• 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!

After Steinle verdict, rep unveils bill to imprison officials who shelter illegal immigrants

Old Sarge

Old Sarge

Active member
Joined
Oct 7, 2017
Messages
483
Reaction score
193
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
After Steinle verdict, rep unveils bill to imprison officials who shelter illegal immigrants | Fox News

"A Republican congressman plans to introduce a bill Monday that would threaten huge fines and prison time for elected officials accused of sheltering illegal immigrant criminals from deportation, in the wake of the not-guilty verdict in the Kate Steinle murder trial.*
Indiana Rep. Todd Rokita’s bill is one of the most aggressive pieces of legislation to date aimed at sanctuary city policies, going beyond the Justice Department’s threat to cut off grants to those jurisdictions."

Any thoughts on this?
 
Old Sarge said:
After Steinle verdict, rep unveils bill to imprison officials who shelter illegal immigrants | Fox News

"A Republican congressman plans to introduce a bill Monday that would threaten huge fines and prison time for elected officials accused of sheltering illegal immigrant criminals from deportation, in the wake of the not-guilty verdict in the Kate Steinle murder trial.*
Indiana Rep. Todd Rokita’s bill is one of the most aggressive pieces of legislation to date aimed at sanctuary city policies, going beyond the Justice Department’s threat to cut off grants to those jurisdictions."

Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

Unlikely to be held Constitutional but I hope it passes anyway.
 
The party of small government and state's rights strike again.

But I really don't see this going anywhere, just a politician looking to get his name in the paper.
 
My thoughts are that states should do the same thing: hold federal officials that do not adequately enforce immigration law accountable for any and all crimes committed by illegal aliens. It is obvious to all that having about 5K ICE agents (about the same number of officers as the police departments of Boston, MA and Baltimore, MD combined) expected to patrol the entire US interior is a joke. The fact that this single illegal alien was in federal custody 5 times and released each time while "Kate's law" sits on a Senate shelf collecting dust for 5 months is ample proof that sending illegal aliens "home" does not prevent them from easily ilegally re-entering the US and traveling freely within it. Perhaps states, counties and cities should adopt this very inexpensive federal practice and simply "deport" (escort them out of their jurisdiction and tell them not to re-enter it) any and all convicted criminals instead of housing, feeding and providing medical care for them.
 
reinoe said:
Unlikely to be held Constitutional but I hope it passes anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure because elected officials must obey the same laws we do and it is against the law to aid a criminal and that is what illegals are.:peace
 
Slyfox696 said:
The party of small government and state's rights strike again.

But I really don't see this going anywhere, just a politician looking to get his name in the paper.
Click to expand...


We tried that state's right thing but you liberals argued that federal law supersedes state's rights such as what happened with Arizona SB 1070.
 
dobieg said:
We tried that state's right thing but you liberals argued that federal law supersedes state's rights such as what happened with Arizona SB 1070.
Click to expand...
I'm not a liberal, so I'm not sure you have any idea what I've tried to argue. Congratulations on a post that is a total fail.
 
Old Sarge said:
I'm not sure because elected officials must obey the same laws we do and it is against the law to aid a criminal and that is what illegals are.:peace
Click to expand...


It's already illegal for local officials to shelter illegal immigrants. The problem is that merely refusing to assist federal law enforcement does not constitute sheltering and trying to change the definition to include an enforcement or assistance requirement would be unconstitutional.
 
dobieg said:
We tried that state's right thing but you liberals argued that federal law supersedes state's rights such as what happened with Arizona SB 1070.
Click to expand...

Federal law does superscede state law. Unfortunately for your argument that isn't the issue here.
 
Gaius46 said:
It's already illegal for local officials to shelter illegal immigrants. The problem is that merely refusing to assist federal law enforcement does not constitute sheltering and trying to change the definition to include an enforcement or assistance requirement would be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I can't argue the point as I am not a constitutional scholar, so we will have to wait and see.
 
