NO MONEY to Sanctuary Cities/States/Counties

[berg80]

More help will be needed both from the Federal Reserve and Congress to get the U.S. economy through its current slump, Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan told CNBC.

At least some of that aid likely will need to go to state and local governments, which have been hampered by lost revenue during the coronavirus pandemic, Kaplan said in an interview Wednesday on “Squawk Box.”

Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan says more fiscal help will be needed, including aid to states

More help will be needed from the Federal Reserve and Congress to get the U.S. economy through its current slump, Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan told CNBC.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Wyatt earp]

Refusing to cooperate with immigration officials is not harboring anyone. No one is going to jail for anything.

It's a clear violation of 1324, and whether they go to jail is not your call, is it ?

And it's not just refusing to cooperate. It's also ACTIVELY shielding, by passing laws to keep the aliens intact.

It is not a clear violation. My position is sustained by the fact the federal government has never brought a case. Obviously they agree with me. States and local governments are not required to enforce immigration laws. They don't have to investigate anyone's immigration status.

Trump likes throwing his weight around. Yet even he could not over - rule that United States Supreme Court holding I cited earlier. The legal principle you're discussing is called the anti-commandeering doctrine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/26/federalism-the-constitution-and-sanctuary-cities/

From your own link burrito breath, under current law....


under current law....

under current law....

under current law....





Not only would enforcing current law cost taxpayers, it would also burden the economy. Removing all undocumented immigrants would cause the labor force to shrink by 6.4 percent

Read more: The Budgetary and Economic Costs of Addressing Unauthorized Immigration: Alternative Strategies - AAF
Follow us: @AAF on Twittery

I suppose it is better to have burrito breath than shit breath - which is what you have. Under current law (which has been cited to you) the government cannot do what you want. There is no evidence that what you say would work out the way you want. You presuppose that if you deport foreigners that a job automatically exists for an American. The reality is the job may no longer exist as once you make a business unprofitable, they go to another country.

Besides that, any American that wants to work can find a job. Thank God, protectionist put me on ignore so that we don't have to rehash this again, but if Americans don't apply for a job, they don't get it. It's that simple. I offer gigs. Most of the time Americans, especially white Americans, do not even bother to apply. But, when they are hired and they don't show up for a job - then you have some damn hard choices to make. I mean, here I am with four laborers and cement trucks show up and the six American guys aren't there. We can't turn the trucks back - well we can, but I'd be charged for the cement. So, we run down to the strip mall where day laborers are milling about and pick up six of them there. Now, that puts me "in the business" as protectionist calls it. What an absolute load of horseshit! I can't miss a deadline and reschedule just because Americans don't want to show up to work. What do you tell the customer? I'm supposed to lose my ass because an American don't show up for work?

And your math doesn't add up. So, an American gets a job that a foreigner had. If the guy somehow miraculously holds onto the job, he stills stays at home which means that a landlord isn't renting a house or apartment. Vacancies drive down the value of housing, which impacts the wealth of our nation. You simply don't understand how wealth is created and how imperative it is to clean up our own culture. Looking at one side of an accounting ledger, calling people names, and scapegoating foreigners over your own shortcomings is an immature and unrealistic way to do business. Denying what the law says won't get you where you want to go either.

Well why don't you pay them $20 bucks an hour you will get a 199 white guys applying for the job instead of just 6 people.


You admitting your exploiting brown people

That shows what a stupid son of a ***** you are. NO job among white employers pays laborers more than $16 an hour here. I sometimes offer gigs to low income and elderly people on fixed incomes. And still, when possible, I do not pay less than $22 an hour for ANY job. The guy that cuts my grass makes that. Come work with me for a day. Try paying what I do and this is part of a ministry (I don't make any money; the objective is to give white Americans that are locked out of the system a second chance.) Since we service those in need, they cannot pay the $980 an hour a plumber charges for a skill set he learned in sic months or so. So, because I help the poor keep their houses and not live in shacks (and donate my personal time) I'm in the business of .... ??? You are a ******* idiot and the only reason we're having this conversation is to watch you have a melt down and disappear like that lying sack of shit protectionist.

If either of you were worth a mouthful of spit, you'd be working to help me find people that needed a second chance and willing to work for it. Easier to play the victim card and blame others for your failures. You make me want to vomit.

$22 an hour ?


Now you are straight out lying.

 

[Wyatt earp]

That's always the solution for you right wing nuts, just cut off all funding the sanctuary cities and that'll straighten them out Well, I got news for you, California could just tell the Fed Gov't to flip off and it would be the FIFTH largest economy in the world!!!

Good we will pack California bags and throw a party


Just leave already

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I am retired you **** head ..

So again tell us how you want a billion illegals in here

He makes money from it. Shouldn't be in this thread.

You are a lying son of a *****. My time is donated to help others. I do not make a plug nickel off of my work. I draw no salary and the church I support realizes the plight of white males and provides the only ministry designed to get them back into the work force in this state. Additionally, you said you were putting me on ignore. You have no ethical standards to go along with being a pathological liar.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Refusing to cooperate with immigration officials is not harboring anyone. No one is going to jail for anything.

It's a clear violation of 1324, and whether they go to jail is not your call, is it ?

And it's not just refusing to cooperate. It's also ACTIVELY shielding, by passing laws to keep the aliens intact.

It is not a clear violation. My position is sustained by the fact the federal government has never brought a case. Obviously they agree with me. States and local governments are not required to enforce immigration laws. They don't have to investigate anyone's immigration status.

Trump likes throwing his weight around. Yet even he could not over - rule that United States Supreme Court holding I cited earlier. The legal principle you're discussing is called the anti-commandeering doctrine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/26/federalism-the-constitution-and-sanctuary-cities/

From your own link burrito breath, under current law....


under current law....

under current law....

under current law....





Not only would enforcing current law cost taxpayers, it would also burden the economy. Removing all undocumented immigrants would cause the labor force to shrink by 6.4 percent

Read more: The Budgetary and Economic Costs of Addressing Unauthorized Immigration: Alternative Strategies - AAF
Follow us: @AAF on Twittery

I suppose it is better to have burrito breath than shit breath - which is what you have. Under current law (which has been cited to you) the government cannot do what you want. There is no evidence that what you say would work out the way you want. You presuppose that if you deport foreigners that a job automatically exists for an American. The reality is the job may no longer exist as once you make a business unprofitable, they go to another country.

