ICE wants to slap SMUGGLING CHARGES on leaders of sanctuary cities.

[danielpalos]

They are also guilty of obstruction of justice and in violation of Section 1324 Title 8 of the US code which makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here. And for that they can be legally executed !!!

Thomas Homan, ICE chief, says immigrant ‘sanctuaries’ break smuggling laws

july 26 2017 The country’s top immigration enforcement officer says he is looking into charging sanctuary city leaders with violating federal anti-smuggling laws because he is fed up with local officials putting their communities and his officers at risk by releasing illegal immigrants from jail.

Thomas Homan, the acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also told Americans to expect more work site enforcement targeting unscrupulous employers and more 287(g) agreements with willing police and sheriff’s departments that want to help get illegal immigrants off their streets.

Mr. Homan is the spear tip of President Trump’s effort to step up immigration enforcement — perhaps the largest swing in attitude for any agency in government from the last administration to the current one.
Agents and officers have been unshackled from the limits imposed by Mr. Obama, whose rules restricted arrests to less than 20 percent of the estimated illegal immigrant population.

ICE has no authority to do that.

and Homan isn't "ICE"... he is just one of Donald's loons who has no sense of the limits of their authority.

you're welcome

They can stop federal funding to them.

The States are blameless, since 1808. It is a federal problem that should be solved at the federal borders with the federal powers already in our federal Constitution.

And then cut their federal funding.

based on what?

 

[jknowgood]

They are also guilty of obstruction of justice and in violation of Section 1324 Title 8 of the US code which makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here. And for that they can be legally executed !!!

ICE has no authority to do that.

and Homan isn't "ICE"... he is just one of Donald's loons who has no sense of the limits of their authority.

you're welcome

They can stop federal funding to them.

The States are blameless, since 1808. It is a federal problem that should be solved at the federal borders with the federal powers already in our federal Constitution.

And then cut their federal funding.

based on what?

Sanctuary cities.

 

[SavannahMann]

Now let's say you arrest the Mayor of San Francisco. Then a jury of people who are from and live in San Francisco decide if the Mayor is guilty. The people there support the Mayor, and that means they can, and will find the Mayor not guilty. What do you do then? You can't try the Mayor again, double jeopardy. So then the Mayor gets to hold the victory fist up and then what can you do?

[^^^snipped. ]. Even though San Francisco is another Sodom and Camorra, I think we can find 12 conservatives in that city to put on the jury Who aren't so politically correct about illegal aliens.

Cherry picked juries? Have you ever visited a court to see any of the process?

 

[danielpalos]

ICE has no authority to do that.

and Homan isn't "ICE"... he is just one of Donald's loons who has no sense of the limits of their authority.

you're welcome

They can stop federal funding to them.

The States are blameless, since 1808. It is a federal problem that should be solved at the federal borders with the federal powers already in our federal Constitution.

And then cut their federal funding.

based on what?

Sanctuary cities.

After 1808?

 

[SavannahMann]

The fact is that states and local governments are not charged with enforcing federal immigration laws. They cannot be forced to do so. Filing charges would be the equivalent of what Putin does in Russia.

I'm not pushing for local law enforcement to conduct immigration raids. I just want them to quit interfering and obstructing when the Feds (ICE) do their jobs. The most that is being asked of local enforcement is to NOT RELEASE illegal immigrants they arrest during their normal duties until ICE can pick them up.

FFS, those same local LE hold people a long time during extradition processes. How is this any different?

Let's say you are arrested in Georgia, and you are wanted in Montana for a crime. The computer spits out the warrant when a cop checks your license. You are arrested because there is a warrant for your arrest.

The warrant is signed by a judge. Now, the cops in Georgia aren't going to hold you indefinitely. They'll notify Montana that you are arrested. Montana has to do some things to get you transported to them.

Now, all of this started when a Judge signed a warrant. For an ICE detainer, it's not signed by a judge, or filed with a court.

