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.

 

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

page: 5
120
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ventian
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.

We may be a world leader, but I do think you miss the point. I, like a lot of Americans are tired of being the world bank. I'm sick of turning on my TV and hearing about how we should do something to take care of someone,in some country most people couldn't find on a map. While at the same time we ignore those in need right here. Our government can't afford to help those here because we're taking care of everyone else. I'm feel bad about kids not getting an education but I'm more concerned about the kids here getting one. The rest of the world is not our financial responsibility.




posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



The way I see it is that these politicians often take turns promoting, sponsoring bills that appear to support the little people knowing full well that they never will pass all in order to use the failed bill as something to use as a campaign item.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: 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

A roper poll about 10 years ago said that something like 70% of voters step into the box to vote and have no clue what they're voting on. They only think they do because they saw it on a billboard or something. So I'm not surprised by what some people think.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MikeA

I do not doubt that one bit.

Incidentally, I should add that I opposed that amendment. I supported the right of the people to do stoopid stuff, though.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

well i have really enjoyed reading your post the 2 ing and frowing was very interesting well done and thank you



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

There is enough in history where it shows both points.

The first, the dealing with the various states, looking back in history, there was a time where there were states that were openly defying federal law. There was no arresting of any state or city elected official. During that time frame there were phone calls between the state and DC and negotiating going on. The most that happened was that the National guard was called out, though it was limited, and it was used only to protect, not to attack. And in the end it eventually died out.

This law is a bad law, it is prone to abuse and exploitation. And like most reactionary laws, it will affect most by not everyone. To that point, look what happened after 9/11. 9/11 happened and then a series of laws were passed, and renewed. But in that aspect, when it came down to it, we could see how they were exploited. The NSA reading all emails, and listening in on telephone calls on its own citizens. A secret list of people who the government is watching, where you did not know if you were on or not on it. People set up to be arrested or detained, even violating international laws by having people taken and tortured.

And this law cannot be applied equally in the country. It only focuses on those at the state level, however there have been times and cases where those in the Federal government have been in that same position. Senators hiring undocumented workers to watch children or care for laws. Obama’s father was brought up while he was in office, along with Trumps In-laws, his wife’s family.

And some laws are exploited and used. There is a current case of this, and I am going to bring up as an example of such: In Alabama, there is a law on the books, that lets a sheriff keep whatever does not get spent on food for the jail that the run. This goes back to a time when the sheriff’s wife would cook for the prisoners. But it was never repealed and now it is being abused and exploited where the sheriffs are keeping the excess of the money, spending as little as they can on feeding the people under their charge. Now I know that jail is not supposed be a walk in the park or easy, but at the same time spending so little or even where the meals are not nutritional in nature, is wrong. One sheriff I believe was convicted on fraud, another had such restricted for his actions.

Reactionary laws are very bad and usually end up where they are either abused or exploited, going beyond their original intent. And that is what I believe this bill is, something that would fall into this category.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MikeA

I think you are missing my overall opinion on the situation. We have no means of helping the world until we help ourselves. That is our purpose in this world. That is why America was created. We help because we are the leaders; but if we can't help ourselves, then we are just going to end up with boots on our throats. America works because of its' separate but equal policies and its' motivation to solve real problems. These problems don't all require money, but they all require us doing our part in the most constructive way possible.
edit on 15-3-2018 by ventian because: sloppy writing



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


9/11 happened and then a series of laws were passed, and renewed. But in that aspect, when it came down to it, we could see how they were exploited. The NSA reading all emails, and listening in on telephone calls on its own citizens. A secret list of people who the government is watching, where you did not know if you were on or not on it. People set up to be arrested or detained, even violating international laws by having people taken and tortured.

The Patriot Act (and other associated bills) were nothing like HR 4526. The Patriot Act specified that the government could read emails, conduct domestic spying under certain circumstances, and listen in on telephone calls. It was also over 1000 pages in length, filled with exceptions and convoluted methods supposedly for ensuring the right to privacy it was in reality designed to remove.

HR 4526 exactly specifies who can be punished, and for what exact actions. That's a huge difference.