Thoughts...I am no legal scholar, but are we not to aid and abet? What's more, aren't elected officials to swear to uphold the law?
What about employers who profit from illegals, their fear? What about the American people who profit from that slave labor? Some may reason this an argument for sanctuary cities...see sentence #1.
 
Lovebug said:
Thoughts...I am no legal scholar, but are we not to aid and abet? What's more, aren't elected officials to swear to uphold the law?
What about employers who profit from illegals, their fear? What about the American people who profit from that slave labor? Some may reason this an argument for sanctuary cities...see sentence #1.
Click to expand...


Local officials do not have to uphold Federal law. The Supreme Court has ruled that in a number of cases - most recently Prinz v United States when the Federal government demanded local LEO enforce provisions of the Brady Bill. In essence the SC said requiring states to enforce Federal law violated Federalism - the idea that states are sovereign entities in their own right. States can enforce federal law if they want - and sometimes it makes a lot of sense for them to - but they can't forced to any more than France can force the United States to enforce French law.

Local officials could be held liable - maybe - if they actually harbored an illegal but harboring requires them to do something. Doing nothing doesn't cut it.
 
Old Sarge said:
After Steinle verdict, rep unveils bill to imprison officials who shelter illegal immigrants | Fox News

"A Republican congressman plans to introduce a bill Monday that would threaten huge fines and prison time for elected officials accused of sheltering illegal immigrant criminals from deportation, in the wake of the not-guilty verdict in the Kate Steinle murder trial.*
Indiana Rep. Todd Rokita’s bill is one of the most aggressive pieces of legislation to date aimed at sanctuary city policies, going beyond the Justice Department’s threat to cut off grants to those jurisdictions."

Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...



dobieg said:
Thoughts?


Hell yeah!
Click to expand...



WCH said:
:usflag2: Yep
Click to expand...





Yet you would be screaming bloody murder if the Democrats had passed a law along with Obamacare that criminalized a state official's failure to fully implement Obamacare, ie, expanding Medicaid. Or any other liberal policy. You'd probably be threatening revolution, in fact.

But, the policy to be enforced is big for many on the right, so there you are, blindly cheering the bill along.


Are you guys actively rooting for the end of U.S. Democracy? It sure sounds like it. You want to criminalize state officials' refusal to do congressional conservatives' bidding. Hyper-partisan insanity, which you know, I know, we all know you would never accept if the letters next to the names were different.
 
Last edited:
Mr Person said:
Yet you would be screaming bloody murder if the Democrats had passed a law along with Obamacare that criminalized a state official's failure to fully implement Obamacare, ie, expanding Medicaid. Or any other liberal policy. You'd probably be threatening revolution, in fact.

But, the policy to be enforced is big for many on the right, so there you are, blindly cheering the bill along.


Are you guys actively rooting for the end of U.S. Democracy? It sure sounds like it. You want to criminalize state officials' refusal to do congressional conservatives' bidding. Hyper-partisan insanity, which you know, I know, we all know you would never accept if the letters next to the names were different.
Click to expand...

First of all, if you personally don't play the Left's mandate or buy insurance game, you can go to jail.

Secondly, comparing the sanctity of our borders [something our FedGov in responsible for] to government mandated healthcare [something you shouldn't be doing] is ludicrous.

Thirdly, it was already against the law to ignore Federal law.
 
WCH said:
First of all, if you personally don't play the Left's mandate or buy insurance game, you can go to jail.

Secondly, comparing the sanctity of our borders [something our FedGov in responsible for] to government mandated healthcare [something you shouldn't be doing] is ludicrous.

Thirdly, it was already against the law to ignore Federal law.
Click to expand...

1. If an individual breaks the tax laws, they can go to jail? You object to that? What a ridiculous attempt to equate this law with Obamacare.

2. "Sanctity of our borders"? LOL. The degree to which you have faith in the right's position on immigration doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.

3. Um, no. It is not against the law for me to ignore immigration law by not calling up ICE when I see someone I think is illegal.



