Texas to arrest Sanctuary City Leaders, Police Chiefs, etc...

[Ray From Cleveland]

Apples and oranges. What DumBama sued for is that Arizona created their own immigration regulations. This is entirely different. These are regulations that have been on the book for decades, and the feds give their blessing to local authorities that do as they ask.

The feds cannot make local authorities enforce their law, but the state or county can. If it's required by them to follow federal guidelines, not doing so means they are not doing their job and probably subject to termination. The person who signs your paycheck makes the rules.

The state or county has no immigration laws that they can force a municipality to enforce, Ray, and they have no legal authority to force municipalities to enforce federal law.. Do I really have to point that out to you?

No, they can't. But what's happening in Texas is something they can do. If the state creates a law or requirement of working with the feds, you work with the feds. If you don't, your municipality may be subject to losing state funds. If they want to lose those funds, fine, do what you like. But don't complain about the results.

And what happened to all the hoopla of them throwing city mayors in jail? And for what, exactly? City officials have been complaining for decades that the feds don't even reimburse them for incarcerating immigration suspects. Is the state going to throw mayors and the city council in jail for failure to spend city taxpayer money to enforce federal laws? If I were a Sheriff's Aucillary Volunteer in Texas, would they throw me in jail for failure to report a suspected wetback? And, finally, how long would that stand before the Supreme Court ruled that states have no authority to penalize cities for failure to enforce federal law?

If the state creates a law stating that local authorities are to work with ICE or any immigration federal authorities, and you disobey the law, then you pay the penalty for breaking the law no different than a DUI offender.

It doesn't cost a city anything to inform our federal agents they have a suspect in custody about to be released in a day or two. With Trump as President, he will make sure federal agents don't delay in getting those illegals that break the law out of their jails and into federal hands.

The activist judges that ruled Trump can't withhold funds from states or cities will be overturned by the Supreme Court. When that happens, your city or state risk losing funds for non-compliance. You don't think that a city or state has the authority to not allow that to happen?

Yeah, Trump has had such a good track record with the SC so far. He campaigned on deporting 12 million illegal aliens in 2 years, then backed down when he found out that he can't violate constitutional due process. Then he blocked immigration from 7 countries. Fail. Then he did it again. Fail again. Then he threatened to withhold money from sanctuary cities. Fail again. No state has ever done what Texas is trying to do, because the state does not have the authority to force anyone to enforce federal law. If I "harbor" an illegal alien, the feds can prosecute me. The state, county, or city may choose to hold me until the feds take custody, but there is no legal way that they can be forced to do it. If they could, Trump's attorneys would have already been working on making that happen. And you are flat wrong about it not costing the city anything to incarcerate federal suspects. Cities have been asking for reimbursement this for decades, and the feds have consistently refused to do it.

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia


"Following the passage of Arizona SB 1070, a state law, few if any cities in Arizona are "sanctuary cities." A provision of SB 1070 requires local authorities to "contact federal immigration authorities if they develop reasonable suspicion that a person they've detained or arrested is in the country illegally."[22] The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates restrictive immigration policies, labels only one city in the state, South Tucson, a "sanctuary city"; the label is because South Tucson does not honor ICE detainers "unless ICE pays for cost of detention".[22]"

Of course they have in the past. Look who was in charge!

The Democrat goal is to make whites a minority in this country as soon as possible. If they can accomplish that, we will be a one-party government for eternity, or until minorities start voting majority Republican. So of course DumBama is going to give illegals as many breaks as possible and weaken our border (as he has) without looking too bad.

Don't count on rulings from activist judges to hold when these cases make their way to the Supreme Court. The feds can legally and constitutionally withhold funds from anybody they desire for any reason they desire. It's been used as a threat by Democrats multiple times in the past. As for stopping people coming here from selected countries, that has been a law passed by Congress and Senate for years now.

 

[JoeB131]

While states like California are trying to find ways to defy President Trump by protecting criminal illegals, Texas is on the verge of passing legislation that would hold Mauors, police Ciefs, and other city officials accountable for enabling Sanctuary Cities.

Well, yes, I guess those mauors and ciefs need to be really worried, then.

 

[JoeB131]

I didn't want to get involved in this debate, but I have to chime in when you say that it's nobody else's fault. It was badly planned, badly executed, and it doesn't matter if Koresh was right or wrong. They made a huge mistake.

Yes, they treated Koresh with kid gloves when they should have stormed the place on day 2 of the seige. Instead, they gave the crazies time to plan and execute a mass suicide.

Again, I find it amusing that you think that a 12 year old playing with a toy getting shot was fine police work, but a child-molesting religious nut should be molly-coddled after he and his followers murdered 4 ATF Agents.

 

[Correll]

While states like California are trying to find ways to defy President Trump by protecting criminal illegals, Texas is on the verge of passing legislation that would hold Mauors, police Ciefs, and other city officials accountable for enabling Sanctuary Cities.

If caught doing so, these coty officials could be SENT TO JAIL for breaking the law and aiding /abetting criminals.

