Border chief won’t hand over criminal illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities

[Billy_Kinetta]

Another good move.

“My job is to protect the United States and to secure the borders, not to get prosecutions, so we are deporting people that have active warrants because the state will not give back that person to us, and we have to pick: federal law or state law,” he said in a recent briefing.


And it doesn’t matter what the alleged crime is. “It doesn’t really matter the charge,” he said. “If they will not give confirmation that they are going to return the individual,” said Scott, “then we are not going to turn them over. We’ll prosecute them federally, then deport them.”

Border chief won’t hand over criminal illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities

 

[OldLady]

Another good move.

“My job is to protect the United States and to secure the borders, not to get prosecutions, so we are deporting people that have active warrants because the state will not give back that person to us, and we have to pick: federal law or state law,” he said in a recent briefing.


And it doesn’t matter what the alleged crime is. “It doesn’t really matter the charge,” he said. “If they will not give confirmation that they are going to return the individual,” said Scott, “then we are not going to turn them over. We’ll prosecute them federally, then deport them.”

Border chief won’t hand over criminal illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities

That doesn't sound very legal, but I don't blame him for being frustrated. Everyone should notify ICE when an illegal is being released. If ICE can't get there in time, that's their problem.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Another good move.

“My job is to protect the United States and to secure the borders, not to get prosecutions, so we are deporting people that have active warrants because the state will not give back that person to us, and we have to pick: federal law or state law,” he said in a recent briefing.


And it doesn’t matter what the alleged crime is. “It doesn’t really matter the charge,” he said. “If they will not give confirmation that they are going to return the individual,” said Scott, “then we are not going to turn them over. We’ll prosecute them federally, then deport them.”

Border chief won’t hand over criminal illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities

That doesn't sound very legal, but I don't blame him for being frustrated. Everyone should notify ICE when an illegal is being released. If ICE can't get there in time, that's their problem.

Sanctuary cities are not legal.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Another good move.

“My job is to protect the United States and to secure the borders, not to get prosecutions, so we are deporting people that have active warrants because the state will not give back that person to us, and we have to pick: federal law or state law,” he said in a recent briefing.


And it doesn’t matter what the alleged crime is. “It doesn’t really matter the charge,” he said. “If they will not give confirmation that they are going to return the individual,” said Scott, “then we are not going to turn them over. We’ll prosecute them federally, then deport them.”

Border chief won’t hand over criminal illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities

That doesn't sound very legal, but I don't blame him for being frustrated. Everyone should notify ICE when an illegal is being released. If ICE can't get there in time, that's their problem.

Sanctuary cities are not legal.

Yes, they ARE. Back in the 1990s, some sheriffs sued the federal government over the Brady Bill. Local law enforcement did not want to enforce federal laws. We have a separation of powers for a reason. According to Wikipedia on the Printz v. U.S. ruling:

"The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In Scalia's reasoning in the Printz ruling, Scalia wrote:

"We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed."

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

www.law.cornell.edu

When the liberals successfully won their cases on this question, it came back to the Printz decision:

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

"The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms.... Peter L Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Immigration Law

LexisNexis Legal News Room, Immigration Law

www.lexisnexis.com

Today, in many jurisdictions, gun owners are setting up Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities in anticipation of having to fight against federal gun control. So, yes, sanctuary cities ARE legal. But, but, but... I already know what you're about to say... the foreigners are not citizens. It is IRRELEVANT. The illegally ratified 14th Amendment guarantees to all persons (as differentiated from citizens) the "equal protection of the laws." So, yes sanctuary cities are legal and I'm going to fight to keep them so that the feds don't think they can use state and local LEOs to enforce tyrannical federal edicts and orders. As for immigration - it was intended to be a state matter save of citizenship.

Here's the rub: If you eliminate sanctuary cities all those gun owners established Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities for nothing. You wanted to criminalize Liberty, but given the choice, I support Liberty. You will have to find some other avenue by which to pursue foreigners.

 

[wamose]

Trump is easily the best President of our time. He is handing the virus crisis. He is handling the drug crisis. He is handling the trade crisis. And he's handling it all without help from Dems. He's pretty amazing.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Another good move.

“My job is to protect the United States and to secure the borders, not to get prosecutions, so we are deporting people that have active warrants because the state will not give back that person to us, and we have to pick: federal law or state law,” he said in a recent briefing.


And it doesn’t matter what the alleged crime is. “It doesn’t really matter the charge,” he said. “If they will not give confirmation that they are going to return the individual,” said Scott, “then we are not going to turn them over. We’ll prosecute them federally, then deport them.”

Border chief won’t hand over criminal illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities

That doesn't sound very legal, but I don't blame him for being frustrated. Everyone should notify ICE when an illegal is being released. If ICE can't get there in time, that's their problem.

Sanctuary cities are not legal.

Yes, they ARE. Back in the 1990s, some sheriffs sued the federal government over the Brady Bill. Local law enforcement did not want to enforce federal laws. We have a separation of powers for a reason. According to Wikipedia on the Printz v. U.S. ruling:

"The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In Scalia's reasoning in the Printz ruling, Scalia wrote:

"We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed."