Now, let's play that out with ICE. You get picked up for Disturbing the peace. Everyone else who is arrested for that is processed in, and bail is low, so you're out again with a small amount of money paid and a court date assigned. But ICE sends over a request to hold you.

So you are held, twenty four hours later, you're still held, seventy two hours, and you are still held. You call an attorney and ask for help. The attorney is hired, and goes to the court demanding to know why you are being held still. The Sheriff's department says you are being held because they have a detainer request from an ICE agent.

Three more days go by, and nothing. Now, you have been held longer than the average jail sentence for the crime you were picked up for, you have no additional charges filed, the sheriff is on the hook for the wrongful detention lawsuit. The Sheriff has no legal reason to hold you, all he has is the detainer request.

A request is asking for a favor. To borrow a cup of sugar from the neighbor, or ask the neighbor for help. A request can be granted, or denied. You can tell your neighbor that your lawnmower is acting up and needs to be repaired. You can tell him you are all out of sugar and need to go to the store yourself.

That is the first difference, there is no order from a judge, so the sheriff is holding the individual named in the detainer request indefinitely. That is actually risky for the sheriff, after a little while, he is liable for the damages in the lawsuit. The claim that he was doing a favor is not a defense against wrongdoing.

The 48 hour window that everyone talks about, that is how long you can hold someone without charging them with a crime. That means walking them before a judge and a prosecutor actually telling the judge the crimes they are accused of.

After that, it's a civil rights violation to hold them.

 

[Tresha91203]

The fact is that states and local governments are not charged with enforcing federal immigration laws. They cannot be forced to do so. Filing charges would be the equivalent of what Putin does in Russia.

I'm not pushing for local law enforcement to conduct immigration raids. I just want them to quit interfering and obstructing when the Feds (ICE) do their jobs. The most that is being asked of local enforcement is to NOT RELEASE illegal immigrants they arrest during their normal duties until ICE can pick them up.

FFS, those same local LE hold people a long time during extradition processes. How is this any different?

Let's say you are arrested in Georgia, and you are wanted in Montana for a crime. The computer spits out the warrant when a cop checks your license. You are arrested because there is a warrant for your arrest.

The warrant is signed by a judge. Now, the cops in Georgia aren't going to hold you indefinitely. They'll notify Montana that you are arrested. Montana has to do some things to get you transported to them.

Now, all of this started when a Judge signed a warrant. For an ICE detainer, it's not signed by a judge, or filed with a court.

Now, let's play that out with ICE. You get picked up for Disturbing the peace. Everyone else who is arrested for that is processed in, and bail is low, so you're out again with a small amount of money paid and a court date assigned. But ICE sends over a request to hold you.

So you are held, twenty four hours later, you're still held, seventy two hours, and you are still held. You call an attorney and ask for help. The attorney is hired, and goes to the court demanding to know why you are being held still. The Sheriff's department says you are being held because they have a detainer request from an ICE agent.

Three more days go by, and nothing. Now, you have been held longer than the average jail sentence for the crime you were picked up for, you have no additional charges filed, the sheriff is on the hook for the wrongful detention lawsuit. The Sheriff has no legal reason to hold you, all he has is the detainer request.

A request is asking for a favor. To borrow a cup of sugar from the neighbor, or ask the neighbor for help. A request can be granted, or denied. You can tell your neighbor that your lawnmower is acting up and needs to be repaired. You can tell him you are all out of sugar and need to go to the store yourself.

That is the first difference, there is no order from a judge, so the sheriff is holding the individual named in the detainer request indefinitely. That is actually risky for the sheriff, after a little while, he is liable for the damages in the lawsuit. The claim that he was doing a favor is not a defense against wrongdoing.

The 48 hour window that everyone talks about, that is how long you can hold someone without charging them with a crime. That means walking them before a judge and a prosecutor actually telling the judge the crimes they are accused of.

After that, it's a civil rights violation to hold them.

We hold prisoners for 30 days for interstate extraditions and longer for international ones, even with no US charges filed.

Jail Time Awaiting Extradition on Old Out-of-State Felony Warrant

Those same sheriff's will do for foreign governments what they refuse to do for the US govt, all while taking federal US dollars.

