Thread: Obama picks 'Sanctuary City' proponent for ICE position

I read about this yesterday and was very floored at the decision. This should end the debate on what Obama wants, this is an outright over the top display of a president in full support of ignoring the laws we have related to immigration by putting this guy into this position. By selecting this guy Obama is putting even more officer lives in danger as this guys has a history.

Google him and a woman named Joslyn Johnson. She is rightfully upset with him because her police officer husband was gunned down by... can you guess... an "undocumented immigrant" while Hurtt was chief there taking his typical "sanctuary city" policy making in Houston. At one time saying as much backing off working with ICE while there. The gunman who killed her husband had already been deported once, returned and then arrested at least three times before he shot the officer. Aside from the mess he made in Houston case, Hurtt's policies have been blamed for enabling illegal immigrants to kill two police officers in Phoenix. Joslyn Johnson's suit from what I recall is not seeking monetary damages, aside from attorney fees. She is seeking a change in policy so that federal immigration databases are widely available to local departments. This is something that Hurtt is of course against.

Good job Obama.

This is how government works. Just because congresses passes a law, doesn't mean that congress has to fund it. It doesn't mean that the President has to put someone in charge of it that wants to enforce it. And it doesn't mean that any of the States have to obey it, unless the President says so.

This is no longer a Constitutional Republic. This is a Democracy. So long as a majority of Americans support Obama, President Obama can, essentially, do whatever he wants with zero accountability.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

This is how government works. Just because congresses passes a law, doesn't mean that congress has to fund it. It doesn't mean that the President has to put someone in charge of it that wants to enforce it. And it doesn't mean that any of the States have to obey it, unless the President says so.

This is no longer a Constitutional Republic. This is a Democracy. So long as a majority of Americans support Obama, President Obama can, essentially, do whatever he wants with zero accountability.

Well he doesn't have a majority supporting this, and he's doing it anyway. Guess he has zero accountability regardless of whether its good for the country, or whether people actually want it.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

I read about this yesterday and was very floored at the decision. This should end the debate on what Obama wants, this is an outright over the top display of a president in full support of ignoring the laws we have related to immigration by putting this guy into this position. By selecting this guy Obama is putting even more officer lives in danger as this guys has a history.

Google him and a woman named Joslyn Johnson. She is rightfully upset with him because her police officer husband was gunned down by... can you guess... an "undocumented immigrant" while Hurtt was chief there taking his typical "sanctuary city" policy making in Houston. At one time saying as much backing off working with ICE while there. The gunman who killed her husband had already been deported once, returned and then arrested at least three times before he shot the officer. Aside from the mess he made in Houston case, Hurtt's policies have been blamed for enabling illegal immigrants to kill two police officers in Phoenix. Joslyn Johnson's suit from what I recall is not seeking monetary damages, aside from attorney fees. She is seeking a change in policy so that federal immigration databases are widely available to local departments. This is something that Hurtt is of course against.

Good job Obama.

This post is a good example how irrational some of the debate is.

First off, the "sactuary policy" in Houston was in place since 1992 by former police chief RD Bradford, which is long before Hurtt came into the Houston PD (2004). Second, the wife, understandably upset, needs to direct her anger at the 12 men and women of the jury who gave the accused the light sentence. There is no guarantee that if the policy of not asking immigration status was not in place, that the crime could have been prevented. Fourth, Hurtt is taking over the outreach efforts. Hurtt does have experience in this with Houston in which he expanded outreach programs and technology.

BTW, Hurtt was assistant police chief of Phoenix Police department before he took the Houston job. But this position is something that should not get much attention since it does not specifically deal with enforcement. Whether you like it or not, acknowledge it or not, community outreach is something that will help law enforcement, not hurt it even if there are differences in how a law should be applied or not.

Originally Posted by Hudson

This post is a good example how irrational some of the debate is.

First off, the "sactuary policy" in Houston was in place since 1992 by former police chief RD Bradford, which is long before Hurtt came into the Houston PD (2004). Second, the wife, understandably upset, needs to direct her anger at the 12 men and women of the jury who gave the accused the light sentence. There is no guarantee that if the policy of not asking immigration status was not in place, that the crime could have been prevented. Fourth, Hurtt is taking over the outreach efforts. Hurtt does have experience in this with Houston in which he expanded outreach programs and technology.

BTW, Hurtt was assistant police chief of Phoenix Police department before he took the Houston job. But this position is something that should not get much attention since it does not specifically deal with enforcement. Whether you like it or not, acknowledge it or not, community outreach is something that will help law enforcement, not hurt it even if there are differences in how a law should be applied or not.

And yet, officers are dead at the hands of "undocumented immigrants" in these santuary citys. Something Hurtt supported then, was there for at the time and could have influenced policy... but no, continue with his nonsense, and continues to support now. BTW, Community outreach should not be confused or somehow trump and justify being an open advocate ignoring immigration law and put officers at further risk. And there is one garantee... if the particular undocumented immigrant was not there at the time in Houston he would not have killed this officer in this santuary city. It may not be all Hurtt's fault, but his views and policy decisions are no help. Will be no help under Obama either. Do what you have to in defending Hurtt and Obama, does not change very much to me. Nor will it for the widow Joslyn Johnson. Nor will it for anyone that believes we should be enforcing our laws.