Besides that, any American that wants to work can find a job. Thank God, protectionist put me on ignore so that we don't have to rehash this again, but if Americans don't apply for a job, they don't get it. It's that simple. I offer gigs. Most of the time Americans, especially white Americans, do not even bother to apply. But, when they are hired and they don't show up for a job - then you have some damn hard choices to make. I mean, here I am with four laborers and cement trucks show up and the six American guys aren't there. We can't turn the trucks back - well we can, but I'd be charged for the cement. So, we run down to the strip mall where day laborers are milling about and pick up six of them there. Now, that puts me "in the business" as protectionist calls it. What an absolute load of horseshit! I can't miss a deadline and reschedule just because Americans don't want to show up to work. What do you tell the customer? I'm supposed to lose my ass because an American don't show up for work?

And your math doesn't add up. So, an American gets a job that a foreigner had. If the guy somehow miraculously holds onto the job, he stills stays at home which means that a landlord isn't renting a house or apartment. Vacancies drive down the value of housing, which impacts the wealth of our nation. You simply don't understand how wealth is created and how imperative it is to clean up our own culture. Looking at one side of an accounting ledger, calling people names, and scapegoating foreigners over your own shortcomings is an immature and unrealistic way to do business. Denying what the law says won't get you where you want to go either.

Well why don't you pay them $20 bucks an hour you will get a 199 white guys applying for the job instead of just 6 people.


You admitting your exploiting brown people

That shows what a stupid son of a ***** you are. NO job among white employers pays laborers more than $16 an hour here. I sometimes offer gigs to low income and elderly people on fixed incomes. And still, when possible, I do not pay less than $22 an hour for ANY job. The guy that cuts my grass makes that. Come work with me for a day. Try paying what I do and this is part of a ministry (I don't make any money; the objective is to give white Americans that are locked out of the system a second chance.) Since we service those in need, they cannot pay the $980 an hour a plumber charges for a skill set he learned in sic months or so. So, because I help the poor keep their houses and not live in shacks (and donate my personal time) I'm in the business of .... ??? You are a ******* idiot and the only reason we're having this conversation is to watch you have a melt down and disappear like that lying sack of shit protectionist.

If either of you were worth a mouthful of spit, you'd be working to help me find people that needed a second chance and willing to work for it. Easier to play the victim card and blame others for your failures. You make me want to vomit.

$22 an hour ?


Now you are straight out lying.

**** you liar. You called me out. I accepted your challenge. You tapped out. Now you call ME a liar? I've invited my critics to come and spend a few days with me. In the 15 years I've been on these discussion boards, not a swinging dick has ever come here to support our cause and work with me for a few days. Even in the years we've paid less than 22 dollars an hour, I've had to haul people to their jobs, the store, and then put a roof over their head. You just don't like the reality that the drug culture and mommies mollycoddling their children has led to a dependent society wherein the American people have become fat, happy, and lazy.

When I'm forced to use foreign labor, I don't like it. When you shop at stores and use businesses that you know employ foreigners, you are nothing but a hypocrite. You think that by denigrating me, it's going to change who and what you are. Yeah, you save a little money shopping at Wallyworld and buying junk made in China, Korea, and Japan, but your sorry ass does nothing but ***** as a service to your fellow Americans. IF the American people would push themselves away from their computers and go out and look for a job; when you"retired" guys became mentors to all those kids who grew up without a good male role model, you might impact the situation.

If it makes you feel good about yourself to call me names when you don't have the balls to do it to my face, have at it. If you think you can change the world by calling people names and wasting your time with Internet pissing matches, then you're going to lose. Know this: Donald Trump is the last American president. Once he leaves office, there will no longer be a Constitution and the ideology you hold will die with your generation, never having taught the younger generation about our heritage, the principles upon which the Republic rests and the will to resist tyranny. Hell, look at what you've become... a bitter, lying old windbag that hates the concept of Liberty and Freedom that is too stupid to figure it out. Change your culture and your problem goes away.

 

[SavannahMann]

I honestly love all the law experts here. For some reason, they do not understand the difference between a Retainer Request, and a Warrant. So let me explain. A Retainer Request is a letter from the INS asking the local cops to hold on to this guy or that girl until they get around to picking them up. The INS says they need time to determine if the individual is really illegal or not. Now, a request, even a request from another law enforcement agency is not a legal command.

Now, if the INS sends a warrant over, the police have no choice, they are required by law, both federal and state, to execute all warrants. But the INS does not want to do warrants. That requires a judge, and a lot more paperwork. So they want to keep it unofficial. They want to make it a request. Hey buddy, hold on to that person for us. We might be along shortly to pick them up.

Now, we do not let states decide Federal issues. We grant them the right and authority to manage anything that is not a Federal Issue. States can not declare war. States can not close their borders and prevent people from entering. States can not do a lot of things, because those things are relegated to the Federal Government.

Immigration is one of those things. A state can not declare that the Illegal Immigrant is now legal, because they said so. But States are not doing that. What they are doing is ignoring the requests. No request has the force of law. It is asking for something. What they are saying is that the Federal Government decided and the Supreme Court upheld the simple truth that immigration is a Federal Issue. It’s your authority to decide it, and enforce it. So enforce it without our help. If you want this person, get them on your own.

Now the Feds don’t want that. They want the locals to “cooperate” and by that they mean obey. But the Feds don’t want to take responsibility for their requests. They do not take over the responsibility of holding the individual in jail. It is a request, and not a legal order. That means the local cops are liable. They are liable and they are potentially criminally responsible.

Judge: Sheriff can't hold people for immigration authorities

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado sheriff's practice of continuing to jail people suspected of being in the country illegally on behalf of federal authorities is unconstitutional, a judge said as he barred the office from honoring the so-called "detainer" requests.

apnews.com

Not the only case, but just one. The Sheriff decided to continue calling INS, but not hold the suspects after their issue with the courts had been acted upon. So even if the INS sends the request, the Sheriff is prohibited by the Courts from honoring it. Or do you think that the request of a Federal Agent to hold someone is more powerful than a Judge? Because if you do, a lot of really streamlined justice can be meted out rather quickly. It won’t be just, and it won’t be based in law, but hey, at least it will be fast.

The “Sanctuary” cities, counties and states, are not forming a human barricade to stop the INS. That would be illegal. They are just saying that the INS is on it’s own and will get no assistance. That is perfectly fine. It is their right, and it is legal.

Let’s say that the police wanted access to my doorbell camera. I say no. The cop insists. I still say no. I am free to say no until I am given a warrant or subpoena. A written request does not carry any weight of law. It must be an order signed by the judge. Then I am compelled by law to obey. If I refuse after being given the warrant, then I am committing a crime.

But ignoring a request? That always has been and always will be legal.

 

[protectionist]

I honestly love all the law experts here. For some reason, they do not understand the difference between a Retainer Request, and a Warrant. So let me explain. A Retainer Request is a letter from the INS asking the local cops to hold on to this guy or that girl until they get around to picking them up. The INS says they need time to determine if the individual is really illegal or not. Now, a request, even a request from another law enforcement agency is not a legal command.