An illegal alien COULD be charged with the crime of being illegal, thus being able to be held longer. Sanctuaries don't want that, though, so they actively minimize charges. They are looking for ways to NOT comply.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The case is not open-and-shut. You are using a overly broad interpretation of the word encourage. By your definition, someone who advocates for sanctuary cities could be charged. That violates free speech rights. Refusing to cooperate with ICE does not qualify either. No jury nullification will be required.

HAHAHA. Hey stupid. Are you saying states that give drivers licenses to illegals are NOT encouraging them to live in america?? How about letting illegals collect welfare? How about Aunt Barry giving millions of illegals a certificate saying they can live and work here??? THINK, white-hating racist.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

So what; States are sovereign and have no basis for any clue and Any Cause regarding immigration into the Union, since 1808.

That's not what the constitution says. It grants the feds power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization" and that is it. By the tenth amendment, everything else re immigration is a state matter. THINK

 

[danielpalos]

The fact is that states and local governments are not charged with enforcing federal immigration laws. They cannot be forced to do so. Filing charges would be the equivalent of what Putin does in Russia.

I'm not pushing for local law enforcement to conduct immigration raids. I just want them to quit interfering and obstructing when the Feds (ICE) do their jobs. The most that is being asked of local enforcement is to NOT RELEASE illegal immigrants they arrest during their normal duties until ICE can pick them up.

FFS, those same local LE hold people a long time during extradition processes. How is this any different?

Let's say you are arrested in Georgia, and you are wanted in Montana for a crime. The computer spits out the warrant when a cop checks your license. You are arrested because there is a warrant for your arrest.

The warrant is signed by a judge. Now, the cops in Georgia aren't going to hold you indefinitely. They'll notify Montana that you are arrested. Montana has to do some things to get you transported to them.

Now, all of this started when a Judge signed a warrant. For an ICE detainer, it's not signed by a judge, or filed with a court.

Now, let's play that out with ICE. You get picked up for Disturbing the peace. Everyone else who is arrested for that is processed in, and bail is low, so you're out again with a small amount of money paid and a court date assigned. But ICE sends over a request to hold you.

So you are held, twenty four hours later, you're still held, seventy two hours, and you are still held. You call an attorney and ask for help. The attorney is hired, and goes to the court demanding to know why you are being held still. The Sheriff's department says you are being held because they have a detainer request from an ICE agent.

Three more days go by, and nothing. Now, you have been held longer than the average jail sentence for the crime you were picked up for, you have no additional charges filed, the sheriff is on the hook for the wrongful detention lawsuit. The Sheriff has no legal reason to hold you, all he has is the detainer request.

A request is asking for a favor. To borrow a cup of sugar from the neighbor, or ask the neighbor for help. A request can be granted, or denied. You can tell your neighbor that your lawnmower is acting up and needs to be repaired. You can tell him you are all out of sugar and need to go to the store yourself.

That is the first difference, there is no order from a judge, so the sheriff is holding the individual named in the detainer request indefinitely. That is actually risky for the sheriff, after a little while, he is liable for the damages in the lawsuit. The claim that he was doing a favor is not a defense against wrongdoing.

The 48 hour window that everyone talks about, that is how long you can hold someone without charging them with a crime. That means walking them before a judge and a prosecutor actually telling the judge the crimes they are accused of.

After that, it's a civil rights violation to hold them.

We hold prisoners for 30 days for interstate extraditions and longer for international ones, even with no US charges filed.

Jail Time Awaiting Extradition on Old Out-of-State Felony Warrant

Those same sheriff's will do for foreign governments what they refuse to do for the US govt, all while taking federal US dollars.

An illegal alien COULD be charged with the crime of being illegal, thus being able to be held longer. Sanctuaries don't want that, though, so they actively minimize charges. They are looking for ways to NOT comply.

Not in any State, after 1808.

 

[danielpalos]

States are sovereign. The federal government has no police power outside of the federal districts.

