Should San Francisco mayor Ed Lee be arrested or at the very least recalled?

[Ravi]

No. Blaming the mayor for this murder is no different than blaming a gun manufacturer for someone getting shot or a brewery for a DUI.

I blame the mayor for the crime he continues to commit by disregarding federal law. The murder of an American citizen was the direct result of the crime the mayor committed. The two crimes are NOT separable

Exactly what federal law did he "disregard"? And exactly what do you mean by "disregard"?

The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act requires local governments to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Read more at: Defying Law National Review Online

THAT law

The article is incorrect. That particular law gives local agencies the ability to enforce federal immigration law if properly trained. It does not compel them to do so.

So they were improperly trained to make a ******* phone call?

You conveniently forget that this piece of shit was ALREADY IN PRISON in SF so obviously SF law enforcement had the "proper training" to make a phone call and wait for ICE to pick up said piece of shit felon and get his ass out of the country

Why do you keep moving goal posts? Your article was incorrect. Also, where are your figures that show how much money it would cost cities to enforce federal immigration law?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I blame the mayor for the crime he continues to commit by disregarding federal law. The murder of an American citizen was the direct result of the crime the mayor committed. The two crimes are NOT separable

Exactly what federal law did he "disregard"? And exactly what do you mean by "disregard"?

The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act requires local governments to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Read more at: Defying Law National Review Online

THAT law

The article is incorrect. That particular law gives local agencies the ability to enforce federal immigration law if properly trained. It does not compel them to do so.

So they were improperly trained to make a ******* phone call?

You conveniently forget that this piece of shit was ALREADY IN PRISON in SF so obviously SF law enforcement had the "proper training" to make a phone call and wait for ICE to pick up said piece of shit felon and get his ass out of the country

Why do you keep moving goal posts? Your article was incorrect. Also, where are your figures that show how much money it would cost cities to enforce federal immigration law?

You're the one whining about the money it would cost not me so you prove it. IMO it doesn't matter what it would cost to comply with a law even if you disagree and especially if you weigh it against an innocent girl's life. Shit I disagree with all kinds of laws and if I decline to follow the law I don't expect to be able to skate by regardless of the consequences do you?

The point is the feds did not ask them to find and apprehend this piece of shit he was already in custody so they obviously had already arrested the ******* scumbag on a drug warrant all they had to do was make a ******* phone call and how much would THAT have cost?

So tell me should the morons in SF be able to decline to help the FBI apprehend a kidnapper who took a child across state lines and into SF because it costs too much?

How about a guy on a multi state killing spree?
Bank robbers?

If those assholes don't want to cooperate with the feds then the feds should not operate in that city and let them fend for themselves as well as withholding ALL federal money earmarked for projects in SF or any other so called sanctuary city

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I blame the mayor for the crime he continues to commit by disregarding federal law. The murder of an American citizen was the direct result of the crime the mayor committed. The two crimes are NOT separable

Exactly what federal law did he "disregard"? And exactly what do you mean by "disregard"?

The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act requires local governments to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Read more at: Defying Law National Review Online

THAT law

The article is incorrect. That particular law gives local agencies the ability to enforce federal immigration law if properly trained. It does not compel them to do so.

So they were improperly trained to make a ******* phone call?

You conveniently forget that this piece of shit was ALREADY IN PRISON in SF so obviously SF law enforcement had the "proper training" to make a phone call and wait for ICE to pick up said piece of shit felon and get his ass out of the country

Why do you keep moving goal posts? Your article was incorrect. Also, where are your figures that show how much money it would cost cities to enforce federal immigration law?

Since when do lefties worry about the cost of anything?
You need a new point

 

[paulitician]

Arrest the Mayor, then arrest the President. They've conspired to break the law. They've destroyed our Immigration System. They are criminals.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why does everyone ignore the facts?

Not everyone does, just you Communists.

Oh, and here is a fact for you, there is free cheese waiting for you behind the fridge, Rati.

 

[westwall]

He is STILL defending the sanctuary city policy that led to the death of Miss Steinle.

The WHOLE city council should be held accountable. Were I the family, I would be filing a Civil RICO against the whole board.

Well thats because you are stupid.

The family can however sue the City- and if they chose to do so- will probably win.

I'm stupid? The City Council decided that they wanted to make a political statement by protecting illegal aliens. That is against the law. They chose politics over the one thing they are empowered by the COTUS to do, namely protect the public.

If the family files a Civil RICO they can go after the Council members INDIVIDUALLY. They can't use the city's money to defend themselves. I think that that is a good idea. Why should the citizens of San Fran suffer for the idiocy of their elected representatives? Make the idiots suffer.

