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: 8
120
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

It is enforceable on state and local officials, but only where incarcerated illegal immigrants are concerned.

The wall is OT, but I humored him for a moment.

TheRedneck




posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Sure, but technically, it doesn't only affect those incarcerated illegals.

Did you check out that Massachusetts Supreme court decision I linked earlier? Seems to me like even if this law were to pass it would not settle the matter.



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

How can HR 4526 possibly affect someone who is not already incarcerated? That is one of the enumerated requirements.

No state court can overrule the US Supreme Court.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
How can HR 4526 possibly affect someone who is not already incarcerated? That is one of the enumerated requirements.

It is called the “Stopping Lawless Actions of Politicians (SLAP) Act of 2017”. The officials who might be fined or imprisoned are not already incarcerated.

The illegals who are incarcerated and to be handed over to ICE are not negatively affected by this because that is what was supposed to happen anyway. It is what will happen if ICE doesn't show up late.



No state court can overrule the US Supreme Court.

Nobody said they could. I said that passing this law would not settle the matter.


edit on 18-3-2018 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
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.






Try not paying your fed income tax.

Aiding and abetting and subverting federal immigration laws.

Public endangerment.

Yeah, they are supposed to hold them for the feds.

But when they let Kate's killer go like they did Mary jo's killer go and laud both, the dems are totally corrupt.

Don't forget the hit and run drunk that killed that truck driver. And a 1000 more that never makes the news.

Stopping the money will get their attention, besides arresting the dirtbag elected officials hiding these people.









edit on 3 18 2018 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 11:16 PM
link   
They need to add to the bill a lifetime ban from holding any publicly elected position for the convicted, Hope it passes and they make an open air camp (No Air conditioner) like the ones Arpaio had in Arizona to keep them for the entire sentence, no early releases!!!



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


It is called the “Stopping Lawless Actions of Politicians (SLAP) Act of 2017”. The officials who might be fined or imprisoned are not already incarcerated.

If you want someone to take you seriously, you need to drop the disingenuous spinning.

My answer was in response to a claim that illegal immigrants who were victims of a crime would be impacted by HR 4526. That is false, unless someone is incarcerating crime victims instead of crime perpetrators.

Now you want to spin that around to have me saying something else. No.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 18 2018 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
If you want someone to take you seriously, you need to drop the disingenuous spinning.

My answer was in response to a claim that illegal immigrants who were victims of a crime would be impacted by HR 4526. That is false, unless someone is incarcerating crime victims instead of crime perpetrators.

I'm not spinning anything. The person who said that was wrong but your reply wasn't accurate either.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Illegal immigrants do pay taxes. Every time they purchase something, they pay a tax, part of which is sent on to the federal government. So they are paying taxes.

Aiding and Abetting: That would require someone actively helping another break the law. I don’t see where the law enforcement, or the governor, or the state legislators, or the mayors, or even the city council members are actively helping anyone break the law.
The same with the Subversion of the federal immigration laws, means that there has to be a person or persons in power seeking to destroy the law.

Public endangerment? In what way?

All of these crimes, if applied to California, then under the spirit of the law, it should be applied equally across the country, to any state, as a majority of the states have officials that aid and abet or subvert laws, or even public endangerment. Careful what is pushed, cause it can be turned around and used in other cases.

How are the elected officials hiding anyone? They are not helping the Federal government do its job, nor are they hindering the federal government.

Is it a wise course to open a legal door, which could backfire? Stopping the money sounds like a good idea, and would get their attention, but what will happen if it is on a hotter issue than this, against say a state which is a majority Republican? Will it be ok then?

And wouldn’t stopping the money start into a federal overreach?



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: SlapMonkey
Is there a law that states that a person or a state government has to help the federal government?

No, and I acknowledged that more than once.


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.

That's not what I'm saying is happening...you're arguing against something that I'm not claiming.


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.

Now you're on the right track of my discussion, the main point being the underlined portion above.

But the problem is that there are cities and states actively engaging in actions that are purposeful in impeding and hindering ICE's investigations and detainments and raids.

And that is the point of this bill--it aims to make illegal the direct involvement of public officials from impeding the detainment of illegal immigrants by ICE. No one is saying that state and local law enforcement must partner with and provide manpower and financial assistance to federal ICE agents.


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.

Actually, individuals can be held for 72 hours without charge, longer if good reason can be provided to a judge.


