SLAP-ping Down Sanctuary Cities. This is Getting Real.

a reply to: amazing

I think this is a slippery slope issue.

That is something I hadn't considered. So far, this bill does not make it a crime for a state to have opposing laws (which should not exist anyway; I do consider Federal marijuana laws as an overreach), nor does it place any burden of enforcing Federal law on a state or local municipality. It only makes it illegal for an official to block a request from ICE to transfer custody of a prisoner to the Federal government. I tend to think of it as extradition... if someone commits a murder in Ohio and flees to Missouri, it does not matter. Missouri will likely not open an active investigation, but if that person is picked up, they will notify Ohio and allow Ohio to come get them. That is necessary since there is no real border to restrict travel between states; there cannot be such a border.

This should also apply to the Federal government as much as the states.

That is a different viewpoint of looking at HR4526, though. It may not be applicable to this one bill, but I will keep that in mind in the future, thank you.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: NarcolepticBuddha
a reply to: TheRedneck

I just hope when the Cal-Exit thing happens it won't result in a civil war to spank them back into place. Just let them secede and get that wall up.

The realist in me says nothing will change (for the better) in my lifetime.

This is just more political posturing and the wheels keep on spinning.

whenever you "build" that "wall" (still no talk about price deadline or material cost, funny no?) make sure you dont include california.

a reply to: TheRedneck
Redneck:

I know you are a moderator, but could you stop insulting me? It seems as though whenever I disagree with you, you tend to take it to the most immediate lowest level and start personally insulting me. You have done it before and yet, seem to think that it is alright

I am not being an alarmist, nor am I engaging in partisan rhetoric, nor showing ignorance at all. I look at history, and that of the politicians, and see how they will use laws and abuse such, going from one extreme to the next. And a law like this would open up a door that no one would want. And there is an old saying: Never hand a person a loaded weapon unless one knows where it is going to point it at.

The way politics are going right now, and have for the past 20 years, one side will set up a precedent that the other side will exploit. And it will go back and forth. This is not alarmist rhetoric but straight out fact. And we do not have to look any further than the actual congress of the USA to see how that goes, where one side will open up and set a precedent, that the other party will walk through and exploit and then the originating party will cry foul. And a law like this, sets up a legal door that no one, no matter which party is in control. It has happened before and will happen again.

But beyond that would that include anyone in the USA, would there be exceptions to that rule? I ask cause there are some cases of members in federal office, who are just as guilty for that as those in the State of California. And what do you propose to be done when it expands to other states, or areas that are not sanctuary states, but say are doing something that the current administration is in favor of?

And then there is the point of who would run a state or a city, if the officials are arrested and put in prison or jail? Would it fall to the people to make that determination or would it fall to the federal government to come in and thus run such?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Actually it would be overreach. And in the State of California there would be a problem.

So lets say for arguments sake they passed this bill and it becomes law. So now who is going to run the cities with millions as population? Or the state for that matter? If the people who are responsible are put in jail, such as the Mayors, and city councils, the Governor, LT governor, the Legislature, who then is left to run the state? It would require some form of government to come in and run until a new government could be elected.

Now that costs money, and could end up meaning that the Federal government would have to pay for such. And then what happens if the next set continues the same policies as before?

Or worse, what if the local law enforcement and the population refuses to let the federal officials do such? That could get ugly real quick.

I have to say that I find it interesting that so many people are talking about city's, county's, state's this and that. As I understand this bill it's not aimed at those "government's". It's aimed at those individuals within the government who are breaking the law. IE: The mayor telling the chief of police "I" want you to stop doing this. It's no different than sitting on the jury for a bank robbery trial and having the judge walk in day 1 and say case dismissed because he told me that he really needed the money, and I felt sorry for him. This is the same thing to me. An elected official telling illegal immigrants you can come here because I feel bad for you.

