DHS preparing to arrest sanctuary city leaders?

[WEATHER53]

Due process

what part of due process eludes you?

does not vacate nor eliminate being arrested. Due process is applied after arrest or detainment to determine if a crime was committed and in the case of illegals the crime is current and ongoing
You don't get tried(due process) first and arrested second especially in the commission of an ongoing illegal act
You guys literally try and sell the case that law enforcement efforts are the bad deed

holding someone on an ice detainer is illegal.

pretty simple, really

Incorrect
Releasing someone that you know to be committing an illegal act is what is illegal

Don't give up your day job to practice law, Weather.

Keep making ridiculous checkpoint comparisons and when factually defeated resort to personalization

 

[Vandalshandle]

On the checkpoint refusal there is no probable cause
Releasing someone you already have in custody that you know to be illegally in the country is nowhere near the same thing. Keep posting videos though as it is excellent self defeat of whatever point it is you think you are making

How do I "Know" he is illegal, when he has not yet been convicted?

 

[del]

Due process

what part of due process eludes you?

does not vacate nor eliminate being arrested. Due process is applied after arrest or detainment to determine if a crime was committed and in the case of illegals the crime is current and ongoing
You don't get tried(due process) first and arrested second especially in the commission of an ongoing illegal act
You guys literally try and sell the case that law enforcement efforts are the bad deed

holding someone on an ice detainer is illegal.

pretty simple, really

Incorrect
Releasing someone that you know to be committing an illegal act is what is illegal

as an attorney, you make an excellent door stop.

carry on

 

[WEATHER53]

Due process

what part of due process eludes you?

does not vacate nor eliminate being arrested. Due process is applied after arrest or detainment to determine if a crime was committed and in the case of illegals the crime is current and ongoing
You don't get tried(due process) first and arrested second especially in the commission of an ongoing illegal act
You guys literally try and sell the case that law enforcement efforts are the bad deed

holding someone on an ice detainer is illegal.

pretty simple, really

Incorrect
Releasing someone that you know to be committing an illegal act is what is illegal

I have no authority to try and convict someone of being an illegal alien. Until someone is convicted of being an illegal, he is NOT an illegal. If the feds want to pick up a convict, they can bring a warrant. Until then, he is just a suspect.

Wrong again. You do not have to be convicted of being illegally in the country to in fact illegally be in the country. Keep up unraveling right in front of us by offering theoretical sad if the defeat Fact and law

 

[Vandalshandle]

Due process

what part of due process eludes you?

does not vacate nor eliminate being arrested. Due process is applied after arrest or detainment to determine if a crime was committed and in the case of illegals the crime is current and ongoing
You don't get tried(due process) first and arrested second especially in the commission of an ongoing illegal act
You guys literally try and sell the case that law enforcement efforts are the bad deed

holding someone on an ice detainer is illegal.

pretty simple, really

Incorrect
Releasing someone that you know to be committing an illegal act is what is illegal

Don't give up your day job to practice law, Weather.

Keep making ridiculous checkpoint comparisons and when factually defeated resort to personalization

I am well aware that Trumpettes are pissed that they can not decide for themselves that someone is an illegal alien, without a trial or a conviction, but it doesn't work that way.

 

[del]

On the checkpoint refusal there is no probable cause
Releasing someone you already have in custody that you know to be illegally in the country is nowhere near the same thing. Keep posting videos though as it is excellent self defeat of whatever point it is you think you are making

How do I "Know" he is illegal, when he has not yet been convicted?

he's brown and speaks with an accent

 

[Vandalshandle]

Due process

what part of due process eludes you?

does not vacate nor eliminate being arrested. Due process is applied after arrest or detainment to determine if a crime was committed and in the case of illegals the crime is current and ongoing
You don't get tried(due process) first and arrested second especially in the commission of an ongoing illegal act
You guys literally try and sell the case that law enforcement efforts are the bad deed

holding someone on an ice detainer is illegal.

pretty simple, really

Incorrect
Releasing someone that you know to be committing an illegal act is what is illegal

I have no authority to try and convict someone of being an illegal alien. Until someone is convicted of being an illegal, he is NOT an illegal. If the feds want to pick up a convict, they can bring a warrant. Until then, he is just a suspect.

Wrong again. You do not have to be convicted of being illegally in the country to I. Fact illegally be in the country. Keep up unraveling right in front of us by offering theoretical sad if the defeat Fact and law

Again, Weather, don't give up your day job to practice law. Here is what it takes to deport an illegal alien against his will:

Detainees Sentenced in Seconds in ‘Streamline’ Justice on Border

 

[WEATHER53]

On the checkpoint refusal there is no probable cause
Releasing someone you already have in custody that you know to be illegally in the country is nowhere near the same thing. Keep posting videos though as it is excellent self defeat of whatever point it is you think you are making

How do I "Know" he is illegal, when he has not yet been convicted?

Deflection deflection. Let's presuppose you had knowledge from another law enforcement source or he begged you to let him go so he won't get deported. That's the fact set. Are you still going to offer the checkpoint "he ain't illegal until a court declares him so" baloney?

