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: 7
120
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer


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.

Allow me to facepalm myself... ouch... that's better.

I completely missed the sarcasm, I'm afraid. One of the disadvantages of non-verbal communication.


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?

Not that I am aware of. But... the document is clear on immigration, yet never mentions drug use.

I am expecting there to be some judicial review soon, because the previous administration chose to ignore law rather than change it. Obama had a Congress at one point that would have been capable of passing a law relegating at least marijuana to the states, but it appears he preferred to just ignore a law and wait for the next administration to again prosecute it.

With Sessions known anti-marijuana bent (the only major policy I oppose him on so far as I know) and several states allowing even recreational use legally, the stage is set for a court decision.

TheRedneck




posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Is there a law that states that a person or a state government has to help the federal government?
That is the question that needs to be answered, is if there is such a federal law. And from what I could see, and check on there are no such laws on the books at all. I also did research into the California laws, and from what I can tell, and from what was coming up after doing searches, there are no laws in the state of California, or any other state for that matter that stops or prevents ICE from coming in, arresting and deporting any illegal immigrant, or conducting raids in an area to arrest and deport a person from the USA.

In fact, from what I can tell, have read and looked at, all that is being stated, is that the State and local governments have an option, they can choose to help ICE or not, but are not allowed to hinder any federal process that is taking place. In short law enforcement is not calling to report or tell ICE, nor are the sheriffs, or jails.

The reason for them releasing illegal immigrants, also is within both federal and state laws. The laws are clear, a person cannot be held in a jail or a prison without charge, or attainment. So if ICE is not present when the person is picked up, not doing the leg work or checking up on individuals, who is at fault for this, ICE for not being there to pick them up after they have served their sentence, or the State, which is not required, calling. Arizona tried that and got hit hard by the courts and had to stop such practices.
And the other states, have watched such proceedings as to avoid the time and cost of losing lawsuits and fines that go along with such.

There is nothing in the law that forbids an agency from helping. So where are they breaking the law if they are not stopping ICE from doing its job?

Course those that are in prison makes it a more difficult. Do you suggest that those illegal immigrants who are sitting in a prison cell be taken out before finishing their sentence and sent back to their home country without serving a day and thus adverting justice?

A bit more research shows that only 75 counties, with Texas having the most, in 20 states that even agree for law enforcement to contact ICE when they have determined that they have an illegal immigrant in their custody.

There is no federal law that states mandatory compliance to assist the federal government on immigration. There are lots of laws that tell the states that they may not set or deal with immigration. So if California is not impeding or stopping ICE, and it is not helping them at all, then where is the crime being committed? No federal laws are being broken.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Have you read the California Values Act? Like most laws, it is long, and boring, but full of information, of which some makes a lot of sense.
From what I read through this law, is that the State of California and those that work for and are paid by the State will not help the Federal government in its job. It does not stop ICE from doing its job. It states the reason for this bill, and sets out in very specific terms.

One of the problems with Illegal immigrants, is that often they are exploited and the victims of crime that is never reported, and this law sought to bring this group out of the shadows and into the light, along with to make it easier for them to report all crimes against their community without fear of being arrested and detained. And that is one provision in the law, is that if the illegal immigrant is a witness or a victim to a crime, that their citizenship would not be grounds to arrest or detain them.

And the state law enforcement agencies are not allowed to use resources to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect or arrest for immigration enforcement purposes. That they are not allowed to inquire about an individuals immigration status, provide any information that is not already available to the public, provide personal information, cross over into the federal immigration enforcement area, or use federal immigration officials as interpreters for law enforcement matters, transfer an individual to immigration authorities without a warrant, provide office space to be used exclusively for immigration authorities, expect them to follow the laws when it comes to housing individuals as federal detainees.
In fact it states that when it comes to illegal immigrants, that it is solely on the Federal government to handle and not in the jurisdiction of the State.


What this reads, is that the State of California is not going to expend resources or manpower to help ICE do its job. And any and all information, as long as it is in the public domain, ICE can have, but the private information, it is not going to share.

In short, it is not helping, but not preventing the Federal government.

Is it illegal not to help a federal agency? There are no laws that states a person or an organization or a state has to comply with a federal agency to do its job.



posted on Mar, 16 2018 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel
While it is morally wrong in some cases, and only 5 very specific cases where it is illegal, the facts are that doing nothing is not a crime.

Here is a good example of that, the murder of Kitty Genovese. Long story short, Kitty was attacked and stabbed to death outside of her apartment building. 38 people heard, witnessed and saw such. Not one of them did anything. Morally they were wrong not to act, legally they did nothing wrong.

The legal definition of Harboring a Fugitive is when a person hides another person wanted by the law.
Harboring a fugitive refer to the crime of knowingly hiding a wanted criminal from the authorities. Federal and state laws, which vary by state, govern the crime of harboring a fugitive.
The federal statue, 18 U.S.C | 1071, requires proof of four elements: (1) proof that a federal warrant had been issued for the fugitive’s arrest, (2) that the accused had knowledge that a warrant had been issued, (3) that the accused actually harbored or concealed the fugitive, and (4) that the accused intended to prevent the fugitive’s discovery or arrest.

So I don’t think the harboring a fugitive is a valid crime, as the State is not actively hiding these people, nor are they preventing the federal government from finding these people.



posted on Mar, 17 2018 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Here is an article of a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The title says it all; Massachusetts cannot hold immigrants so U.S. can detain them: state top court


The decision amounts to a rejection of requests by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency for courts and law enforcement agencies to hold illegal immigrants, who are facing civil deportation orders, in custody for up to 48 hours after their cases are resolved.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that doing so amounts to a fresh arrest of the person that is not authorized by state law, in the first such ruling to apply to an entire state, according to Massachusetts’ attorney general.



posted on Mar, 17 2018 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

She didn't just "not help" she gave the targets of a federal raid forewarning, she obstructed federal immigration officers from performing their duties, she aided and abetted suspected criminals and helped them avoid arrest, she's clearly guilty of crimes if the allegations are true.



posted on Mar, 17 2018 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


While it is morally wrong in some cases, and only 5 very specific cases where it is illegal, the facts are that doing nothing is not a crime.


So I don’t think the harboring a fugitive is a valid crime, as the State is not actively hiding these people, nor are they preventing the federal government from finding these people.

Your own post appears to be arguing for this law.

if you admit that it may be morally wrong to release a suspect before notifying ICE that the suspect was in custody, then we need a law making it illegal as well. If present law is ambiguous, then a new law must be drafted to remove the ambiguity.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2018 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
The 2 quotes that you posted from me the first one was to show the points I was making.

The first was where the person was claiming that doing nothing is a crime. And I was merely pointing out where it was and the rest is not a crime, even giving him an example of such.

The second was clarifying the legal definition of Harboring a Fugitive, and how I do not think that the state of California is guilty of Harboring a Fugitive.


The solution to this mess, ultimately will lie within the congress, to sit down, look at all of the laws governing both immigration and refugee, and to then repeal it all, and come up with a new set of laws that are clear and concise. Part of this solution is that department that governs immigration needs to be funded. It is severely underfunded, and understaffed. Even if all of the states were to participate and pick up every known illegal immigrant, the reality is that ICE would be unable to process them all or even deport them all. it does not have the funds or the manpower to handle that problem, it would crash and ultimately cause far more problems than it is worth. That was seen with Arizona, when Sheriff Arpaio was running his program, ICE could not keep up, and it also started to cross over into violating civil rights of legal citizens.



posted on Mar, 17 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: 99problems
Where to begin on this:

As far as giving forewarning, it is not against the law. People do it all of the time, but when one sees such is usually when they warn others of a speed trap down the road. And there are branches of the federal government that also has acted and forewarned criminals in the past, so they could avoid law enforcement. So forewarning is not illegal at all.

Obstruction of Justice, if the state was interfering with a witness then yes it would be an obstruction of justice.

The bottom line is that there is no crime here. No one is stopping the federal government from doing their job, they are not preventing them from using the internet or looking in a phone book, or doing their investigation with the resources they have. All that is happening is that the Federal government is having to use its resources to do its job, and the State is making sure that it does not interfere or encroach on what is Federal jurisdiction.



posted on Mar, 17 2018 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


The 2 quotes that you posted from me the first one was to show the points I was making.

I agree. Logically linking those two points lead me to my conclusion.


The solution to this mess, ultimately will lie within the congress...

I agree. Thus my support of HR 4526, with the few exceptions I mentioned in this thread that I would like to see addressed.


Even if all of the states were to participate and pick up every known illegal immigrant, the reality is that ICE would be unable to process them all or even deport them all. it does not have the funds or the manpower to handle that problem, it would crash and ultimately cause far more problems than it is worth.

And that simply reinforces the extent of the problems that our present (lack of) immigration policy has caused.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2018 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

So why haven't the feds used it? They have had plenty of opportunity. Can we bring this north of the border too? We need it.



posted on Mar, 17 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: whatnext21

It was just introduced.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 17 2018 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
Looking back at the history the modern problem of Illegal immigration stated in 1943 with a guest worker program, which was not officially ended until 1964. After the end of World War II, it was noted and spoken about in the political circles about illegal immigration, yet no one did nothing. And neither party is interested in dealing with this or doing anything about it.

Now according to most who research this topic, California is no longer the destination for many illegal immigrants, as many are seeking to be elsewhere and the numbers are starting to reflect such. And as interesting as that, the number of the over the land crossing is decreasing, the greater number are flying in.

So the problem is that the way the Illegal immigrants are getting to the USA, combined with a department that is understaffed, underfunded, trying to do a job where the rules bind their hands and ability to do the job.

Now, let’s say for arguments sake the law gets struck down, it is possible. So they remove the one act. So then what will be the excuse then, if those in California still refuse to cooperate or do anything and still does nothing to stop the federal government?



posted on Mar, 17 2018 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


Looking back at the history...

I cannot at this time argue your historical context, so I'll accept that... benefit of the doubt and all that.

I do know immigration was not always controlled. In the early years of the nation, immigrating to the US meant you just jumped on a ship heading the right way and jumped off when it stopped.


And neither party is interested in dealing with this or doing anything about it.

I will agree completely with that. We have two extremes trying to handle what should be a moderate issue. On one side the leftist Democrats want to import as many poor immigrants as possible, apparently to increase Congressional representation in their districts. The US Census does not question immigration status; they specifically instruct their enumerators to NOT ask any questions which could be construed as such.

On the other side, the far-right Republicans seem to want to restrict immigration except for those who work for them, and not place strict enough legislation in businesses hiring illegal immigrants to do the job. A solution to businesses hiring illegal immigrants would be simple: include prison time for convictions. If a CEO hires illegals and gets fined, well, it's just the cost of doing business. If that same CEO is looking at jail time, it becomes more about following the law than doing business.

That is why I applaud this bill. It may not address all issues, but it does address one, and one is greater than zero.


Now according to most who research this topic, California is no longer the destination for many illegal immigrants, as many are seeking to be elsewhere and the numbers are starting to reflect such. And as interesting as that, the number of the over the land crossing is decreasing, the greater number are flying in.

I do not doubt that. California is economically collapsing under its own weight. The immigrants we are discussing are not unintelligent; they are often under-trained and under-informed, but that is correctable. It makes perfect sense that many would prefer a place more suitable for establishing a profitable life.


So the problem is that the way the Illegal immigrants are getting to the USA, combined with a department that is understaffed, underfunded, trying to do a job where the rules bind their hands and ability to do the job.

That is indeed the problem.

Many illegals come to the US under the assistance of a 'coyote,' a human smuggler who will usually charge everything a person has for their assistance, then sell them into virtual slavery to a business that exists using illegal labor. They have none of the things we take for granted. It has turned into a literal industry to convince poor in Mexico to pay everything they have in return for a 'better life' in the US, which translates to a life of slavery or abject poverty.

I know where you're likely going with this: the wall. It is true that the wall itself is not going to stop illegal immigration, but it will slow any illegal crossings on land to a trickle at best. That in itself will free up border control to operate in other venues, and will also provide a base from which to detect underground and aerial entries. Sonar is simple and old technology, and can easily detect any rearrangement of soil (aka digging) below the scanned area. It would be simple to equip a wall with sonar. Radar is also capable of locating metallic objects in the air above the wall and is simple to implement. Just alerting CBP to a crossing attempt is a major improvement over what we have now (which is essentially nothing more than human eyes trying to continuously scan thousands of miles of border).

But there is more to the immigration plan Trump proposes than a wall. There is also the removal of the incentive to come into the country illegally. As it stands now, there are cities all across America that are opening their arms to welcome illegal immigrants and going so far as to use technicalities to protect them from Federal detection/capture. That combined with a more vibrant economy is an open invitation to those wishing to take the easy way in, and nothing short of advertising for the human-trafficking coyotes.

HR 4526 is not the end-all be-all to correct this issue, but it is a step in the right direction. Simply by limiting the ability to deflect proper ICE operations, the effectiveness of sanctuary cities and states will be minimized. That will make a big dent in the attractiveness of illegal immigration, and prevent a lot of human suffering for profit.


Now, let’s say for arguments sake the law gets struck down, it is possible.

Highly doubtful. It will likely meet judicial opposition in the lower courts, but I see no way the Supreme Court can strike this down without overturning literally decades of decisions supporting the sole jurisdiction of the Federal government in immigration matters.

The other option is to simply shut down ICE and the CBP completely and let everyone in no matter who they are. if that happens, we will soon cease to exist as a country.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It's about time Whites stop pretending diversity is a strength to avoid being called a racist.

White guilt/compassion is heavily entrenched, exploited, and profitable.



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
I am not going to go with a wall. Won’t do much good and ultimately the cost to upkeep such will be a drain on the economy for years and generations, combined with the fact that there are some places that the wall cannot be built, and all of the legal fighting over the land, will slow it down to do no good.

However, I do have a far better idea, that would be a far better for slowing if not stopping the flow over land and through the water ways, thus cutting off 2 of them at the same time. And it would be far more cost effective as well. And that is to use the military along the border. The reason why, is that many of the current conflicts are in areas of the world that are desert like, and the rough terrain. This way the US military could train the infantry along the borders, changing and doing random locations. As they are armed, then any taking a pot shot at them could result in fire being returned, along with any illegals captured while they are training, could then be sent immediately back over the border right then and there. If Mexico complains, well then the reason is valid, the military is training along the border to prepare for deployment over to the middle east and Afghanistan, along with some areas of the world where there would be similar conditions. This would also force Mexico to step up its patrol along the border and that too would deter and slow down the crossing of the border from their side. Increase training for say the US Navy and coast guard along some of the water ways, where a wall could not go, and it would cut that access off.

The end result of HR 4526 is going to force the people back into the shadows. For far too long illegal immigrants lived in the shadows, many still do, where they are in a system of virtual slavery, often exploited. They were often the victims of crime, and terrified to report such. It was not good, cause it creates a far worse system.



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


I am not going to go with a wall.

Thankfully, that is not your decision.


However, I do have a far better idea... And it would be far more cost effective as well. And that is to use the military along the border.

Were it not for the fact that each administration has taken a different stance toward border enforcement, I might be amiable to this suggestion. That is not political reality, however. During Reagan's administration, he made a compromise with Congress: amnesty for illegal immigrants already here in exchange for enhanced border enforcement. Congress agreed. He granted the amnesty; they reneged on the enhanced enforcement.

I see no purpose in making the same mistake again. A wall is permanent enforcement, much more concrete (pun intended) than a promise to uphold law.

The military can be deployed, withdrawn, ordered to either strictly enforce or to laxly patrol. Border Patrol is armed as well, yet they are regularly attacked and injured/killed. Random locations can be communicated to Mexican interests in return for personal profit. It is bad enough that our heroes are asked to go overseas to fight and die in areas where the benefit to national security is questionable at best; we do not need them dying at some political whim of a corrupt administration.

Wall. 100%. No more compromises on a promise already broken once.


The end result of HR 4526 is going to force the people back into the shadows.

HR 4526 only affects illegal immigrants who have been arrested for other crimes. I would rather criminals be forced into shadows than be emboldened to commit rape, assault, and murder on innocent civilians at will.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
In 1994 there was a big push to have a physical barrier that would go along the border between the USA and Mexico. It was a major campaign issue, one that was used by presidential candidates to get people stoked up for it, that the USA would build a fence along the entire border and it would stem the number of illegal immigrants from crossing. In short for all of the millions wasted on this, and the debates and the rhetoric, it ended up being a colossal waste of time, resources and money.

And that is going to be the wall. For starters, it is not going to be possible to build a wall along the entire length of the border, due to the changing terrain, that would make it impossible. Some of the boarder is a river, other parts being mountain and still other parts would be unfit or unable to support the kind of wall that would be effective. This is not going to include the legal fights that will be fought, by people, where the US federal government is going to want to take part of private property to build that wall. And the last time it was clear that the Federal government does not offer fair compensation, but tends to offer far less than the actual value of the land it is wanting. And a few of those people may not be so willing to part, and be willing to use any means necessary to protect what is theirs, and that is just Texas.

That is not including the large Native American Reservation that this wall would go through and the tribe that controls it, already has stated no. My understanding is that the Native Reservations are independent countries. And the largest one that is along the border, is not wanting to have a border go through its lands. It could get very messy, very quick, if it is pushed through and the Federal government ignores such.


As far as the border patrol, it is not that it is not well equipped, it is that due to the rules and red tape, its hands are often tied and they are not able to take action that they could.


The reason why I suggested the military, is that they do need to train, and it would be ideal with they are deployed, to move through such terrain. Think about it, the US military is training along the border, having to deal with the climate, and the terrain, conducting both live fire exercises, and movements, most would probably not want to take a pot shot at the US Military, if they know that the Army/Marines there are training with live rounds, and would fire back, to defend themselves. And this is part of the mandate of the US military, to defend the country, would this not fall into that category, of defending the country, if they are down there training along the border, providing a visible deterrent to those who would cross the border? If anything Mexico would send its military to the border to watch the US military training, thus there would be 2 military forces there present on the border, and it would help deter those crossing.


But for all of the walls and security that is there, the other party in this would be the cartel’s. They may be criminal, but they are very well armed, and they are not stupid. So lets say for arguments sake, the wall gets put up. How long till it gets removed or damaged where it is no longer usable? If I were a member of the cartels, I would be getting with other cartel’s and making plans, watching what all was going on. They do watch the border, on both sides, and monitor such. So I would wait until they had say 50 miles of border done and then when the US was not prepared, or expecting, start using explosives to take down said wall at different points, to where the US is now having to redo such and spend the money to repair or have to remove the sections and then replace them, slowing down the construction and making it impossible for them to continue on. Do enough damage to it, in different places, and this could get to be far more costly, especially if it was happening from both sides of the border. After all, there are members of the various cartels in US border towns already, or those who are willing to work with such, hiding in plain sight.


One of the things i have been seeing, is that the cartels have been getting better and better armed over the years, getting their hands on more and more military hardware.



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
HR 4526 only affects illegal immigrants who have been arrested for other crimes.

Wait, isn't it aimed at state and local officials?

I don't think this is going anywhere and I don't see what it has to do with the wall.



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

1994: So because a group of politicians made a mess, a contractor can't manage to build it?

Terrain: We know. Big Bend is not going to have a wall, because it has CLIFFS.

Legal rights: Eminent Domain.

Indian Reservation: Let Trump negotiate. They might not like being the only open area along the border for the cartels to come through.

The Border Patrol is insufficient to enforce the border. They need help... like a wall.

The military would be shot at like the Border Patrol. You think these cartels are less than a military force in themselves?

On bombing the wall, good. Bombers are called 'targets' down there.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join