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

www.law.cornell.edu

When the liberals successfully won their cases on this question, it came back to the Printz decision:

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

"The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms.... Peter L Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Immigration Law

LexisNexis Legal News Room, Immigration Law

www.lexisnexis.com

Today, in many jurisdictions, gun owners are setting up Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities in anticipation of having to fight against federal gun control. So, yes, sanctuary cities ARE legal. But, but, but... I already know what you're about to say... the foreigners are not citizens. It is IRRELEVANT. The illegally ratified 14th Amendment guarantees to all persons (as differentiated from citizens) the "equal protection of the laws." So, yes sanctuary cities are legal and I'm going to fight to keep them so that the feds don't think they can use state and local LEOs to enforce tyrannical federal edicts and orders. As for immigration - it was intended to be a state matter save of citizenship.

Here's the rub: If you eliminate sanctuary cities all those gun owners established Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities for nothing. You wanted to criminalize Liberty, but given the choice, I support Liberty. You will have to find some other avenue by which to pursue foreigners.

They cannot be compelled to enforce federal law. Neither can they interfere with the enforcement of it.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Another good move.

“My job is to protect the United States and to secure the borders, not to get prosecutions, so we are deporting people that have active warrants because the state will not give back that person to us, and we have to pick: federal law or state law,” he said in a recent briefing.


And it doesn’t matter what the alleged crime is. “It doesn’t really matter the charge,” he said. “If they will not give confirmation that they are going to return the individual,” said Scott, “then we are not going to turn them over. We’ll prosecute them federally, then deport them.”

Border chief won’t hand over criminal illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities

That doesn't sound very legal, but I don't blame him for being frustrated. Everyone should notify ICE when an illegal is being released. If ICE can't get there in time, that's their problem.

Sanctuary cities are not legal.

Yes, they ARE. Back in the 1990s, some sheriffs sued the federal government over the Brady Bill. Local law enforcement did not want to enforce federal laws. We have a separation of powers for a reason. According to Wikipedia on the Printz v. U.S. ruling:

"The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In Scalia's reasoning in the Printz ruling, Scalia wrote:

"We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed."

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

www.law.cornell.edu

When the liberals successfully won their cases on this question, it came back to the Printz decision:

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

"The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms.... Peter L Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Immigration Law

LexisNexis Legal News Room, Immigration Law

www.lexisnexis.com

Today, in many jurisdictions, gun owners are setting up Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities in anticipation of having to fight against federal gun control. So, yes, sanctuary cities ARE legal. But, but, but... I already know what you're about to say... the foreigners are not citizens. It is IRRELEVANT. The illegally ratified 14th Amendment guarantees to all persons (as differentiated from citizens) the "equal protection of the laws." So, yes sanctuary cities are legal and I'm going to fight to keep them so that the feds don't think they can use state and local LEOs to enforce tyrannical federal edicts and orders. As for immigration - it was intended to be a state matter save of citizenship.

Here's the rub: If you eliminate sanctuary cities all those gun owners established Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities for nothing. You wanted to criminalize Liberty, but given the choice, I support Liberty. You will have to find some other avenue by which to pursue foreigners.

They cannot be compelled to enforce federal law. Neither can they interfere with the enforcement of it.

Of course they can. Once the FBI was going through a neighborhood asking people what they knew about me. Two of my nephews were stopped and questioned while riding their bikes in the neighborhood told me about it. I had a meeting a few days later with the county District Attorney about an unrelated matter. In our general chit chat, I bitched about them. The DA immediately picks up the phone, calls the FBI, asks to speak to the guys driving around, asking questions and told them if they ever went on a fishing expedition in his county without notifying him first, he would have their badges.

Sometimes the law works against you. In your case, you are on the wrong side of the law - from a reality point of view. It's obvious you need to research sanctuary.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Another good move.

“My job is to protect the United States and to secure the borders, not to get prosecutions, so we are deporting people that have active warrants because the state will not give back that person to us, and we have to pick: federal law or state law,” he said in a recent briefing.


And it doesn’t matter what the alleged crime is. “It doesn’t really matter the charge,” he said. “If they will not give confirmation that they are going to return the individual,” said Scott, “then we are not going to turn them over. We’ll prosecute them federally, then deport them.”

Border chief won’t hand over criminal illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities

That doesn't sound very legal, but I don't blame him for being frustrated. Everyone should notify ICE when an illegal is being released. If ICE can't get there in time, that's their problem.

Sanctuary cities are not legal.

Yes, they ARE. Back in the 1990s, some sheriffs sued the federal government over the Brady Bill. Local law enforcement did not want to enforce federal laws. We have a separation of powers for a reason. According to Wikipedia on the Printz v. U.S. ruling:

"The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In Scalia's reasoning in the Printz ruling, Scalia wrote:

"We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed."