 

[danielpalos]

[

So what; States are sovereign and have no basis for any clue and Any Cause regarding immigration into the Union, since 1808.

That's not what the constitution says. It grants the feds power to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization" and that is it. By the tenth amendment, everything else re immigration is a state matter. THINK

You are simply, clueless and Causeless, after 1808. Think.

 

[Tresha91203]

The fact is that states and local governments are not charged with enforcing federal immigration laws. They cannot be forced to do so. Filing charges would be the equivalent of what Putin does in Russia.

I'm not pushing for local law enforcement to conduct immigration raids. I just want them to quit interfering and obstructing when the Feds (ICE) do their jobs. The most that is being asked of local enforcement is to NOT RELEASE illegal immigrants they arrest during their normal duties until ICE can pick them up.

FFS, those same local LE hold people a long time during extradition processes. How is this any different?

Let's say you are arrested in Georgia, and you are wanted in Montana for a crime. The computer spits out the warrant when a cop checks your license. You are arrested because there is a warrant for your arrest.

The warrant is signed by a judge. Now, the cops in Georgia aren't going to hold you indefinitely. They'll notify Montana that you are arrested. Montana has to do some things to get you transported to them.

Now, all of this started when a Judge signed a warrant. For an ICE detainer, it's not signed by a judge, or filed with a court.

Now, let's play that out with ICE. You get picked up for Disturbing the peace. Everyone else who is arrested for that is processed in, and bail is low, so you're out again with a small amount of money paid and a court date assigned. But ICE sends over a request to hold you.

So you are held, twenty four hours later, you're still held, seventy two hours, and you are still held. You call an attorney and ask for help. The attorney is hired, and goes to the court demanding to know why you are being held still. The Sheriff's department says you are being held because they have a detainer request from an ICE agent.

Three more days go by, and nothing. Now, you have been held longer than the average jail sentence for the crime you were picked up for, you have no additional charges filed, the sheriff is on the hook for the wrongful detention lawsuit. The Sheriff has no legal reason to hold you, all he has is the detainer request.

A request is asking for a favor. To borrow a cup of sugar from the neighbor, or ask the neighbor for help. A request can be granted, or denied. You can tell your neighbor that your lawnmower is acting up and needs to be repaired. You can tell him you are all out of sugar and need to go to the store yourself.

That is the first difference, there is no order from a judge, so the sheriff is holding the individual named in the detainer request indefinitely. That is actually risky for the sheriff, after a little while, he is liable for the damages in the lawsuit. The claim that he was doing a favor is not a defense against wrongdoing.

The 48 hour window that everyone talks about, that is how long you can hold someone without charging them with a crime. That means walking them before a judge and a prosecutor actually telling the judge the crimes they are accused of.

After that, it's a civil rights violation to hold them.

We hold prisoners for 30 days for interstate extraditions and longer for international ones, even with no US charges filed.

Jail Time Awaiting Extradition on Old Out-of-State Felony Warrant

Those same sheriff's will do for foreign governments what they refuse to do for the US govt, all while taking federal US dollars.

An illegal alien COULD be charged with the crime of being illegal, thus being able to be held longer. Sanctuaries don't want that, though, so they actively minimize charges. They are looking for ways to NOT comply.

Not in any State, after 1808.

Is it your claim that there have been no interstate extraditions since 1808?

 

[Tresha91203]

States are sovereign. The federal government has no police power outside of the federal districts.

Sanctuary CITIES are NOT sovereign.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

States are sovereign. The federal government has no police power outside of the federal districts.

Wrong the Federal Government has limited police power to ensure all the powers delegated to it are enforced. That includes every State every city and every where.

 

[danielpalos]

The fact is that states and local governments are not charged with enforcing federal immigration laws. They cannot be forced to do so. Filing charges would be the equivalent of what Putin does in Russia.

I'm not pushing for local law enforcement to conduct immigration raids. I just want them to quit interfering and obstructing when the Feds (ICE) do their jobs. The most that is being asked of local enforcement is to NOT RELEASE illegal immigrants they arrest during their normal duties until ICE can pick them up.

