.

Starter statues...

You can't change history but you don't get to just make it up, either.

No Confederate soldier, officer, or government official was ever convicted of treason. The trial of Jefferson Davis was specifically cancelled because most legal experts, both then and now, seriously doubted whether a conviction was possible.

There are not just one, but two, separate and viable legal defenses, and the one referencing Secession itself is a question the government did not then, and does not now, want a definite answer to.

George Washington (who has a statue dedicated to him in Picadilly Square) and Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves. Does this one fact erase and override any and every other thing they ever accomplished, some of them rather significant, or are both human beings and history itself complex, multi-faceted elements that can not and should not be simplified to single issues by people who are unable to understand simple things such as what are facts, and what are not, or to do things such as count, correctly, to three?

Their new DA has really taken up the reform initiative.

I expect that there'd be a whole lotta charred crosses on sand at the end of that week.


Empty tins of Skoal and PBR cans, too.

That post is exactly what I thought you were against.

I would caution against the claim that just because someone isn't charged with a crime that they are therefore innocent. It would not be feasible to try virtually every southerner for the crime of treason. I say every southerner because treason includes abetting, so if a farmer sold crops to the government for war purposes, they would be abetting treasonous acts.

Does the government not now have it's answer to secession in the form of Texas v. White?

I agree with you that we should exercise good judgement in regarding individuals as a product of their era and actions of their day. My argument between the validity of George Washington's statue and Robert E. Lee's is one of consequential significance. George Washington's statues were put up to represent a successful rebellion against tyranny of a foreign power. Lee's statues were put up ostensibly to represent a failed rebellion against the United States. England doesn't have statues of American founding fathers by the dozens, yet we do of a single confederate general in Lee, and 700 or so total if you count all confederate monuments.

If this was a measure to erase history, people would be striving to erase the Civil War from history books and museums. But you do not see people trying to topple civil war memorabilia in a museum. It's because a museum is meant to be a remembrance of history, for better or ill. A statue on the other hand, is meant to represent a positive historical significance.

I would in essence agree with your contention, however, rather than stating that they were innocent because they were not charged (which is not entirely accurate, anyway) I think it more important to deny that they are guilty, in the face of the fact that no one was convicted.

People who call Confederates treasonous are giving their opinion, not a statement of fact.

Not familiar with the Texas decision but, assuming it was recent, would have no bearing on a trial 150 years ago. Also, that would be a state and not a federal court, so, no real bearing whatsoever.

Robert E Lee was many, many things, most of them admirable and honorable. He did own slaves. He was also one of the most able commanders this country has ever produced. To honor him is to recognize his good qualities. The fact that he had his faults makes him human, like all of us.

Neither Lee, nor the Battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, advocates, proposes, or implies the return of slavery, nor do they symbolize that idea and that alone, to the exclusion of all else.

The Confederates were not evil men nor did they advocate evil, by the standards of the time. There were three Union states which had slavery, right up till after the end of the war. Should whatever flag Delaware had at that time be abolished? Why is no one complaining about the actual Confederate flag, instead of the specific battle flag they are targeting? The Army of Tennessee had one, there are many, many others.

The actual answer is that the others are not known, and the attacks being made serve no real purpose. They are mostly just smokescreen to hide the real issues no one wants to deal with. The Lee statue downtown has broken no homes in the black community, it has caused no black students to drop out of high school, it has pulled no triggers.

Precedent states that launching an open rebellion against your country is treasonous when you lose.

The law says you are wrong.

The Confederates,and many legal scholars, contend that there was no open rebellion, and they were following the laws and dictates of the specific place they were a citizen of. That is the second plank of their defense.

No rule against Secession, also no clear definition of citizenship at that time.

Lee was a citizen of Virginia, not the United States. He committed no treason against the state of Virginia. In fact, NOT doing what he did, in serving in their military, would have been treason.

There was an armed rebellion. Their political peers of the time have stated such. You can have as many scholars you want tell you the civil war was about economics and states' rights or that an armed conflict lasting 4 years isn't an open rebellion. That doesn't change some facts. By the way, you should google the history of West Virginia. I think you'll find it scandalous.

It was not a rebellion. They were in agreement with their sovereign governments.

I did not mention states rights or economics. That is something you are attempting to falsely insert.

A non-citizen cannot commit treason. Citizen was not defined clearly at the time.

There was no rebellion. There was no treason. There was an armed conflict. What it was about does not matter. What caused it does not matter. Whether it was, or was not, rebellion or treason is a complex and poorly defined issue. Issues of both Secession and Citizenship are unclear, and that lack of clarity is what constitutes the defense. The legality of that defense was never tested, but it does exist and a majority of legal scholars, then and now, can not give a clear answer as to the outcome.

There was no conviction, ever, for any Confederate, for treason. Stating that they were, in fact, traitors is an unfounded accusation, with no facts to support it. I would think that the Onus Probandi would apply here, funny it has not been mentioned.

I am familiar with the history of West Virginia. That is where my ancestors, and some of Robert E Lee's, are originally from.

Oh, I forgot. It's against the rules for Clem (specifically) to ever troll a stupid premise.

Must adhere to the high road 100% of the time.

4 events in one year, but you caught every single one of them. Sharp.
Enjoy your gotcha moment. Well-earned.

I thought we discussed this before.
Never mind.

arch 1
Clem 0

They were in agreement with their state governments to rebel against the federal government. You can argue the legal aspects of this all you want, like I've told you before, I'm not a lawyer. So you can claim they were non-citizens during their rebellion, who after the war, were granted their citizenship back. Rebellion is treason when you lose, simple as that.

As far as scholarly work on it, you would know that scholars used to refer to the civil war as "The Great Rebellion". Cornell's record room, which stores a fair amount of civil war military information is called "Official Records of the War of the Rebellion". It's pretty clear what that war was.

If you are familiar with West Virginia then it's interesting that you said

"Lee was a citizen of Virginia, not the United States. He committed no treason against the state of Virginia. In fact, NOT doing what he did, in serving in their military, would have been treason."

i found the confederate flag:




which is the only flag the "heritage" crowd need to be flying when it comes to the civil war talk.