Now, if the INS sends a warrant over, the police have no choice, they are required by law, both federal and state, to execute all warrants. But the INS does not want to do warrants. That requires a judge, and a lot more paperwork. So they want to keep it unofficial. They want to make it a request. Hey buddy, hold on to that person for us. We might be along shortly to pick them up.

Now, we do not let states decide Federal issues. We grant them the right and authority to manage anything that is not a Federal Issue. States can not declare war. States can not close their borders and prevent people from entering. States can not do a lot of things, because those things are relegated to the Federal Government.

Immigration is one of those things. A state can not declare that the Illegal Immigrant is now legal, because they said so. But States are not doing that. What they are doing is ignoring the requests. No request has the force of law. It is asking for something. What they are saying is that the Federal Government decided and the Supreme Court upheld the simple truth that immigration is a Federal Issue. It’s your authority to decide it, and enforce it. So enforce it without our help. If you want this person, get them on your own.

Now the Feds don’t want that. They want the locals to “cooperate” and by that they mean obey. But the Feds don’t want to take responsibility for their requests. They do not take over the responsibility of holding the individual in jail. It is a request, and not a legal order. That means the local cops are liable. They are liable and they are potentially criminally responsible.

Judge: Sheriff can't hold people for immigration authorities

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado sheriff's practice of continuing to jail people suspected of being in the country illegally on behalf of federal authorities is unconstitutional, a judge said as he barred the office from honoring the so-called "detainer" requests.

apnews.com

Not the only case, but just one. The Sheriff decided to continue calling INS, but not hold the suspects after their issue with the courts had been acted upon. So even if the INS sends the request, the Sheriff is prohibited by the Courts from honoring it. Or do you think that the request of a Federal Agent to hold someone is more powerful than a Judge? Because if you do, a lot of really streamlined justice can be meted out rather quickly. It won’t be just, and it won’t be based in law, but hey, at least it will be fast.

The “Sanctuary” cities, counties and states, are not forming a human barricade to stop the INS. That would be illegal. They are just saying that the INS is on it’s own and will get no assistance. That is perfectly fine. It is their right, and it is legal.

Let’s say that the police wanted access to my doorbell camera. I say no. The cop insists. I still say no. I am free to say no until I am given a warrant or subpoena. A written request does not carry any weight of law. It must be an order signed by the judge. Then I am compelled by law to obey. If I refuse after being given the warrant, then I am committing a crime.

But ignoring a request? That always has been and always will be legal.

In addition to violating US Code 8 Section 1324, sanctuary city leaders are also violating US Code 8, section 1373, and can be prosecuted for that too.

8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service

www.law.cornell.edu

Just one example pending -
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Date Enacted: August 2017
Policy Decision Maker: Former Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner. Signed the TRUST Act
Detainer Policy: Has preliminarily been found to have laws, policies, or practices that may violate 8 U.S.C. 1373 by the DOJ.
Source: DOJ

On August 28, 2017, Rauner signed a bill into law that prohibited state and local police from arresting anyone solely due to their immigration status or due to federal detainers. Some Republicans criticized Rauner for his action, saying that the bill made Illinois a sanctuary state. On November 15, 2017, the DOJ announced that a preliminary conclusion had been reached that Illinois was now a sanctuary jurisdiction in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1373, and issued a warning to state authorities on the issue.
Rauner and the others lucked out when the DOJ changed hands from Jeff Sessions to William Barr, and other events took hold, but all 29 letters remain official DOJ business, and open cases to be continued.

Justice Department Sends Letters to 29 Jurisdictions Regarding Their Compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373

Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States

Updated 3/10/26: Map and list of sanctuary cities, counties, and state that are obstructing federal immigration enforcement.

cis.org

PS - You must be reading (and copy/pasting) from an article written prior to March 2003. This is 2020. There IS NO INS, and hasn't been one for 17 years. It was dissolved then, and converted into 3 seperate agencies (USCIS, CBP, and ICE). This really does make a fool out of your whole post.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I honestly love all the law experts here. For some reason, they do not understand the difference between a Retainer Request, and a Warrant. So let me explain. A Retainer Request is a letter from the INS asking the local cops to hold on to this guy or that girl until they get around to picking them up. The INS says they need time to determine if the individual is really illegal or not. Now, a request, even a request from another law enforcement agency is not a legal command.

Now, if the INS sends a warrant over, the police have no choice, they are required by law, both federal and state, to execute all warrants. But the INS does not want to do warrants. That requires a judge, and a lot more paperwork. So they want to keep it unofficial. They want to make it a request. Hey buddy, hold on to that person for us. We might be along shortly to pick them up.

Now, we do not let states decide Federal issues. We grant them the right and authority to manage anything that is not a Federal Issue. States can not declare war. States can not close their borders and prevent people from entering. States can not do a lot of things, because those things are relegated to the Federal Government.

Immigration is one of those things. A state can not declare that the Illegal Immigrant is now legal, because they said so. But States are not doing that. What they are doing is ignoring the requests. No request has the force of law. It is asking for something. What they are saying is that the Federal Government decided and the Supreme Court upheld the simple truth that immigration is a Federal Issue. It’s your authority to decide it, and enforce it. So enforce it without our help. If you want this person, get them on your own.

Now the Feds don’t want that. They want the locals to “cooperate” and by that they mean obey. But the Feds don’t want to take responsibility for their requests. They do not take over the responsibility of holding the individual in jail. It is a request, and not a legal order. That means the local cops are liable. They are liable and they are potentially criminally responsible.

Judge: Sheriff can't hold people for immigration authorities

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado sheriff's practice of continuing to jail people suspected of being in the country illegally on behalf of federal authorities is unconstitutional, a judge said as he barred the office from honoring the so-called "detainer" requests.

apnews.com

Not the only case, but just one. The Sheriff decided to continue calling INS, but not hold the suspects after their issue with the courts had been acted upon. So even if the INS sends the request, the Sheriff is prohibited by the Courts from honoring it. Or do you think that the request of a Federal Agent to hold someone is more powerful than a Judge? Because if you do, a lot of really streamlined justice can be meted out rather quickly. It won’t be just, and it won’t be based in law, but hey, at least it will be fast.

The “Sanctuary” cities, counties and states, are not forming a human barricade to stop the INS. That would be illegal. They are just saying that the INS is on it’s own and will get no assistance. That is perfectly fine. It is their right, and it is legal.

Let’s say that the police wanted access to my doorbell camera. I say no. The cop insists. I still say no. I am free to say no until I am given a warrant or subpoena. A written request does not carry any weight of law. It must be an order signed by the judge. Then I am compelled by law to obey. If I refuse after being given the warrant, then I am committing a crime.

