- Oct 20, 2013
- 55,581
- 17,637
- 2,250
- Thread starter
- #201
This "when the Federal Government demands that locals enforce their laws" line is so old and shot to hell, it is just a pile of smelly dust. For the 20 millionth time in 7 years that I've been in this forum, nobody is asking anybody to do anything, except just ABIDE BY the federal law (US Code 8 Section 1324 & 1373). Don't declare sanctuary, and don't conceal, harbor, shield illegal aliens, If you do, feds are gonna deliver a can of whoop ass on you. Eventually, they'll get around to it.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.
This has been told waaaay more than enough times fro everybody to have gotten it by now.
