DHS preparing to arrest sanctuary city leaders?

[Billy_Bob]

Not gonna happen.

But keep your hopes up, it's fun to watch.

That's sorta why I ended the OP heading with a question mark. I don't know but to me it seems like they are breaking fed laws by helping illegals.

Well, that's the thing. Sanctuary city policies don't "help" illegal immigrants - they just don't help the feds.

There's no law that says states or cities have to actively help the federal government against their own interests.

Obstruction of a federal agent is a felony... A federal Crime, not a local one... Interesting indeed... Committing Obstruction under Color of Law is a 20 year mistake... This is a slam dunk case..

 

[jknowgood]

They do have to benefit the citizens of the state.....not the non-citizens.

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

So you think the same about gay marriage and abortion? Or maybe federal law on a murderer?

You appear to be having a hard time following the conversation.

Not really, gay marriage is federal now. So what do you think? Does a state have the right to refuse, to recognize gay marriage?

post the statute.

Just ask Kim Davis, then think if the state tried to do the same thing. Liberals forget so soon.

 

[del]

First of all, that's not a "more pertinent quote", fuckwit - that's a truncated version of the quote I posted. Cutting out the part that most makes you look like a clown doesn't fool anyone.

Second, you've put a whole lot of words into her mouth there - words she could have said, but didn't.

She said just enough to get you guys on the hook, but not enough to actually commit herself to anything.

Trump could take a lesson or two from her.

here's a picture of the dhs secretary and abu ghraib or whatever his name is

 

[del]

Not gonna happen.

But keep your hopes up, it's fun to watch.

That's sorta why I ended the OP heading with a question mark. I don't know but to me it seems like they are breaking fed laws by helping illegals.

Well, that's the thing. Sanctuary city policies don't "help" illegal immigrants - they just don't help the feds.

There's no law that says states or cities have to actively help the federal government against their own interests.

Obstruction of a federal agent is a felony... A federal Crime, not a local one... Interesting indeed... Committing Obstruction under Color of Law is a 20 year mistake... This is a slam dunk case..

do you use your legal knowledge a lot at the drive thru?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Not gonna happen.

But keep your hopes up, it's fun to watch.

That's sorta why I ended the OP heading with a question mark. I don't know but to me it seems like they are breaking fed laws by helping illegals.

Well, that's the thing. Sanctuary city policies don't "help" illegal immigrants - they just don't help the feds.

There's no law that says states or cities have to actively help the federal government against their own interests.

Obstruction of a federal agent is a felony... A federal Crime, not a local one... Interesting indeed... Committing Obstruction under Color of Law is a 20 year mistake... This is a slam dunk case..

"Obstruction of a federal agent" isn't the name of any law on the books in this country.

What statute are you referring to? Be specific - Title and chapter.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Here's the more pertinent quote:

"The context of this is of course not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.”

She said it's safer for immigration agents to do their jobs if they have the assistance of local and state jurisdictions.

Sounds pretty serious to me, although my statement was that they're discussing it.

First of all, that's not a "more pertinent quote", fuckwit - that's a truncated version of the quote I posted. Cutting out the part that most makes you look like a fool doesn't fool anyone.

Second, you've put a whole lot of words into her mouth there - words she could have said, but didn't.

She said just enough to get you guys on the hook, but not enough to actually commit herself to anything.

Trump could take a lesson or two from her.

It's a direct c/p quote from my link with no editing. Lying does not win debates...doctor.

It continues thus:

The Justice Department’s review follows a chilling warning earlier this month from the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, who said California would feel the wrath of his agency because of its decision to become a sanctuary state. Homan also called for local and state elected officials to be charged with federal crimes for adhering to sanctuary policies.

Here it is again so you can read it yourself: Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

Oh, that's right. I forgot about Homan.

He's just a raging fuckwit, like you guys. He has no excuse.

The rabbit slurs the hunter that killed it.

Take a moment to read up on federal jurisdiction regarding your immigration laws. You may find it enlightening.

Federal vs. State Immigration Laws - FindLaw

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my ******* point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

 

[del]

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

So you think the same about gay marriage and abortion? Or maybe federal law on a murderer?