Or are you simply too stupid to understand what I was advocating, so dug yourself a deep hole that you are likewise too stupid to get out of?

Yes you are stupid

First of all- we don't have a City Council.
Secondly- Our county Supervisors passed the law 25 years ago- not a single member is still on the board.
Thirdly- Civil Rico Acts are for 'organized crime', and you can't even establish what the crime is, AND because the Supervisors act as legislators, on behalf of voters, passing a law does not constitute breaking a law.

No, Civil RICO acts are NOT for organized crime (look up the statute bucko).. I never stated which group should be held responsible. Just because the assholes who put this policy in place are no longer there doesn't preclude their being sued. How stupid are you? And yes, the CITY and COUNTY councils are combined. When you consider that the county IS the city then is logical to call it the CITY council, your mincing of words merely shows how stupid you are. Not me. You're so desperate that this is the level to which your argument has sunk.

And yes, when you pass a law that contravenes FEDERAL LAW, it is invalid. That means it isn't legal, that means they acted beyond their power. That means they are not legitimate.

 

[Syriusly]

He is STILL defending the sanctuary city policy that led to the death of Miss Steinle.

The WHOLE city council should be held accountable. Were I the family, I would be filing a Civil RICO against the whole board.

Well thats because you are stupid.

The family can however sue the City- and if they chose to do so- will probably win.

I'm stupid? The City Council decided that they wanted to make a political statement by protecting illegal aliens. That is against the law. They chose politics over the one thing they are empowered by the COTUS to do, namely protect the public.

If the family files a Civil RICO they can go after the Council members INDIVIDUALLY. They can't use the city's money to defend themselves. I think that that is a good idea. Why should the citizens of San Fran suffer for the idiocy of their elected representatives? Make the idiots suffer.

Or are you simply too stupid to understand what I was advocating, so dug yourself a deep hole that you are likewise too stupid to get out of?

Yes you are stupid

First of all- we don't have a City Council.
Secondly- Our county Supervisors passed the law 25 years ago- not a single member is still on the board.
Thirdly- Civil Rico Acts are for 'organized crime', and you can't even establish what the crime is, AND because the Supervisors act as legislators, on behalf of voters, passing a law does not constitute breaking a law.

No, Civil RICO acts are NOT for organized crime (look up the statute bucko).. I never stated which group should be held responsible. Just because the assholes who put this policy in place are no longer there doesn't preclude their being sued. How stupid are you? And yes, the CITY and COUNTY councils are combined. When you consider that the county IS the city then is logical to call it the CITY council, your mincing of words merely shows how stupid you are. Not me. You're so desperate that this is the level to which your argument has sunk.

And yes, when you pass a law that contravenes FEDERAL LAW, it is invalid. That means it isn't legal, that means they acted beyond their power. That means they are not legitimate.

Feel free to do more than pull up crap out of your ass.

San Francisco has a Board of Supervisors- which if you were not just pulling ignorant crap out of your ass when you posted you would know- there is no City Council- it does not exist except in your ignorance.

A law is only invalid when a court finds a law invalid- a court must decide whether a law contravenes Federal law.

And no- Legislator- including Supervisors cannot be prosecuted for passing a law which is subsequently found to be invalid- otherwise we would have thousands and thousands of Congressmen, legislators, Country Supervisors and city council members in jail for the laws they passed which were declared null and void by a court.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The WHOLE city council should be held accountable. Were I the family, I would be filing a Civil RICO against the whole board.

Well thats because you are stupid.

The family can however sue the City- and if they chose to do so- will probably win.

I'm stupid? The City Council decided that they wanted to make a political statement by protecting illegal aliens. That is against the law. They chose politics over the one thing they are empowered by the COTUS to do, namely protect the public.

If the family files a Civil RICO they can go after the Council members INDIVIDUALLY. They can't use the city's money to defend themselves. I think that that is a good idea. Why should the citizens of San Fran suffer for the idiocy of their elected representatives? Make the idiots suffer.

Or are you simply too stupid to understand what I was advocating, so dug yourself a deep hole that you are likewise too stupid to get out of?

Yes you are stupid

First of all- we don't have a City Council.
Secondly- Our county Supervisors passed the law 25 years ago- not a single member is still on the board.
Thirdly- Civil Rico Acts are for 'organized crime', and you can't even establish what the crime is, AND because the Supervisors act as legislators, on behalf of voters, passing a law does not constitute breaking a law.

