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

originally posted by: Grambler


Yes I support smaller government and states rights.
Otherwise California could leave anyone they wanted in, and those immigrants would be welcome in any state.

I would think it's far more complicated than that.
There are people who have, or claim refugee status.
There are people who may a violation or violations of a minor nature.
There are people who are simply there to become Americans.
There are people there who have had their status re-instated.
There are those who are undocumented.
All the above may be part of ongoing legalities which could take as long as it takes,(their day in court US) much of that in Federal immigration tribunals, and as I understand it there is a backlog going forward for at least a couple of years as it stands.
the sanctuary cities may differ as to how they actually treat those people, and arguably they are doing the Federal governments work in the main, while they would certainly bill the Federal Government for those costs...that includes detention likely of any kind but for sure jails, who knows it might even be a racket for some states, where they actually get rid of people of any of the above, on something very minor eventually after some process that enables the state to bill the Feds but, how do those people compare to generational immigrant Americans??

Thing is how does this all gel with what Kirstjen Nielsen wants to do? it doesn't, unless perhaps there is some identified material gain done by the city administrators. It would be mighty difficult to arrest people who are actually doing the dirty work for the Federal government...and being paid by them.
Then of course there could be a mighty backlash in those cities/states...no, it's not so simple at all.

Having watched this and lived in several boarder states the following can be stated:

This is nothing new, rather this is an issue that has been around for years, and now has gotten out of control with no real way or solution at hand. Politicians will often use this issue and yet nothing gets done, as the reality is that no politician wants to solve this issue. It is too good of an issue to allow for them to focus the publics on it, rather than what they want. Thus that is one part of this issue, the politics behind it, and all of the other parts of it.

This is a problem in a nutshell: The immigration department and all of the other aspects of such, is often severely underfunded, understaff, bound by rules and laws, unable to do anything effective, combined with the state that are wanting to do something, but unable to do anything due to the federal government not wanting to let anyone else handle this issue.

Illegal immigration is both a federal and a state level issue. The federal government will often say these are the laws, and leave the states to clean up the mess, or deal with such, without much in the way of support or assistance.

The immigration courts are a joke, overburdened, underfunded and understaffed. And the sheer number of cases it hears, has led to where it is merely a processing center for those who are caught are processed and deported, without those there having any sort of representation or any sort of translator there. And there have been mistakes made, by overzealous prosecutors or officials. The immigration department raises its prices, cause it is underfunded by the government and relies on the fees to keep itself working and funded. The boarder patrol is little more than to witness and try to deter, often its hands are tied and bound by rules and laws, and at times unable to act or do anything. And all the while politicians dance around this issue.

The federal government says it wants to charge such, however legally, the courts may say no. Take a good look at Arizona. In the past, the state of Arizona has tried to implement various laws and policies to stem and stop the flow of illegal immigration into the state. From denying services, social services, education, and medical, to where law enforcement was pushing and tough on the immigration issue. And what all happened is that the courts came down hard against the state, removing those laws and stating that it was not a state issue but a federal issue.

To solve this issue, is not via a wall, but to first set up a congressional committee with one goal, to look at, remove and come up with a set of laws that deals with the illegal immigration, that the courts can back.

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

When they do not violate Federal Law , yes
And I do not exactly qualify as a Republican
So , there is your answer from a learned US citizen

originally posted by: grey580
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

That would be the same as a state saying that federal law does not apply to them, which is in fact what California (for one) has already done. Federal Marshals could go in and SWAT their ass's.

And a state making it "illegal" for feds to arrest them for violating federal laws is the same as Kim Un making it illegal for the clouds to rain on his parade. (His parades will be rained on and there is nothing he can do about it.)

I would really love to see some of these pompous state officials really get their butts kicked. They really need it just to make an example of them. For civil posterity

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Please tell me one example of an activist judge you would literally like locked up and the case(s) that show that person to be an activist judge please.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Please tell me one example of an activist judge you would literally like locked up and the case(s) that show that person to be an activist judge please.

The role assigned to judges in our system was to interpret the Constitution and lesser laws, not to make them. It was to protect the integrity of the Constitution, not to add to it or subtract from it—certainly not to rewrite it. For as the framers knew, unless judges are bound by the text of the Constitution, we will, in fact, no longer have a government of laws, but of men and women who are judges. And if that happens, the words of the documents that we think govern us will be just masks for the personal and capricious rule of a small elite. —President Ronald Reagan

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

If you do not know who those people already are you should. Google it. Start with California and Hawaii...

originally posted by: grey580
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

Generally, federal law trumps state law where they conflict. Whether or not someone agrees with a law or not.