You appear to be having a hard time following the conversation.

Not really, gay marriage is federal now. So what do you think? Does a state have the right to refuse, to recognize gay marriage?

post the statute.

Just ask Kim Davis, then think if the state tried to do the same thing. Liberals forget so soon.

wasn't she that fat loser that refused to do her job and gave all the con layabouts little chubbies?

refusal to hold on ice detainers is the law, buckwheat.

other than that, you nailed it.

 

[del]

First of all, that's not a "more pertinent quote", fuckwit - that's a truncated version of the quote I posted. Cutting out the part that most makes you look like a fool doesn't fool anyone.

Second, you've put a whole lot of words into her mouth there - words she could have said, but didn't.

She said just enough to get you guys on the hook, but not enough to actually commit herself to anything.

Trump could take a lesson or two from her.

It's a direct c/p quote from my link with no editing. Lying does not win debates...doctor.

It continues thus:

The Justice Department’s review follows a chilling warning earlier this month from the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, who said California would feel the wrath of his agency because of its decision to become a sanctuary state. Homan also called for local and state elected officials to be charged with federal crimes for adhering to sanctuary policies.

Here it is again so you can read it yourself: Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

Oh, that's right. I forgot about Homan.

He's just a raging fuckwit, like you guys. He has no excuse.

The rabbit slurs the hunter that killed it.

Take a moment to read up on federal jurisdiction regarding your immigration laws. You may find it enlightening.

Federal vs. State Immigration Laws - FindLaw

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my ******* point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

yeah, well if they've got a warrant it's a different story.

they want people to be held without warrants, and that's illegal, bubby

 

[Aba Incieni]

It's a direct c/p quote from my link with no editing. Lying does not win debates...doctor.

It continues thus:

The Justice Department’s review follows a chilling warning earlier this month from the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, who said California would feel the wrath of his agency because of its decision to become a sanctuary state. Homan also called for local and state elected officials to be charged with federal crimes for adhering to sanctuary policies.

Here it is again so you can read it yourself: Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

Oh, that's right. I forgot about Homan.

He's just a raging fuckwit, like you guys. He has no excuse.

The rabbit slurs the hunter that killed it.

Take a moment to read up on federal jurisdiction regarding your immigration laws. You may find it enlightening.

Federal vs. State Immigration Laws - FindLaw

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my ******* point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

yeah, well if they've got a warrant it's a different story.

they want people to be held without warrants, and that's illegal, bubby

Locals aren't being asked to arrest or charge them with a crime. Merely a hold. I believe 72 hours is the legal limit.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

First of all, that's not a "more pertinent quote", fuckwit - that's a truncated version of the quote I posted. Cutting out the part that most makes you look like a fool doesn't fool anyone.

Second, you've put a whole lot of words into her mouth there - words she could have said, but didn't.

She said just enough to get you guys on the hook, but not enough to actually commit herself to anything.

Trump could take a lesson or two from her.

It's a direct c/p quote from my link with no editing. Lying does not win debates...doctor.

It continues thus:

The Justice Department’s review follows a chilling warning earlier this month from the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, who said California would feel the wrath of his agency because of its decision to become a sanctuary state. Homan also called for local and state elected officials to be charged with federal crimes for adhering to sanctuary policies.

Here it is again so you can read it yourself: Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

Oh, that's right. I forgot about Homan.

He's just a raging fuckwit, like you guys. He has no excuse.

The rabbit slurs the hunter that killed it.

Take a moment to read up on federal jurisdiction regarding your immigration laws. You may find it enlightening.

Federal vs. State Immigration Laws - FindLaw

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my ******* point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

They're asked to hold people. They say no.

The SFPD is not under any legal obligation to turn people over to ICE when they get a detainer request.

As del has pointed out, in some places courts have ruled that ICE can't even make detainer requests.

Detainer is just a memo asking for someone to be held. It is not a court order to hold someone, like an arrest warrant. It's just a request - not a command.

 

[del]

Oh, that's right. I forgot about Homan.

He's just a raging fuckwit, like you guys. He has no excuse.

The rabbit slurs the hunter that killed it.