No, Civil RICO acts are NOT for organized crime (look up the statute bucko).. I never stated which group should be held responsible. Just because the assholes who put this policy in place are no longer there doesn't preclude their being sued. How stupid are you? And yes, the CITY and COUNTY councils are combined. When you consider that the county IS the city then is logical to call it the CITY council, your mincing of words merely shows how stupid you are. Not me. You're so desperate that this is the level to which your argument has sunk.

And yes, when you pass a law that contravenes FEDERAL LAW, it is invalid. That means it isn't legal, that means they acted beyond their power. That means they are not legitimate.

Feel free to do more than pull up crap out of your ass.

San Francisco has a Board of Supervisors- which if you were not just pulling ignorant crap out of your ass when you posted you would know- there is no City Council- it does not exist except in your ignorance.

A law is only invalid when a court finds a law invalid- a court must decide whether a law contravenes Federal law.

And no- Legislator- including Supervisors cannot be prosecuted for passing a law which is subsequently found to be invalid- otherwise we would have thousands and thousands of Congressmen, legislators, Country Supervisors and city council members in jail for the laws they passed which were declared null and void by a court.

I think your game of semantics is pretty dumb.
There is a governing body who has passed & continues to support the policy in question. Who gives a shit what their proper name is.

 

[westwall]

The WHOLE city council should be held accountable. Were I the family, I would be filing a Civil RICO against the whole board.

Well thats because you are stupid.

The family can however sue the City- and if they chose to do so- will probably win.

I'm stupid? The City Council decided that they wanted to make a political statement by protecting illegal aliens. That is against the law. They chose politics over the one thing they are empowered by the COTUS to do, namely protect the public.

If the family files a Civil RICO they can go after the Council members INDIVIDUALLY. They can't use the city's money to defend themselves. I think that that is a good idea. Why should the citizens of San Fran suffer for the idiocy of their elected representatives? Make the idiots suffer.

Or are you simply too stupid to understand what I was advocating, so dug yourself a deep hole that you are likewise too stupid to get out of?

Yes you are stupid

First of all- we don't have a City Council.
Secondly- Our county Supervisors passed the law 25 years ago- not a single member is still on the board.
Thirdly- Civil Rico Acts are for 'organized crime', and you can't even establish what the crime is, AND because the Supervisors act as legislators, on behalf of voters, passing a law does not constitute breaking a law.

No, Civil RICO acts are NOT for organized crime (look up the statute bucko).. I never stated which group should be held responsible. Just because the assholes who put this policy in place are no longer there doesn't preclude their being sued. How stupid are you? And yes, the CITY and COUNTY councils are combined. When you consider that the county IS the city then is logical to call it the CITY council, your mincing of words merely shows how stupid you are. Not me. You're so desperate that this is the level to which your argument has sunk.

And yes, when you pass a law that contravenes FEDERAL LAW, it is invalid. That means it isn't legal, that means they acted beyond their power. That means they are not legitimate.

Feel free to do more than pull up crap out of your ass.

San Francisco has a Board of Supervisors- which if you were not just pulling ignorant crap out of your ass when you posted you would know- there is no City Council- it does not exist except in your ignorance.

A law is only invalid when a court finds a law invalid- a court must decide whether a law contravenes Federal law.

And no- Legislator- including Supervisors cannot be prosecuted for passing a law which is subsequently found to be invalid- otherwise we would have thousands and thousands of Congressmen, legislators, Country Supervisors and city council members in jail for the laws they passed which were declared null and void by a court.

What is the job of the Board of Supervisors? What is the job of a City Council? And yes, they can you silly person. That is the WHOLE purpose of a Civil RICO. I suggest you talk to the Pacific Legal Foundation. They are experts in the field. The Federal Law that is referenced, is Title 18 Section 243. Look it up.

 

[Syriusly]

Well thats because you are stupid.

The family can however sue the City- and if they chose to do so- will probably win.

I'm stupid? The City Council decided that they wanted to make a political statement by protecting illegal aliens. That is against the law. They chose politics over the one thing they are empowered by the COTUS to do, namely protect the public.

If the family files a Civil RICO they can go after the Council members INDIVIDUALLY. They can't use the city's money to defend themselves. I think that that is a good idea. Why should the citizens of San Fran suffer for the idiocy of their elected representatives? Make the idiots suffer.

Or are you simply too stupid to understand what I was advocating, so dug yourself a deep hole that you are likewise too stupid to get out of?

Yes you are stupid

First of all- we don't have a City Council.
Secondly- Our county Supervisors passed the law 25 years ago- not a single member is still on the board.
Thirdly- Civil Rico Acts are for 'organized crime', and you can't even establish what the crime is, AND because the Supervisors act as legislators, on behalf of voters, passing a law does not constitute breaking a law.

