Sanctuary city

The rules: No spamming, no making a nuisance of yourself.

Moderators: chijohnaok, Kameolontti

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 37427
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Sanctuary city

#1 Post by chijohnaok » Sat Jul 11, 2015 11:10 pm

Starting a new thread on "Sanctuary cities".

I suspect that the topic will come up again in the future.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... al-aliens/
CONNECTICUT SANCTUARY CITY MAYOR: WE WILL KEEP PROTECTING ILLEGAL ALIENS

by DR. SUSAN BERRY
11 Jul 2015

Illegal alien and Kathryn Steinle’s alleged murderer, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, would have been treated in Connecticut exactly as San Francisco treated him. Apparently, this is fine with sanctuary city New Haven Mayor Toni Harp.

According to the Journal Inquirer (JI), on Friday, Harp said that her city will continue to protect illegal aliens despite the horrific murder of Steinle in San Francisco.

Without a history of a violent felony or a court order for his detention, Lopez-Sanchez would not have been detained by state or municipal authorities in Connecticut, state Correction Commissioner Scott Semple said, reported the JI .

Lopez-Sanchez, a five-time deportee and seven-time convicted felon, said in a local ABC affiliate interview that he chose to go to San Francisco because he knew the sanctuary city would not hand him over to immigration officials. San Francisco police did not inform immigration officials when Sanchez’s most recent release occurred in April. The illegal alien allegedly stole a .40-caliber handgun from a federal Bureau of Land Management ranger’s car in June and shot and killed Steinle earlier this month.

Last year, Connecticut enacted a law that bars police from detaining an illegal alien unless that individual is determined to pose specific public safety risks. If the risks are deemed present, police are required to inform federal immigration officials that the illegal alien will be detained. The individual is released, however, if federal officials do not take custody of him within 48 hours.

Semple’s memo to federal immigration officials indicates that Connecticut would follow guidelines similar to what transpired in San Francisco:

Under the revised policy, the Connecticut Department of Correction will no longer enforce ICE detainer requests and administrative warrants solely on the basis of a final order of deportation or removal, unless accompanied by a judicial warrant or past criminal conviction for a violent felony.

As Breitbart News reported Friday, since President Obama took office, “the number of non-citizens Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sought to deport but did not due to the ruling of a judge, requests from the government, or the use of prosecutorial discretion have increased 42 percent.”

As a state, Connecticut has opened its arms to illegal aliens. The cities of Hartford and New Haven have signed on as sanctuary cities with ordinances providing that police do not transfer to immigration officials illegal aliens who have been arrested – or even notify ICE at all about them. The state also enacted a law at the end of last year that allows illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses.

“New Haven will continue to welcome new residents from other countries and embrace their positive contributions in our community, all in the spirit of ‘e pluribus unum,’” Harp said. “The city’s ongoing ‘sanctuary’ status reflects a widespread acceptance of diversity in New Haven and respects the distinct jurisdictions administered by the federal and local governments.”
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

jwilkerson
Sergeant Major
Posts: 12464
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Sanctuary city

#2 Post by jwilkerson » Sun Jul 12, 2015 8:41 am

I see a pattern here - "gun free zone" + "sanctuary city" = "paradise" !!!

:D
Ugum Bugum Uber Alles - Iddi Ut Amine Dada !!

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 37427
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Sanctuary city

#3 Post by chijohnaok » Sun Jul 12, 2015 8:59 am

jwilkerson wrote:I see a pattern here - "gun free zone" + "sanctuary city" = "paradise" !!!

:D
Chicago. ;)
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 37427
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Sanctuary city

#4 Post by chijohnaok » Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:14 am


http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/10/san ... wlessness/

IMMIGRATION

Sanctuary Cities Represent The Worst Kind Of Liberal Lawlessness

The debate over sanctuary cities is about far more than immigration; it's about who has to obey the law and who doesn't

By David Harsanyi
JULY 10, 2015

So let me get this straight: America is thrown into an overwrought political debate about the Confederate battle flag—a relic that has absolutely nothing to do with the shooting in Charleston—but is unwilling to engage in a conversation about the deliberate disregard of federal law that directly leads to the murder of at least one young woman?

That’s basically where we stand. After sending mixed signals, The Hill reports that Democrats will be making a concerted effort to defend San Francisco’s sanctuary laws and killing of Kathryn Steinle along the city’s famous waterfront. Most Republicans will avoid the matter altogether for the sake of political expediency. Soon enough, I imagine, it’ll be xenophobic to bring it up at all. One of these conversations, after all, is risk-free, jammed with self-satisfying preening about the right sort of evils. The other, morally complex—especially for the supporters of immigration reform (like myself)—and fraught with electoral consequences.