2a reply to: samkent

Shush you....!

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed


That would be the same as a state saying that federal law does not apply to them, which is in fact what California (for one) has already done. Federal Marshals could go in and SWAT their ass's.

And a state making it "illegal" for feds to arrest them for violating federal laws is the same as Kim Un making it illegal for the clouds to rain on his parade. (His parades will be rained on and there is nothing he can do about it.)

Just abolish all the states, and replace them with one big "nation state". That's where things are headed anyway.

originally posted by: matafuchs
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.

stupid
just plan stupid
there are laws, just fkn enforce them
stupid
just stupid

here in japan you break the law, you get deported and if you are married to a japanese spouse, tough, either she goes with you or stays behind in japan


america land of the sillies being led by the sillies of lack of common sense

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: luthier


Personally, I'm for a strong border and then amnesty.

I get that DC but stronger boarders are useless when people can freely find work.

For instance I can't go into Canada and easily work at a chicken plant. It's a massive prevention of hordes of immigrants.

I am not sure people fully understand how over 10 million people got here. It was a bipartisan effort..
It benefits low wage employers and state and city growth (labor building and feeding new neighborhoods).

It has nothing to do with the bull snip on TV propagated by politicians including the president imo.

You don't get ten million people staying in this country from a boarder crossing. No country in the world has the problem we do. It is a planned staged event.

Ps.

I am for a work visa program for labor shortages. If your proven useful and law abiding you can get a shortcut to the front of the line for a greencard. Recommendations from your employer over time.

Putting some of the ceo's in jail or depOrting them would send some shivers down the chain and create a lot of self deportation.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Please tell me one example of an activist judge you would literally like locked up and the case(s) that show that person to be an activist judge please.

9th circuit.

The judge from hawaii who stopped the ban.

Judge Ito.

And that Judge in OR. that wrote his own brief.

The Mexican Judge in the Trump case.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: luthier


Personally, I'm for a strong border and then amnesty.

I get that DC but stronger boarders are useless when people can freely find work.

For instance I can't go into Canada and easily work at a chicken plant. It's a massive prevention of hordes of immigrants.

I am not sure people fully understand how over 10 million people got here. It was a bipartisan effort..
It benefits low wage employers and state and city growth (labor building and feeding new neighborhoods).

It has nothing to do with the bull snip on TV propagated by politicians including the president imo.

You don't get ten million people staying in this country from a boarder crossing. No country in the world has the problem we do. It is a planned staged event.

Ps.

I am for a work visa program for labor shortages. If your proven useful and law abiding you can get a shortcut to the front of the line for a greencard. Recommendations from your employer over time.

Putting some of the ceo's in jail or depOrting them would send some shivers down the chain and create a lot of self deportation.

I have a yuge problem with that 10 or 11 mil number of illegals.

It's more like 40-50 mil.

It's been 11 mil since the 90's.

Mao killed 100 mil and we can't deport half that?!



ETA; push them into mexico and see how fast they pay for a wall, hell they will probably build it!

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Sure huge numbers.

No we can't. Why because it's not the intention.

The intention is to give the illusion something is done.


Wtf is a wall going to do for instance.. no other country on earth needs a wall. They just don't let you work and you become a bum get picked up and deported.

Sure every country has handfuls of under the table workers but nothing like the us. That is the problem. They freely work because we have real labor voids and we won't make seasonal visas.

It's total bs by the politicians. Everyone of them is playing the public against each other and laughing. Even trump.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

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

Only when it comes to discriminating against gays and enslaving blacks.

Are they legal?

There are laws against that if they are.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: theantediluvian

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

Only when it comes to discriminating against gays and enslaving blacks.

Are they legal?

There are laws against that if they are.

There are also laws about employing tens of millions of them but a multi state seven eleven bust yielding 12 people is all they have come up with.

a reply to: grey580

"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."

That is known as a Mexican standoff.

Happens in movies all the time: the local sheriff shows up, and the FBI, state cops, CIA, INTERPOL, NSA, and EIEIO are already there, arguing over who gets to cuff the perp.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: theantediluvian

But this is not a Conservative Republican Issue. Both sides of the aisle including the last 3 sitting presidents all rallied against illegal immigration. it was to get the votes. Now, that the immigrants know they were used the politicians are protecting their next round of voters. Why else would they be arguing ID requirements for voting.

The weird thing about that is, like NJ's new gov wants to give drivers lic to illegals like cali but won't do anything for the poor ass people that are citizens that live there, without an ID.

Sup wit dat?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

Mexicans work and lazy ass Americans on fake disability and living in their moms basements dont?

And it gives them votes from the regressive left.