But ignoring a request? That always has been and always will be legal.

I have explained this no less than 100 times on this board. The half wits will now claim that all you are all about are the so - called "illegal aliens." BTW, I worked IN immigration law for six years. You can check my posts and figure it out. I'm not lying and telling the clique group here the facts does not put me "in the business" ... fill in the blank with your favorite slur. Having worked the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and worked with people to pass the citizenship test ... as well as man the border as a civilian border patrol volunteer, I think I know most of the facts from the B.S. That's was what I set out to do way back then.

 

[SavannahMann]

I honestly love all the law experts here. For some reason, they do not understand the difference between a Retainer Request, and a Warrant. So let me explain. A Retainer Request is a letter from the INS asking the local cops to hold on to this guy or that girl until they get around to picking them up. The INS says they need time to determine if the individual is really illegal or not. Now, a request, even a request from another law enforcement agency is not a legal command.

Now, if the INS sends a warrant over, the police have no choice, they are required by law, both federal and state, to execute all warrants. But the INS does not want to do warrants. That requires a judge, and a lot more paperwork. So they want to keep it unofficial. They want to make it a request. Hey buddy, hold on to that person for us. We might be along shortly to pick them up.

Now, we do not let states decide Federal issues. We grant them the right and authority to manage anything that is not a Federal Issue. States can not declare war. States can not close their borders and prevent people from entering. States can not do a lot of things, because those things are relegated to the Federal Government.

Immigration is one of those things. A state can not declare that the Illegal Immigrant is now legal, because they said so. But States are not doing that. What they are doing is ignoring the requests. No request has the force of law. It is asking for something. What they are saying is that the Federal Government decided and the Supreme Court upheld the simple truth that immigration is a Federal Issue. It’s your authority to decide it, and enforce it. So enforce it without our help. If you want this person, get them on your own.

Now the Feds don’t want that. They want the locals to “cooperate” and by that they mean obey. But the Feds don’t want to take responsibility for their requests. They do not take over the responsibility of holding the individual in jail. It is a request, and not a legal order. That means the local cops are liable. They are liable and they are potentially criminally responsible.

Judge: Sheriff can't hold people for immigration authorities

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado sheriff's practice of continuing to jail people suspected of being in the country illegally on behalf of federal authorities is unconstitutional, a judge said as he barred the office from honoring the so-called "detainer" requests.

apnews.com

Not the only case, but just one. The Sheriff decided to continue calling INS, but not hold the suspects after their issue with the courts had been acted upon. So even if the INS sends the request, the Sheriff is prohibited by the Courts from honoring it. Or do you think that the request of a Federal Agent to hold someone is more powerful than a Judge? Because if you do, a lot of really streamlined justice can be meted out rather quickly. It won’t be just, and it won’t be based in law, but hey, at least it will be fast.

The “Sanctuary” cities, counties and states, are not forming a human barricade to stop the INS. That would be illegal. They are just saying that the INS is on it’s own and will get no assistance. That is perfectly fine. It is their right, and it is legal.

Let’s say that the police wanted access to my doorbell camera. I say no. The cop insists. I still say no. I am free to say no until I am given a warrant or subpoena. A written request does not carry any weight of law. It must be an order signed by the judge. Then I am compelled by law to obey. If I refuse after being given the warrant, then I am committing a crime.

But ignoring a request? That always has been and always will be legal.

In addition to violating US Code 8 Section 1324, sanctuary city leaders are also violating US Code 8, section 1373, and can be prosecuted for that too.

8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service

www.law.cornell.edu

Just one example pending -
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Date Enacted: August 2017
Policy Decision Maker: Former Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner. Signed the TRUST Act
Detainer Policy: Has preliminarily been found to have laws, policies, or practices that may violate 8 U.S.C. 1373 by the DOJ.
Source: DOJ

On August 28, 2017, Rauner signed a bill into law that prohibited state and local police from arresting anyone solely due to their immigration status or due to federal detainers. Some Republicans criticized Rauner for his action, saying that the bill made Illinois a sanctuary state. On November 15, 2017, the DOJ announced that a preliminary conclusion had been reached that Illinois was now a sanctuary jurisdiction in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1373, and issued a warning to state authorities on the issue.
Rauner and the others lucked out when the DOJ changed hands from Jeff Sessions to William Barr, and other events took hold, but all 29 letters remain official DOJ business, and open cases to be continued.

Justice Department Sends Letters to 29 Jurisdictions Regarding Their Compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373

Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States

Updated 3/10/26: Map and list of sanctuary cities, counties, and state that are obstructing federal immigration enforcement.

cis.org

PS - You must be reading (and copy/pasting) from an article written prior to March 2003. This is 2020. There IS NO INS, and hasn't been one for 17 years. It was dissolved then, and converted into 3 seperate agencies (USCIS, CBP, and ICE). This really does make a fool out of your whole post.

I am an old man. I was in Los Angeles during the 1984 Olympics when the joke was that Mexico wasn’t sending a team to the Olympics because everyone who could run, jump, or swim was already here. I know about the switch in names. But it is all the same idiots doing the same thing with expanded authority under the Department of Homeland Insecurity. And the article I included where the Judge was telling the Sheriff he could not hold people for Detainers was from 2018.

Even the more recent Trump friendly decisions have not changed that. The Supreme Court for example ruled that Kansas could enforce identity theft charges against illegals if they used the stolen SSN’s on documents pertaining to the State, for example State Withholding and tax documents. It did not give Kansas, or any other state the authority to enforce Immigration law. They just said that Kansas could enforce State Law on people within their states, which makes sense.

I would encourage the DOJ to charge people under their reading of the law. Because that is how we establish what the law really says, during the trials, and appeals, until the final decision. And by what the law really says, I mean the law in consideration with the totality of the Constitution and the other laws. But the DOJ has not, and why? Not because Sessions is gone, and Barr is in. Because the DOJ knows that first they have to try the defendants in their home states. Good luck with that. If the Jury finds them not guilty, which is definitely possible, then you have a very public defeat. Sometimes worth it to define the law, but usually an embarrassment that you do not want to try on for size if you hope to extend and enhance your career.

Even if they are found guilty, the decision would be challenged straight up the courts to the Supreme, and who knows how they would decide. I mean, they upheld that a Border Patrolman could commit murder across the Border and not be held accountable here. See Jesus Mesa Jr.

In a way, the Detainers are similar to the National Security Letters which were unconstitutional on their face. You can’t tell someone that you require them to comply but they are not allowed to discuss the letter with anyone including a lawyer. The right to consult with an attorney is a constitutional right. Gag orders are legal only when they are signed by a Judge. I always wanted to see someone arrested for that. You have the right to an attorney for the crime of consulting an attorney? Funniest Arrest Ever.