And this law cannot be applied equally in the country. It only focuses on those at the state level, however there have been times and cases where those in the Federal government have been in that same position. Senators hiring undocumented workers to watch children or care for laws. Obama’s father was brought up while he was in office, along with Trumps In-laws, his wife’s family.

This bill has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with hiring illegal immigrants. It only applies to ignoring transfer requests for illegal immigrants. It cannot be applied to anyone who does not have custody of a person known to the immigration authorities to be an illegal immigrant.

I covered that in my last post, phrase by phrase. Did you at least read it?

Would you do me the honor of going back and reading it, instead of using the same refuted argument over and over?


And some laws are exploited and used. There is a current case of this, and I am going to bring up as an example of such: In Alabama...

I thought that law had been repealed, but I'm not 100% sure if it was. But yes, the law was good when passed but later was ripe for abuse. It is not possible to develop any law which does not have the possibility of becoming obsolete, because no one knows what the future will bring.

I do not see how this law could become obsolete at this time, but if it should do so, it needs to be repealed. That is much more responsible than simply declaring all laws as bad, which is the basis for your argument.


Reactionary laws are very bad and usually end up where they are either abused or exploited, going beyond their original intent. And that is what I believe this bill is, something that would fall into this category.

By definition, all laws are reactionary. All of them. No one has ever passed a law that I know of that was not passed to combat a specific issue that arose. That is the definition of reactionary: developed as a reaction to a stimuli.

According to your argument, there should be no laws whatsoever. People should be able to do whatever they want: steal, rape, kill for sport, pollute, destroy, whatever... just because someone might abuse a law in the future. Which is preferable? A 'law of the jungle' society, where the strong survive on the backs of the poor and there is no legal network to challenge them, or a society of laws that might be abused someday by a few?

I prefer the latter.

If you want to continue this as a serious debate, please point out to me the wording in HR 4526 that you feel may be abused, and the legal basis for that potential abuse. This thread is not about the validity of all laws, but a specific one: HR 4526.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
I did look at the bill as it is written. It opens a door that no one wants, and can be abused by politicians at both state and federal levels. Court cases are a good reference for this where one law that justifies one action, can be used to justify a similar action of a different nature. That is why I keep saying you do not want this kind of law on the book, there are some legal doors that one does not want opened up, cause it can and often will result in such happening. A good example of this would be the polygamy laws that are on the books. Those did not come around initially, they were done as a secondary set of laws. The originating laws for such, started out as laws to restrict and or ban the Mormon religion.

The same could be done with that kind of bill. It gets made into a law, thus opening up the legal door. Where the federal government could turn around and look at other laws, and see what states are not enforcing them and then demand such.

However there is one thing that this law will not be able to overcome and that is the Printz V. United States, court case, combined with the US V USA, and a 2014 court case coming out of Oregon.

There are several problems that will need to be addressed here:

The first is that Elected officials need to do their jobs and redo the entire immigration system. It is a system that is underfunded, understaffed, and is often clogged and unable to cope with the sheer numbers of people present.
Another problem is that this issue can no longer be a political issue. This is not a new problem it has been around for years, going back to the end of World War II. And it has been used as a political point for years, about the time of Elections or when they needed something to take everyone’s attention off of DC.

And finally, there is this one point: They can remove the laws and written policy, however they don’t have to comply by reporting or holding people without a court order. In fact there are no laws on the books that state that California is to resist ICE or any federal agencies from doing their job. They are not cooperating at all with the federal government in it doing its job. While yes, in 2017 Gov Jerry Brown did sign a bill that makes California a sanctuary state, it does not bar local or state agencies from cooperating with ICE, or prevent ICE from carrying out raids. It just means that they are not going to lift a finger to help.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: 99problems

Is it against the law to not help? That is the crux of the matter here. If a state or local authority decides it does not want to help the Federal government do its job, is that against the law? Based on all of the research I am looking at, that pretty much is what this is coming down to.

There is no law that forbids or stops law enforcement from assisting ICE, or prohibits such. In short all that is out there, is that they are not helping ICE, or lifting a finger for such.

Now if they are going to pass this to force state and local officials to help, then would that not be over reach by the federal government?



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: ProtiosDrin
California tried to stay out of the civil war. They probably felt left out now and want to have their own. I am from there and would love to have it become two states. The civil war no matter what it was fought for showed us one thing. The army wins.


