Justice Dept. Warns Local Officials to Follow Immigration Law

Renae · Apr 21, 2017

bluesmoke said:
The Feds will never hold back money in any significant way. If Trump has the power to force that, it will be his undoing. Let alone what else will be his undoing. Locals simply do not have the resources to do what is being demanded of them. They don't. No way. Neither do the Feds. Eleven million undocumented immigrants, 40% of whom are visa overstays, that's about 7,500 per day of Trumps maximum four years in office. Tick, tick, tick. I mean, if that's the honest goal. What is the mission, the goal? They couldn't find that many per day. Maybe they could take some tips from the Nazi's. Follow their program. What utter nonsense.

You're right, it's too hard to do the right thing, we should make anyone that walks across our border, citizens, save so much effort.

volsrock · Apr 21, 2017

Libs are OK with holding fed funds when it come to this

The federal government took on North Carolina’s controversial “bathroom bill” Wednesday, giving the governor until Monday to pledge that he will walk away from the law, which Justice Department officials said violates civil rights.

The state risks losing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding if Gov. Pat McCrory (R) defies the warning and maintains his support for the measure, which requires transgender people to use bathrooms that correspond to the gender on their birth certificates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...81a5c4c42df_story.html?utm_term=.288a84d73981

Mac77 · Apr 21, 2017

EMNofSeattle said:
If there was an active warrant or want on them, and the spies got pulled over for a local violation, and the ID presented by the spies matches the name in which the warrant is issued for, I guess she would.

ICE wants to be notified of all illegal aliens picked up by the local police

That is not an unreasonable request

bluesmoke · Apr 21, 2017

Renae said:
You're right, it's too hard to do the right thing, we should make anyone that walks across our border, citizens, save so much effort.

You're right, it's too hard to do the right thing, we should make anyone that walks across our border, citizens, save so much effort.

No. The right thing to do is the economically efficient thing. Looking into the future, but for undocumented immigrants, our population would be reversing and our economy stagnating. I don’t believe we should allow visa overstays nor illegal border crossings. We do need though, to reform our immigration policy. But here they are. Eleven million of them. What do you thing should be done with “them”.

bluesmoke · Apr 21, 2017

Mac77 said:
ICE wants to be notified of all illegal aliens picked up by the local police

That is not an unreasonable request

How will the locals determine whether or not someone, picked up by the police for a reason you do not stipulate, is undocumented? Then, how long will they be held before "someone" picks them up? And, who will pay for the local police for doing all this? Have you even thought this through?

Renae · Apr 22, 2017

bluesmoke said:
No. The right thing to do is the economically efficient thing. Looking into the future, but for undocumented immigrants, our population would be reversing and our economy stagnating.

You presume. I disagree.

bluesmoke said:
I don’t believe we should allow visa overstays nor illegal border crossings. We do need though, to reform our immigration policy. But here they are. Eleven million of them. What do you thing should be done with “them”.

"Them" should be given every incentive to vacate the premise as it were. Achieved through loss of incentive to be here, start with cutting off any aid or support federally, move on to making it really hard on employers that fail to screen employees legal status, the ICE actions of late are perfect, not rounding up people just making it clear that the days of unenforcement are over.

holbritter · Apr 22, 2017

volsrock said:
Libs are OK with holding fed funds when it come to this

The federal government took on North Carolina’s controversial “bathroom bill” Wednesday, giving the governor until Monday to pledge that he will walk away from the law, which Justice Department officials said violates civil rights.

The state risks losing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding if Gov. Pat McCrory (R) defies the warning and maintains his support for the measure, which requires transgender people to use bathrooms that correspond to the gender on their birth certificates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...81a5c4c42df_story.html?utm_term=.288a84d73981

Because that's so much more important

notquiteright · Apr 22, 2017

apdst said:
It's time to slap the cuffs on a few mayors and police chiefs and make an example.

Except they aren't breaking the law, just offending some bigots, snake oil salesmen and bottom feeders at the public trough. If they could arrest a few they would have...

eace

Mac77 · Apr 22, 2017

bluesmoke said:
How will the locals determine whether or not someone, picked up by the police for a reason you do not stipulate, is undocumented? Then, how long will they be held before "someone" picks them up? And, who will pay for the local police for doing all this? Have you even thought this through?