Take a moment to read up on federal jurisdiction regarding your immigration laws. You may find it enlightening.

Federal vs. State Immigration Laws - FindLaw

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my ******* point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

yeah, well if they've got a warrant it's a different story.

they want people to be held without warrants, and that's illegal, bubby

Locals aren't being asked to arrest or charge them with a crime. Merely a hold. I believe 72 hours is the legal limit.

what part of holds are illegal is too much for your pea brain to process?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh, that's right. I forgot about Homan.

He's just a raging fuckwit, like you guys. He has no excuse.

The rabbit slurs the hunter that killed it.

Take a moment to read up on federal jurisdiction regarding your immigration laws. You may find it enlightening.

Federal vs. State Immigration Laws - FindLaw

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my ******* point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

yeah, well if they've got a warrant it's a different story.

they want people to be held without warrants, and that's illegal, bubby

Locals aren't being asked to arrest or charge them with a crime. Merely a hold. I believe 72 hours is the legal limit.

Asked is the key word here. Not ordered.

 

[Aba Incieni]

It's a direct c/p quote from my link with no editing. Lying does not win debates...doctor.

It continues thus:

The Justice Department’s review follows a chilling warning earlier this month from the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, who said California would feel the wrath of his agency because of its decision to become a sanctuary state. Homan also called for local and state elected officials to be charged with federal crimes for adhering to sanctuary policies.

Here it is again so you can read it yourself: Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

Oh, that's right. I forgot about Homan.

He's just a raging fuckwit, like you guys. He has no excuse.

The rabbit slurs the hunter that killed it.

Take a moment to read up on federal jurisdiction regarding your immigration laws. You may find it enlightening.

Federal vs. State Immigration Laws - FindLaw

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my ******* point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

They're asked to hold people. They say no.

The SFPD is not under any legal obligation to turn people over to ICE when they get a detainer request.

As del has pointed out, in some places courts have ruled that ICE can't even make detainer requests.

Detainer is just a memo asking for someone to be held. It is not a court order to hold someone, like an arrest warrant. It's just a request - not a command.

They can say no, of course. They can also have funding to their state withheld and now face possible jail time for their decision.

Do you think the welfare constituents of their respective states will stand in unity with their illegal brethren when they don't get their checks?

 

[Aba Incieni]

The rabbit slurs the hunter that killed it.

Take a moment to read up on federal jurisdiction regarding your immigration laws. You may find it enlightening.

Federal vs. State Immigration Laws - FindLaw

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my ******* point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

yeah, well if they've got a warrant it's a different story.

they want people to be held without warrants, and that's illegal, bubby

Locals aren't being asked to arrest or charge them with a crime. Merely a hold. I believe 72 hours is the legal limit.

what part of holds are illegal is too much for your pea brain to process?

They can hold anyone without charges for 72 hours. Since he's in jail, he's suspected of committing a crime, which adds to the notification time.

It's like talking to a child.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh, that's right. I forgot about Homan.

He's just a raging fuckwit, like you guys. He has no excuse.

The rabbit slurs the hunter that killed it.

Take a moment to read up on federal jurisdiction regarding your immigration laws. You may find it enlightening.

Federal vs. State Immigration Laws - FindLaw

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my ******* point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

They're asked to hold people. They say no.

The SFPD is not under any legal obligation to turn people over to ICE when they get a detainer request.

As del has pointed out, in some places courts have ruled that ICE can't even make detainer requests.

Detainer is just a memo asking for someone to be held. It is not a court order to hold someone, like an arrest warrant. It's just a request - not a command.

They can say no, of course. They can also have funding to their state withheld and now face possible jail time for their decision.

Do you think the welfare constituents of their respective states will stand in unity with their illegal brethren when they don't get their checks?

No, actually they can't. Neither of those things are going to happen.

As for whatever you're blathering about "welfare constituents" and "their illegal brethren", I have no idea what in the name of **** you're trying to say.

 

[del]

The rabbit slurs the hunter that killed it.

Take a moment to read up on federal jurisdiction regarding your immigration laws. You may find it enlightening.

Federal vs. State Immigration Laws - FindLaw

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my ******* point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

They're asked to hold people. They say no.