Which army?



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

But that is the point. I did a bit of further research, and in short the local and state governments are not lifting a finger to help the federal government or ICE, nor are they stopping them.

The local law enforcement is not required to run immigration status, they are not impeding raids, they are leaving it in the hands of ICE.

So if they are not hampering, or stopping, what crime are they committing?



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Where is the law that states a person has to voluntarily assist?

Immigration is in the jurisdiction of the Federal government. Its enforcement, and execution of such also falls into the jurisdiction of the federal government.

What is going on in California, is that they are not doing anything. There is no California law that is preventing or stopping any local law enforcement from assisting ICE, nor is it stopping ICE from raiding anywhere in the state.

So if law enforcement is doing its job within the confines of the law, then it stands to reason that this is a Federal issue and not a state.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 09:24 PM
link   
All being said...What the Mayor of Oakland did was not in the best interests of US citizens. The point being...they are here illegally and plain and simple....ITS ILLEGAL. Its bad enough to have US citizens committing crimes here, but to have illegals come in and commit crimes only to have a special legal fund set aside to help them is absurd. That money can be spent elsewhere. Are these officials using generosity to gain their vote (illegal vote) or maybe they might want to sponsor some of these illegals themselves. They sit pretty behind their gated properties while the rest of the community deals with the implications from letting them harbor themselves here illegally.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I like the idea, it's great when our laws are enforced but it's pretty bad when we have to make new laws in order to enforce ones that are already on the books. Sad that this is necessary, now if only this kind of thing could spread to politicians lying to their constituents. Being honest should be made into law, at least when it comes to politicians because they affect everyone else with their choices. Threaten jail time to politicians who are blatantly caught lying.


Ever hear of perjury?



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That only applies to a courtroom, not politics.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 10:15 PM
link   

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.


I think a good bit of the citizens are united at least on this. Its the not-citizens that are the problem.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

What about harboring criminals? Not doing anything is sometimes a crime too.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


Where is the law that states a person has to voluntarily assist?

No one is asking any local law enforcement to assist. They are expected to comply with an ICE notification that the person they have detained is wanted by ICE and advise ICE of the suspect's release date so custody can be transferred to ICE. Local law enforcement is not required, nor expected to assist, investigate, or in any other way involve themselves with an immigration charge. This is no different than someone wanted for murder in Alabama being picked up for shoplifting in Nevada. Nevada does not care that they killed someone in Alabama, but they will hold the suspect once they discover the court order until Alabama officials can take custody.


There is no California law that is preventing or stopping any local law enforcement from assisting ICE, nor is it stopping ICE from raiding anywhere in the state.

The California Values Act

limits how state and local officials may cooperate with federal immigration officials. Absent a judicial warrant, law-enforcement agencies in California are forbidden to provide federal authorities with information about an alien’s release date. That prevents federal agents from taking custody of suspects at a secure facility, reducing the likelihood that the suspects will be caught and potentially putting federal officers in dangerous situations.

The Act has some legal opinions that say it will pass Constitutional muster, although many more say it falls under the same heading as Arizona v. U.S. (2012) and is therefore unconstitutional. Arizona v. U.S. (2012) stated that a state may not "interfere with Congress’s plenary power over immigration." In the interim, HR 4526 would make it specifically illegal to not notify ICE of the release date before the release. That appears to be the motivating force behind HR 4526.

But you are simply wrong: the California Values Act does specifically make it illegal for law enforcement to communicate with ICE in any way except under court order. You are correct there is no law preventing ICE raids, and in retaliation for the sanctuary status, ICE now is concentrating on California.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 11:34 PM
link   
It's about time they did this. They need to enforce this law no matter who the politician is or thinks they are.

Of course, these people will need lawyers, and the lawyers who told them they would not get penalized will rake in lots of money from these politicians and the people of the state will foot the bill to fight the laws of our country. I think people in California and other states that support these sanctuary areas should say no to defending these people, they are getting paid to do their jobs, if they screw up, then they should foot their own bills for lawyers. The people of these states should not have to pay to defend someone who is a criminal. Maybe a state appointed lawyer if they cannot afford one.

edit on 15-3-2018 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join