No, Civil RICO acts are NOT for organized crime (look up the statute bucko).. I never stated which group should be held responsible. Just because the assholes who put this policy in place are no longer there doesn't preclude their being sued. How stupid are you? And yes, the CITY and COUNTY councils are combined. When you consider that the county IS the city then is logical to call it the CITY council, your mincing of words merely shows how stupid you are. Not me. You're so desperate that this is the level to which your argument has sunk.

And yes, when you pass a law that contravenes FEDERAL LAW, it is invalid. That means it isn't legal, that means they acted beyond their power. That means they are not legitimate.

Feel free to do more than pull up crap out of your ass.

San Francisco has a Board of Supervisors- which if you were not just pulling ignorant crap out of your ass when you posted you would know- there is no City Council- it does not exist except in your ignorance.

A law is only invalid when a court finds a law invalid- a court must decide whether a law contravenes Federal law.

And no- Legislator- including Supervisors cannot be prosecuted for passing a law which is subsequently found to be invalid- otherwise we would have thousands and thousands of Congressmen, legislators, Country Supervisors and city council members in jail for the laws they passed which were declared null and void by a court.

I think your game of semantics is pretty dumb.
There is a governing body who has passed & continues to support the policy in question. Who gives a shit what their proper name is.

I point it out only to point out that West started his response here from a position of ignorance- and continued from there.

 

[Syriusly]

Well thats because you are stupid.

The family can however sue the City- and if they chose to do so- will probably win.

I'm stupid? The City Council decided that they wanted to make a political statement by protecting illegal aliens. That is against the law. They chose politics over the one thing they are empowered by the COTUS to do, namely protect the public.

If the family files a Civil RICO they can go after the Council members INDIVIDUALLY. They can't use the city's money to defend themselves. I think that that is a good idea. Why should the citizens of San Fran suffer for the idiocy of their elected representatives? Make the idiots suffer.

Or are you simply too stupid to understand what I was advocating, so dug yourself a deep hole that you are likewise too stupid to get out of?

Yes you are stupid

First of all- we don't have a City Council.
Secondly- Our county Supervisors passed the law 25 years ago- not a single member is still on the board.
Thirdly- Civil Rico Acts are for 'organized crime', and you can't even establish what the crime is, AND because the Supervisors act as legislators, on behalf of voters, passing a law does not constitute breaking a law.

No, Civil RICO acts are NOT for organized crime (look up the statute bucko).. I never stated which group should be held responsible. Just because the assholes who put this policy in place are no longer there doesn't preclude their being sued. How stupid are you? And yes, the CITY and COUNTY councils are combined. When you consider that the county IS the city then is logical to call it the CITY council, your mincing of words merely shows how stupid you are. Not me. You're so desperate that this is the level to which your argument has sunk.

And yes, when you pass a law that contravenes FEDERAL LAW, it is invalid. That means it isn't legal, that means they acted beyond their power. That means they are not legitimate.

Feel free to do more than pull up crap out of your ass.

San Francisco has a Board of Supervisors- which if you were not just pulling ignorant crap out of your ass when you posted you would know- there is no City Council- it does not exist except in your ignorance.

A law is only invalid when a court finds a law invalid- a court must decide whether a law contravenes Federal law.

And no- Legislator- including Supervisors cannot be prosecuted for passing a law which is subsequently found to be invalid- otherwise we would have thousands and thousands of Congressmen, legislators, Country Supervisors and city council members in jail for the laws they passed which were declared null and void by a court.

What is the job of the Board of Supervisors? What is the job of a City Council? And yes, they can you silly person. That is the WHOLE purpose of a Civil RICO. I suggest you talk to the Pacific Legal Foundation. They are experts in the field. The Federal Law that is referenced, is Title 18 Section 243. Look it up.

They pass laws. Feel free to show me a successful Civil Rico suit based upon a legislative body passing a law.

Not for bribery- passing a law.

 

[westwall]

I'm stupid? The City Council decided that they wanted to make a political statement by protecting illegal aliens. That is against the law. They chose politics over the one thing they are empowered by the COTUS to do, namely protect the public.

If the family files a Civil RICO they can go after the Council members INDIVIDUALLY. They can't use the city's money to defend themselves. I think that that is a good idea. Why should the citizens of San Fran suffer for the idiocy of their elected representatives? Make the idiots suffer.

Or are you simply too stupid to understand what I was advocating, so dug yourself a deep hole that you are likewise too stupid to get out of?

