• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Justice Dept. Warns Local Officials to Follow Immigration Law

notquiteright said:
Cooperate or do their job??? There IS a difference. Screen every road side contact like a customs agent??? "Show me ze papers!"????

They aren't 'bad' sheriffs, they are not doing another agency's duty.

So you would have the federal government withhold THE PEOPLE'S money from THEM because the local LE refuse to do the FEDERAL agency's job???? Now remember, if the feds ask for a detainee the feds get that detainee- no defying...

"Patriotic'???? WTF!!!!! wrapping this hot mess up in the flag of our Republic is hideous. Patriotism has ZERO to do with this!!! :peace
Click to expand...

I dont think the feds are demanding the local cops screen every roadside contact

If they write a ticket for speeding that would not applyt

But if they arrest him for drunk driving they are going to id the person they have in custody

Thats just Basic Pocie Work 101
 
Mac77 said:
Probable cause is not an issue when the sheriff picks up someone for drunk driving, robbery or beating up his girlfriend. If they cannot identify him as a legal resident then they should notify the feds before letting him go
Click to expand...

PROBABLE CAUSE that a crime has been committed... field sobriety test, witnesses to the robbery, pawn shop video, bruises on the woman, a cop just doesn't go into a single wide and drag out a man without PROBABLE CAUSE.

Being able to determine citizenship status is NOT THEIR JOB, you seem unable to understand the Constitution or JURISDICTION... :peace
 
You can quibble over the details all day

But if the local jurisdiction is not cooperating with the feds it can cost them fiederal funding which is what this debaqte is leading to eventually
 
notquiteright said:
PROBABLE CAUSE that a crime has been committed... field sobriety test, witnesses to the robbery, pawn shop video, bruises on the woman, a cop just doesn't go into a single wide and drag out a man without PROBABLE CAUSE.

Being able to determine citizenship status is NOT THEIR JOB, you seem unable to understand the Constitution or JURISDICTION... :peace
Click to expand...

The local police do not have to prove citizenship.

But if they pick up a suspect and cannot id them as a legal resident they should notify ICE and let the feds straighten it out
 
Mac77 said:
I dont think the feds are demanding the local cops screen every roadside contact. If they write a ticket for speeding that would not applyt. But if they arrest him for drunk driving they are going to id the person they have in custody. Thats just Basic Pocie Work 101
Click to expand...

I don't know what the feds want, none of us do really (where is the call for a slippery slope so favored when a law isn't to your liking)

What do the feds do to the drunk? Deport him??? I'd rather he stay here and be in jail than free to come back again (I never got the deportation of criminals bit)

Now if they ID the person and the feds want that person and ISSUE a warrant then the locals will turn him over. I haven't heard anything otherwise. Drunk driving isn't a misdemeanor... not even in Texas... :peace
 
Mac77 said:
The local police do not have to prove citizenship. But if they pick up a suspect and cannot id them as a legal resident they should notify ICE and let the feds straighten it out
Click to expand...

Again they are under ZERO requirement to establish citizenship (which is what id them as a legal resident means)... :doh
 
notquiteright said:
I don't know what the feds want, none of us do really (where is the call for a slippery slope so favored when a law isn't to your liking)

What do the feds do to the drunk? Deport him???


I'd rather he stay here and be in jail than free to come back again (I never got the deportation of criminals bit)

Now if they ID the person and the feds want that person and ISSUE a warrant then the locals will turn him over. I haven't heard anything otherwise. Drunk driving isn't a misdemeanor... not even in Texas... :peace
Click to expand...

Not having trumps wall built yet is a problem

But we are working on that as fast as our inert congress can move
 
notquiteright said:
Again they are under ZERO requirement to establish citizenship (which is what id them as a legal resident means)... :doh
Click to expand...

I think they will be required to determine immigrant or citizenship status if that is a requirement to receive federal funds
 
notquiteright said:
Then why have ICE, the FBI, ATF or any other FEDERAL enforcement agency. There is this thing called JURISDICTION. The oath of office for 'local' or state law enforcement- you should read it sometime- it varies from state to state, most affirm to obey the Constitution of both state and feds, some no mention of the federal government (is why some states attempted to create state laws concerning immigration status)

If you read California oath of office for sheriffs you see ZERO, I say again NO mention of enforcing federal law.

The more you know... :peace
Click to expand...

You're telling us that local cops can't arrest ANYone that has broken ANY Federal law?

If a cop stops someone for a traffic violation and that person has a federal warrant issued for his arrest, the cop has to just let him go?
 
Renae said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/us/politics/sanctuary-city-justice-department.html

Interestingly enough, they are using a technique I generally deplore, "Do as we say or else we hold back funding" Generally you see it in things like Educational decrees. However I've always felt education is a local issue not a national one size fits all. I do approve of cracking down on Illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.
Click to expand...

Do you know why local police actually like the concept behind sanctuary cities?
 
Renae said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/us/politics/sanctuary-city-justice-department.html

Interestingly enough, they are using a technique I generally deplore, "Do as we say or else we hold back funding" Generally you see it in things like Educational decrees. However I've always felt education is a local issue not a national one size fits all. I do approve of cracking down on Illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.
Click to expand...

this shows people the evil of direct taxes [income and corporate]

government taxes the people and business, then it redistributes the money based on what the federal government wants, and the federal government uses that money as a carrot and stick approach on the states, if the states do what the federal government wants they get the money, and if they don't they are denied.

this is how the power of taxation gives the federal government control over people, business and states.

the founders made direct taxes illegal because they understood the power of taxation " the power to tax is the power to destory"
 
Master PO said:
local law enforcement cannot be forced to enforce federal law...the USSC has already ruled on that issue.
Click to expand...