But let’s set aside immigration politics for a moment and consider a detail that’s often lost in this debate: Fact is, some people in America are free to ignore laws they don’t like, while others are not. Hundreds of jurisdictions nullify federal immigration law, not because they question the constitutionality of law, but because they find those laws ideologically problematic and immoral. And when I say “some” jurisdictions, I mean entirely liberal ones.

When Alabama made noises about refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the incident was, rightly, treated as attack on the rule of law. There is simply no way the administration will allow any state to work around centralized control once it’s established. No city in America will be ignoring gay marriage any more than they will be bypassing Environmental Protection Agency control, or making health-care insurance decisions that aren’t dictated by Obamacare (or retroactively whatever Democrats claim they meant in Obamacare), or welfare policy decisions that aren’t dictated by Washington, or housing decisions that undermine the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or education policy that directly conflicts with the wishes of the U.S. Department of Education. And so on.

Generally speaking, the Tenth Amendment is viewed as an artifact of a regressive time that is only used to advance racism and impede progress. So 1990s! So when Jan Brewer signs an Arizona law requiring police to determine whether a person was in the country legally critics claim it will mean an explosion of racial profiling by the state, and the Obama administration does everything it can to stop it. Immigration law is a federal matter, as you all know.

And when the administration is unsatisfied with Texas and other states enforcing the same federal law, Obama unilaterally, and without any of the oversight from the democratic process he pretends to cherish, exempts undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children from the law. Now, immigration is a matter of Washington edict, not something for the states or, perhaps, even Congress, to worry about.

But San Francisco, well, it’s the purview of the city council to decide what happens—as long as those decisions comport with long-term liberal goals.

When cities—more than 200 of them—decide to pass their own laws “protecting” illegal immigrants, we are not talking about some calibration or prioritization of “enforcement” levels. The media often use a euphemism about a “lack of cooperation” between cites and DC when, in fact, jurisdictions are simply invalidating federal law. Can you imagine the reaction from the administration if Dallas passed an ordinance allowing local police to free criminals who had broken federal gun laws or hate-crime laws? Can you imagine what would happen if 200 cities did the same?

Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez was deported five times and had seven felony convictions. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had even started another deportation process before San Francisco took him in for drug charges it soon dropped. Rather than turning him over to ICE for deportation, as federal law stipulates, the sheriff’s department released him in adherence to the city’s sanctuary policies and never notified ICE. He then killed a woman.

Jessica Vaughan lays out some of the numbers in National Review:

According to ICE records, from January 1 to August 31, 2014, more than 8,100 deportable aliens were released after arrest in approximately 300 local sanctuary jurisdictions, even though ICE had issued a detainer seeking custody in advance of deporting them. Some 62 percent of these offenders had a prior criminal history, like Sanchez. Roughly 3,000 were felons, as was Sanchez. Of the 8,100 aliens who were released to the streets instead of to ICE, approximately 1,900 were later arrested, a total of 4,300 more times, on 7,500 different charges. The most common subsequent charge was dangerous drugs, followed by DUI.
You know, it is possible to simultaneously believe that a policy is wrong but that arbitrarily enforcing law is more problematic. No matter how hard-working illegal immigrants are or how many suffer in the shadows or how many would make incredible Americans, there are many illegal immigrants who are criminals. Ignoring the law allows criminality—not immigration—to fester and grow. In the end, this may hurt the cause of reform. It’s doubtful that peaceful Americans—citizens, immigrants, or illegal immigrants—want criminals traversing back and forth over the border with impunity and the protection of the state.

While Republicans who supported gun laws are vilified forever, though the laws liberals want to enact would be unlikely to stop mass shootings, people like Hillary Clinton, who has endorsed sanctuary cities in the past, will never have to answer for Steinle. Hillary once claimed that “local law enforcement” should not have to “act like immigration authorities.” I agree. But of course, local law enforcement officials turn over criminals of all types to federal authorities. We’re not talking about sending local cops out to bang down doors and throw single Mexican moms into vans. We’re talking about handing over illegal immigrants who have been accused of engaging in criminal acts (beyond crossing the border without permission).