Yes you are stupid

First of all- we don't have a City Council.
Secondly- Our county Supervisors passed the law 25 years ago- not a single member is still on the board.
Thirdly- Civil Rico Acts are for 'organized crime', and you can't even establish what the crime is, AND because the Supervisors act as legislators, on behalf of voters, passing a law does not constitute breaking a law.

No, Civil RICO acts are NOT for organized crime (look up the statute bucko).. I never stated which group should be held responsible. Just because the assholes who put this policy in place are no longer there doesn't preclude their being sued. How stupid are you? And yes, the CITY and COUNTY councils are combined. When you consider that the county IS the city then is logical to call it the CITY council, your mincing of words merely shows how stupid you are. Not me. You're so desperate that this is the level to which your argument has sunk.

And yes, when you pass a law that contravenes FEDERAL LAW, it is invalid. That means it isn't legal, that means they acted beyond their power. That means they are not legitimate.

Feel free to do more than pull up crap out of your ass.

San Francisco has a Board of Supervisors- which if you were not just pulling ignorant crap out of your ass when you posted you would know- there is no City Council- it does not exist except in your ignorance.

A law is only invalid when a court finds a law invalid- a court must decide whether a law contravenes Federal law.

And no- Legislator- including Supervisors cannot be prosecuted for passing a law which is subsequently found to be invalid- otherwise we would have thousands and thousands of Congressmen, legislators, Country Supervisors and city council members in jail for the laws they passed which were declared null and void by a court.

What is the job of the Board of Supervisors? What is the job of a City Council? And yes, they can you silly person. That is the WHOLE purpose of a Civil RICO. I suggest you talk to the Pacific Legal Foundation. They are experts in the field. The Federal Law that is referenced, is Title 18 Section 243. Look it up.

They pass laws. Feel free to show me a successful Civil Rico suit based upon a legislative body passing a law.

Not for bribery- passing a law.

I don't think one has even been tried yet. This may be a first if they go for it.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes you are stupid

First of all- we don't have a City Council.
Secondly- Our county Supervisors passed the law 25 years ago- not a single member is still on the board.
Thirdly- Civil Rico Acts are for 'organized crime', and you can't even establish what the crime is, AND because the Supervisors act as legislators, on behalf of voters, passing a law does not constitute breaking a law.

No, Civil RICO acts are NOT for organized crime (look up the statute bucko).. I never stated which group should be held responsible. Just because the assholes who put this policy in place are no longer there doesn't preclude their being sued. How stupid are you? And yes, the CITY and COUNTY councils are combined. When you consider that the county IS the city then is logical to call it the CITY council, your mincing of words merely shows how stupid you are. Not me. You're so desperate that this is the level to which your argument has sunk.

And yes, when you pass a law that contravenes FEDERAL LAW, it is invalid. That means it isn't legal, that means they acted beyond their power. That means they are not legitimate.

Feel free to do more than pull up crap out of your ass.

San Francisco has a Board of Supervisors- which if you were not just pulling ignorant crap out of your ass when you posted you would know- there is no City Council- it does not exist except in your ignorance.

A law is only invalid when a court finds a law invalid- a court must decide whether a law contravenes Federal law.

And no- Legislator- including Supervisors cannot be prosecuted for passing a law which is subsequently found to be invalid- otherwise we would have thousands and thousands of Congressmen, legislators, Country Supervisors and city council members in jail for the laws they passed which were declared null and void by a court.

What is the job of the Board of Supervisors? What is the job of a City Council? And yes, they can you silly person. That is the WHOLE purpose of a Civil RICO. I suggest you talk to the Pacific Legal Foundation. They are experts in the field. The Federal Law that is referenced, is Title 18 Section 243. Look it up.

They pass laws. Feel free to show me a successful Civil Rico suit based upon a legislative body passing a law.

Not for bribery- passing a law.

I don't think one has even been tried yet. This may be a first if they go for it.

So you just pulled that one out of your ass.

 

[Flash Farley]

It'd be justice if the mayor got shot by an illegal.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

It'd be justice if the mayor got shot by an illegal.

Robbed maybe but shot? Come on

 

[SwimExpert]

The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act requires local governments to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement

That is incorrect.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

He didn't defy federal law.

In post 148 i gave you a link to the federal law he broke. He's a felon.

 

[Rozman]

I have seen a number of interviews with people on the street and they are asked what should have happened with this guy....
They all seem to say he should have been deported....

HE WAS DEPORTED FIVE TIMES.....

Deporting him didn't work.....
He kept coming back....

What the ****....

And the left says there's no problem with the border.