Its not always easy to tell

Many criminals try to hide their true identity even if they are US citizens.

But most have prior records and the police can usually tell who definately is a citizen

If there is some question about citizenship or green card status is in doubt call ICE and let them firgure it out

notquiteright · Apr 22, 2017

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.

So the ends justify the means if the end is what you want and the means don't affect you???

Isn't that some sort of sliding moral scale libruls are accused of having???

eace

Renae · Apr 22, 2017

notquiteright said:
So the ends justify the means if the end is what you want and the means don't affect you???

Isn't that some sort of sliding moral scale libruls are accused of having??? eace

No. Im pointing out my distaste for the tecnique because it's abused. nice try though

notquiteright · Apr 22, 2017

apdst said:
That's exactly what they get paid for; to enforce the law.

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...

eace

notquiteright · Apr 22, 2017

Renae said:
No. Im pointing out my distaste for the tecnique because it's abused. nice try though

So you Don't support the use of a technique you don't care for? Are you in favor of such arm twisting being declared illegal? Are you willing to look the other way this time because you want the result you think will happen???

eace

Mac77 · Apr 22, 2017

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... eace

So in 1957 Little Rock Ark was within their states rights to defy federal law by having segregated schools?

notquiteright · Apr 22, 2017

Mac77 said:
Say russian spies are wanted for espionage and on the run within the US. Would the sheriff in Austin not arrest them if they showed up in her jurisdiction?

If there was a FEDERAL warrant for the Russian's detention until the FEDERAL agency shows up and TAKES the Russian. No warrant with a person's name on it, no reason to hold. If the oath of office for that sheriff doesn't include enforcing FEDERAL law (Texas is an exception) the sheriff would need that warrant, but without notice from the Feds how would the local sheriff even know the Russian was a spy? Profile all funny accents??? Warrantless search???

Your example is pointless...

eace

notquiteright · Apr 22, 2017

Mac77 said:
So in 1957 Little Rock Ark was within their states rights to defy federal law by having segregated schools?

Yes it was 'legal' by state law and the local LE could in fact UNDER STATE LAW block any attempt to end segregation. Howsomever the SUPREME COURT (remember we are more than 50 states we have a federal government) declared state laws enforcing segregation UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The LAWS were struck down and segregation ended.

See how our system works...

eace

Mac77 · Apr 22, 2017

notquiteright said:
If there was a FEDERAL warrant for the Russian's detention until the FEDERAL agency shows up and TAKES the Russian. No warrant with a person's name on it, no reason to hold. If the oath of office for that sheriff doesn't include enforcing FEDERAL law (Texas is an exception) the sheriff would need that warrant, but without notice from the Feds how would the local sheriff even know the Russian was a spy? Profile all funny accents??? Warrantless search???

Your example is pointless... eace

If the feds are looking for a pair of russian spied and the Austin cops pick up two people matching the general description shoujld they let them go since they can't be sure its the right persons or not?

Wouldnt they at least notify the feds to come and take a look?

I think even the loopy local liberal there would go that far with or without a warrent

Mac77 · Apr 22, 2017

notquiteright said:
Yes it was 'legal' by state law and the local LE could in fact UNDER STATE LAW block any attempt to end segregation. Howsomever the SUPREME COURT (remember we are more than 50 states we have a federal government) declared state laws enforcing segregation UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The LAWS were struck down and segregation ended.

See how our system works... eace

The bottom line is that local cites or states cannot defy federal law.

And entering the US illegally is against federal law

notquiteright · Apr 22, 2017

Mac77 said:
If the feds are looking for a pair of russian spied and the Austin cops pick up two people matching the general description shoujld they let them go since they can't be sure its the right persons or not? Wouldnt they at least notify the feds to come and take a look? I think even the loopy local liberal there would go that far with or without a warrent

General description??? WTF??? odd accent, bad fitting suits??? NO PICTURES??? This ain't the wild wild west... :roll:

Just how are they 'picked up'??? speeding??? what beat cops determines two people are spies from a traffic stop?