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.

Depends on each individual scenario, but the truth of the matter is that if ICE doesn't recognize that a detained person is an illegal, it's not the state's responsibility to notify them--by law. I would, however, say that in the spirit of true law enforcement, they SHOULD be doing this, because it is shown time and time again that many of these illegals are repeat offenders, and not just minor crimes, either.

A simple phone call or email seems better than dealing multiple times with the same person who is not even supposed to be here in the first place, wouldn't you agree?


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?

Again, I have never claimed that they are breaking a law by not notifying ICE, my whole argument has been when they are actively impeding ICE in the detainment and taking possession of illegals per their prescribed federal duty. Don't conflate that with the issue of unwillingness to help ICE--they are two different things, although they both lead to the same end result concerning the illegal immigrant.


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?

Yes...send the people here illegally who are breaking our laws back to their country and let their country deal with their problem citizens.

There is no justice to the American taxpayer to pay for the room and board of an illegal in prison. Of course, I would argue that there should be discretion in this, and serious criminals might be better off staying in prison. But again, individual circumstances should be dealt with individually.


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.

And hopefully for the last time, this law isn't about local police contacting ICE...stop making this false comparison.


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.

And hopefully for the last time, those aren't the only two paths that some of these public officials are taking, and if you've don't all of this research and are looking at it critically, you would understand that.

As an aside, the California Values Act epitomizes exactly what anctuary-state legislation looks like. It stops state and local law enforcement from having to report illegal immigrants to ICE (or other federal authorities), even if the person is a criminal. It drastically increases the mandates of reports and record keeping and submission concerning joint operations geared around immigration issues. It mandates that corrections officials made illegal immigrants sign consent forms before ICE can interview them. It prohibits law enforcement agencies (and many other agencies) from using funds and personnel to investigate immigration matters. It specifically cites fears of possible detainment by legal residents as a basis for these sanctuary laws. It specifically says:

7284.6. (a) California law enforcement agencies shall not:
    (1) Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following:

      (A) Inquiring into an individual’s immigration status.

      (B) Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request.

If that's not sanctuary-state BS, I don't know what is.

I could produce many more examples from the law, but I don't think that it's necessary. So, while this does not stop ICE from doing its job, it certainly is a massive deterrent at best, mandate at worst, for state and local LEOs and departments to avoid dealing with and working with immigration issues at all unless approached by federal authorities.

And that's all well and good if you want to ignore the spirit of law enforcement, the rule of law, and the negative effects that these illegal immigrants can have on actual American citizens.

We can agree to disagree, but I felt it disrespectful not to respond. If you don't want to reignite the discussion, I would actually appreciate that at this point.

Best regards.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
I brought up 1994, pointing out that it was a very popular idea, and one that was supported by the public. Several presidential candidates ran on that premise, it was a part of their campaign, was even in the budget. But it died due to the lack of funding. Even though it is still part of the laws and books.

Eminent Domain is only popular with the government, but more and more the courts are leery about using it. It is far too abused by the government time and time again. And in Texas, many of those who live on the border, are not happy and already lawyering up, along with others are finding ways to where it is going to be far more difficult for the federal government to use it or even take them into court. If they do take it and not give fair compensation to everyone, it could cost we the people later on in court costs and legal fees, along with fines. And a few have made this far more difficult for such.

Native Americans really are not a big fan of the federal government, too many broken treaties, and combined with what all went on with the pipeline, Trump might as well decide to bypass that.

The Border Patrol needs to be released from the rules that bind them. They have the tools but are heavily restricted, and constrained from being able to do their job effectively. The entire immigration department is understaffed and underfunded. Perhaps funding the department fully, and letting the border patrol have greater freedom and discretion to do their job and more people in the department would have a better effect, but that can go only so far.

Funny thing about the military, is that if they have permission to fire back, they do. And if they are having combat training, it would also mean that they would have to have the body armor and all of the equipment there.

The cartels of Mexico, are acquiring military equipment, and from what has been shown, the border patrol is ill equipped and trained to deal with such. What border patrol agent is capable of dealing with say a mine? Or a hand thrown grenade? Or an RPG? Face it the cartels are getting better organized and armed. The only reason why they are not focusing solely on the USA is that they are fighting a 2 front war, themselves and the Mexican government. However, how long till the stop fighting amongst themselves and start to focus their attention on say the USA? And their tactics are showing real thought and strategy there. Make it hard to get on foot or vehicle on the ground, they go under or over, and each time it shows clear thought into such.

There is one other small detail here. With a wall, on the border, the US officials would not be allowed to fire towards Mexico. Doing such, could be provocation and an act of war, where it could back fire against the USA. So any border wall that was put up, would have to be away from the USA, thus ceding feet of US Soil to Mexico.



posted on Mar, 19 2018 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey
If state and cities are not assisting the federal government, and the only thing that the state and cities are doing is giving warning, how is this impeding or hindering?

There is no law against warning of law enforcement in the area, and that is what this could fall under. If the case can be made that warning people of Immigration is coming in to do a raid, then the same case could go against all of those who forewarn people driving of speed traps or that the police are out. While both are annoying, but both are still legal in the USA.
A quick check of the laws, unless they have changed, in California, the police can only hope people for 48 hours. Anything longer and the prosecuting attorney may end up facing a tougher challenge in court, from any number of defense attorneys and the judges.
Can you provide the name of the law where it states that law enforcement has to call ICE when it detains a suspected illegal immigrant? I have not seen any law on such, and have been combing through both state and federal laws, along with the US code, which would govern the immigration department and ICE.

However, since 2011, ICE has been able to go through the records of thousands of law enforcement databases, across the country, in association with the DHS. So if ICE has access to these databases, then why would the police need to call or email in the first place?

All the law states is that the State of California, and the people who work for it, are under no obligation to help the federal government do its job, that they are not to call or assist ICE in its job, or do anything to impede.

Now as you brought up that they are not asking a person’s citizen status, I can tell you that in Arizona, that got sued for doing just that, and was hammered hard by the courts for violating the civil rights of lawful citizens. That it is simply not really with in the laws of the USA for people to have to carry papers to just travel from one point to another. And any legislation that would demand that a person carry papers is not something that any of us should be willing to accept. And there were serious mistakes made, actual US citizens that were detained in Arizona until they were able to get someone to bring down proof, beyond the ID that they had, that they were indeed a US citizen.

In short ICE is going to have to do its job.



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 12:36 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


I brought up 1994, pointing out that it was a very popular idea, and one that was supported by the public. Several presidential candidates ran on that premise, it was a part of their campaign, was even in the budget. But it died due to the lack of funding. Even though it is still part of the laws and books.

Of course! The wall was approved under Reagan, as I already said. It was not funded, so it was not built. The push is not for legislation to allow it to be built, but for funding to build it.

The very fact that it has not been funded and built, despite the agreement so long ago by Congress to do so, is why there can be no give-and-take on the idea of a wall now. It was already promised and agreed to. Congress reneged. Now before anything - anything - is done to improve immigration legislatively, we want the wall we were promised. Period. End of paragraph. End of document. End of discussion.


Eminent Domain is only popular with the government, but more and more the courts are leery about using it. It is far too abused by the government time and time again.

I am leery of it as well, especially when fair value is not tendered in exchange. However, you might want to talk to some people who live on that border. I know of one, a friend of a good friend, who has had to abandon his ranch over violence from Mexican rustlers. He had a long-time employee, the boss during his absence, killed in cold blood during one rustling. He had so much trouble finding help with that kind of violence, he finally sold what cattle he had left and abandoned the place. He can't sell it because no one wants it.

I'm sure he would gladly give up 100' or so of border access in order to actually get the rest back.

That is the real issue, and it is the reason why I support eminent domain in this case. There is a time and place for eminent domain to be used.


Native Americans really are not a big fan of the federal government, too many broken treaties, and combined with what all went on with the pipeline, Trump might as well decide to bypass that.

Like I said, build the wall everywhere except for their border, and place heavily armed Border Patrol on either side. Let them deal with the crime for a while, and I have a feeling they will be begging Trump to finish the wall. If that's the only hole, that's where the crime will come in.


The Border Patrol needs to be released from the rules that bind them.

They already have been. The rules that restricted them were primarily by Executive Orders and administration policy, which were rescinded by Trump early on. That's why the number of illegal border crossings has decreased so drastically since he took office.


Funny thing about the military, is that if they have permission to fire back, they do. And if they are having combat training, it would also mean that they would have to have the body armor and all of the equipment there.

So does the Border Patrol. Trump is trying to increase their preparedness even more by increasing their funding along with the wall.