I can possess an automatic weapon and there's nothing a state, or city cop can do?
 
apdst said:
I can possess an automatic weapon and there's nothing a state, or city cop can do?
Click to expand...

my meaning is that the federal government cannot require state or local police to enforce federal law, because to do so would be a cost that the state and local cities would have to bare and they do not have the money for that.

jeff sessions of course is not asking the state or local police to enforce federal law, he's just wants them to hold people the state and local police have already in jail for 48 hours, until ICE can come and pick them up.

if state/city officials shield, harbor, create laws which seek to counter any action of federal law, then the federal government should use federal marshals to arrest them, because they are bound by the constitution to uphold all federal law.
 
Master PO said:
my meaning is that the federal government cannot require state or local police to enforce federal law, because to do so would be a cost that the state and local cities would have to bare and they do not have the money for that.

jeff sessions of course is not asking the state or local police to enforce federal law, he's just wants them to hold people the state and local police have already in jail for 48 hours, until ICE can come and pick them up.

if state/city officials shield, harbor, create laws which seek to counter any action of federal law, then the federal government should use federal marshals to arrest them, because they are bound by the constitution to uphold all federal law.
Click to expand...

That wasn't what I was saying. My point is, state and local cops can, will and have enforced federal law.
 
Northern Light said:
If they cut funding, Trump won't have a second term.
Click to expand...
Seems like a strange thing to say. Are you suggesting the the people in sanctuary cities are currently leaning towards Trump?

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk
 
Renae said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/us/politics/sanctuary-city-justice-department.html

Interestingly enough, they are using a technique I generally deplore, "Do as we say or else we hold back funding" Generally you see it in things like Educational decrees. However I've always felt education is a local issue not a national one size fits all. I do approve of cracking down on Illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.
Click to expand...
Education is both a national and local issue. E.g. math and science and English and history don't change based on what state or city you live in. Thus, neither should educational methods or standards.

Anyway....

The reality is that those states are not violating federal law, and it is probably impossible for the federal government to legally withhold funds from cities that refuse to do more than what is required by federal law.

• Per Printz v. United States, the federal government cannot force states to enforce federal law.

• Per National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the federal government can't threaten large funding cuts to coerce states into adopting federal policies.

• It's also unconstitutional for the federal government to add strings after the law is written. If that were the case, the Obama administration could have pulled all sorts of federal funding from states that didn't fully cooperate with the ACA.

• Congress decides how to allocate funds for almost all of the relevant programs. Not the Executive branch, or Jeff Sessions.

• The jurisdictions in question are complying with federal law, they just aren't taking additional steps not specified in the law, such as requiring law enforcement to ask about immigration status.

• It doesn't help that there is no formal definition of "sanctuary cities," meaning that the federal government can apply the restrictions arbitrarily

And again, court decisions have consequences. Many of the above arguments were pushed by conservatives who disliked certain federal policies, and used Constitutional features to block them. Removing those barriers (which is unlikely btw) erodes the powers of the states, and gives the federal government more power.

Thus, if the current administration succeeds in these efforts, it's going to be lots of fun when the next Democratic President uses the same tactics to impose not just federal laws, but executive decrees right down to the state level.
 
Visbek said:
Education is both a national and local issue. E.g. math and science and English and history don't change based on what state or city you live in. Thus, neither should educational methods or standards.

Anyway....

The reality is that those states are not violating federal law, and it is probably impossible for the federal government to legally withhold funds from cities that refuse to do more than what is required by federal law.

• Per Printz v. United States, the federal government cannot force states to enforce federal law.

• Per National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the federal government can't threaten large funding cuts to coerce states into adopting federal policies.

• It's also unconstitutional for the federal government to add strings after the law is written. If that were the case, the Obama administration could have pulled all sorts of federal funding from states that didn't fully cooperate with the ACA.

• Congress decides how to allocate funds for almost all of the relevant programs. Not the Executive branch, or Jeff Sessions.

• The jurisdictions in question are complying with federal law, they just aren't taking additional steps not specified in the law, such as requiring law enforcement to ask about immigration status.

• It doesn't help that there is no formal definition of "sanctuary cities," meaning that the federal government can apply the restrictions arbitrarily

And again, court decisions have consequences. Many of the above arguments were pushed by conservatives who disliked certain federal policies, and used Constitutional features to block them. Removing those barriers (which is unlikely btw) erodes the powers of the states, and gives the federal government more power.

Thus, if the current administration succeeds in these efforts, it's going to be lots of fun when the next Democratic President uses the same tactics to impose not just federal laws, but executive decrees right down to the state level.
Click to expand...

A new Justice Department policy announced last week bars sanctuary cities such as Philadelphia, the host of the Democratic National Convention, from receiving millions of dollars worth of federal law enforcement grants, putting further pressure on Pennsylvania Democrats to abandon policies that impede federal immigration officials.

The Justice Department notified cities last Thursday that they would no longer receive federal law enforcement grants, which totaled $3.4 billion in the past five years, if they have laws on the books that interfere with requests for immigration information from federal authorities.
Click to expand...

Obama Admin Cuts Off Law Enforcement Funding to Philadelphia

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/o...old-billions-from-north-carolina-over-bathroo
North Carolina transgender bathroom bill: Feds threaten to pull education funding - Washington Times
 
Renae said:
Do you know why that political claim is garbage?
Click to expand...

Well before you're so dismissive, do you know the rationale behind local police support? I'm not asking you to agree with it, I just want to know if you understand what the argument is.
 
Cardinal said:
Well before you're so dismissive, do you know the rationale behind local police support? I'm not asking you to agree with it, I just want to know if you understand what the argument is.
Click to expand...

The argument is illegals will feel safe coming forward to report crimes. Yes, I do understand the concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom