• 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!

DHS preparing to arrest leaders of sanctuary cities

Critter7r said:
I think the role of the Supreme Court would dictate that it IS always right. At least, it's right unless/until that decision is changed.

And while you don't have to agree with it, you do have to abide by it.
Click to expand...

Was Dred Scot right? Or, did the court get it wrong?

Was slavery right, since it was guaranteed by The Constitution?
 
Gaius46 said:
Fair enough. I don't agree with everything the court has said as well. They get it wrong. I think they're right here because I'm a big believer in states rights and think the Feds should pretty much keep to maintaining the military, build interstates and the air transport network and leave the states alone otherwise.

I don't know if you're a 2A supporter or not but if you are you might be interested to know that the case that decided this had to do with the Brady Bill. A sheriff out west objected to the idea that the Brady Bill required him to do background checks for the federal government and he sued. It eventually went to the SC.
Click to expand...

Sanctuary states and cities aren't just not enforcing fedeeal law, they are violating federal law by harboring illegal aliens.
 
Moderate Right said:
What we should do is send every ICE agent to California and we can clean up that whole state before moving on to the next.
Click to expand...

Certainly within the President's power though I'd imagine there are lots of logistical concerns that make it impractical.
 
ataraxia said:
Ordering judges to disobey the supreme court seems more a tad bit more arrestable than the sanctuary city issue.
Click to expand...

And he was ousted from his job for it. If it was an arrestable offense, no one was preventing his arrest, or hiding him.
 
JasperL said:
I'm guessing beat cops in NYC are told to ignore EPA violations, if not by rule then by practice, for example. I doubt if the average beat cop involves herself or himself with OSHA violations as a routine matter, or IRS violations, or failure to withhold or issue 1099s. Etc.
Click to expand...

How many beat cops would stumble upon that sort of thing?
 
Lursa said:
Until last week, many pot laws.
Click to expand...

That's not a bad point, actually, yet it's just as contentious. I would rather have my local police getting that filth out of my community.
 
apdst said:
Was Dred Scot right? Or, did the court get it wrong?

Was slavery right, since it was guaranteed by The Constitution?
Click to expand...

At that time, yes.

Societies change. The buck stops at the Supreme Court. They have the last say. Even when they're wrong, they're right.
 
apdst said:
Sanctuary states and cities aren't just not enforcing fedeeal law, they are violating federal law by harboring illegal aliens.
Click to expand...

Are they?

I haven't seen any "Illegals welcome" signs anywhere! (Well, no official signs anyhow)

Is the act of not checking legal status when providing services really "harboring" illegal immigrants? They aren't actively hiding them from the feds, they're just not actively pursuing illegals for them. Which they aren't required to do.
 
Gaius46 said:
Certainly within the President's power though I'd imagine there are lots of logistical concerns that make it impractical.
Click to expand...

Have to admit, if I were president, this is what I would do. If California is going to do their very best not to cooperate then we send in every ICE agent we've got and clean up the state and raid every employer they've got from A to Z, including farms. Turn the screws on the rack until California cries uncle. If we have to send in the Army to make it more practical then we send in the Army. It's about time California quit thumbing their noses at the federal government. California wants bigger government, then we'll show them bigger government. If they want to secede then we'll kiss them goodbye.
 
Moderate Right said:
Have to admit, if I were president, this is what I would do. If California is going to do their very best not to cooperate then we send in every ICE agent we've got and clean up the state and raid every employer they've got from A to Z, including farms. Turn the screws on the rack until California cries uncle. If we have to send in the Army to make it more practical then we send in the Army. It's about time California quit thumbing their noses at the federal government. California wants bigger government, then we'll show them bigger government. If they want to secede then we'll kiss them goodbye.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to send them to Texas first, since there are actually more illegal immigrants in Texas than in CA.
 
apdst said:
Sanctuary states and cities aren't just not enforcing fedeeal law, they are violating federal law by harboring illegal aliens.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if some cross the line to actual harboring. That's not to say that every action by every Sanctuary city or state is actually illegal.
 
volsrock said:
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen confirmed Tuesday that her department has asked federal prosecutors to see if they can lodge criminal charges against sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues may be available,” Ms. Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Her confirmation came after California’s new sanctuary law went into effect Jan. 1, severely restricting cooperation the state or any of its localities could offer.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/16/dhs-asks-prosecutors-charge-sanctuary-city-leaders/


Uhhhh...BOOM!
Click to expand...

The problem with such a coup is that the violence would damage property which the super rich have to lose. I doubt the DOJ has the balls to be so brazenly partisan, especially with keebler satan at the helm.
 
Moderate Right said:
Have to admit, if I were president, this is what I would do. If California is going to do their very best not to cooperate then we send in every ICE agent we've got and clean up the state and raid every employer they've got from A to Z, including farms. Turn the screws on the rack until California cries uncle. If we have to send in the Army to make it more practical then we send in the Army. It's about time California quit thumbing their noses at the federal government. California wants bigger government, then we'll show them bigger government. If they want to secede then we'll kiss them goodbye.
Click to expand...


Getting that done might take some time since ICE only has a few thousand people in the field.