 

[Aba Incieni]

On the checkpoint refusal there is no probable cause
Releasing someone you already have in custody that you know to be illegally in the country is nowhere near the same thing. Keep posting videos though as it is excellent self defeat of whatever point it is you think you are making

How do I "Know" he is illegal, when he has not yet been convicted?

Same way the police arrest someone on suspicion of a crime.

 

[WEATHER53]

Due process
does not vacate nor eliminate being arrested. Due process is applied after arrest or detainment to determine if a crime was committed and in the case of illegals the crime is current and ongoing
You don't get tried(due process) first and arrested second especially in the commission of an ongoing illegal act
You guys literally try and sell the case that law enforcement efforts are the bad deed

holding someone on an ice detainer is illegal.

pretty simple, really

Incorrect
Releasing someone that you know to be committing an illegal act is what is illegal

I have no authority to try and convict someone of being an illegal alien. Until someone is convicted of being an illegal, he is NOT an illegal. If the feds want to pick up a convict, they can bring a warrant. Until then, he is just a suspect.

Wrong again. You do not have to be convicted of being illegally in the country to I. Fact illegally be in the country. Keep up unraveling right in front of us by offering theoretical sad if the defeat Fact and law

Again, Weather, don't give up your day job to practice law. Here is what it takes to deport an illegal alien against his will:

Detainees Sentenced in Seconds in ‘Streamline’ Justice on Border

deportation versus retention is not the same thing but no use to talk further as you move goalposts and never address the fact that the commission of a crime is just that and not something that has to be proven first and arrested/detained/turned over to additional law enforcement resources second

 

[Vandalshandle]

On the checkpoint refusal there is no probable cause
Releasing someone you already have in custody that you know to be illegally in the country is nowhere near the same thing. Keep posting videos though as it is excellent self defeat of whatever point it is you think you are making

How do I "Know" he is illegal, when he has not yet been convicted?

Deflection deflection. Let's presuppose you had knowledge from another law enforcement source or he begged you to let him go so he won't get deported. That's the fact set. Are you still going to offer the checkpoint "he ain't illegal until a court declares him so" baloney?

Nobody is "illegal" until so determined by a court of law. Deal with it. Until then, he is "undocumented". We are talking about 8th grade Civics, here.

 

[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..

"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.

Lets start with concealing persons from arrest...
18 U.S.C. § 1071 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1071. Concealing person from arrest

"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."



When someone enters the US illegally they have committed a crime. A "process" is then acknowledged to be started for the commission of that crime. US immigration uses this very premise to arrest, on site, those crossing the border or suspected of crossing the border.

Officers take an oath to uphold all laws of the United States and to protect and defend the US Constitution.

Even your elected officials take that oath and by pushing their sanctuary city crap they violate that oath and under federal law are to be removed from office, tried for treason or sedition and are for ever barred from holding public office again.

By subverting the law they are openly and deliberately obstructing federal agents from doing their jobs. By failing to notify the federal agents when they get those in custody they are obstructing the immigration investigative process. Its federal law that all officers are sworn to uphold.

And doing it under color of law makes it a long stay in the federal prison system.

 

[Vandalshandle]

On the checkpoint refusal there is no probable cause
Releasing someone you already have in custody that you know to be illegally in the country is nowhere near the same thing. Keep posting videos though as it is excellent self defeat of whatever point it is you think you are making

How do I "Know" he is illegal, when he has not yet been convicted?

Same way the police arrest someone on suspicion of a crime.

A county deputy has no obligation to arrest a suspected federal lawbreaker, period.

 

[Aba Incieni]

On the checkpoint refusal there is no probable cause
Releasing someone you already have in custody that you know to be illegally in the country is nowhere near the same thing. Keep posting videos though as it is excellent self defeat of whatever point it is you think you are making

How do I "Know" he is illegal, when he has not yet been convicted?

Same way the police arrest someone on suspicion of a crime.

A county deputy has no obligation to arrest a suspected federal lawbreaker, period.

He isn't being asked to.

 

[Vandalshandle]

holding someone on an ice detainer is illegal.

pretty simple, really

Incorrect
Releasing someone that you know to be committing an illegal act is what is illegal

I have no authority to try and convict someone of being an illegal alien. Until someone is convicted of being an illegal, he is NOT an illegal. If the feds want to pick up a convict, they can bring a warrant. Until then, he is just a suspect.

Wrong again. You do not have to be convicted of being illegally in the country to I. Fact illegally be in the country. Keep up unraveling right in front of us by offering theoretical sad if the defeat Fact and law

Again, Weather, don't give up your day job to practice law. Here is what it takes to deport an illegal alien against his will:

Detainees Sentenced in Seconds in ‘Streamline’ Justice on Border

deportation versus retention is not the same thing but no use to talk further as you move goalposts and never address the fact that the commission of a crime is just that and not something that has to be proven first and arrested/detained/turned over to additional law enforcement resources second

Wrong again. You are innocent until proven guilty, and you can not be arrested unless there is probable cause. Also, the feds can not even hold states criminally liable in which marijuana growers are licensed.