The cartels of Mexico, are acquiring military equipment, and from what has been shown, the border patrol is ill equipped and trained to deal with such. What border patrol agent is capable of dealing with say a mine? Or a hand thrown grenade? Or an RPG?

The ones standing behind a wall.


There is one other small detail here.

We have no reason to fire toward Mexico unless Mexicans fire toward us. A wall would prevent that. And it can be built on US soil only a few feet from the border.

You're starting to argue in favor of the wall, sounds like.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig


However, since 2011, ICE has been able to go through the records of thousands of law enforcement databases, across the country, in association with the DHS. So if ICE has access to these databases, then why would the police need to call or email in the first place?

Those records do not reflect the expected or actual release date/time. Proper procedure is for ICE to gather the names on their own, then to contact the police with custody to determine when they need to take possession. California (along with many other US cities) is refusing to give that information.


All the law states is that the State of California, and the people who work for it, are under no obligation to help the federal government do its job, that they are not to call or assist ICE in its job, or do anything to impede.

No.

All the law states is that the State of California, and the people who work for it, are restricted from speaking to the federal government so it can do its job, that they are not to call or assist ICE in its job, or do anything to impede except withhold information.

I bolded the necessary changes to make your statement true.


Now as you brought up that they are not asking a person’s citizen status, I can tell you that in Arizona, that got sued for doing just that, and was hammered hard by the courts for violating the civil rights of lawful citizens. That it is simply not really with in the laws of the USA for people to have to carry papers to just travel from one point to another.

It is within the law that a person must identify themselves upon arrest or detainment. Failure to provide identification, and especially giving false identification, is a serious crime.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 20 2018 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
It is within the law that a person must identify themselves upon arrest or detainment. Failure to provide identification, and especially giving false identification, is a serious crime.

What happened to the first line of the Miranda rights?

"You have the right to remain silent..."



posted on Mar, 21 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I am not in support of any border wall. It is a waste of time and money that could be best spent elsewhere. Make no mistake on that.
The fence that I mentioned, only 580 miles were built. Then it died in congress, due to a lack of funding. And that is what is going to happen with this wall. Trump will start it, then after a change in the congress, or administration it will die in committee, as there will be no money for it in the budget and thus becomes yet another financial folly and money drain.

And this is going to be a constant drain on the budget, because it has to be up kept and repaired. How long till the popularity of said wall changes, as the voting public is fickle and often changes its mind time and time again. How long till the people get tired of say the electric grid failing cause the money that could have been used to repair it is being funneled to the wall? How long till the people look at the infrastructure that needs to be repaired and failed is not all due to the wall itself. Megaprojects like this are never cheap or have a set cost, and most experts will tell you, that if everything falls into place, that it will be years, before it is even finished, and even then it will be over cost, over time.

In 2017, in Texas, that made the local news in the northern part of the state, were stories of people who lived on the border and were not going to be so willing to give up their land to this wall. It is going to be a court fight time and time again, and will set neighbor against neighbor, as there are those who are for such and others who are going to object and fight against such.

The border patrol, like all of the immigration system is underfunded and heavily understaffed. Have you been to the border and seen how they operate? They are spread too far apart, and there are some parts of the border that if they have to patrol, they have to go in groups, it is that dangerous. And there are other parts of the border that they are sitting ducks, and they are not able to effectively patrol, or do any good or stop, as it is a combination of natural terrain and being outwitted by those who know it far better than they do.

The wall is not going to do anything, right now there is a good chance that those who are trafficking in both drugs and people already have figured out ways to beat it, and a good chance that by the time such is discovered, new plans will be in place and already in use.



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 11:05 AM
link   

edit on 3/22/2018 by 3n19m470 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I have always been suspicious of a wall.



posted on Mar, 30 2018 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed




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


Answer to that question is easy: DEMOCRATS HATE DEMOCRACY.

Reason being, they are utterly CORRUPT and CRIMINAL CABAL and democracy is their enemy which keeps them from unlimited POWER.

Their high-priest Obama did run his administration as if he were Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, rotten to the bone.

They have all the reasons in the world to use every cent of hoarded tax moneys to cause unrest, division and dole propaganda on every left side media outlet - do in principle anything which can help their way back to power.

Such a bunch of rotten silth they are, and that is the sole source of division you have today.




top topics



 
120
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join