Immigration remains a Federal Crime. The Constitution gives the Federal Government the right and authority to set Immigration policy and enforcement. What the states are saying is this. It’s your problem, you deal with it. You want to arrest this guy? You get him. It’s not my problem.

The Supreme Court has upheld the right and authority of the Federal Government to set and enforce Immigration law. So go ahead, charge people. It will be an interesting story don’t you think?

 

[protectionist]

Immigration remains a Federal Crime. The Constitution gives the Federal Government the right and authority to set Immigration policy and enforcement. What the states are saying is this. It’s your problem, you deal with it. You want to arrest this guy? You get him. It’s not my problem.

It'll be their problem when they find themselves in a federal pen. Or up against the death penalty, for the worst cases.

And Hillary - going from the White House, to the Big House. Likewise with Obama.

 

[SavannahMann]

I honestly love all the law experts here. For some reason, they do not understand the difference between a Retainer Request, and a Warrant. So let me explain. A Retainer Request is a letter from the INS asking the local cops to hold on to this guy or that girl until they get around to picking them up. The INS says they need time to determine if the individual is really illegal or not. Now, a request, even a request from another law enforcement agency is not a legal command.

Now, if the INS sends a warrant over, the police have no choice, they are required by law, both federal and state, to execute all warrants. But the INS does not want to do warrants. That requires a judge, and a lot more paperwork. So they want to keep it unofficial. They want to make it a request. Hey buddy, hold on to that person for us. We might be along shortly to pick them up.

Now, we do not let states decide Federal issues. We grant them the right and authority to manage anything that is not a Federal Issue. States can not declare war. States can not close their borders and prevent people from entering. States can not do a lot of things, because those things are relegated to the Federal Government.

Immigration is one of those things. A state can not declare that the Illegal Immigrant is now legal, because they said so. But States are not doing that. What they are doing is ignoring the requests. No request has the force of law. It is asking for something. What they are saying is that the Federal Government decided and the Supreme Court upheld the simple truth that immigration is a Federal Issue. It’s your authority to decide it, and enforce it. So enforce it without our help. If you want this person, get them on your own.

Now the Feds don’t want that. They want the locals to “cooperate” and by that they mean obey. But the Feds don’t want to take responsibility for their requests. They do not take over the responsibility of holding the individual in jail. It is a request, and not a legal order. That means the local cops are liable. They are liable and they are potentially criminally responsible.

Judge: Sheriff can't hold people for immigration authorities

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado sheriff's practice of continuing to jail people suspected of being in the country illegally on behalf of federal authorities is unconstitutional, a judge said as he barred the office from honoring the so-called "detainer" requests.

apnews.com

Not the only case, but just one. The Sheriff decided to continue calling INS, but not hold the suspects after their issue with the courts had been acted upon. So even if the INS sends the request, the Sheriff is prohibited by the Courts from honoring it. Or do you think that the request of a Federal Agent to hold someone is more powerful than a Judge? Because if you do, a lot of really streamlined justice can be meted out rather quickly. It won’t be just, and it won’t be based in law, but hey, at least it will be fast.

The “Sanctuary” cities, counties and states, are not forming a human barricade to stop the INS. That would be illegal. They are just saying that the INS is on it’s own and will get no assistance. That is perfectly fine. It is their right, and it is legal.

Let’s say that the police wanted access to my doorbell camera. I say no. The cop insists. I still say no. I am free to say no until I am given a warrant or subpoena. A written request does not carry any weight of law. It must be an order signed by the judge. Then I am compelled by law to obey. If I refuse after being given the warrant, then I am committing a crime.

But ignoring a request? That always has been and always will be legal.

I have explained this no less than 100 times on this board. The half wits will now claim that all you are all about are the so - called "illegal aliens." BTW, I worked IN immigration law for six years. You can check my posts and figure it out. I'm not lying and telling the clique group here the facts does not put me "in the business" ... fill in the blank with your favorite slur. Having worked the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and worked with people to pass the citizenship test ... as well as man the border as a civilian border patrol volunteer, I think I know most of the facts from the B.S. That's was what I set out to do way back then.

I have no problem calling them Illegal Aliens. I encourage the Federal Government to enforce their laws. I object when the Federal Government demands that locals enforce their laws. Just as I did when the Brady Law required local police to conduct Federally approved background checks using Federal Databases. Now,, those checks are made by the FBI. Which is exactly the way it should be. Your laws, you passed them, you enforce them, you do the work.

When the Brady Law was passed, this old man remembers the long discussions held over the term Unfunded Mandate. That was a bad thing. But now it is a good thing according to the members of the same party that opposed the Unfunded Mandate back then. Forcing Sheriff’s and Taxpayers to hold a guy for a couple days, or longer, at their own expense, and using limited space, is totally fine. While a ten minute background check was too expensive, back then.

It’s all bullshit. There was a story when Bill Clinton was being sworn in for the first time. It is almost certainly bullshit. However the story goes that as the Air Force Jets flew over, a staffer asked another what the hell the Military was doing here. The second staffer said that those were ours now.

The same Unfunded Mandate attitude that needed to be opposed during the Clinton Era, are now the duties of every citizen today. That it cost even more to hold a guy for days in jail than it did to perform a background check is irrelevant. That the same principles that applied then, are un-American today is ignored. Assuming that today’s Neo Conservatives and Neo Constitutionalists are even aware of the history.

 

[SavannahMann]

Immigration remains a Federal Crime. The Constitution gives the Federal Government the right and authority to set Immigration policy and enforcement. What the states are saying is this. It’s your problem, you deal with it. You want to arrest this guy? You get him. It’s not my problem.

It'll be their problem when they find themselves in a federal pen. Or up against the death penalty, for the worst cases.

And Hillary - going from the White House, to the Big House. Likewise with Obama.

For refusing a request? Death Penalty? Really? Hi Boys and Girls. The word for the day is unhinged. Can you say unhinged?

As I said I am an old man. Perhaps you can educate me. Explain to me why the Unfunded Mandate of the Brady Law was unconstitutional. The requirement that local Sheriff’s had to have a phone line and operators standing by to conduct background checks was too expensive and manpower intensive. Yet, holding a guy for days in a jail with overcrowding as most do, absent charges, based upon a Detainer Request, is not an Unfunded Mandate?

Better yet, why not get a warrant? If there is a warrant, the local cops have no choice. They must comply. That is the law in both Federal and States. Any police officers who do not comply with the warrant can be prosecuted. Any department that refuses to allow officers to comply with the warrant would be criminal and subject to criminal and civil penalties.

