It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sanctuary Sheriff Faces Removal From Office For Aiding Criminal Illegals

page: 1
21
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Sheriff Hernandez is supposed to up hold the constitution. Time to send her walking for her refusal to cooperate with the immigration and customs enforcement.

www.infowars.com...
Hernandez, whose jurisdiction includes Austin, the capital of Texas, has rejected Abbott’s request to reverse her refusal to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement except in limited circumstances, which Abbott says is hypocritical.


Govt. Abbot, who is the Governor of Texas, said that the sheriff's picking of what crimes she wants to enforce when dealing with illegals is reckless. She should hit the bricks.


…Under your reckless policy, for example, dangerous criminal aliens convicted of felonies like murder, aggravated assault, human trafficking, including child sex trafficking, aggravated kidnapping, including sexual performance by a child or indecency with a child, dangerous gang activities…,” he added.



+1 more 
posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
She needs to conform to the laws or resign in disgrace.

Down the drain.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

When Law enforcement pick and chooses laws they enforce it opens the door to all sorts of unintended consequences.

But the brilliant sheriff maybe can't see past her own political non sense to realize she is there to enforce the law and protect the citizens.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Having my "employ-ability" systematically attacked and dictated by a criminal record from un-approved plants throughout the majority of my life, I lean towards the death penalty.

This two sets of laws garbage needs to stop.



edit on 1 by Mandroid7 because: added2



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
You have to wonder if she was paid under the table by the cartels.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
She needs to conform to the laws or resign in disgrace.

I'm not really in favor of giving her a second chance to do the right thing.

I hope she is removed from office ... by force if necessary.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

She should actually be arrested for aiding and abetting. Sheriff or not laws are laws and when you break them there are consequences... Where is the state police in Texas...They're the ones who would investigate and arrest anyone involved. The states attorney general can file charges as well if sufficient evidence is there already (which sounds to be the case). This is disgusting coming from an elected law official... Especially one of the highest officials in state law enforcement if not the highest.
edit on 29-1-2017 by RickyD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal




When Law enforcement pick and chooses laws they enforce it opens the door to all sorts of unintended consequences.


LEOs do that on a regular basis.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

The thing is, ICE is a federal department and local municipalities can't afford to, nor is it legal, for the federal government to force them to use their officers as immigration enforcement officers or their holding tanks/jails to hold people based on their immigration status only.


When non-US citizens are detained by local police on suspicion of committing a crime, Ice may issue a detainer – a request that the department hold the individual for up to an extra 48 hours after they would normally have been released (excluding weekends and holidays). This gives the federal agency time to take the person into custody if the individual is considered deportable.

Detainers are controversial: their level of use varies widely depending on local policies and critics argue they are unconstitutional because they entail detentions based on what are merely requests, not warrants based on probable cause.www.theguardian.com...


Things aren't as simple as they seem in the case of so called "sanctuary cities". Here's a statement from Sheriff Hernandez herself;


"I respect the job of our state leaders, but I will not allow fear and misinformation to be my guiding principles as a leader sworn to protect this community. I am following all state and federal laws, and upholding constitutional rights to due process for all in our criminal justice system. Our community is safer when people can report crimes without fear of deportation. I trust the court system and our judges to assess the risks and set appropriate bonds and conditions for all who are incarcerated. The voters, who elected state leaders and me, expect and deserve a collaborative effort to come up with solutions to this very complex issue. That is precisely what I'm committed to."
www.fox7austin.com...



edit on 29-1-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal


GOOD!


Why should citizens be put in jail for violating THE LAW while those with the responsibility to uphold it can decide they are exempt?


It's a bout GD time those who represent the law are held to the same standards as the citizens they arrest!



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
why does she still even have a job?

she has clearly violated the terms of her employment and has violated immigration laws.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

as a leader sworn to protect this community. I am following all state and federal laws


no, you are sworn to uphold the laws and the constitution.

no, you are not abiding by the immigration laws, in fact you have violated them.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

That does not address who's job it is to enforce those laws on that elected official. The state police and attorney general's office is responsible for that task. Why are they not doing their jobs?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   

c) Authority to arrest

No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

(v)
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or


www.law.cornell.edu...

there is no grey area the laws are very clear on this so, when is the federal government going to start enforcing the laws by arresting people who aid, abet and conspire to aid and abet illegals?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

True, but a broken tail light and a executive order are different things.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

There was another thread that mentioned a seeming uptick in military aircraft moving around. Maybe Trump is moving assets in place to take on sanctuary cities / governments.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

Maybe it's a liberal viper pit. And they are all scratching each others backs? I have a feeling this will stop now.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: seasonal

The thing is, ICE is a federal department and local municipalities can't afford to, nor is it legal, for the federal government to force them to use their officers as immigration enforcement officers or their holding tanks/jails to hold people based on their immigration status only.


When non-US citizens are detained by local police on suspicion of committing a crime, Ice may issue a detainer – a request that the department hold the individual for up to an extra 48 hours after they would normally have been released (excluding weekends and holidays). This gives the federal agency time to take the person into custody if the individual is considered deportable.

Detainers are controversial: their level of use varies widely depending on local policies and critics argue they are unconstitutional because they entail detentions based on what are merely requests, not warrants based on probable cause.www.theguardian.com...


Things aren't as simple as they seem in the case of so called "sanctuary cities". Here's a statement from Sheriff Hernandez herself;


"I respect the job of our state leaders, but I will not allow fear and misinformation to be my guiding principles as a leader sworn to protect this community. I am following all state and federal laws, and upholding constitutional rights to due process for all in our criminal justice system. Our community is safer when people can report crimes without fear of deportation. I trust the court system and our judges to assess the risks and set appropriate bonds and conditions for all who are incarcerated. The voters, who elected state leaders and me, expect and deserve a collaborative effort to come up with solutions to this very complex issue. That is precisely what I'm committed to."
www.fox7austin.com...




So you're fine with people who are illegals in the first place being let go so that they can commit more crime.

Thanks for clarifying your thoughts on the topic.

Karma now dictates that you or one of yours gets killed, raped, robbed, etc by an illegal.

Perhaps that may change your attitude, but being that you're a member of the liberal cult, I doubt that it would. You'd probably ask for leniency because, you know, white privilege.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Liberal Texas? I can imagine mayyyybe Austin only cause I have heard they are a much more progressive city in Texas and has a very large music scene for the area...But the state police should have the means. At some point the governor has to have the ability to request federal help in the issue at the least. That's if no one in the attorney general's office don't act first nor will the state police. I know the feds can't just go rolling in on just everything but I was pretty sure governors had the power to request them to help.
edit on 29-1-2017 by RickyD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
If law enforcement can choose what laws to enforce, then I should be able to choose what laws to obey.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join