The SFPD is not under any legal obligation to turn people over to ICE when they get a detainer request.

As del has pointed out, in some places courts have ruled that ICE can't even make detainer requests.

Detainer is just a memo asking for someone to be held. It is not a court order to hold someone, like an arrest warrant. It's just a request - not a command.

They can say no, of course. They can also have funding to their state withheld and now face possible jail time for their decision.

Do you think the welfare constituents of their respective states will stand in unity with their illegal brethren when they don't get their checks?

No, actually they can't. Neither of those things are going to happen.

As for whatever you're blathering about "welfare constituents" and "their illegal brethren", I have no idea what in the name of **** you're trying to say.

it's dog whistle stuff

 

[Aba Incieni]

The rabbit slurs the hunter that killed it.

Take a moment to read up on federal jurisdiction regarding your immigration laws. You may find it enlightening.

Federal vs. State Immigration Laws - FindLaw

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my ******* point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

They're asked to hold people. They say no.

The SFPD is not under any legal obligation to turn people over to ICE when they get a detainer request.

As del has pointed out, in some places courts have ruled that ICE can't even make detainer requests.

Detainer is just a memo asking for someone to be held. It is not a court order to hold someone, like an arrest warrant. It's just a request - not a command.

They can say no, of course. They can also have funding to their state withheld and now face possible jail time for their decision.

Do you think the welfare constituents of their respective states will stand in unity with their illegal brethren when they don't get their checks?

No, actually they can't. Neither of those things are going to happen.

As for whatever you're blathering about "welfare constituents" and "their illegal brethren", I have no idea what in the name of **** you're trying to say.

It's a political board...doctor. Do you think losing government money will sit well politically with the legal citizens who rely on that money? Do you think this is a good political decision for their leaders to make? Do you think the people will blame Moonbeam for protecting illegals and getting their gubment checks cut off?

 

[Vandalshandle]

In reading the posts on this thread, I find myself in awe of the depth of ignorance in this country regarding the law, the constitution, and civil rights. It is no wonder that attorneys bill over $500 per hour !The words, "due process" may just as well be a foreign language. I am a Sheriff Auxiliary Volunteer, and if I were to attempt to bring a deputy out in order to arrest a suspected undocumented alien strictly on the basis that he may not be legally in this country, I would be fired.

 

[del]

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my ******* point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

They're asked to hold people. They say no.

The SFPD is not under any legal obligation to turn people over to ICE when they get a detainer request.

As del has pointed out, in some places courts have ruled that ICE can't even make detainer requests.

Detainer is just a memo asking for someone to be held. It is not a court order to hold someone, like an arrest warrant. It's just a request - not a command.

They can say no, of course. They can also have funding to their state withheld and now face possible jail time for their decision.

Do you think the welfare constituents of their respective states will stand in unity with their illegal brethren when they don't get their checks?

No, actually they can't. Neither of those things are going to happen.

As for whatever you're blathering about "welfare constituents" and "their illegal brethren", I have no idea what in the name of **** you're trying to say.

It's a political board...doctor. Do you think losing government money will sit well politically with the legal citizens who rely on that money? Do you think this is a good political decision for their leaders to make? Do you think the people will blame Moonbeam for protecting illegals and getting their gubment checks cut off?

nobody's checks are getting cut off.

jesus, you people are dumb

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my ******* point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

They're asked to hold people. They say no.

The SFPD is not under any legal obligation to turn people over to ICE when they get a detainer request.

As del has pointed out, in some places courts have ruled that ICE can't even make detainer requests.

Detainer is just a memo asking for someone to be held. It is not a court order to hold someone, like an arrest warrant. It's just a request - not a command.

They can say no, of course. They can also have funding to their state withheld and now face possible jail time for their decision.

Do you think the welfare constituents of their respective states will stand in unity with their illegal brethren when they don't get their checks?

No, actually they can't. Neither of those things are going to happen.

As for whatever you're blathering about "welfare constituents" and "their illegal brethren", I have no idea what in the name of **** you're trying to say.

it's dog whistle stuff

I know. I like to watch them try to justify it, though.