So why not get a Warrant? End the entire debate. End the entire discussion. Make the Sanctuary Cities and States irrelevant. Warrants must be executed right?

 

[james bond]

Trump has threatened to withhold aid money to governments that have sanctuary policies for illegal aliens. Good.

And together with that, the leaders of these traitorous governments should be arrested. Convicting them should be easy, since they signed their names to these illegal sanctuary policies, by actually passing laws to shield illegal aliens from detection, and conceal them.

Slam dunk.

Cities should want illegal aliens as they take the jobs no one wants and contribute to the economy there. I'm not against the working poor coming in to my city. They get rid of homeless as they move out because of competition for the scant resources for the poor. People die and these people help replace them. This is what America was founded on. The homeless move to the non-sanctuary cities nearby.

 

[SavannahMann]

I honestly love all the law experts here. For some reason, they do not understand the difference between a Retainer Request, and a Warrant. So let me explain. A Retainer Request is a letter from the INS asking the local cops to hold on to this guy or that girl until they get around to picking them up. The INS says they need time to determine if the individual is really illegal or not. Now, a request, even a request from another law enforcement agency is not a legal command.

Now, if the INS sends a warrant over, the police have no choice, they are required by law, both federal and state, to execute all warrants. But the INS does not want to do warrants. That requires a judge, and a lot more paperwork. So they want to keep it unofficial. They want to make it a request. Hey buddy, hold on to that person for us. We might be along shortly to pick them up.

Now, we do not let states decide Federal issues. We grant them the right and authority to manage anything that is not a Federal Issue. States can not declare war. States can not close their borders and prevent people from entering. States can not do a lot of things, because those things are relegated to the Federal Government.

Immigration is one of those things. A state can not declare that the Illegal Immigrant is now legal, because they said so. But States are not doing that. What they are doing is ignoring the requests. No request has the force of law. It is asking for something. What they are saying is that the Federal Government decided and the Supreme Court upheld the simple truth that immigration is a Federal Issue. It’s your authority to decide it, and enforce it. So enforce it without our help. If you want this person, get them on your own.

Now the Feds don’t want that. They want the locals to “cooperate” and by that they mean obey. But the Feds don’t want to take responsibility for their requests. They do not take over the responsibility of holding the individual in jail. It is a request, and not a legal order. That means the local cops are liable. They are liable and they are potentially criminally responsible.

Judge: Sheriff can't hold people for immigration authorities

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado sheriff's practice of continuing to jail people suspected of being in the country illegally on behalf of federal authorities is unconstitutional, a judge said as he barred the office from honoring the so-called "detainer" requests.

apnews.com

Not the only case, but just one. The Sheriff decided to continue calling INS, but not hold the suspects after their issue with the courts had been acted upon. So even if the INS sends the request, the Sheriff is prohibited by the Courts from honoring it. Or do you think that the request of a Federal Agent to hold someone is more powerful than a Judge? Because if you do, a lot of really streamlined justice can be meted out rather quickly. It won’t be just, and it won’t be based in law, but hey, at least it will be fast.

The “Sanctuary” cities, counties and states, are not forming a human barricade to stop the INS. That would be illegal. They are just saying that the INS is on it’s own and will get no assistance. That is perfectly fine. It is their right, and it is legal.

Let’s say that the police wanted access to my doorbell camera. I say no. The cop insists. I still say no. I am free to say no until I am given a warrant or subpoena. A written request does not carry any weight of law. It must be an order signed by the judge. Then I am compelled by law to obey. If I refuse after being given the warrant, then I am committing a crime.

But ignoring a request? That always has been and always will be legal.

I have explained this no less than 100 times on this board. The half wits will now claim that all you are all about are the so - called "illegal aliens." BTW, I worked IN immigration law for six years. You can check my posts and figure it out. I'm not lying and telling the clique group here the facts does not put me "in the business" ... fill in the blank with your favorite slur. Having worked the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and worked with people to pass the citizenship test ... as well as man the border as a civilian border patrol volunteer, I think I know most of the facts from the B.S. That's was what I set out to do way back then.

I had a question, and perhaps you could help clarify the issue for me. Why not go with a warrant? The local cops are required to execute a warrant. Now, my impression is that once a warrant is issued, then certain protections, including access to a lawyer are essentially automatic. The ability to administratively decide the outcome of the case, and present it to an overworked immigration judge as a done deal is out the window. I say impression, because I am not a lawyer. And during my discussions with lawyers this has never come up, and I don’t know any immigration lawyers.

I know the detaining of individuals at port of entries has been an issue for a long time. Actions that I consider to be absolutely unconstitutional. Detaining a citizen for hours without a lawyer is problematic at best. Don’t get me started on the hundred mile from a port of entry authority of CBP to search vehicles.

However, I really can’t understand why the CBP does not just end the Sanctuary Cities policies with a Warrant. Even the most States Rights defenders could not argue with a Warrant.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I honestly love all the law experts here. For some reason, they do not understand the difference between a Retainer Request, and a Warrant. So let me explain. A Retainer Request is a letter from the INS asking the local cops to hold on to this guy or that girl until they get around to picking them up. The INS says they need time to determine if the individual is really illegal or not. Now, a request, even a request from another law enforcement agency is not a legal command.

Now, if the INS sends a warrant over, the police have no choice, they are required by law, both federal and state, to execute all warrants. But the INS does not want to do warrants. That requires a judge, and a lot more paperwork. So they want to keep it unofficial. They want to make it a request. Hey buddy, hold on to that person for us. We might be along shortly to pick them up.

Now, we do not let states decide Federal issues. We grant them the right and authority to manage anything that is not a Federal Issue. States can not declare war. States can not close their borders and prevent people from entering. States can not do a lot of things, because those things are relegated to the Federal Government.

Immigration is one of those things. A state can not declare that the Illegal Immigrant is now legal, because they said so. But States are not doing that. What they are doing is ignoring the requests. No request has the force of law. It is asking for something. What they are saying is that the Federal Government decided and the Supreme Court upheld the simple truth that immigration is a Federal Issue. It’s your authority to decide it, and enforce it. So enforce it without our help. If you want this person, get them on your own.

Now the Feds don’t want that. They want the locals to “cooperate” and by that they mean obey. But the Feds don’t want to take responsibility for their requests. They do not take over the responsibility of holding the individual in jail. It is a request, and not a legal order. That means the local cops are liable. They are liable and they are potentially criminally responsible.