Enough with the stupid prevarications. You know full well that the only reason you cheer on this idea is because it's from the right and aimed at the left.
 
Gaius46 said:
Local officials do not have to uphold Federal law. The Supreme Court has ruled that in a number of cases - most recently Prinz v United States when the Federal government demanded local LEO enforce provisions of the Brady Bill. In essence the SC said requiring states to enforce Federal law violated Federalism - the idea that states are sovereign entities in their own right. States can enforce federal law if they want - and sometimes it makes a lot of sense for them to - but they can't forced to any more than France can force the United States to enforce French law.

Local officials could be held liable - maybe - if they actually harbored an illegal but harboring requires them to do something. Doing nothing doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

How about releasing them from jail to avoid them being deported?
 
Mr Person said:
1. If an individual breaks the tax laws, they can go to jail? You object to that? What a ridiculous attempt to equate this law with Obamacare.

2. "Sanctity of our borders"? LOL. The degree to which you have faith in the right's position on immigration doesn't have anything to do with what I posted.

3. Um, no. It is not against the law for me to ignore immigration law by not calling up ICE when I see someone I think is illegal.



Enough with the stupid prevarications. You know full well that the only reason you cheer on this idea is because it's from the right and aimed at the left.
Click to expand...

You're the one who brought up ObamaCare. FWIW

The fact you don't think harboring/aiding/abetting etc. an illegal isn't breaking the law is your problem.

I don't care which officials is doing it, they should be help responsible for what the illegal does after being released.
 
WCH said:
How about releasing them from jail to avoid them being deported?
Click to expand...

So why wouldn't ICE just present the locals with an arrest warrant ahead of time the way they did with the guy in San Francisco? Frankly what you're talking sounds like an urban legend.
 
Mr Person said:
Yet you would be screaming bloody murder if the Democrats had passed a law along with Obamacare that criminalized a state official's failure to fully implement Obamacare, ie, expanding Medicaid. Or any other liberal policy. You'd probably be threatening revolution, in fact.

But, the policy to be enforced is big for many on the right, so there you are, blindly cheering the bill along.


Are you guys actively rooting for the end of U.S. Democracy? It sure sounds like it. You want to criminalize state officials' refusal to do congressional conservatives' bidding. Hyper-partisan insanity, which you know, I know, we all know you would never accept if the letters next to the names were different.
Click to expand...

Wrong sport I don't remember any conservatives rioting when Obamacare was shoved down our throats, and it was implemented nation wide. I guess that is a liberal thing.
 
Old Sarge said:
After Steinle verdict, rep unveils bill to imprison officials who shelter illegal immigrants | Fox News

"A Republican congressman plans to introduce a bill Monday that would threaten huge fines and prison time for elected officials accused of sheltering illegal immigrant criminals from deportation, in the wake of the not-guilty verdict in the Kate Steinle murder trial.*
Indiana Rep. Todd Rokita’s bill is one of the most aggressive pieces of legislation to date aimed at sanctuary city policies, going beyond the Justice Department’s threat to cut off grants to those jurisdictions."

Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

My thoughts? Every passing day it gets harder and harder to continue to be a Republican with this kind of grandstanding.

The Steinle jury verdict was terrible. Just like the OJ verdict and the Casey Anthony verdict. Those are separate issues that need to be addressed honestly.

But back to the bill. The Republicans are now supporting the candidacy of a man who proudly ignored the laws not once, but twice, and was removed from his state's Supreme Court as a result of it. The Republicans, for the most part (including Moore), proudly and without any hesitation want and choose to ignore the laws that give same sex people the right to marry.

I'll have an interest in the Republican Party chasing after and wanting to lock up people who ignore the laws when they start looking inside themselves and their actions first.
 
Old Sarge said:
Wrong sport I don't remember any conservatives rioting when Obamacare was shoved down our throats, and it was implemented nation wide. I guess that is a liberal thing.
Click to expand...

I didn't say conservatives rioted.

I said that if liberals passed a bill like THIS one - the one this thread is about - then conservatives would be rioting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom