DHS preparing to arrest sanctuary city leaders?

[del]

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'

it's true

you really can't fix stupid

 

[BrokeLoser]

Not turning them over to ICE isn't helping them? Sure it is.

No, it's not. It is simply failing to help INS.

In this country (with a few very specific exceptions), "crimes" require what's know as an "actus reas" - a criminal act. Failure to act is not a crime.

Letting someone go after their local due process, rather than holding them for INS is not an "act", but an absence of one.

So you'd rather endanger the general public with raids in the streets rather than doing it in a safe manner and in a controlled environment?
kate got killed in the streets by a single illegal without the stress of being picked off the vine like a rotten tomato.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about what I want, or what I feel. This isn't about my feelings, or yours.

I'm saying what the law is.

Aiding and abetting is against the law.

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

You might want to look up penal code 31PC in Mexifornia. Lots of gray area there.
Consider this:
I have a vacant home, I post cleverly worded signage all around it, cleverly suggesting criminals running from the law use it as a hideout of sorts.
Am I outsmarting the law or am I aiding and abetting?
My bet is things are headed that way and there's no way in hell a quality judge sides with the sanctuary shitholes on this one.

 

[del]

No, it's not. It is simply failing to help INS.

In this country (with a few very specific exceptions), "crimes" require what's know as an "actus reas" - a criminal act. Failure to act is not a crime.

Letting someone go after their local due process, rather than holding them for INS is not an "act", but an absence of one.

So you'd rather endanger the general public with raids in the streets rather than doing it in a safe manner and in a controlled environment?
kate got killed in the streets by a single illegal without the stress of being picked off the vine like a rotten tomato.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about what I want, or what I feel. This isn't about my feelings, or yours.

I'm saying what the law is.

Aiding and abetting is against the law.

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

You might want to look up penal code 31PC in Mexifornia. Lots of gray area there.
Consider this:
I have a vacant home, I post cleverly worded signage all around it, cleverly suggesting criminals running from the law use it as a hideout of sorts.
Am I outsmarting the law or am I aiding and abetting?
My bet is things are headed that way and there's no way in hell a quality judge sides with the sanctuary shitholes on this one.

are you this stupid in real life?

 

[BrokeLoser]

So you'd rather endanger the general public with raids in the streets rather than doing it in a safe manner and in a controlled environment?
kate got killed in the streets by a single illegal without the stress of being picked off the vine like a rotten tomato.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about what I want, or what I feel. This isn't about my feelings, or yours.

I'm saying what the law is.

Aiding and abetting is against the law.

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

You might want to look up penal code 31PC in Mexifornia. Lots of gray area there.
Consider this:
I have a vacant home, I post cleverly worded signage all around it, cleverly suggesting criminals running from the law use it as a hideout of sorts.
Am I outsmarting the law or am I aiding and abetting?
My bet is things are headed that way and there's no way in hell a quality judge sides with the sanctuary shitholes on this one.

are you this stupid in real life?

What's stupid about adhering to the U.S. Constitution and expecting filthy wetbacks to follow federal law?
Are you an illegal wetback in real life?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, it's not. It is simply failing to help INS.

In this country (with a few very specific exceptions), "crimes" require what's know as an "actus reas" - a criminal act. Failure to act is not a crime.

Letting someone go after their local due process, rather than holding them for INS is not an "act", but an absence of one.

So you'd rather endanger the general public with raids in the streets rather than doing it in a safe manner and in a controlled environment?
kate got killed in the streets by a single illegal without the stress of being picked off the vine like a rotten tomato.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about what I want, or what I feel. This isn't about my feelings, or yours.

I'm saying what the law is.

Aiding and abetting is against the law.

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

You might want to look up penal code 31PC in Mexifornia. Lots of gray area there.
Consider this:
I have a vacant home, I post cleverly worded signage all around it, cleverly suggesting criminals running from the law use it as a hideout of sorts.
Am I outsmarting the law or am I aiding and abetting?
My bet is things are headed that way and there's no way in hell a quality judge sides with the sanctuary shitholes on this one.

You cleverly appear to cleverly be cleverly inviting people to squat in your house.

Cleverly.

 

[BrokeLoser]

So you'd rather endanger the general public with raids in the streets rather than doing it in a safe manner and in a controlled environment?
kate got killed in the streets by a single illegal without the stress of being picked off the vine like a rotten tomato.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about what I want, or what I feel. This isn't about my feelings, or yours.

I'm saying what the law is.

Aiding and abetting is against the law.

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

You might want to look up penal code 31PC in Mexifornia. Lots of gray area there.
Consider this:
I have a vacant home, I post cleverly worded signage all around it, cleverly suggesting criminals running from the law use it as a hideout of sorts.
Am I outsmarting the law or am I aiding and abetting?
My bet is things are headed that way and there's no way in hell a quality judge sides with the sanctuary shitholes on this one.

You cleverly appear to cleverly be cleverly inviting people to squat in your house.

Cleverly.

Well, a 9th Circuit judge would see it that way...just like all filthy un-American pieces of shits would. Remember, I said no "quality judge" would /could see it that way.

 

[del]

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about what I want, or what I feel. This isn't about my feelings, or yours.

I'm saying what the law is.

Aiding and abetting is against the law.

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

You might want to look up penal code 31PC in Mexifornia. Lots of gray area there.
Consider this:
I have a vacant home, I post cleverly worded signage all around it, cleverly suggesting criminals running from the law use it as a hideout of sorts.
Am I outsmarting the law or am I aiding and abetting?
My bet is things are headed that way and there's no way in hell a quality judge sides with the sanctuary shitholes on this one.

are you this stupid in real life?

What's stupid about adhering to the U.S. Constitution and expecting filthy wetbacks to follow federal law?
Are you an illegal wetback in real life?

blah, blah, blah

i doubt you could identify any part of the constitution outside of the second amendment, and you'd probably fuck that up too.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Aiding and abetting is against the law.

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

You might want to look up penal code 31PC in Mexifornia. Lots of gray area there.
Consider this:
I have a vacant home, I post cleverly worded signage all around it, cleverly suggesting criminals running from the law use it as a hideout of sorts.
Am I outsmarting the law or am I aiding and abetting?
My bet is things are headed that way and there's no way in hell a quality judge sides with the sanctuary shitholes on this one.

are you this stupid in real life?

What's stupid about adhering to the U.S. Constitution and expecting filthy wetbacks to follow federal law?
Are you an illegal wetback in real life?

blah, blah, blah

i doubt you could identify any part of the constitution outside of the second amendment, and you'd probably fuck that up too.

Haha...figured you wouldn't want to answer the questions....most wetbacks avoid those questions like the plague...haha

 

[del]

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

You might want to look up penal code 31PC in Mexifornia. Lots of gray area there.
Consider this:
I have a vacant home, I post cleverly worded signage all around it, cleverly suggesting criminals running from the law use it as a hideout of sorts.
Am I outsmarting the law or am I aiding and abetting?
My bet is things are headed that way and there's no way in hell a quality judge sides with the sanctuary shitholes on this one.

are you this stupid in real life?

What's stupid about adhering to the U.S. Constitution and expecting filthy wetbacks to follow federal law?
Are you an illegal wetback in real life?

blah, blah, blah

i doubt you could identify any part of the constitution outside of the second amendment, and you'd probably fuck that up too.

Haha...figured you wouldn't want to answer the questions....most wetbacks avoid those questions like the plague...haha

was there any recompense for the obvious oxygen deprivation you suffered for the first six or seven years of your life?

 

[BrokeLoser]

You might want to look up penal code 31PC in Mexifornia. Lots of gray area there.
Consider this:
I have a vacant home, I post cleverly worded signage all around it, cleverly suggesting criminals running from the law use it as a hideout of sorts.
Am I outsmarting the law or am I aiding and abetting?
My bet is things are headed that way and there's no way in hell a quality judge sides with the sanctuary shitholes on this one.

are you this stupid in real life?

What's stupid about adhering to the U.S. Constitution and expecting filthy wetbacks to follow federal law?
Are you an illegal wetback in real life?

blah, blah, blah

i doubt you could identify any part of the constitution outside of the second amendment, and you'd probably fuck that up too.

Haha...figured you wouldn't want to answer the questions....most wetbacks avoid those questions like the plague...haha

was there any recompense for the obvious oxygen deprivation you suffered for the first six or seven years of your life?

Lets try this again...don't be scared.
"What's stupid about adhering to the U.S. Constitution and expecting filthy wetbacks to follow federal law?
Are you an illegal wetback in real life?"

 

[del]

are you this stupid in real life?

What's stupid about adhering to the U.S. Constitution and expecting filthy wetbacks to follow federal law?
Are you an illegal wetback in real life?

blah, blah, blah

i doubt you could identify any part of the constitution outside of the second amendment, and you'd probably fuck that up too.

Haha...figured you wouldn't want to answer the questions....most wetbacks avoid those questions like the plague...haha

was there any recompense for the obvious oxygen deprivation you suffered for the first six or seven years of your life?