Judge: Sheriff can't hold people for immigration authorities

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado sheriff's practice of continuing to jail people suspected of being in the country illegally on behalf of federal authorities is unconstitutional, a judge said as he barred the office from honoring the so-called "detainer" requests.

apnews.com

Not the only case, but just one. The Sheriff decided to continue calling INS, but not hold the suspects after their issue with the courts had been acted upon. So even if the INS sends the request, the Sheriff is prohibited by the Courts from honoring it. Or do you think that the request of a Federal Agent to hold someone is more powerful than a Judge? Because if you do, a lot of really streamlined justice can be meted out rather quickly. It won’t be just, and it won’t be based in law, but hey, at least it will be fast.

The “Sanctuary” cities, counties and states, are not forming a human barricade to stop the INS. That would be illegal. They are just saying that the INS is on it’s own and will get no assistance. That is perfectly fine. It is their right, and it is legal.

Let’s say that the police wanted access to my doorbell camera. I say no. The cop insists. I still say no. I am free to say no until I am given a warrant or subpoena. A written request does not carry any weight of law. It must be an order signed by the judge. Then I am compelled by law to obey. If I refuse after being given the warrant, then I am committing a crime.

But ignoring a request? That always has been and always will be legal.

I have explained this no less than 100 times on this board. The half wits will now claim that all you are all about are the so - called "illegal aliens." BTW, I worked IN immigration law for six years. You can check my posts and figure it out. I'm not lying and telling the clique group here the facts does not put me "in the business" ... fill in the blank with your favorite slur. Having worked the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and worked with people to pass the citizenship test ... as well as man the border as a civilian border patrol volunteer, I think I know most of the facts from the B.S. That's was what I set out to do way back then.

I had a question, and perhaps you could help clarify the issue for me. Why not go with a warrant? The local cops are required to execute a warrant. Now, my impression is that once a warrant is issued, then certain protections, including access to a lawyer are essentially automatic. The ability to administratively decide the outcome of the case, and present it to an overworked immigration judge as a done deal is out the window. I say impression, because I am not a lawyer. And during my discussions with lawyers this has never come up, and I don’t know any immigration lawyers.

I know the detaining of individuals at port of entries has been an issue for a long time. Actions that I consider to be absolutely unconstitutional. Detaining a citizen for hours without a lawyer is problematic at best. Don’t get me started on the hundred mile from a port of entry authority of CBP to search vehicles.

However, I really can’t understand why the CBP does not just end the Sanctuary Cities policies with a Warrant. Even the most States Rights defenders could not argue with a Warrant.

A warrant for what?

 

[busybee01]

It is not a clear violation. My position is sustained by the fact the federal government has never brought a case. Obviously they agree with me. States and local governments are not required to enforce immigration laws. They don't have to investigate anyone's immigration status.

1. Clear violation. Few violations are more clear. As for the fed govt bringing a case or not, you show no evidence here of that. You think we're just going to take your word for it ? And just hypothetically, even if the feds had not brought a case, that would have no bearing. Every case that has been brought, at one time, had never been brought. Cases are made by how correct they are, not by their past records.Duh!

2. You keep repeating what I've already responded to and eliminated. AGAIN (for the 20th time) States and local governments are required to ABIDE BY immigration laws. They cannot conceal, harbor, shield illegal aliens, period, which is precisely what they're doing with sanctuary law.

1. Name a link to 1 case. It is not a clear violation as there is no law that requires states or local governments to cooperate. ICE can ask for help from local governments but local governments are not required to honor such a request.

2. You have not eliminated anything. You continue to show your ignorance by repeating the4 same nonsense. What law requires local governments to cooperate with ICE? There is no such law as it would be unconstitutional.

 

[busybee01]

Suburban voters are moving against Republicans. There will be no Operation censored 2.

When it happens nobody will even notice that you said it wouldn't. -just like Democrats said it will never happen in 1953 (Adlai Stevenson). It happened, big time in 1954, and it's one of the prime reasons Eisenhower got re-elected in 1956. Listening, Joe Biden ?

Don't hold your breath waiting. You'll die from lack of oxygen which might not be a bad thing.

 

[busybee01]

That's always the solution for you right wing nuts, just cut off all funding the sanctuary cities and that'll straighten them out Well, I got news for you, California could just tell the Fed Gov't to flip off and it would be the FIFTH largest economy in the world!!!

I wish California would do just that, and secede from the USA, while they are at it. I lived in that degraded wasteland for 12 years, and I know how bad it is. Good riddance California. Too bad we cant just take a chainsaw and cut them off from the US , and let them drift out to sea, and get as far away as possible. Bon voyage!

In 2016, I was overjoyed to see those 3 Pacific coast states' electoral votes rendered irrelevant, with Trump being victorious, even before their illegal alien votes were counted. They got beaten by just Texas, Louisiana, and Florida alone.

View attachment 338508

Flip Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Trump loses. That is all Biden has to do. However Arizona, Texas and even Georgia are in play.

 

[busybee01]

I honestly love all the law experts here. For some reason, they do not understand the difference between a Retainer Request, and a Warrant. So let me explain. A Retainer Request is a letter from the INS asking the local cops to hold on to this guy or that girl until they get around to picking them up. The INS says they need time to determine if the individual is really illegal or not. Now, a request, even a request from another law enforcement agency is not a legal command.

Now, if the INS sends a warrant over, the police have no choice, they are required by law, both federal and state, to execute all warrants. But the INS does not want to do warrants. That requires a judge, and a lot more paperwork. So they want to keep it unofficial. They want to make it a request. Hey buddy, hold on to that person for us. We might be along shortly to pick them up.

Now, we do not let states decide Federal issues. We grant them the right and authority to manage anything that is not a Federal Issue. States can not declare war. States can not close their borders and prevent people from entering. States can not do a lot of things, because those things are relegated to the Federal Government.

Immigration is one of those things. A state can not declare that the Illegal Immigrant is now legal, because they said so. But States are not doing that. What they are doing is ignoring the requests. No request has the force of law. It is asking for something. What they are saying is that the Federal Government decided and the Supreme Court upheld the simple truth that immigration is a Federal Issue. It’s your authority to decide it, and enforce it. So enforce it without our help. If you want this person, get them on your own.

Now the Feds don’t want that. They want the locals to “cooperate” and by that they mean obey. But the Feds don’t want to take responsibility for their requests. They do not take over the responsibility of holding the individual in jail. It is a request, and not a legal order. That means the local cops are liable. They are liable and they are potentially criminally responsible.

Judge: Sheriff can't hold people for immigration authorities

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado sheriff's practice of continuing to jail people suspected of being in the country illegally on behalf of federal authorities is unconstitutional, a judge said as he barred the office from honoring the so-called "detainer" requests.

apnews.com

Not the only case, but just one. The Sheriff decided to continue calling INS, but not hold the suspects after their issue with the courts had been acted upon. So even if the INS sends the request, the Sheriff is prohibited by the Courts from honoring it. Or do you think that the request of a Federal Agent to hold someone is more powerful than a Judge? Because if you do, a lot of really streamlined justice can be meted out rather quickly. It won’t be just, and it won’t be based in law, but hey, at least it will be fast.