I might also point out that, for the most part, these people are coming here because of the problems in their country. Why not stay there and fix those problems? I'm sorry but in my opinion if you're unwilling to stand and fight for your country, how can I trust you to fight to protect ours? The drug cartel's have taken control of Mexico. Who's fault is that? If it's so bad stop working for them and fight back. They only have control because the people gave it to them. Instead they decided to come here, where someone else already did the work. To take advantage of a system someone else fought and died to create and protect. Are you kidding me?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Who would run the cities? Well obviously LEGAL votes that go to the right people who don't overlook the fact that US citizens should be looked after before undocumented and illegals. Only thing that these mayors and city officials are good at is , voting for pay raises for themselves (which they all unanimously agree on) and making sure that California goes down the toilet.

a reply to: SlapMonkey
The funny thing about the politicians is that they know the law far better than we can imagine and have lawyers who will look at and ultimately start to think of ways to exploit them. They find the loop holes and often lay down plans to either use them, or how to exploit them.

This is not the point of an alarmist, but one who has seen it, been there while such was being considered, and done. Seen the end results of a reactionary laws, and had to deal with such, like every other person in this country right now, has to deal with laws passed out of a reaction and an emotional basis. It never turns out well and in the end only those who obey the laws end up hurt or affected in ways that make life more difficult.

It is the opening of a door for federal overreach. Right now it is cause they want to get states to comply with the federal laws, as determined by one group. But make no mistake, once that door is opened up, it is all over, the legal precedent would be set and ultimately will end up with the federal over reach.

In California, what all is one going to do when the Mayor’s and city council’s, the Governor and Lt Governor, and the majority of the legislator refuses to comply? That would mean someone would have to come in and govern, until a new set is elected. And if they do not play ball, is the federal government going to then go in and arrest the lawfully elected new government again? How far will it go? What if the local population decides it is going to resist? What will the federal government do if say the city of Los Angeles decides to not allow for its mayor or elected officials to be arrested, or if the local law enforcement gets involved against the federal government? This could get ugly very quick.


This has happened before, and how it was handled then, was done very cautiously and carefully, to keep the threat of violence to a min, and to ensure that no one got hurt.

a reply to: lisame

Then how are alot of these politicians or those who support those very position keep getting elected time and time again?

The Mayors and Governors there only enforcing the laws, would it not be the legislatures and city councils who are setting the policies and voting for such?

The only way would have to be to arrest all of the city or state government, that means the mayor and city council. Now if the state and local levels are arrested, then who is going to run such? It would require the federal government to come in to do the job, to get people into office. Course there is no guarantee that the people who are elected will be any different, or would be willing to change the laws or policies.

And then there is the federal government, after there are those who are in the government who employ immigrant labor, or even have them in their families. Should those also not be looked at and determined if they are there legally, and the federal persons be subject to the same laws?

a reply to: sdcigarpig

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Of course there would be a problem in the State of California, because it is the worst offender in this issue.

States and municipaliites have contingency plans in place, as does the federal government, in the case of those in power being ousted for one reason or another, and worse-case scenario, there has be to special elections held.

Easy solution, though, is that these elected officials don't break federal law and they won't get brought up on charges.

It's a pretty simple solution, to be honest.

And no, the federal government wouldn't be on the hook to pay for special elections if politicians get caught breaking federal law--that's just silly.

And for what it's worth, my day job consists of working with AUSAs and federal investigators concerning evidence for federal trials, and my prior day job was as a paralegal for federal prosecutors--I understand the law, legalese, and the judicial system quite well.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: TheRedneck

Seems to me the United States of America could be renamed the fractured states of America.

Why and how is there such division among citizens..... It's truly mind boggling.

Why?
George Soros.
Financially incentive civil war brooding. If not you first, then UK.
But thunk you first.

I say let them go on with their lawless ways and secede from the Union.
They can then get a history lesson on what happens to states that want to leave.
That will leave the Federal government a completely free hand in occupied enemy territory which is probably the only way to restore California to it's pre-socialist state.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
It is the opening of a door for federal overreach. Right now it is cause they want to get states to comply with the federal laws, as determined by one group. But make no mistake, once that door is opened up, it is all over, the legal precedent would be set and ultimately will end up with the federal over reach.