Then there's all the unintended side effects, like who's gonna pick the crop. Or do you like the idea of the price of your lettuce and avocados tripling over night assuming they even get to market and not just rot in the field. Then what are we gonna do with all those broke farmers?
 
phattonez said:
How many beat cops would stumble upon that sort of thing?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is so I'll quit here. Several people have cited the relevant court case, and Gaius46 has made the plain language arguments very clearly, so if you want to take issue with what the SC said or the arguments on point, that's fine, but this is kind of an irrelevant rathole to dive into. The fact is the SC has told us very clearly Congress cannot impose obligations on state and local cops to enforce FEDERAL law. I cited some pretty clear language in the headnote to the case about why that is, and the reasons make sense to me. The Feds CAN provide $$ incentives - do as you're told and we give you money - and I don't have a problem with that arrangement either.

So at this point I'm not sure where you object.
 
Critter7r said:
Don't forget to send them to Texas first, since there are actually more illegal immigrants in Texas than in CA.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe not. While I understand that Texas may have a lot of illegals I wouldn't bet that they had more than California but I really don't know. Has Texas said that they would not cooperate with the feds? If so, maybe they can be state number two after we're done with California.
 
Gaius46 said:
Getting that done might take some time since ICE only has a few thousand people in the field.

Then there's all the unintended side effects, like who's gonna pick the crop. Or do you like the idea of the price of your lettuce and avocados tripling over night assuming they even get to market and not just rot in the field. Then what are we gonna do with all those broke farmers?
Click to expand...

I'm fine with California's crops rotting in the fields. If California wants to play hardball then we should shove it up their asses.
 
Moderate Right said:
Maybe. Maybe not. While I understand that Texas may have a lot of illegals I wouldn't bet that they had more than California but I really don't know. Has Texas said that they would not cooperate with the feds? If so, maybe they can be state number two after we're done with California.
Click to expand...

Why not, it took all of 10 seconds to Google it.

My bad though, they don't have a higher NUMBER of illegal immigrants, they have a higher number in proportion to their population.

Estimated illegal immigrant population, by state, 2014 | Pew Research Center


Also of note ...

"Republican U.S. Rep. Will Hurd, R-Helotes, on Tuesday said he would file legislation to protect young undocumented immigrants from deportation and beef up border enforcement."

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/01/16/hurd-daca-bill/
 
Gaius46 said:
It's really pretty straightforward. The states do not have to enforce federal law. The can if they choose to but the federal government cannot require it. So yes a cop can choose to not arrest someone for a violation of the NFA. If they do, and most probably would, it's because they see it in their own best interest.

I honestly do not understand why people have such a hard time with this idea. We have two separate governmental systems. The states and the feds. The states ceded some rights to the feds when the Constitution was established but the courts have been exceedingly clear that the states are still sovereign entities with their own legal systems and that there are boundaries that the federal government cannot cross. One of those comes to enforcing federal law. States cannot be required to because to do so violates the states sovereignty.

That doesn't mean that federal law doesn't apply within a state. What it does mean though is that if the federal government wants to enforce a law within a state they have to use their own people.
Click to expand...


USC 18 U.S.C. § 1071

Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; except that if the warrant or process issued on a charge of felony, or after conviction of such person of any offense, the punishment shall be a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
 
SirGareth said:
USC 18 U.S.C. § 1071

Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; except that if the warrant or process issued on a charge of felony, or after conviction of such person of any offense, the punishment shall be a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
Click to expand...

Actively harboring someone that is known to be an illegal immigrant is different from not actively requesting that information from someone.
 
bluesmoke said:
You have no evidence that "sanctuary cities" protect undocumented immigrants who have committed violent crimes. They are processed like anybody else that commits a violent crime. For them to instead be deported presents the possibility they will re-enter and then commit more violent crime, unfettered. Because of cracking down on undocumented immigrants who have not committed violent crime, including those who have been sent back and then reentered and are then prosecuted as a felony a case, we are clogging the courts and spending money that could otherwise go to violent crime, which is what Obama did. Judges are dismissing cases because of overload. What a waste. That is "at the cost of legal law abiding tax payers".
Click to expand...



Why did you add "violent crimes"? I did not mention violent crimes. you built a strawman.
 
volsrock said:
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen confirmed Tuesday that her department has asked federal prosecutors to see if they can lodge criminal charges against sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues may be available,” Ms. Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Her confirmation came after California’s new sanctuary law went into effect Jan. 1, severely restricting cooperation the state or any of its localities could offer.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/16/dhs-asks-prosecutors-charge-sanctuary-city-leaders/


Uhhhh...BOOM!
Click to expand...

I don't think they can do that. It won't pass the 10th amendment in court.

However, matching funds to social programs to sanctuary cities can be eliminated.
 
SirGareth said:
USC 18 U.S.C. § 1071

Whoever harbors or conceals any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; except that if the warrant or process issued on a charge of felony, or after conviction of such person of any offense, the punishment shall be a fine under this title, or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
Click to expand...

Wrong law. You want the law that pertains to harboring illegal immigrants not people who have arrest warrants issued against them. And in any case, while harboring illegals is something to discuss with regard to illegals and sanctuary cities is has nothing whatsoever to do with my post that you quoted.
 
apdst said:
Federal law says it's illegal to harbor illegal aliens. When states and cities announce that they're providing sanctuary to illrgal aliens, they're disobeying federal law.
Click to expand...

States rights should supersede federal law. Just not the constitution.
 
apdst said:
Cite some authority? Ok...



I know you think some people are above the law, but you're absolutely mistaken.
Click to expand...

But we are talking about the law makers of a municipality. Not individuals.

Does thos look firmiliar:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
​
 
Lord of Planar said:
But we are talking about the law makers of a municipality. Not individuals.

Does thos look firmiliar:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
​
Click to expand...

State and local governments can't violate federal law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom