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: 6
120
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Great OP. I agree totally.


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.
...


Amen to that. Things would be so much more peaceful if we just put a wall up between us and California. Let them rot in their own insane world. But, we can put the wall up between north and south and let north Cali join the US.


Nah just San Francisco LA Sacramento all the major cities really let the rural areas stay in the US the rest can go it'll look like the West Bank LOL




posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:04 AM
link   
This is one of the few cases where the federal government has legitimate jurisdiction. Usually they just make things up to sidestep the constitution.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:20 AM
link   
This is from a Californian; LET'S MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. all those hollywood persons who think they know everything break down your walls you live behind. All their opinions, don't mean anything.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: 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


The declaration of secession was all signed and presented in 1860.
It was pure stubbornness of the south that caused the war and they forced the entire union into chaos with their barbaric secession proposition to leave the union on the basis of upholding the institution of slavery alone.
Sorry, but you're wrong, the South literally caused the war and initiated it.
edit on 16-3-2018 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The new American civil rights movement has been born.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I have done my research as well, and there are many instances of state and county prisons and jails releasing known illegal immigrants without allowing ICE to be there for the release for capture and deportation, even in the face of ICE (or other federal agencies) requesting it.

There are many other instances of open aiding and abetting illegal immigration, some of which will possibly fall under the scope of this language in the bill (depends on how they define "having custody of an individual"), and while states like California are the biggest offenders, it happens everywhere, just to differing degrees. (my brother is a nurse in the CA prison system, and knows full well the amount of illegal immigrants that California has custody of)

So, knowing (hopefully, at least) that this law only targets public officials who knowingly have custody of illegal immigrants and are willfully disregarding federal request for custody of said illegal, I think that it's safe to say that, as you claim, if there is no wrong doings on the parts of these officials, then great, the law will be a moot (but I feel a necessary) piece of legislation.

But if I'm correct, these people, if the bill passes, will have to stop doing this stuff or face criminal penalties, which I'm fine with considering that if any private citizens were doing what they are, we would most likely be investigated, indicted, and face criminal penalties if convicted.

This keeps the playing field level as it pertains to federal law, and reminds elected/public officials that they are not above said laws.

I see nothing wrong with that, considering that it's the federal government's job to dictate national immigration policies AND to enforce them with laws and official procedures.

In any case, we can agree to disagree, I suppose. I would argue that you're either putting a subjective spin on your research, or that it was not very thorough, because I see that you keep claiming that California is not doing anything wrong. Well, that's the thing, though--this law doesn't affect the state, it affects individuals--and if the bill passes, these individuals can and should be prosecuted for ignoring federal jurisdiction over illegal immigrants.

Best regards--I think that I've said my piece. Thanks for the discussion.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Always found it crazy that a single country can have different laws in different states. It's the same here down under.

Confusing as # to be that way if you ask me. How can a nation be united when everyone is playing by a different set of rules?

Cannot believe their are people who do not understand why border security is so important for any nation.
You just gotta know who is coming into your country, especially in this day and age when you're no longer fighting clear invading armies but individual and small groups of threats.

I'm okay with immigrants. we all gotta live on this planet and everyone should have a right to a good life. But you want to be sure you're letting the right people in. Those who want to assimilate and are not a danger to the existing locals.

Definitely a correlation between the decline of Western culture and security and the rise of "feelings" based thinking.
You have to be pretty thick not to see it.

Funny thing is those who cry to let anyone and everyone in unchecked, you don't see them offering to let illegal immigrants move in with them. Nope they want the pat on the back but leave the mess for the rest of us to clean up.

Really need our governments to step up and deal with this problem before we reach a point of no return.

Any way, I think in any country law should be universal nationwide. Cannot be one nation under anything when you're divided.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I have done my research as well, and there are many instances of state and county prisons and jails releasing known illegal immigrants without allowing ICE to be there for the release for capture and deportation, even in the face of ICE (or other federal agencies) requesting it.

Seems to be a bit of he said/she said. The other side of the coin is the state and county prisons and jails saying they alert ICE and ICE doesn't show up before they are legally obligated to release the illegals.

Both probably happen.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

In the beginning, the US was a lot like the EU was supposed to be... 13 countries ("states") aligning under a single authority to allow them to pool resources for trade and protection at the expense of adhering to a Constitution. Since then, every single state has agreed to abide by the US Constitution as a requirement for inclusion in the US. Not one has been added in the 'normal' historical manner (conquered).