What one group are you referring to? Federal law doesn't just change on the drop of a hat, obstruction of justice has always been a crime, an elected official giving criminals an early warning that they're about to be arrested is at the very least obstruction if nothing else. You have no idea why ICE was targeting them or why that politician decided to break her oath to the American people to protect them, I want to see justice in this country, If I did the same thing as that mayor I'd already be in prison, that's not fair and impartial justice, it's another wealthy elitist acting as if laws don't apply to them.

That's good news . Not sure if it's been mentioned but there was an illegal in Denver that caused a terrible crash where a truck driver was killed. There was a huge fireball explosion and I read that the trucker couldn't free himself. The drunken illegal didn't wait around to see if he could help , he got the hell out of there. The Denver sheriff had ice wanting to detain the guy. He let the illegal out before letting ice know.
So now he's free to do it again or go back home to Mexico. The sheriff should go to jail for ten years and the illegal should face the death penalty. I'm sure neither will happen unfortunately. The problem is the people who own us and our country want illegals here. Illegals are profitable for the people who own everything. I hope it changes but until we get rid of our root problem it's going to be tough to stop illegals.

originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

This has much in common with the years before the War of Northern Aggression.

What war was that?

Never heard of it.

Yes you have. Yankees were the aggressors so most people knowledgeable about the Civil War will call it the War of Northern Aggression.

So when the southern states all signed the declaration of war and secession and then attacked fort sumpter it was the north who were the aggressors?

I know of the American Civil war, but I don't recognize the "War of Northern aggression"

a reply to: TheRedneck

Congressman Todd Rokita introduced the SLAP Act (H.R. 4526, the Stopping Lawless Actions of Politicians) to hold lawless state and local politicians accountable with criminal penalties for working to obstruct federal immigration enforcement efforts

Sounds like more power to the feds less power to the states.
I don't wont that.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I have no intention of insulting you, but when you post as you just did, in the middle of a civilized discussion (which I am not ashamed to say I am very proud of), using vague alarmist rhetoric (and that is exactly what you used), I will point out the errors in your post. That is what I did. If you took that as a personal insult, that is something I have no control over. I only have control over what I say, not others' interpretation of it. I stated your opinion as posted was ignorant, not you.

Since this post is more civilized, allow me to respond in a similar manner:

And a law like this would open up a door that no one would want. And there is an old saying: Never hand a person a loaded weapon unless one knows where it is going to point it at.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement, which is why I normally look closely at wording in a bill. Especially when the bill is long and involved, it is easy to place provisions which open those doors you mention. In this case, however, the bill is not long nor involved. It is one lone paragraph.

“Whoever, being a State or local official having custody of an individual, knowingly ignores a request from the Federal Government for the custody of that individual, if the requesting authority has designated that individual as a violator of the immigration laws, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both”.

Actual text of HR4526 per House.gov official website

Let's take this phrase by phrase, shall we?

"Whoever, being a State or local official having custody of an individual" This cannot be extended to any person not in an official capacity in a local government, nor can it be applied to any person who does not, in their official capacity, have custody of the individual in question.

"knowingly ignores a request from the Federal Government for the custody of that individual" This bill will not apply to miscommunication or a lack of due notification, due to the word "knowingly." That one word presupposes prior knowledge of the action, in this case notification that the department has received a request from the Federal immigration authorities.

"if the requesting authority has designated that individual as a violator of the immigration laws" Another requirement for this bill to be applicable. It cannot be extended to any other criminal behavior except immigration, and there must be a prior determination from the immigration authorities that the individual in question is in violation of US immigration law.

"shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both" The prescribed penalty for violation of this law.

Reading the bill would have informed you of this. This will not apply to marijuana laws, or tax evasion, or anything of the sort; it is limited to violation of immigration laws. A prior determination of the individual as a violator of immigration laws must be made, and the request must be received and known to exist by anyone who could be charged. It cannot apply to anyone not serving in an official capacity, which would include a sheriff, mayor, police chief, or other public official who has the ability to ignore or honor the request.

