DHS laying groundwork to arrest sanctuary city leaders..and eventually governors?

Link

Very interesting. How is this going to play out in California? Can we expect a mayor or a governor eventually to simply be charged, arrested and paraded for all to see? I think it would be great. They are breaking the law.

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen confirmed Tuesday that her department has asked federal prosecutors to see if they can lodge criminal charges against sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts. “The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues may be available,” Ms. Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her confirmation came after California’s new sanctuary law went into effect Jan. 1, severely restricting cooperation the state or any of its localities could offer.

It is in the article but the State of Californians new law went into effect on Jan 1. The governor signed it. They are a sanctuary state. It also prohibits California LEO's from assigning officers to work on task forces “for immigration enforcement".

This will be a very hot topic in the 2018/2020 races I am sure.

a reply to: matafuchs

I wonder if the state passes a law that says it's illegal for federal officers to arrest public leader and in turn can arrest federal officers how that would play out.

should be fun to watch

a reply to: grey580

That was my thought. This could be a real big fed/state issue.

Headline: DHS preparing to arrest leaders of sanctuary cities

What she actually said: I asked DoJ to see if we can do anything.

Basically the same thing though.

/s

I thought it was the conservative republicans that were all about "states rights"

a reply to: matafuchs

Can we expect a mayor or a governor eventually to simply be charged, arrested and paraded for all to see?

I think you are reading too much into it.

a reply to: grey580

It would definitely be interesting.

But I don't see California trying to get into an Armed standoff with the Federal Govt. That wouldn't end well for anyone.

But I imagine we could see sanctions placed on a state until they comply.

I don't think it would take long for welfare recipients to string up their legislatures and hand hand them over with a bow if their food stamps get turned off.

a reply to: Shamrock6

This is why I said laying groundwork. I did not want to post their headline. If they are reporting it I would think it a small leak to gauge reaction from those who would be involved.

originally posted by: olaru12
I thought it was the conservative republicans that were all about "states rights"

Yes I support smaller government and states rights.

However, immigration and border control are federal issues, not state.

That why I am against Sessions war on weed, but feel the states should have to obey federal immigration and border laws.

Otherwise California could leave anyone they wanted in, and those immigrants would be welcome in any state.

How is this going to play out in California?

The civil war made it perfectly clear STATES had no right to do as they pleased.

a reply to: Grambler

You beat me to it with that response. Perfect.

a reply to: matafuchs

Send them all to jail, in my opinion.

Here's the deal: There's a massive difference between, say, asserting that you don't have the funding or resources to play federal immigration police, and actively designing and passing laws that aid and abet immigration criminality in your city or state while actively seeking to hinder the ability for federal LEOs to do their job.

What these mayors and governors are doing is the latter, and they absolutely should be prosecuted for, at the very least, aiding and abetting criminal behavior and, IMO, obstructing justice.

Look at it this way, if I were to pay a security guard to "look the other way" so that a crime can be committed, I would be arrested and, at the very least, indicted and tried in court for illegal activity. Yet, this is tantamount to what these mayors and governors are doing.

Take them all down. California is my home state, and I hate seeing it getting worse and worse by the day (at least for the average legal citizen).

This does have the ingredients of becoming a big deal in the SCOTUS, eventually, though. There is a lot of leeway given to states to run things as they see fit, but I believe these types of laws to be criminal in spirit, if not in actuality. Either way, this won't be resolved easily.

a reply to: matafuchs

This is why I said laying groundwork. I did not want to post their headline.

I know you said that, which is why I commented on the headline and not what you said.

If they are reporting it I would think it a small leak to gauge reaction from those who would be involved.

It was an open hearing on The Hill. This isn't a "leak." You can go watch her say it on C-SPAN.

a reply to: matafuchs

Well I guess that's nearly every state in the SW and mid west...

Or its just bs.

a reply to: matafuchs

This would open a huge can of worms that I'm afraid this country is not in a position to handle. THIS IS NOT A STATE'S RIGHT ISSUE. The borders of the US has always been a federal issue. Immigration is one of the few issues that must be addressed on a federal level.

We know that following orders, if they are illegal, is not a defense to a crime. So not only mayors but police chiefs and officers could also be charged. Then there are the local prison/jail officials who fail to cooperate with the Feds, and so on.

Also, pot is still illegal federally, so this would open the door to fed prosecution of state officials in states that have legalized pot as well.

Immigration is such a difficult issue with no easy answers unless you are on the extreme left (let everyone in) or extreme right (kick everyone out). To handle this issue in this manner is, IMHO, simply the wrong way to go about things. As a nation we do not have a consensus as to how this issue should be handled. We've had really poor leadership in both parties in the effort to resolve this issue. Bullying and using the full power of the federal gov't to lock people up in this circumstance would be an overwhelming abuse of power.

In my opinion. I fully support arresting those public officials that actively seek to protect illigal immigrants from deportation or provide sanctuary. Most on here are absolutely correct, states have rights but the federal government has complete domain over border patrol and the immigration policy.

Some of these illegal immigrats seeking refuge are criminals or could be part of a drug cartel. No one knows because they haven't been hrought the immigration process.
Why do states want to give protection status to people like this is beyond me. Don't give me that "states rights" Bs. That tune is played out.

How does this look for medical marijuana, too?

The Federal Government has long asserted its right to quash insurrection. And it doesn't mind mowing people down in the process. Even our venerated leader George Washington was fairly merciless in the Whisky Rebellion.

Luckily we don't have to go in with canons blazing anymore.

The one thing I can say is asserting immigration law is the duty of the federal government. There is no dispute in this. Had they not failed for decades we'd not have this issue now.

originally posted by: olaru12
I thought it was the conservative republicans that were all about "states rights"

Key word being "rights."

I'm quite certain that states do not have the "right" to actively fight federal immigration laws and knowingly and assertively legislate to enable the breaking of such laws.

It goes with marijuana, too--even though states are passing laws legalizing it, and so far the DOJ has turned a blind eye, that may not be the way that it is for much longer, and the state laws will be null and void (and still are at a federal level).

This is a fine-line issue, though, concerning federal ability to tell states what to do, and I'll be watching this issue closely. Like I noted in my other comment, though--it's not that they're passively unwilling to do the job of the federal government, it's about them purposefully legislating BECAUSE they want to spite the laws of the federal government. It's one thing to have a sanctuary-state spirit, it's another to make it official legislation.

a reply to: WarPig1939

Problem is the politicians don't always say what they do.

Like how texas has 2 million yet pretends to act tough in the news..

Can't go to a residential job site without a crew of them and everybody knows this.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: WarPig1939

Problem is the politicians don't always say what they do.

Like how texas has 2 million yet pretends to act tough in the news..

Can't go to a residential job site without a crew of them and everybody knows this.

I guess it is going to be a tough adjustment to hire "real" workers to do projects now as it should be. There should be a tough stance on outing companies that enable this sort of mindset of "illegals are the only ones that will work dirty jobs."

The streets are filled with poverty stricken people that will work for a cheeseburger.