FFS, those same local LE hold people a long time during extradition processes. How is this any different?

Let's say you are arrested in Georgia, and you are wanted in Montana for a crime. The computer spits out the warrant when a cop checks your license. You are arrested because there is a warrant for your arrest.

The warrant is signed by a judge. Now, the cops in Georgia aren't going to hold you indefinitely. They'll notify Montana that you are arrested. Montana has to do some things to get you transported to them.

Now, all of this started when a Judge signed a warrant. For an ICE detainer, it's not signed by a judge, or filed with a court.

Now, let's play that out with ICE. You get picked up for Disturbing the peace. Everyone else who is arrested for that is processed in, and bail is low, so you're out again with a small amount of money paid and a court date assigned. But ICE sends over a request to hold you.

So you are held, twenty four hours later, you're still held, seventy two hours, and you are still held. You call an attorney and ask for help. The attorney is hired, and goes to the court demanding to know why you are being held still. The Sheriff's department says you are being held because they have a detainer request from an ICE agent.

Three more days go by, and nothing. Now, you have been held longer than the average jail sentence for the crime you were picked up for, you have no additional charges filed, the sheriff is on the hook for the wrongful detention lawsuit. The Sheriff has no legal reason to hold you, all he has is the detainer request.

A request is asking for a favor. To borrow a cup of sugar from the neighbor, or ask the neighbor for help. A request can be granted, or denied. You can tell your neighbor that your lawnmower is acting up and needs to be repaired. You can tell him you are all out of sugar and need to go to the store yourself.

That is the first difference, there is no order from a judge, so the sheriff is holding the individual named in the detainer request indefinitely. That is actually risky for the sheriff, after a little while, he is liable for the damages in the lawsuit. The claim that he was doing a favor is not a defense against wrongdoing.

The 48 hour window that everyone talks about, that is how long you can hold someone without charging them with a crime. That means walking them before a judge and a prosecutor actually telling the judge the crimes they are accused of.

After that, it's a civil rights violation to hold them.

We hold prisoners for 30 days for interstate extraditions and longer for international ones, even with no US charges filed.

Jail Time Awaiting Extradition on Old Out-of-State Felony Warrant

Those same sheriff's will do for foreign governments what they refuse to do for the US govt, all while taking federal US dollars.

An illegal alien COULD be charged with the crime of being illegal, thus being able to be held longer. Sanctuaries don't want that, though, so they actively minimize charges. They are looking for ways to NOT comply.

Not in any State, after 1808.

Is it your claim that there have been no interstate extraditions since 1808?

Extradition means a legal process has been completed. There is no extradition for illegals.

 

[danielpalos]

States are sovereign. The federal government has no police power outside of the federal districts.

Sanctuary CITIES are NOT sovereign.

Just clueless and Causeless?

States are sovereign. The federal government has no police power outside of the federal districts.

 

[danielpalos]

States are sovereign. The federal government has no police power outside of the federal districts.

Wrong the Federal Government has limited police power to ensure all the powers delegated to it are enforced. That includes every State every city and every where.

The federal government has no police power outside of the federal districts.

 

[Tresha91203]

I'm not pushing for local law enforcement to conduct immigration raids. I just want them to quit interfering and obstructing when the Feds (ICE) do their jobs. The most that is being asked of local enforcement is to NOT RELEASE illegal immigrants they arrest during their normal duties until ICE can pick them up.

FFS, those same local LE hold people a long time during extradition processes. How is this any different?

Let's say you are arrested in Georgia, and you are wanted in Montana for a crime. The computer spits out the warrant when a cop checks your license. You are arrested because there is a warrant for your arrest.

The warrant is signed by a judge. Now, the cops in Georgia aren't going to hold you indefinitely. They'll notify Montana that you are arrested. Montana has to do some things to get you transported to them.

Now, all of this started when a Judge signed a warrant. For an ICE detainer, it's not signed by a judge, or filed with a court.