Lets try this again...don't be scared.
"What's stupid about adhering to the U.S. Constitution and expecting filthy wetbacks to follow federal law?
Are you an illegal wetback in real life?"

do you know how to keep a moron in suspense?

 

[BrokeLoser]

What's stupid about adhering to the U.S. Constitution and expecting filthy wetbacks to follow federal law?
Are you an illegal wetback in real life?

blah, blah, blah

i doubt you could identify any part of the constitution outside of the second amendment, and you'd probably fuck that up too.

Haha...figured you wouldn't want to answer the questions....most wetbacks avoid those questions like the plague...haha

was there any recompense for the obvious oxygen deprivation you suffered for the first six or seven years of your life?

Lets try this again...don't be scared.
"What's stupid about adhering to the U.S. Constitution and expecting filthy wetbacks to follow federal law?
Are you an illegal wetback in real life?"

do you know how to keep a moron in suspense?

You have my permission to answer. Go ahead.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

You're an idiot. Wow, that's all I can say.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

If the feds want to arrest somebody as a suspect for breaking a federal law, they should get their asses over to the courthouse and do their own job. Nobody in San Francisco government is under any obligation to do their job for them, and this is the reason that nobody has ever been, nad nobody ever will be, prosecuted for not doing the fed's job.

 

[Aba Incieni]

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.

If the feds want to arrest somebody as a suspect for breaking a federal law, they should get their asses over to the courthouse and do their own job. Nobody in San Francisco government is under any obligation to do their job for them, and this is the reason that nobody has ever been, nad nobody ever will be, prosecuted for not doing the fed's job.

Abiding by federal immigration law will result in massive fed grants. Defying federal law will result in meager funding.

Just how strong is their moral stance to protect illegals over legal citizens?

 

[Vandalshandle]

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'

As a law enforcement person for my county, I will start enforcing federal law, just as soon as the feds start issuing speeding tickets in my county. Until then, I have absolutely no responsibility to enforce federal law. In fact, law enforcement agencies are notoriously proprietary, and deeply resent agencies trespassing on their turf. An example would be the tug of war that took place in the Dallas hospital over JFK's casket, when the city police correctly told the feds that they were not allowed to remove the body, under city law. The feds did it anyway, without authority. Incidentally, when JFK was assassinated, there was no federal law against it, and Oswald would have been tried for murder in a state court.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

If the feds want to arrest somebody as a suspect for breaking a federal law, they should get their asses over to the courthouse and do their own job. Nobody in San Francisco government is under any obligation to do their job for them, and this is the reason that nobody has ever been, nad nobody ever will be, prosecuted for not doing the fed's job.

Abiding by federal immigration law will result in massive fed grants. Defying federal law will result in meager funding.

Just how strong is their moral stance to protect illegals over legal citizens?

I don't get too upset about the issue, because there is no "aiding and abetting" going on. That would involve hiding the suspect in the basement and lying about it. As for how strongly I support this, I would say about 1,000 percent. I believe in the civil rights that the constitution grants me, and even Trump is not going to get away with taking them away. It won't happen tomorrow, It won't happen ever.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The...doctor...guy said the feds weren't talking about it. He was wrong about that, too.

sure, pal

run along now, it's adult time

Answer me this, lady.

Must states follow federal law, or can they ignore the laws they don't agree with.

i'm not a lady, you stupid fuck, and local govts are in no way obligated to hold people on ice detainers.

Sure lady....

short bus break down again?

don't forget your helmet

Helmet?
I'm hard headed and can hit from 600 yards on a windy day.

 

[miketx]

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'

it's true

you really can't fix stupid

So why are you so willfully stupid? Why do support resource draining illegals?

 

[TheParser]

One does not have to be a Nostradamus to answer the OP's question: NO, there will be no arrests.

*****

Many sanctuary supporters compare themselves to people who before the Civil War ignored federal law and refused to return runaway slaves back to their owners in the South.

*****

If any sanctuary leaders were arrested, there would be mass demonstrations, and some sympathetic law enforcement officers would simply refuse to follow orders. In fact, I assume that some Democrats hope that DHS does try to arrest some leaders. They know that the chaos and hysteria would just drive more Democrats (and some legally ineligible voters) to the polls in November.

*****


Like it or not, the majority of illegal immigrants are not going anywhere. They will continue to live here, and their children's children's children will eventually come to play a dominant role in the history of the United States.

*****

If President Trump is able to finish his term (and maybe even a second term), the United States of America will then return to business as usual.