Now, there is no doubt that anything dealing with “immigration” will be conflated and used for political purposes. This is about immigration, yes, but in some ways it’s also about the lawlessness that’s become the most powerful tool in left-wing governance. If this kind of nullification and arbitrary enforcement of law becomes acceptable—as it has with the Supreme Court, for instance—what happens when conservatives begin doing the same?
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 37427
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Sanctuary city

#5 Post by chijohnaok » Sun Jul 12, 2015 5:51 pm


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... aLcU0r3arX


OPINION

The Immigration Secessionists

By RICH LOWRY July 08, 2015

It turns out that everything we’ve heard about the evils of states and localities defying federal law is wrong.

So long as a jurisdiction is sticking its thumb in the eye of the federal government on behalf of illegal immigrants who have been arrested and jailed, defiance of federal authority is progressive and commendable.

Over the years, the left has created dozens upon dozens of so-called sanctuary cities devoted to frustrating federal immigration enforcement and doing all they can to make a mockery of our laws. On immigration, they are in effect little islands of secession. Somewhere John C. Calhoun must be smiling — although slightly puzzled — over the renewed prestige of a version of his old, discredited idea of nullification.

Sanctuary cities have gotten renewed attention in the wake of a horrific murder in San Francisco, a case amplified by the bullhorn of Donald Trump. Kathryn Steinle, 32, was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who had a long rap sheet and had been deported five times. The murder was easily avoidable. A few months prior, the city had arrested Lopez-Sanchez on drug charges, but it simply released him when the charges were dropped, even though Immigration and Customs Enforcement wanted to take custody of him for deportation.

This wasn’t an isolated misjudgment. San Francisco has long been a sanctuary city that doesn’t honor so-called federal detainers (i.e., notices that Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants to take custody of an illegal immigrant upon release from jail). It is a policy of calculated irresponsibility meant to create a zone of lawlessness. In this instance, the human cost was heartbreakingly high.

The immigration debate is famously fraught. Maybe we can’t agree on building a fence. Maybe we can’t agree on a pathway to citizenship. But surely we can agree that illegal aliens who have landed in jail should be deported?


Apparently not. We have a “broken system,” as the supporters of amnesty always like to say, in part because they took a sledgehammer to said system. When an illegal alien is arrested and put in jail, he is officially out of the shadows. Yet it is the policy of sanctuary cities to send him right back into the shadows, come what may.

According to Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies (a group that favors restricted immigration), of some 8,100 deportable aliens released after their arrest by sanctuary jurisdictions from January to August 2014, about 1,900 were arrested again, on 7,500 charges.

Some of these crimes are worthy of the most lurid Trump rhetoric. Vaughan relates a case, based on an internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement report, of an alien arrested for sexual abuse of a child in Los Angeles. The local agency ignored a detainer and the alien was arrested again on charges of sexually assaulting a child.

The number of sanctuary cities has been increasing during the Obama years, and the administration doesn’t care. It has thrown the book at states that have dared to aid in the enforcement of federal immigration law but hasn’t moved against jurisdictions acting at cross purposes to the law. Indeed, it has eased the way for them.


It reinterpreted, with no legal justification, a federal regulation in order to make detainers voluntary. It kneecapped the successful Secure Communities program that shared the fingerprints of local arrestees with the feds, replacing it with a significantly watered-down program.

Consider what happened to poor Sarah Saldaña. New on the job as head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, she evidently hadn’t gotten the memo that she shouldn’t take the name of her agency too seriously. In congressional testimony earlier this year, she inveighed against local communities that obstruct immigration enforcement.

She noted an increasing lack of cooperation and said, rather self-evidently, that it “may increase the risk that dangerous criminals are returned to the streets, putting the public and our officers at greater risk.

Asked the natural question whether it would help if Congress passed legislation cracking down on sanctuary cities, she gave the response you might expect of someone whose job it is to enforce immigration laws: “Thank you, Amen.”

Wrong answer. Saldaña must have left Capitol Hill to go directly to a woodshed. She immediately backtracked, saying the same proposed measure that she had greeted with relief and gratitude about 24 hours earlier would be “highly counterproductive.”

The myth is that President Barack Obama is the “deporter in chief.” In reality, his alleged spike in deportations is the artifact of an accounting gimmick (counting the arrest and removal of border-crossers as deportations). Obama has gutted interior enforcement, as his acts of “prosecutorial discretion” have covered ever-more illegal immigrants. The former acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement said recently, “If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero.”

The focus is supposed to be on enforcement against serious criminals, but so lax is the administration’s approach that even criminals benefit from its broad nonenforcement. In 2013, 36,000 criminal aliens were released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and in 2014 30,000 more.