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

www.law.cornell.edu

When the liberals successfully won their cases on this question, it came back to the Printz decision:

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

"The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms.... Peter L Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Immigration Law

LexisNexis Legal News Room, Immigration Law

www.lexisnexis.com

Today, in many jurisdictions, gun owners are setting up Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities in anticipation of having to fight against federal gun control. So, yes, sanctuary cities ARE legal. But, but, but... I already know what you're about to say... the foreigners are not citizens. It is IRRELEVANT. The illegally ratified 14th Amendment guarantees to all persons (as differentiated from citizens) the "equal protection of the laws." So, yes sanctuary cities are legal and I'm going to fight to keep them so that the feds don't think they can use state and local LEOs to enforce tyrannical federal edicts and orders. As for immigration - it was intended to be a state matter save of citizenship.

Here's the rub: If you eliminate sanctuary cities all those gun owners established Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities for nothing. You wanted to criminalize Liberty, but given the choice, I support Liberty. You will have to find some other avenue by which to pursue foreigners.

They cannot be compelled to enforce federal law. Neither can they interfere with the enforcement of it.

Of course they can. Once the FBI was going through a neighborhood asking people what they knew about me. Two of my nephews were stopped and questioned while riding their bikes in the neighborhood told me about it. I had a meeting a few days later with the county District Attorney about an unrelated matter. In our general chit chat, I bitched about them. The DA immediately picks up the phone, calls the FBI, asks to speak to the guys driving around, asking questions and told them if they ever went on a fishing expedition in his county without notifying him first, he would have their badges.

Sometimes the law works against you. In your case, you are on the wrong side of the law - from a reality point of view. It's obvious you need to research sanctuary.

Apples and screwdrivers. See if you can figure it out.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Another good move.

“My job is to protect the United States and to secure the borders, not to get prosecutions, so we are deporting people that have active warrants because the state will not give back that person to us, and we have to pick: federal law or state law,” he said in a recent briefing.


And it doesn’t matter what the alleged crime is. “It doesn’t really matter the charge,” he said. “If they will not give confirmation that they are going to return the individual,” said Scott, “then we are not going to turn them over. We’ll prosecute them federally, then deport them.”

Border chief won’t hand over criminal illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities

That doesn't sound very legal, but I don't blame him for being frustrated. Everyone should notify ICE when an illegal is being released. If ICE can't get there in time, that's their problem.

Sanctuary cities are not legal.

Yes, they ARE. Back in the 1990s, some sheriffs sued the federal government over the Brady Bill. Local law enforcement did not want to enforce federal laws. We have a separation of powers for a reason. According to Wikipedia on the Printz v. U.S. ruling:

"The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In Scalia's reasoning in the Printz ruling, Scalia wrote:

"We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed."

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

www.law.cornell.edu

When the liberals successfully won their cases on this question, it came back to the Printz decision:

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

"The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms.... Peter L Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Immigration Law

LexisNexis Legal News Room, Immigration Law

www.lexisnexis.com

Today, in many jurisdictions, gun owners are setting up Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities in anticipation of having to fight against federal gun control. So, yes, sanctuary cities ARE legal. But, but, but... I already know what you're about to say... the foreigners are not citizens. It is IRRELEVANT. The illegally ratified 14th Amendment guarantees to all persons (as differentiated from citizens) the "equal protection of the laws." So, yes sanctuary cities are legal and I'm going to fight to keep them so that the feds don't think they can use state and local LEOs to enforce tyrannical federal edicts and orders. As for immigration - it was intended to be a state matter save of citizenship.

Here's the rub: If you eliminate sanctuary cities all those gun owners established Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities for nothing. You wanted to criminalize Liberty, but given the choice, I support Liberty. You will have to find some other avenue by which to pursue foreigners.

They cannot be compelled to enforce federal law. Neither can they interfere with the enforcement of it.

Of course they can. Once the FBI was going through a neighborhood asking people what they knew about me. Two of my nephews were stopped and questioned while riding their bikes in the neighborhood told me about it. I had a meeting a few days later with the county District Attorney about an unrelated matter. In our general chit chat, I bitched about them. The DA immediately picks up the phone, calls the FBI, asks to speak to the guys driving around, asking questions and told them if they ever went on a fishing expedition in his county without notifying him first, he would have their badges.

Sometimes the law works against you. In your case, you are on the wrong side of the law - from a reality point of view. It's obvious you need to research sanctuary.

Apples and screwdrivers. See if you can figure it out.

What you haven't figured out is that we have a separation of powers in the United States. If you took the time to read the court rulings and their opinions as to how they reached their conclusions, you might get a better outlook on reality. Most of the time my critics never ask me where I stand personally. In this instance I've told you. If forfeiting my unalienable Rights is the cost to wage a war against foreigners, count me out. There are much more effective ways to deal with the immigration issue. In rejecting White Nationalists talking points does not mean that I'll be swapping spit with people whose Rights I have to protect in order to salvage my own.

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Thomas Paine, Founding Father

“No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.” Frederick Douglass, former slave

“Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.” – James Madison, Essay on Property, 1792