GO, TEXAS! HUA!

Texas prepares to begin locking up leaders in sanctuary cities - Hot Air

"Texas would be the first in which police chiefs and sheriffs could be jailed for not helping enforce immigration law. They could also lose their jobs."

Fuck yeah, about time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I didn't want to get involved in this debate, but I have to chime in when you say that it's nobody else's fault. It was badly planned, badly executed, and it doesn't matter if Koresh was right or wrong. They made a huge mistake.

Yes, they treated Koresh with kid gloves when they should have stormed the place on day 2 of the seige. Instead, they gave the crazies time to plan and execute a mass suicide.

Again, I find it amusing that you think that a 12 year old playing with a toy getting shot was fine police work, but a child-molesting religious nut should be molly-coddled after he and his followers murdered 4 ATF Agents.

What they should have done is follow him when he left the compound and arrest him away from those people. He was their leader and without him, they would have given up.

 

[JoeB131]

What they should have done is follow him when he left the compound and arrest him away from those people. He was their leader and without him, they would have given up.

Again, you are really speculating what a bunch of religious nuts with guns might have done under other circumstances.

Arresting Koresh wasn't the point. the goal was to get all the weapons he and his followers were converting to full automatic and selling illegally.

 

[JoeB131]

Fuck yeah, about time.

Cleetus, dragging sick women out of hospitals isn't going to make your life any less miserable.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What they should have done is follow him when he left the compound and arrest him away from those people. He was their leader and without him, they would have given up.

Again, you are really speculating what a bunch of religious nuts with guns might have done under other circumstances.

Arresting Koresh wasn't the point. the goal was to get all the weapons he and his followers were converting to full automatic and selling illegally.

How could it have been any worse if they did arrest him silently?

Your are correct, these were a bunch of kooks, and kooks follow their leader. Where do you think the term Koolaid drinker came from?

The law should not put innocent children at risk because they want to bust somebody. If children are involved, their safety should be paramount in any arrest.

 

[danielpalos]

I am a Sheriff's Auxiliary volunteer. I wear a uniform, and a badge and patrol in a squad car. I have the duty, and the authority, to radio in to a deputy any time I see anyone violating a county ordinance. I have no duty, or responsibility to do anything at all about violators of federal law. In fact, I don't even have a telephone number in the car to which I could report border violations, if I wanted to, and I live 35 miles from the border. I am not paid, but the deputies are, and the county does not pay them to enforce federal law.

If it's part of their job description, yes, they will enforce federal law.

Nope, and it is never in their job description. BTW. Arizona already tried this a couple of years ago, and the feds shut the state down for infringing on fed jurisdiction. Another example. County deputies have no jurisdiction in AZ over anything happening ion the interstate highway, and frontage roads. We won't even respond to calls there.That is AZ Highway patrol jurisdiction.

Justice Department Files Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law

The justice department prevailed in this suit, and the State had to stop operating in federal jurisdiction.

Apples and oranges. What DumBama sued for is that Arizona created their own immigration regulations. This is entirely different. These are regulations that have been on the book for decades, and the feds give their blessing to local authorities that do as they ask.

The feds cannot make local authorities enforce their law, but the state or county can. If it's required by them to follow federal guidelines, not doing so means they are not doing their job and probably subject to termination. The person who signs your paycheck makes the rules.

The state or county has no immigration laws that they can force a municipality to enforce, Ray, and they have no legal authority to force municipalities to enforce federal law.. Do I really have to point that out to you?

No, they can't. But what's happening in Texas is something they can do. If the state creates a law or requirement of working with the feds, you work with the feds. If you don't, your municipality may be subject to losing state funds. If they want to lose those funds, fine, do what you like. But don't complain about the results.

10USC311 is also, federal law; you cannot, "pick and choose".

 

[danielpalos]

Nope, and it is never in their job description. BTW. Arizona already tried this a couple of years ago, and the feds shut the state down for infringing on fed jurisdiction. Another example. County deputies have no jurisdiction in AZ over anything happening ion the interstate highway, and frontage roads. We won't even respond to calls there.That is AZ Highway patrol jurisdiction.

Justice Department Files Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law

The justice department prevailed in this suit, and the State had to stop operating in federal jurisdiction.

Apples and oranges. What DumBama sued for is that Arizona created their own immigration regulations. This is entirely different. These are regulations that have been on the book for decades, and the feds give their blessing to local authorities that do as they ask.

The feds cannot make local authorities enforce their law, but the state or county can. If it's required by them to follow federal guidelines, not doing so means they are not doing their job and probably subject to termination. The person who signs your paycheck makes the rules.

The state or county has no immigration laws that they can force a municipality to enforce, Ray, and they have no legal authority to force municipalities to enforce federal law.. Do I really have to point that out to you?

No, they can't. But what's happening in Texas is something they can do. If the state creates a law or requirement of working with the feds, you work with the feds. If you don't, your municipality may be subject to losing state funds. If they want to lose those funds, fine, do what you like. But don't complain about the results.