 

[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.

Lets start with concealing persons from arrest...
18 U.S.C. § 1071 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1071. Concealing person from arrest

"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."



When someone enters the US illegally they have committed a crime. A "process" is then acknowledged to be started for the commission of that crime. US immigration uses this very premise to arrest, on site, those crossing the border or suspected of crossing the border.

Officers take an oath to uphold all laws of the United States and to protect and defend the US Constitution.

Even your elected officials take that oath and by pushing their sanctuary city crap they violate that oath and under federal law are to be removed from office, tried for treason or sedition and are for ever barred from holding public office again.

By subverting the law they are openly and deliberately obstructing federal agents from doing their jobs. By failing to notify the federal agents when they get those in custody they are obstructing the immigration investigative process. Its federal law that all officers are sworn to uphold.

And doing it under color of law makes it a long stay in the federal prison system.

Jesus fucking Christ, you're a blithering idiot.

That's not what "process" means. "Process" means service of a court order like a warrant, or a subpoena. As in "process server".

A ICE detainer isn't "process". It's not a warrant, or a court order.

It's a request - not an order, or a command.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

Lets start with concealing persons from arrest...
18 U.S.C. § 1071 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 1071. Concealing person from arrest

"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."



When someone enters the US illegally they have committed a crime. A "process" is then acknowledged to be started for the commission of that crime. US immigration uses this very premise to arrest, on site, those crossing the border or suspected of crossing the border.

Officers take an oath to uphold all laws of the United States and to protect and defend the US Constitution.

Even your elected officials take that oath and by pushing their sanctuary city crap they violate that oath and under federal law are to be removed from office, tried for treason or sedition and are for ever barred from holding public office again.

By subverting the law they are openly and deliberately obstructing federal agents from doing their jobs. By failing to notify the federal agents when they get those in custody they are obstructing the immigration investigative process. Its federal law that all officers are sworn to uphold.

And doing it under color of law makes it a long stay in the federal prison system.

Billy Bob, we have been through this before, and I quoted to you out of your own source where anyone who demands a trial can not be deported against their will. Please don't make me do it again.

 

[Vandalshandle]

On the checkpoint refusal there is no probable cause
Releasing someone you already have in custody that you know to be illegally in the country is nowhere near the same thing. Keep posting videos though as it is excellent self defeat of whatever point it is you think you are making

How do I "Know" he is illegal, when he has not yet been convicted?

Same way the police arrest someone on suspicion of a crime.

A county deputy has no obligation to arrest a suspected federal lawbreaker, period.

He isn't being asked to.

The whole damned thread is about the absurd notion that the feds can prosecute lawmen in state and city levels for failure to do their own job!

 

[Aba Incieni]

On the checkpoint refusal there is no probable cause
Releasing someone you already have in custody that you know to be illegally in the country is nowhere near the same thing. Keep posting videos though as it is excellent self defeat of whatever point it is you think you are making

How do I "Know" he is illegal, when he has not yet been convicted?

Same way the police arrest someone on suspicion of a crime.

A county deputy has no obligation to arrest a suspected federal lawbreaker, period.

He isn't being asked to.

The whole damned thread is about the absurd notion that the feds can prosecute lawmen in state and city levels for failure to do their own job!

No. The thread is about the feds discussion regarding city/states failure to comply with federal law, and possible consequences.

Take the guy who killed the Steinle girl. He had been deported multiple times and had an immigration hold put on him. The SFPD ignored the hold, being a sanctuary city, and the guy went out and killed her.

Dats what wur talken about.

 

[Picaro]

Yes it is. It is technically incitement.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees free speech, and the degree to which incitement is protected speech is determined by the imminent lawless action test introduced by the 1969 Supreme Court decision in the case Brandenburg v. Ohio. The court ruled that incitement of events in the indefinite future was protected, but encouragement of "imminent" illegal acts was not protected. This "view reflects longstanding law and is shared by the Federalist Society, the ACLU, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and the vast majority of Americans, including most staunch free-speech advocates."[16]

Incitement - Wikipedia​

There are two elements for the Brandenburg test. Intent on the part of the speaker, and likelihood that the criminal act will imminently occur.

Sanctuary city policies meet neither of them.

Seems to me they meet both, simply because I can read.

No, that's because you're retarded.

Ask your DUI lawyer about it.

I don't drink, and I am not retarded. I probably have more legal training than you do!

The intent is to allow criminal activity and the likelihood is a certainty.

Ok. Well, with your extensive legal training - tell me exactly what crime sanctuary cities "intend to allow".

Title and section, if you can.

Aiding and abetting felons in avoiding arrest and prosecution. They aren't just refusing to arrest them, they're actively hiding and protecting them from arrest. You're probably drunk and miss that part of their organized crime activities. Apparently you think local police shouldn't respond to bank robberies or arrest bank robbers, either, since it's a 'federal crime'