What to do about sanctuary cities? It is already against federal law for jurisdictions to forbid their officials from sharing immigration information with the federal government. Congress should tighten up the law by making it clear again that detainers are mandatory and withholding certain federal funds from jurisdictions that still won’t comply.

Of course, it would take a different president to sign such a bill, one who cares about the laws he is pledged to enforce and who doesn’t seek a sanctuary nation.

Rich Lowry is editor of National Review.
According to Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies (a group that favors restricted immigration), of some 8,100 deportable aliens released after their arrest by sanctuary jurisdictions from January to August 2014, about 1,900 were arrested again, on 7,500 charges.
That's a recidivism rate of about 23% resulting in almost 4 new crimes (charges) for every arrestee.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 37427
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Sanctuary city

#6 Post by chijohnaok » Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:35 am

http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/09/how-s ... americans/
How Sanctuary Policies Have Directly Led to Thousands of Crimes Against Americans

Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / July 09, 2015 /

COMMENTARY BY
Hans von Spakovsky

There has been a fiery debate over the past few weeks about illegal aliens and crime, which has intensified with the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by a seven-time felon and five-time deportee as the direct result of the city’s sanctuary policy.

What seems to have been overlooked in the back and forth on this is some of the very disturbing, actual data on crimes committed by illegal aliens, which should concern every American—particularly those who live in sanctuary cities like New Orleans or San Francisco that release criminal aliens rather than turning them over to the Department of Homeland Security.

As Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Study outlines, Department of Homeland Security records show that in just one eight-month period in 2014, more than 8,100 deportable aliens were released by sanctuary jurisdictions. Three thousand of them were felons and 62 percent had a prior criminal record. Nineteen hundred were later rearrested a total of 4,300 times on 7,500 different offenses.

Thus, these sanctuary policies directly victimized thousands of the residents of these sanctuary cities who were subjected to assaults, burglaries, sexual assaults, thefts and even murders that would not have occurred except for these sanctuary policies.

But there is more. In 2005, at the request of several members of Congress, the Government Accountability Office prepared two reports on criminal aliens—legal and illegal—in prison for committing crimes in the United States. Those reports are very revealing. For example, the first report (GAO-05-337R) released on April 7, 2005, found that:
  • The percentage of federal prisoners who are criminal aliens is about 27 percent;
    In 2004, there were 49,000 such prisoners in federal jails;
    In 2002, the federal government gave reimbursements to the 50 states under the “State Criminal Alien Assistance Program” (SCAAP) for incarcerating another 77,000 illegal aliens in state prisons; and
    At the local level in 2002, the federal government reimbursed 750 local governments under SCAAP for incarcerating an additional 138,000 criminal illegal aliens, which jumped to 147,000 prisoners in 2003.
It is important to note that these reported numbers “represent only a portion of the total population of criminal aliens who may be incarcerated at the local level,” since the federal government does “not reimburse localities for all criminal aliens” and some states don’t submit requests for reimbursement. So where were all of these criminal aliens from? According to the GAO report, the breakdown was as follows:

Federal prisons: Mexico (63 percent); Colombia (7 percent); the Dominican Republic (7 percent); Jamaica (4 percent); Cuba (3 percent); El Salvador (2 percent); Honduras, Haiti and Guatemala (each 1 percent), and the remaining 11 percent from 164 other countries.

State prisons: In the five states (Arizona, California, Florida, New York and Texas) incarcerating about 80 percent of SCAAP criminal aliens, the prisoners were from Mexico (58 percent); Cuba (5 percent); Dominican Republic (5 percent); El Salvador (4 percent); Jamaica (3 percent); Vietnam (2 percent); and the remaining 22 percent from 148 other countries.

Local jails: In the five local jails with the largest criminal illegal alien populations, the prisoners were from Mexico (65 percent); El Salvador (6 percent); Guatemala (3 percent); Honduras (2 percent); South Korea, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic and the Philippines (each 1 percent); and the remaining 20 percent from 193 other countries.

Thus, it is clear that criminal aliens already represent more than a quarter of all of the prisoners in federal prisons and are present in large numbers in state and local jails.

The second GAO report (GAO-05-646R), released on May 9, 2005, looked at the crimes committed by 55,322 aliens who “had entered the country illegally and were still illegally in the country at the time of their incarceration in federal or state prison or local jail during fiscal year 2003.”