It worked well for a while, until the Federal government got so involved in things that the states should have been doing that today, no one seems to understand what the Federal government is even there for.

It is there to:
  • Protect the border and establish immigration processes.
  • Regulate and promote commerce between the states.
  • Maintain a military for national security.
  • Ensure equity between the various states.
  • Provide for a method to establish justice between the states.
That's about it. I don't think the Founding Fathers even envisioned individuals interacting with Federal courts. That was supposed to be for states to bring charges.

It is not there to:
  • Interfere in commerce within a state.
  • Distribute money to the poor.
  • Create national policy on domestic issues.
But over the years, many of those things have been included by judicial decisions that purported to somehow know what the Founding Fathers intended... which turned out to often be the exact opposite of what they wrote! I'm not even convinced they intended for the Bill of Rights to be restrictive to the states, although I am glad they are.

The spirit of the Constitution is that the actions of sanctuary cities/states are a direct and overt violation of the agreement that was made when they or their state applied for and received statehood. They signed a contract and now are choosing to violate it... and worse, many believe that they should be able to violate their portion of that contract while still enforcing the portions that benefit them! In that respect, it is no different than an employer hiring someone and deciding not to pay them, then going to court to claim they can't stop working. Employment is a contract: guaranteed income for guaranteed service for the life of the contract.

But enough of my rant... excellent post, and thank you for the contribution!

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982

Any law passed by any city or state that disregards US immigration laws, or any other federal law, should immediately be considered null and void. It simply cannot exist.



Well howdy do, finally someone staunchly against States Cannabis laws being relaxed in contravention of federal law. Good to see there is someone who realizes those wicked stoners all deserve to be locked up with the key thrown away.

And I thought that was the one issue that brought both sides together pretty unanimously...



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

No, this isn't he-said-she-said, because both absolutely happen, but sdcigarpig is asserting that it never happens--I'm countering that saying that it does. Only one of those claims is factual.

But I agree with your point, and would go further to say that if this law passes, there needs to be procedural changes in how ICE responds to these notifications. If the person is released because they cannot legally hold them longer, that's not on the public official.

I do, however, wish that within this law it also set a timeframe--a certain amount of days prior to the release date--that these notifications to ICE have to happen. If the county, for instance, notifies ICE two days prior to release, that's not always going to be enough time to meet and pick up the individual.

So, like with most laws, it is incompletely written, but still has the spirit of a law that should be on the books. Obviously, what I noted that is missing can be added later in the process, although it should have been addressed at the start.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Both happening but each side claiming it only happens one way and it is the other sides fault fits my definition of he said/she said.

As you pointed out that missing piece of the law is what will probably be used as a loophole to let the public officials off and maybe even to disarm/strike it down by the courts before it causes any real change in the SOP.



edit on 16-3-2018 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I have to agree with the time specification. That should have been addressed. Hopefully it will be in committee.

I believe any authority has the ability to hold a person without charges for up to 24 hours. An official charge of a crime extends that to the point of a 'reasonable' span of time for the accused to be arraigned. There is not always an arraignment on immigration cases (a situation that probably should be addressed as well; until proven otherwise, a presumption of citizenship should be applied), but I don't think excessive incarceration is allowed even then.

So if ICE makes an official charge against an individual being held for another reason, the 24-hour restriction no longer applies. ICE must still maintain a 'reasonable' time line, but the officials in sanctuary cities/states are incorrect in that they cannot legally hold someone who has had charges pressed by a different authority. Some of the complaints about this have centered on use of the jail facilities; in that case a simple financial reimbursement could be implemented, but it should apply to ALL requests concerning that city/state, whether it be from other municipalities requesting extradition or from them trying to get someone extradicted back.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

under federal "jobs", i'd remove the military thing. Their job is to ensure national security....having a standing army isn't necessarily part of that (although it may not necessarily be excluded...there are arguments against its constitutionality).

I'd add in that the federal government is responsible for foreign trade, as states are not supposed to be negotiating those things.

I'd also add that the Bill of Rights, exhibiting inalienable rights, are to be extended to all people on Earth.

Otherwise, great post and great points.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


finally someone staunchly against States Cannabis laws being relaxed in contravention of federal law.