Now, let's play that out with ICE. You get picked up for Disturbing the peace. Everyone else who is arrested for that is processed in, and bail is low, so you're out again with a small amount of money paid and a court date assigned. But ICE sends over a request to hold you.

So you are held, twenty four hours later, you're still held, seventy two hours, and you are still held. You call an attorney and ask for help. The attorney is hired, and goes to the court demanding to know why you are being held still. The Sheriff's department says you are being held because they have a detainer request from an ICE agent.

Three more days go by, and nothing. Now, you have been held longer than the average jail sentence for the crime you were picked up for, you have no additional charges filed, the sheriff is on the hook for the wrongful detention lawsuit. The Sheriff has no legal reason to hold you, all he has is the detainer request.

A request is asking for a favor. To borrow a cup of sugar from the neighbor, or ask the neighbor for help. A request can be granted, or denied. You can tell your neighbor that your lawnmower is acting up and needs to be repaired. You can tell him you are all out of sugar and need to go to the store yourself.

That is the first difference, there is no order from a judge, so the sheriff is holding the individual named in the detainer request indefinitely. That is actually risky for the sheriff, after a little while, he is liable for the damages in the lawsuit. The claim that he was doing a favor is not a defense against wrongdoing.

The 48 hour window that everyone talks about, that is how long you can hold someone without charging them with a crime. That means walking them before a judge and a prosecutor actually telling the judge the crimes they are accused of.

After that, it's a civil rights violation to hold them.

We hold prisoners for 30 days for interstate extraditions and longer for international ones, even with no US charges filed.

Jail Time Awaiting Extradition on Old Out-of-State Felony Warrant

Those same sheriff's will do for foreign governments what they refuse to do for the US govt, all while taking federal US dollars.

An illegal alien COULD be charged with the crime of being illegal, thus being able to be held longer. Sanctuaries don't want that, though, so they actively minimize charges. They are looking for ways to NOT comply.

Not in any State, after 1808.

Is it your claim that there have been no interstate extraditions since 1808?

Extradition means a legal process has been completed. There is no extradition for illegals.

Yes, I understand that. Extradition, however, is an example of US citizens being held for 30 days legally until another entity (including the Feds) can come get them ... you know, what Sanctuary Cities say they CAN'T do for illegals. It was in reference to your statement,

"The 48 hour window that everyone talks about, that is how long you can hold someone without charging them with a crime. That means walking them before a judge and a prosecutor actually telling the judge the crimes they are accused of."

I was pointing out that we CAN hold people legally for more than 30 days, and often do. I also stated that we could easily charge them, extending the 48 hours, but that Sanctuary Cities do not want to do that. They actively MINIMIZE charges for illegals. US citizens usually get charges maximized so prosecutors have something to work down during the plea. In sanctuary cities, illegals do not generally get maximized charges so they can get released quickly (before ICE can get there). It is not a matter of not wanting to do the feds jobs for them. They literally want to be a sanctuary for illegals. They don't hide it ... it is even in their name.

 

[Tresha91203]

States are sovereign. The federal government has no police power outside of the federal districts.

Sanctuary CITIES are NOT sovereign.

Just clueless and Causeless?

States are sovereign. The federal government has no police power outside of the federal districts.

We are not discussing sanctuary states. Sanctuary cities are not states. Sanctuary cities are not sovereign. The feds may not have police powers but they have control of the flow of federal money. Sucks, but this is where we are.

 

[busybee01]

The case is not open-and-shut. You are using a overly broad interpretation of the word encourage. By your definition, someone who advocates for sanctuary cities could be charged. That violates free speech rights. Refusing to cooperate with ICE does not qualify either. No jury nullification will be required.

HAHAHA. Hey stupid. Are you saying states that give drivers licenses to illegals are NOT encouraging them to live in america?? How about letting illegals collect welfare? How about Aunt Barry giving millions of illegals a certificate saying they can live and work here??? THINK, white-hating racist.

States can say that they don't ask for proof of citizenship. Then the government would have to prove that they did it to allow illegals to come here. By your interpretation, someone who advocates for sanctuary cities could be arrested. THINK racist pig.