The path of destruction weaved by these 55,322 illegal aliens was truly shocking. According to GAO, these criminal aliens:
  • Were arrested a total of 459,614 times, averaging about eight arrests per illegal alien;
    97 percent had more than one arrest, while 26 percent had over 11 arrests;
    Committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging 13 offenses per illegal alien;
    10 percent of these illegal aliens were arrested for committing 26 or more offenses;
    Out of all of the arrests, 12 percent were for violent crimes such as murder, robbery, assault and sex-related crimes; 15 percent were for burglary, larceny, theft and property damage; 24 percent were for drug offenses; and the remaining offenses were for DUI, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, weapons, immigration and obstruction of justice; and
    80 percent of the arrests occurred in just three states: California, Texas, and Arizona
Of course, these statistics reflect the criminal histories of aliens who were in prison. Unfortunately, in fiscal year 2013, the Obama administration released over 36,000 convicted criminal aliens awaiting the outcome of deportation hearings upon an unsuspecting public, and another 30,558 in fiscal year 2014 according to the House Judiciary Committee.

The offenses for which they were convicted involved “dangerous drugs, assault and domestic violence, stolen vehicles, robbery, sex offenses, sexual assault, kidnaping, voluntary manslaughter, and even homicide.” As the House Judiciary Committee outlined, more than a quarter of these aliens “were so called ‘level 1s’ according to the administration—the worst of the worst.” And in 2013 alone, the administration didn’t even bring removal proceedings against an additional 68,000 criminal aliens convicted of everything from homicide to sexual assault.

If the over 134,000 aliens released by the administration in just the past two years follow the pattern of those aliens studied by the GAO in 2005, they will commit hundreds of thousands of more crimes, victimizing countless innocent Americans in crimes that could have been prevented.

How many Americans have to be assaulted, injured, raped or killed, or have their homes, cars and personal property burglarized, stolen or damaged before both the federal government and local governments like San Francisco will finally do what is necessary to lock up criminal aliens who are a danger to the safety and lives of the public?
I embedded the links for the two GAO reports above for anyone that wants to refer to them.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

jwilkerson
Sergeant Major
Posts: 12464
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Sanctuary city

#7 Post by jwilkerson » Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:47 am

I am happy to report the two nearest "cities" to us: Keene, KS (3 miles) and Eskridge, KS ( 7 miles) do not seem to have "Sanctuary" policies :) ...
Ugum Bugum Uber Alles - Iddi Ut Amine Dada !!

mac1812
Sergeant
Posts: 1719
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:17 pm
Location: Sniping from the shadows

Re: Sanctuary city

#8 Post by mac1812 » Mon Jul 13, 2015 8:51 am

As a state, Connecticut has opened its arms to illegal aliens. The cities of Hartford and New Haven have signed on as sanctuary cities with ordinances providing that police do not transfer to immigration officials illegal aliens who have been arrested – or even notify ICE at all about them. The state also enacted a law at the end of last year that allows illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses.
A nation that can not, or will not enforce its borders, will not stay a nation for long.
"Casualties many; Percentage of dead not known; Combat efficiency; we are winning." Colonel David M. Shoup
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Ronald Reagan
88-92 USMC

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 37427
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Sanctuary city

#9 Post by chijohnaok » Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:01 am

jwilkerson wrote:I am happy to report the two nearest "cities" to us: Keene, KS (3 miles) and Eskridge, KS ( 7 miles) do not seem to have "Sanctuary" policies :) ...

Here is a map of the sanctuary cities nationwide:

http://cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map

Looks like there are 6 of them in Kansas. (I clicked on the little markers for KS. Each of the 6 represent an entire county)
You can zoom in on the map for more detail.

It appears that my entire county (Hillsborough County) is a sanctuary area
Location: Hillsborough County, Florida
Date Enacted: Aug-14
Policy: County Sheriff's Office Decision
Criteria for Honoring Detainer: Will not honor ICE detainer unless provided with a federal warrant from a judge or a federal deportation order from a federal judge
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

jwilkerson
Sergeant Major
Posts: 12464
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm

Re: Sanctuary city

#10 Post by jwilkerson » Mon Jul 13, 2015 10:36 am

With one exception out West, which is a surprise, the other KS "sanctuaries" seem to be known "De Muc Rat" stomping grounds, the cities Kansas City (KS), Topeka and Wichita (and suburbs of same).

But my county is not on de list.
Ugum Bugum Uber Alles - Iddi Ut Amine Dada !!

Post Reply