City Council Considers Stance On Protecting Immigrants From Federal Agents

radcen said:

I feel like our whole justice system and our ideals of a cohesive nation are falling apart. I agree completely with your point here. Not everyone will like every law, I get that. But for people in position of power and authority to actively defy the law is... in this case and IMO... beyond civil disobedience*, it's outright... ugh, I can't think of a good word for it, but it's not good.

*-FTR, I firmly believe in the legitimacy of civil disobedience, but to me that's for individuals who are willing to be something of a martyr and willing to pay the consequences to make their point. I do not believe this falls under that definition.

Click to expand...

Ditto.
I firmly believe leaker's are an integral and necessary people to keep our government (a least sort of) open and honest.
I also fully expect them to pay the legal consequences if they're caught.

I heard someone make a good point of when real social cohesion breaks down.
When people flagrantly stop obeying the small rules, like traffic laws.

If these people go ahead with all this and the city does as well, they will have to pay the price.

radcen said:

I feel like our whole justice system and our ideals of a cohesive nation are falling apart. I agree completely with your point here. Not everyone will like every law, I get that. But for people in position of power and authority to actively defy the law is... in this case and IMO... beyond civil disobedience*, it's outright... ugh, I can't think of a good word for it, but it's not good.

*-FTR, I firmly believe in the legitimacy of civil disobedience, but to me that's for individuals who are willing to be something of a martyr and willing to pay the consequences to make their point. I do not believe this falls under that definition.

Click to expand...

Just to add something else.
I can't find intimate details of exactly what they're doing, but this certainly seems to violate basic civil rights for citizens.
I think in theory.

They're creating a double standard of protection, based on national origin.
Non citizens get greater protections when they break the law, than legal residents and citizens.

d0gbreath said:

What are these laws and policies that constitute sedition?

Click to expand...

I've already covered the sedition part.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,

Click to expand...

This was further solidified in a SCOTUS ruling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamataya_v._Fisher

Fishking said:

Do you understand what role the word "or" plays in the English language?

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's used to end a list of things. I could choose red, yellow or green. Sedition is preventing, hundering or delaying, by force, the US government.

spud_meister said:

Yeah, it's used to end a list of things. I could choose red, yellow or green. Sedition is preventing, hundering or delaying, by force, the US government.

Click to expand...

It separates things, making them exclusive from each other. It plays the opposite role the word "and" does. So...lets go back to the definition, because it seems you have forgotten what you've read, over the time period of your recent posts.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Click to expand...

So I highlighted a few of the "or's" to not the multiple different and separate statements contained in the code. The longer line I placed in bold contains no use of the word force and merely states delaying the executing of any law of the United States. When they have made themselves a sanctuary city, that is saying even when they identify an illegal immigrant they will not execute the federal law on immigration. In other words, sedition.

Fishking said:

It separates things, making them exclusive from each other. It plays the opposite role the word "and" does. So...lets go back to the definition, because it seems you have forgotten what you've read, over the time period of your recent posts.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384



So I highlighted a few of the "or's" to not the multiple different and separate statements contained in the code. The longer line I placed in bold contains no use of the word force and merely states delaying the executing of any law of the United States. When they have made themselves a sanctuary city, that is saying even when they identify an illegal immigrant they will not execute the federal law on immigration. In other words, sedition.

Click to expand...

No, because delay is part of the list that contains prevent and hinder, the or is used to separate it from those two, not to separate it from "or by force".

spud_meister said:

No, because delay is part of the list that contains prevent and hinder, the or is used to separate it from those two, not to separate it from "or by force".

Click to expand...

No, all those other "or's" had their own "by force". The part I place in bold didn't. It's pretty clear.

d0gbreath said:

No one is interfering with ICE operations that I know of. Yes, that would be illegal. All they are saying in sanctuary cities is that they won't ask for papers just because they pulled over a Spanish speaking driver. They won't profile.

It keeps Mexican-Americans from suffering an embarrassing inquiry.

Click to expand...

how is asking for papers an embarrassing inquiry? i got pulled over and asked for insurance papers

d0gbreath said:

No one is interfering with ICE operations that I know of. Yes, that would be illegal. All they are saying in sanctuary cities is that they won't ask for papers just because they pulled over a Spanish speaking driver. They won't profile.

It keeps Mexican-Americans from suffering an embarrassing inquiry.

Click to expand...

When I was involved in an auto accident the LEO asked to see my license and insurance. Guess they profiled me.:mrgreen:
As far as legal aliens in the USA:

"U.S. immigration law includes provisions intended to help authorities keep track of foreign nationals in the United States. By law, all non-U.S. citizens aged 18 or older are required to carry at all times, a “certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card” (e.g., I-94 for nonimmigrants or the I-551 card for permanent residents). Foreign nationals are also obligated to notify the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of any change of their home address. Historically, these laws have not been widely enforced. Yet, given the increased focus on enforcement by the Trump Administration, it would be prudent for all foreign nationals to ensure they are in compliance."
https://www.murthy.com/2017/03/08/requirement-to-carry-immigration-documents/

Illegal immigrants can't conform to the law.