But let's say they do notify 'the feds', with 3,491 'tips' and held suspects just when will 'the feds' get to it? A person can't be held indefinitely without being charged or allowed to see a judge.

This 'example' is a piss poor way to make holding everyone suspected of immigration fraud for 'the feds' to pick up...

There would be pics, there would be finger prints, there would be more than a 'general description'...

eace

Mac77 · Apr 22, 2017

notquiteright said:
General description??? WTF??? odd accent, bad fitting suits??? NO PICTURES??? This ain't the wild wild west... :roll:

Just how are they 'picked up'??? speeding??? what beat cops determines two people are spies from a traffic stop?

But let's say they do notify 'the feds', with 3,491 'tips' and held suspects just when will 'the feds' get to it? A person can't be held indefinitely without being charged or allowed to see a judge.

This 'example' is a piss poor way to make holding everyone suspected of immigration fraud for 'the feds' to pick up...

There would be pics, there would be finger prints, there would be more than a 'general description'... eace

Any or all of the above.

Are you telling me if there is any doubt they are the russian spies the local sheriff will turn them loose beofe informing the feds that they might have to fugitives?

notquiteright · Apr 22, 2017

Mac77 said:
The bottom line is that local cites or states cannot defy federal law. And entering the US illegally is against federal law

The bottom line is there is NO I say again ZERO law demanding local law enforcement work for the feds. I have not heard of any sheriff refusing a federal warrant, have you??? Most i have heard of is they will not attempt to determine citizenship of simple LOCAL infractions. no questions about citizenship at a routine traffic stop. No mass submission of fingerprints of minor crimes. No holding a detainee past local requirements. But as far as i know ALL will respond to any federal warrant for detention.

If the Texas sheriff is in fact violating her oath of office it is up to the STATE to remove her from office- are they???

THAT is THE bottom line...

eace

Mac77 · Apr 22, 2017

notquiteright said:
The bottom line is there is NO I say again ZERO law demanding local law enforcement work for the feds. I have not heard of any sheriff refusing a federal warrant, have you??? Most i have heard of is they will not attempt to determine citizenship of simple LOCAL infractions. no questions about citizenship at a routine traffic stop. No mass submission of fingerprints of minor crimes. No holding a detainee past local requirements. But as far as i know ALL will respond to any federal warrant for detention.

If the Texas sheriff is in fact violating her oath of office it is up to the STATE to remove her from office- are they???

THAT is THE bottom line... eace

You may have a point up to a point

It could be that its not against the law to be a bad police officer

But then we get into the area of withholding federal funds to cities, counties and states that refuse to cooperate tieh the feds.

I would hope that patriotic local officials would cooperate without arm twisting but if thats what it takes so be it

notquiteright · Apr 22, 2017

Mac77 said:
Any or all of the above. Are you telling me if there is any doubt they are the russian spies the local sheriff will turn them loose beofe informing the feds that they might have to fugitives?

Probable cause... it isn't guilty til proven innocent, where did you lose sight of our Constitution?

Now what if the two men detained were nationalized Romanians, or Ukrainians and had bad tailors...can they sue everyone everyone to include the local LE???

Should they stop and detain EVERYONE who has a funny accent???

Not the America I bled for, not the Constitution I swore an oath to....

eace

Mac77 · Apr 22, 2017

notquiteright said:
Probable cause... it isn't guilty til proven innocent, where did you lose sight of our Constitution?

Now what if the two men detained were nationalized Romanians, or Ukrainians and had bad tailors...can they sue everyone everyone to include the local LE???

Should they stop and detain EVERYONE who has a funny accent???

Not the America I bled for, not the Constitution I swore an oath to.... eace

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

notquiteright · Apr 22, 2017

Mac77 said:
You may have a point up to a point. It could be that its not against the law to be a bad police officer. But then we get into the area of withholding federal funds to cities, counties and states that refuse to cooperate tieh the feds. I would hope that patriotic local officials would cooperate without arm twisting but if thats what it takes so be it

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!!!

eace