The “Sanctuary” cities, counties and states, are not forming a human barricade to stop the INS. That would be illegal. They are just saying that the INS is on it’s own and will get no assistance. That is perfectly fine. It is their right, and it is legal.

Let’s say that the police wanted access to my doorbell camera. I say no. The cop insists. I still say no. I am free to say no until I am given a warrant or subpoena. A written request does not carry any weight of law. It must be an order signed by the judge. Then I am compelled by law to obey. If I refuse after being given the warrant, then I am committing a crime.

But ignoring a request? That always has been and always will be legal.

In addition to violating US Code 8 Section 1324, sanctuary city leaders are also violating US Code 8, section 1373, and can be prosecuted for that too.

8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service

www.law.cornell.edu

Just one example pending -
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Date Enacted: August 2017
Policy Decision Maker: Former Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner. Signed the TRUST Act
Detainer Policy: Has preliminarily been found to have laws, policies, or practices that may violate 8 U.S.C. 1373 by the DOJ.
Source: DOJ

On August 28, 2017, Rauner signed a bill into law that prohibited state and local police from arresting anyone solely due to their immigration status or due to federal detainers. Some Republicans criticized Rauner for his action, saying that the bill made Illinois a sanctuary state. On November 15, 2017, the DOJ announced that a preliminary conclusion had been reached that Illinois was now a sanctuary jurisdiction in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1373, and issued a warning to state authorities on the issue.
Rauner and the others lucked out when the DOJ changed hands from Jeff Sessions to William Barr, and other events took hold, but all 29 letters remain official DOJ business, and open cases to be continued.

Justice Department Sends Letters to 29 Jurisdictions Regarding Their Compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373

Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States

Updated 3/10/26: Map and list of sanctuary cities, counties, and state that are obstructing federal immigration enforcement.

cis.org

PS - You must be reading (and copy/pasting) from an article written prior to March 2003. This is 2020. There IS NO INS, and hasn't been one for 17 years. It was dissolved then, and converted into 3 seperate agencies (USCIS, CBP, and ICE). This really does make a fool out of your whole post.

The federal government can demand all they want. The fact is no court case has been filed. That is all it is. Threats.

 

[SavannahMann]

I honestly love all the law experts here. For some reason, they do not understand the difference between a Retainer Request, and a Warrant. So let me explain. A Retainer Request is a letter from the INS asking the local cops to hold on to this guy or that girl until they get around to picking them up. The INS says they need time to determine if the individual is really illegal or not. Now, a request, even a request from another law enforcement agency is not a legal command.

Now, if the INS sends a warrant over, the police have no choice, they are required by law, both federal and state, to execute all warrants. But the INS does not want to do warrants. That requires a judge, and a lot more paperwork. So they want to keep it unofficial. They want to make it a request. Hey buddy, hold on to that person for us. We might be along shortly to pick them up.

Now, we do not let states decide Federal issues. We grant them the right and authority to manage anything that is not a Federal Issue. States can not declare war. States can not close their borders and prevent people from entering. States can not do a lot of things, because those things are relegated to the Federal Government.

Immigration is one of those things. A state can not declare that the Illegal Immigrant is now legal, because they said so. But States are not doing that. What they are doing is ignoring the requests. No request has the force of law. It is asking for something. What they are saying is that the Federal Government decided and the Supreme Court upheld the simple truth that immigration is a Federal Issue. It’s your authority to decide it, and enforce it. So enforce it without our help. If you want this person, get them on your own.

Now the Feds don’t want that. They want the locals to “cooperate” and by that they mean obey. But the Feds don’t want to take responsibility for their requests. They do not take over the responsibility of holding the individual in jail. It is a request, and not a legal order. That means the local cops are liable. They are liable and they are potentially criminally responsible.

Judge: Sheriff can't hold people for immigration authorities

DENVER (AP) — A Colorado sheriff's practice of continuing to jail people suspected of being in the country illegally on behalf of federal authorities is unconstitutional, a judge said as he barred the office from honoring the so-called "detainer" requests.

apnews.com

Not the only case, but just one. The Sheriff decided to continue calling INS, but not hold the suspects after their issue with the courts had been acted upon. So even if the INS sends the request, the Sheriff is prohibited by the Courts from honoring it. Or do you think that the request of a Federal Agent to hold someone is more powerful than a Judge? Because if you do, a lot of really streamlined justice can be meted out rather quickly. It won’t be just, and it won’t be based in law, but hey, at least it will be fast.

The “Sanctuary” cities, counties and states, are not forming a human barricade to stop the INS. That would be illegal. They are just saying that the INS is on it’s own and will get no assistance. That is perfectly fine. It is their right, and it is legal.

Let’s say that the police wanted access to my doorbell camera. I say no. The cop insists. I still say no. I am free to say no until I am given a warrant or subpoena. A written request does not carry any weight of law. It must be an order signed by the judge. Then I am compelled by law to obey. If I refuse after being given the warrant, then I am committing a crime.

But ignoring a request? That always has been and always will be legal.

I have explained this no less than 100 times on this board. The half wits will now claim that all you are all about are the so - called "illegal aliens." BTW, I worked IN immigration law for six years. You can check my posts and figure it out. I'm not lying and telling the clique group here the facts does not put me "in the business" ... fill in the blank with your favorite slur. Having worked the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and worked with people to pass the citizenship test ... as well as man the border as a civilian border patrol volunteer, I think I know most of the facts from the B.S. That's was what I set out to do way back then.

I had a question, and perhaps you could help clarify the issue for me. Why not go with a warrant? The local cops are required to execute a warrant. Now, my impression is that once a warrant is issued, then certain protections, including access to a lawyer are essentially automatic. The ability to administratively decide the outcome of the case, and present it to an overworked immigration judge as a done deal is out the window. I say impression, because I am not a lawyer. And during my discussions with lawyers this has never come up, and I don’t know any immigration lawyers.

I know the detaining of individuals at port of entries has been an issue for a long time. Actions that I consider to be absolutely unconstitutional. Detaining a citizen for hours without a lawyer is problematic at best. Don’t get me started on the hundred mile from a port of entry authority of CBP to search vehicles.

However, I really can’t understand why the CBP does not just end the Sanctuary Cities policies with a Warrant. Even the most States Rights defenders could not argue with a Warrant.

A warrant for what?

Instead of just detaining the illegal immigrant have a warrant for his arrest.