The only slippery slope argument is the one posed to me above by amazing. It does not apply to this bill. Perhaps one could imagine this bill setting a precedent for other bills, but other bills would then be considered separate. No law may be passed without Congressional approval/action. If a similar bill were introduced concerning something like marijuana laws, which I see as a Federal overreach, I would be speaking out against it; there is no enumerated clause in the Constitution that allows the Federal government to exclusively control drug use, as there is concerning immigration.

But beyond that would that include anyone in the USA, would there be exceptions to that rule? I ask cause there are some cases of members in federal office, who are just as guilty for that as those in the State of California.

The bill specifically states who it applies to. It contains no exceptions. Exceptions must be enumerated (or at least strongly implied), as often happens in longer and more involved legislation.

It is not possible for anyone in the Federal government to ignore a lawful request from a state concerning immigration. No state has the authority to set immigration procedure, as is specified in the Constitution and has been upheld by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions in numerous decisions.

I will however, say that I believe the reverse situation should be true when the request by the state is lawful and does not override Federal law. It is my understanding that a person convicted in both Federal and state jurisdictions is turned over to the requesting states when they serve their Federal sentence, although I will admit I am not 100% sure of the details of how that works.

And what do you propose to be done when it expands to other states, or areas that are not sanctuary states, but say are doing something that the current administration is in favor of?

Ummm... celebrate?

Immigration law is immigration law. A law that may be ignored without peril is not a law and might as well not exist. Since this is specified as applying only to crimes involving immigration, and the immigration laws are set by the US Congress, it should be applied to all states equally, and yes, that includes Alabama. Nowhere does it specify a state... if it did, it would be unconstitutional.

Again, a reading of the single paragraph of this bill answers every single assertion you made. I have previously posted the full text of the bill and a link to the official House of Representatives where it is housed. All one needs do is spend thirty seconds reading it.

TheRedneck

A reminder that many in the South are still suffering because of the policies enacted by the federal government to punish after victory. We don't need to go out punishing everyone this time. This is the most sane approach to getting these people help and getting America on track. We are a leader to all people that want freedom but understand the responsibility that comes with it. We are leaders in the world and we are doing a disservice to it by refusing responsibility in all of these matters.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

If the people who are responsible are put in jail, such as the Mayors, and city councils, the Governor, LT governor, the Legislature, who then is left to run the state? It would require some form of government to come in and run until a new government could be elected.

I thought you had mentioned this in your post to me, but I did not respond to this point... so allow me to do so here.

Every government has a chain of command. If the Governor is unable for any reason to serve, the Lieutenant Governor steps into the office. Alabama just had this happen when Governor Robert Bentley was impeached and removed from office. Kay Ivey, the Lieutenant Governor, became Governor and appointed a new interim Lieutenant Governor. Life goes on.

If there is no governing official left, the choice of the Governor/Mayor would be as specified in the Constitution of the state or the Charter of the municipality.

The only other option would be to make any elected official exempt from all laws of the state, municipality, and country. That would be a much worse disaster.

Or worse, what if the local law enforcement and the population refuses to let the federal officials do such? That could get ugly real quick.

The War of Eastern Aggression. I suggest those individuals trying to usurp/suppress the authority of the United States of America read up on their history. The War of Northern Aggression was not a fun time.

TheRedneck

a reply to: strongfp

So when the southern states all signed the declaration of war and secession and then attacked fort sumpter it was the north who were the aggressors?

The Confederacy did not sign a declaration of war until the Union did. The episode at Fort Sumter was simply the deportation of immigrants form Confederate soil. The Union initiated the war.

TheRedneck

a reply to: scraedtosleep

Sounds like more power to the feds less power to the states.

A recent Supreme Court decision invalidated a properly implemented Alabama Constitutional amendment that denied gay marriage rights. Which side were you on then?

There is more in the Constitution declaring immigration to be the sole dominion of the Federal government than there is about marriage being so.

TheRedneck