ICE Considers Charging Sanctuary City Leaders with Smuggling

a reply to: xuenchen

They should be expelled from the country, but yeah try this first.

originally posted by: Tranceopticalinclined
You're fake news until I can see your birth certificate.

Truth.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

From your link:

Such policies can be set expressly in law (de jure) or observed in practice (de facto), but the designation "sanctuary city" does not have a precise legal definition

But the municipal statutes are for real aren't they.

Backwards as usual.

a reply to: xuenchen

That's where the State's Rights issue arises from, state and local statutes and municipalities.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

That's where the State's Rights issue arises from, state and local statutes and municipalities.

States have no right to break federal immigration enforcement law.

a reply to: yuppa


Federal agencies have no right force local authorities to do the jobs of federal agents or to hold, house, feed and provide medical care to federal detainees, sometimes indefinitely, after they've served their time.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

That's where the State's Rights issue arises from, state and local statutes and municipalities.

Most "Sanctuary" policies are Municipal, not State.



Like having a lock on the outside door handle for a closet door.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: yuppa


Federal agencies have no right force local authorities to do the jobs of federal agents or to hold, house, feed and provide medical care to federal detainees, sometimes indefinitely, after they've served their time.

Brilliant deduction Watson.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

That's where the State's Rights issue arises from, state and local statutes and municipalities.

Most "Sanctuary" policies are Municipal, not State.

Like having a lock on the outside door handle for a closet door.

Take Texas for example. Their state laws didn't jibe with ICE's Secure Communities Program. (which by the way isn't federal law)

I think it was Austin that made an issue of state law and its city's ordinances and municipalities rules and regulations to deny cooperating with the feds. So, the Governor of Texas mandated that state wide cooperation...or.. TEXAS would curtail state and federal budget funds from those cities budgets.

State's Rights!

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: yuppa


Federal agencies have no right force local authorities to do the jobs of federal agents or to hold, house, feed and provide medical care to federal detainees, sometimes indefinitely, after they've served their time.

Brilliant deduction Watson.

Well, that's the issue at hand, Sherlock. Glad that I could be of help!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: yuppa


Federal agencies have no right force local authorities to do the jobs of federal agents or to hold, house, feed and provide medical care to federal detainees, sometimes indefinitely, after they've served their time.

Individuals have to follow the law though dont they? The leaders of these cities are citizens and fed laws trump state ones. Its dictated in the constitution. Illegals are invaders and as such threaten nat security. WHich Oblidges states to co operate with feds.

a reply to: yuppa


Police officers enforce state and local laws, federal agents enforce federal law. The feds can't force local police to do their jobs for them. The jurisdictions are different.

a reply to: windword

so what about when Arizona I think it was went with a strict anti-immigration law and the district courts (federal are they not) I believe, struck the law and forced the states to change it.

So which is it, can the fed mandate the states follow the law or can they not?

a reply to: Irishhaf


I don't know what case you're talking about, so I can't research it or comment on it. How about, if you really want to discuss it, you do your homework and provide some source, and we can talk about it?!

In the meantime, the feds can't force local law enforcement to do their job for them. There are jurisdictions.

a reply to: windword

Arizona SB 1070

Parts were ultimately struck down by the supreme court, but the district courts held it up for some time after it passed the state legislature.

For the record the parts that were struck down I kind of agree needed to be gone, but it shows that the fed has in the past had their fingers all in the states business regarding illegal immigration.

So the question needs to be decided, state or federal... courts so far seem to show federal wins.

a reply to: Irishhaf


Oh! The "Papers Please" law that's been compared to "Nazi" tactics...........

U.S. federal law requires all aliens over the age of 14 who remain in the United States for longer than 30 days to register with the U.S. government, and to have registration documents in their possession at all times; violation of this requirement is a federal misdemeanor crime. The Arizona act additionally made it a state misdemeanor crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying the required documents, required that state law enforcement officers attempt to determine an individual's immigration status during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest", when there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is an illegal immigrant

The State adopted laws that aligned with federal laws, making it the job of local law enforcement to enforce state law. As controversial as it is, it's a prime example of "State's Rights".

ETA: The controversy is around the violation of the 4th Amendment, unwarranted search and seizure of personal property and private papers.

a reply to: windword

So federal interference validates states right?

originally posted by: ravenshadow13
a reply to: Tranceopticalinclined

You can't get public assistance if you're an illegal alien.

Sorry, but this is unfortunately far from the truth.

Enter the Supreme Court. It has required the states — and thus the municipalities in them — to make social services available to everyone resident within them, irrespective of citizenry or lawful or unlawful immigration status. This is so because the constitutional command to the states of equal protection applies to all persons, not just to citizens. So the states and municipalities may not deny basic social services to anyone based on nationality or immigration status.

Link

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: windword

So federal interference validates states right?

How so?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: yuppa


Police officers enforce state and local laws, federal agents enforce federal law. The feds can't force local police to do their jobs for them. The jurisdictions are different.

Simple way to fix that. Call martial law and federally deputize them. voila.