Originally Posted by Hudson

BTW, Hurtt was assistant police chief of Phoenix Police department before he took the Houston job. But this position is something that should not get much attention since it does not specifically deal with enforcement. Whether you like it or not, acknowledge it or not, community outreach is something that will help law enforcement, not hurt it even if there are differences in how a law should be applied or not.

Yes, this position does deal with enforcement. Hurtt's job is to liaison with local jurisdictions regarding local participation in enforcing immigration laws.

Since it is his belief that local jurisdictions should not participate in enforcing those laws, how effective can he possibly be in assisting communities in enforcing those laws?

Matt

the admin. backers might say that this means nothing, and that this is the more sympathetic way to get the border under control i.e. picking someone not hostile to illegals because , well, if you are not for open borders you're a racist or at the very least hostile to immigrants ( illegal terminology not used or inferred of course) ....or the next gambit; what this mans feels means nothing, hes a public official picked to do a job, and his sanctuary city thing, is well meaningless now.

He didn't NOT follow fed. guidelines by asking his officers not to turn over illegals etc. or that he was following city council, mayors rules etc....his orders are now to enforce fed statutes...even though my understating is he would not even turn over illegals whom had committed felonies to ICE. while he was Police comm.

now, reality? this is a great big fuck you, to Arizona and a sop to the left base. I am aware of the sanctuary city argument, I am of 2 minds but must come down on the side of law and they are choosing to not help or assist, yes its the feds bailiwick but that doesn't mean you basically aid or abet either ( yes I know how Giuliani feels about this).......yes its is like choosing an upire howm has a rooting interest, but Obama cannot help himself and frankly he doesn't care either, that much is evident.

And does this actually surprise us? I could see Bush doing the same thing, as well as Clinton. Obama is just following suite.

And it matters little to Obama if most Americans are against illegal immigration. Afterall, he is the wiser, so hold your nose and swallow that pill. It's good for you, although it may taste like shit. He like others KNOWS what is best for you and me. The wise father, and we the little kids. Get it? Ok then. Now go outside and play in the street. Blue

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Why doesn't Obama just come out and say it? "We give up - the border is open"?

How can this man possibly be the outreach coordinator for a program he is opposed to? It's like hiring a Catholic priest as the outreach coordinator for Planned Parenthood.

Amazing.

Nothing Obamaa comes up with can shock or surprise me (anymore).

Your response does not address the comments made by Hudson. His analysis was valid and based on the lack of merit of the initial argument.

Originally Posted by snbl11225

Your response does not address the comments made by Hudson. His analysis was valid and based on the lack of merit of the initial argument.

Or, you just do not like it or anyone critical of Obama's selection to a position such as this who is an open advocate to ignore immigration law.

Originally Posted by snbl11225

Your response does not address the comments made by Hudson. His analysis was valid and based on the lack of merit of the initial argument.

Yes, it did.

Originally Posted by Sluggo

And yet, officers are dead at the hands of "undocumented immigrants" in these santuary citys. Something Hurtt supported then, was there for at the time and could have influenced policy... but no, continue with his nonsense, and continues to support now. BTW, Community outreach should not be confused or somehow trump and justify being an open advocate ignoring immigration law and put officers at further risk. And there is one garantee... if the particular undocumented immigrant was not there at the time in Houston he would not have killed this officer in this santuary city. It may not be all Hurtt's fault, but his views and policy decisions are no help. Will be no help under Obama either. Do what you have to in defending Hurtt and Obama, does not change very much to me. Nor will it for the widow Joslyn Johnson. Nor will it for anyone that believes we should be enforcing our laws.

Police officers die from a variety of reasons, not just if someone is illegal or not. And depending on a person's viewpoint, it could be because someone had easy access to guns, drugs, or rage. For instance, a similar argument is used against guns, or more accurately the access of guns. Yet some will be on the bandwagon to ban them and some will say it is a right with anything goes mentality. The point is that to view crime, one must view the aspect of crime,m not who the perputrator is.

AS for the former police chief, the lawsuit will not go very far and more than likely will end up not being able to prove her claim. To prove that the lives are in danger, she, Joselyn, has to show direct proof that is extra ordinary than with other threats that police officer face. Since she will not be able to do this, the jury will more than likely not side with her.

Arizona has a major drug problem. If the Arizona legisltature was smart, they could have used this oppurtunity to really crack down on drugs and not care who was doing the drugs or their political idealogy. But no, they wanted to make an example of "illegals" with a policy that will be a ineffective application of the law (what to do when someone who does not have any documentation and claims to be a USC for instance). This is an argument of how to utilize very limited police resources. Most citizens do not want to pay an arm and a leg for police enforcement. It makes the community nervous for a variety of reasons. No law enforcement agancy can enforce all the laws all the time nor can it enforce most of the laws most of the time. It realies on citizens to effectively police themselves. For example, how many people do you believe viotate at least one major traffic law? A low percentage? A moderate percentage? or a high percentage? Keep in mind that violations of traffic laws is why there are accidents with fatalities.

Finally, the 287g program is a decent program, but it does have flaws and it is not for every police department. And it needs to be improved so that it is more acceptable to polce law enforcement agencies. This is a complex problem and saying it that just because a city is a "sanctuary city" does not prove that lives would have been saved if another policy has been implemented.