That strawman was addressed some while back. Immigration is specified in the Constitution and has been verified in multiple Supreme Court decisions to be the sole responsibility of the Federal government. Drug enforcement does not carry that distinction.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I would argue that a standing military is a necessity for maintaining national security. Perhaps it was not when the Constitution was written (the Revolutionary War saw a standing army of purely volunteers, without pay or even supplied equipment), but today's realities have necessitated the use of a standing, well-equipped, nationally accountable military.

You are correct on foreign trade. I missed that.

By the wording, certain rights in the Bill of Rights are extended to all citizens... for example, the phrase "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd Amendment does not specify whether or not it applies to the Federal government only. But the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." in the 1st Amendment does indicate it is only applicable at the Federal level.

I attribute these things to interpretation. I do agree that the restrictions on government actions should be applicable at both the Federal and state level, given the world and political reality we live in. If I had to guess, I would guess that the Justices who have, over the years, applied them thusly had the same realization.

I cannot agree that the Bill of Rights applies to the entire planet. It has as its jurisdiction the United States of America, being a document written solely for the purpose of establishing the United States of America. No included specification of jurisdiction is needed when the jurisdiction is so self-evident. No US official has the authority to enforce Constitutional law in China, or South Africa, or Norway, or any other nation on earth, and that reality establishes jurisdiction.

I do believe the rights in the Constitution are to be extended to those legally within the boundaries of, and thus subject to the authority of, the United States. Citizenship is not a requirement; only legal acceptance of the authority of the jurisdiction. That brings up an issue with certain rights, like the 2nd Amendment, however... should someone here on a VISA be allowed to own and carry weapons? That is a good topic for another thread.

Excellent points as well!

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

72 hours is the general timeframe that one can be held without charges, so I suppose that after official release for other charges, the individual could be held for another 72 hours without having any legal issues on behalf of law enforcement.

Within that timeframe, they should be able to do whatever legal process is necessary to complete transfer to ICE and process for deportation.

I understand the issue about using county or state facilities as federal holding cells, but the government would be easily capable of compensating in return for use of the facilities, I would assume, as you do.

But, again, all of this could be negated by better, more complete wording in the law, so hopefully that gets figured out, because I would appreciate such a law being in effect.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I was thinking it was 24 hours, but I could easily be wrong on that. My legal expertise extends to trying to keep myself out of detention, period, rather than trying to minimize it, lol.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I do believe the rights in the Constitution are to be extended to those legally within the boundaries of, and thus subject to the authority of, the United States. Citizenship is not a requirement; only legal acceptance of the authority of the jurisdiction. That brings up an issue with certain rights, like the 2nd Amendment, however... should someone here on a VISA be allowed to own and carry weapons? That is a good topic for another thread.

Actually, it's a simple answer and has already been adjudicated in court (U.S. v Meza-Rodriguez [2015]).

Basically, but you can read it if you want, it states that the 2nd Amendment does extend to illegal immigrants, BUT is subject to reasonable limitations. In that case, the court ruled that:

In any event, the question of who possesses the right need not be answered to reach our outcome here, because regardless of the answer 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(5) satisfies intermediate scrutiny and thus passes constitutional muster.

18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(5) reads thusly:

18 U.S. Code § 922 - Unlawful acts
    (g) It shall be unlawful for any person—

      (5) who, being an alien—

        (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

        (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

    to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

So, per the court, this law prohibiting illegal aliens from possessing firearms or ammunition is pretty clear and deemed constitutional by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Hopefully that helps. Here's a nice, short article on the case: FindLaw



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer


finally someone staunchly against States Cannabis laws being relaxed in contravention of federal law.

That strawman was addressed some while back. Immigration is specified in the Constitution and has been verified in multiple Supreme Court decisions to be the sole responsibility of the Federal government. Drug enforcement does not carry that distinction.

TheRedneck


Its not a strawman. I wasn't refuting the OP's argument, but rather calling out the absolute statement by the poster to whom I was responding with a little sarcasm. Rarely are absolute statements warranted (since almost nobody lives in a completely black & white paradigm), and so I like to point them out when I see them.

As an aside; I genuinely didn't know that there was actual grey area regarding drug enforcement not actually being under the purview of the Federal Government.. Has there actually been jurisprudence president for that view?



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join