And what happened to all the hoopla of them throwing city mayors in jail? And for what, exactly? City officials have been complaining for decades that the feds don't even reimburse them for incarcerating immigration suspects. Is the state going to throw mayors and the city council in jail for failure to spend city taxpayer money to enforce federal laws? If I were a Sheriff's Aucillary Volunteer in Texas, would they throw me in jail for failure to report a suspected wetback? And, finally, how long would that stand before the Supreme Court ruled that states have no authority to penalize cities for failure to enforce federal law?

If the state creates a law stating that local authorities are to work with ICE or any immigration federal authorities, and you disobey the law, then you pay the penalty for breaking the law no different than a DUI offender.

It doesn't cost a city anything to inform our federal agents they have a suspect in custody about to be released in a day or two. With Trump as President, he will make sure federal agents don't delay in getting those illegals that break the law out of their jails and into federal hands.

The activist judges that ruled Trump can't withhold funds from states or cities will be overturned by the Supreme Court. When that happens, your city or state risk losing funds for non-compliance. You don't think that a city or state has the authority to not allow that to happen?

States have no authority over immigration into the Union since 1808.

 

[JoeB131]

How could it have been any worse if they did arrest him silently?

Your are correct, these were a bunch of kooks, and kooks follow their leader. Where do you think the term Koolaid drinker came from?

The law should not put innocent children at risk because they want to bust somebody. If children are involved, their safety should be paramount in any arrest.

I agree.. we needed to get those kids away from a pedophile religious nut. Too bad he was m ore keen on killing himself.

No great loss, though. All those kids would have grown up to be welfare cheats, just like their parents.

(The Davidians had mastered welfare scams down to a science, but these are your heroes.)

 

[toomuchtime_]

It is fun reading simplistic solutions to complex problems. Until Trump ran for president, which seemed to attract simplistic people like catnip attracts cats, I had no idea just how many people buy into this kind of problem solving! I first noticed it when Trump said that he was going to deport 12 million illegal aliens within 2 years, which is impossible without violating the Constitution. Of course, now he isn't even talking about how many he will deport in any time frame. Nobody has even come out with a clear definition of what a sanctuary city is, but by god, they have to be punished! Texas is always up there with simplistic solutions. The law that they are trying to pass is so blatantly unconstitutional that it boggles the mind with questions, like, "Do they even have a law school in that state?"

A recent poll showed that 80% of voters oppose sanctuary cities, so how stupid do you to be to believe one rogue federal district judge can stop what nearly all of America wants by issuing a political decision instead of a legal decision?

80% of voters don't even know what a sanctuary city is.......

They know what a sanctuary city is and they want to get rid of them.

Why don't you explain to us, exactly what a "sanctuary city" is, Toomuch?

lol So you support them but don't know what they are? Can you spell bigot?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How could it have been any worse if they did arrest him silently?

Your are correct, these were a bunch of kooks, and kooks follow their leader. Where do you think the term Koolaid drinker came from?

The law should not put innocent children at risk because they want to bust somebody. If children are involved, their safety should be paramount in any arrest.

I agree.. we needed to get those kids away from a pedophile religious nut. Too bad he was m ore keen on killing himself.

No great loss, though. All those kids would have grown up to be welfare cheats, just like their parents.

(The Davidians had mastered welfare scams down to a science, but these are your heroes.)

If they were welfare cheats, they should be Democrat heroes.

You are an utter fool saying children dying like that is no loss. WTF kind of person would say that???

 

[Valerie]

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities

President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.

Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.

In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.

Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.


Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities


The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.

Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.

 

[Correll]

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities

President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.

Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.

In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.

Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.


Opinion | Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities


The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.

Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.

That fact that the linked article finds it necessary to lie about the issue by calling the illegal aliens, "undocumented migrants" shows that the entire paradigm is based on dishonesty.

 

[Valerie]

sure, and the legal precedent hasn't been set by SCOTUS, as reaffirmed by conservative justice scalia..


there are no boundaries in trumpswap fantasia...........

 

[danielpalos]

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities

President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.

Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.

In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.

Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.


Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities


The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.

Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.

I agree to, "blame the right" if we have to give our Statue of Liberty, back to the French.

 

[Correll]

sure, and the legal precedent hasn't been set by SCOTUS, as reaffirmed by conservative justice scalia..


there are no boundaries in trumpswap fantasia...........

Why do local law enforcement not want to help federal law enforcement?

Why active aiding and abetting of criminals, instead of professional co-operation?

 

[danielpalos]

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities

President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.

Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.

In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.

Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.


Opinion | Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities


The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.

Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.

That fact that the linked article finds it necessary to lie about the issue by calling the illegal aliens, "undocumented migrants" shows that the entire paradigm is based on dishonesty.

So is the entire right wing.

We have a Commerce Clause.

Tourism with permission to work in the US, is Not, immigration.

 

[Correll]

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities

President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.

Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.

In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.

Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.


Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities


The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.

Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.

I agree to, "blame the right" if we have to give our Statue of Liberty, back to the French.

YOu ready to admit that you are actively hostile to the welfare and interests of Americans?