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.

 

Supreme Court rules 5-4 that states can prosecute illegal aliens for identity theft

page: 2
54
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You would have to read what they said about it to know that.




posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I read it. And it's complete bullcrap used to justify activism judging. Do they pay state taxes? Does it take away jobs from state residents?

Clearly it's a state right to prosecute this.

States have no right to decide who is legal and who is not. How does that have any bearing on being able to prosecute identity theft?
edit on 5-3-2020 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You would have to read what they said about it to know that.


I did. Their reasoning makes zero sense. Because the federal government determines whether they are legal or not, the states can't prosecute identity theft committed by illegals. The mental gymnastics is mindboggling.

This is the worst kind of activist judging.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I read it. And it's complete bullcrap used to justify activism judging. Do they pay state taxes? Does it take away jobs from state residents?

Clearly it's a state right.

Even if it is, there is the reason.

At no time did they say they should not be prosecuted. They just said it was a federal issue. The majority disagreed with them.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I didn't read it but it sounds like they are saying it was up to the feds and not the states to prosecute illegals.

I can understand that reasoning but it would be hard for the feds to do that if the states aren't cooperating and giving them the names and locations of the illegals.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Another example of the globalist, marxist, idiocracy on display is this article about SF.
Who thought "This would make great policy if we implement it in our city...."
Video - Thugs in San Fran Loot Cosmetics Store After "No Arrest" Policy
KTRH.iheart.com


Democrats in San Francisco have made theft under $950 a misdemeanor & cops won't even arrest you for the crime.

Not surprisingly, this has had very predictable results.

It turns out if you tell people they won't get arrested for stealing, it's like a free pass to go shopping


Yet another dehumanizing example of regressive globalist policies come to fruition.
SF Is So Poorly Run People Are Eating Poop


Like giving illegals in NY drivers licenses, who dreams up this BS?
It sure is NOT someone who has Americas best interest at heart.

Vote Trump to save our Country from these globalist lunatics. Look, I have many issues with Trump but you will never convince me that he has anything but love for the United States of America.

The actions of the globalist regressives shown in this thread are insane and anti American.
If nothing less vote AGAINST their actions.
edit on 3 5 2020 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

But in the same breath, y'all want to blame employers for hiring them and abolish ICE, the policing agency ... so. much. cognitive. facepalm.

Why not just admit that all you really want is an abolition of borders?



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
I'm not part of "y'all".

I have no problem with borders or deportations.

ETA: I was just pointing out that the answer to what some people here were asking was in the article linked in the OP. How you got to where you went is beyond me.
edit on 5-3-2020 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Just like it's equally hard for states to protect themselves when the Feds choose to look the other way because they don't like the laws.

We no longer have a rule of law.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Thanks to court approval, the Trump Administration will now begin withholding Federal funding from Sanctuary cities.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...




posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I didn't read it but it sounds like they are saying it was up to the feds and not the states to prosecute illegals.

I can understand that reasoning but it would be hard for the feds to do that if the states aren't cooperating and giving them the names and locations of the illegals.


I think it's clear the States and the Feds both have an interest in prosecution and the ability to do so, for different crimes. Basically if a legal resident does it then states can prosecute, and if an illegal does it then they can't according to those justices. It makes zero sense. It's like saying states can't prosecute murder of illegals because it's an immigration issue.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ketsuko
I'm not part of "y'all".

I have no problem with borders or deportations.

ETA: I was just pointing out that the answer to what some people here were asking was in the article linked in the OP. How you got to where you went is beyond me.

Their answer still leaves you with the same question. How does that make any sense?

Imagine if someone murdered your mother and it was up to the feds to prosecute because the murderer was illegal so states have no jurisdiction. Makes zero sense.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
The law says they have jurisdiction because using someones SS#, for example, is purely a federal issue. It seems like they other 5 judges handed this down with a caveat: "In the present cases, there is certainly no suggestion that the Kansas prosecutions frustrated any federal interests".

This means that it isn't across the board and if anyone tries to use this ruling they will have to show they are similar to these cases.


edit on 5-3-2020 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
The law says they have jurisdiction because using someones SS#, for example, is purely a federal issue. It seems like they other 5 judges handed this down with a caveat: "In the present cases, there is certainly no suggestion that the Kansas prosecutions frustrated any federal interests".

This means that it isn't across the board and if anyone tries to use this ruling they will have to show they are similar to these cases.


That's actually false. If I used someones SSN I could still be prosecuted according to their dissent, only illegals would be immune from state prosecution because immigration is a federal issue. So a US citizen doing the same thing could be prosecuted by the state, only illegals would have been protected. Maybe now you understand how crazy the liberal judges dissent was.
edit on 5-3-2020 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I was talking about the statement of the majority. According to the words of the five that voted for the states. A US citizen using someone else's SSN would also not be prosecuted by the state unless it was similar to these cases. If they are not like these cases it wouldn't be within the state's jurisdiction.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I was talking about the statement of the majority. According to the words of the five that voted for the states. A US citizen using someone else's SSN would also not be prosecuted by the state unless it was similar to these cases. If they are not like these cases it wouldn't be within the state's jurisdiction.


Why do we have states at all then?

Ah, yes, now we see what the agenda of the judges in question is ... there shouldn't actually be state governments, just the Fed.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

That is a bit of hyperbole.

States can't deport illegals even if they know they are illegal. It isn't within their jurisdiction.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I was talking about the statement of the majority. According to the words of the five that voted for the states. A US citizen using someone else's SSN would also not be prosecuted by the state unless it was similar to these cases. If they are not like these cases it wouldn't be within the state's jurisdiction.

This ruling affirms states can prosecute illegals. The liberal minority that dissented said this is a crime states can prosecute unless done by an illegal and illegals can not be prosecuted by states because immigration is a federal issue even though the crime committed was not an immigration crime.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ketsuko

That is a bit of hyperbole.

States can't deport illegals even if they know they are illegal. It isn't within their jurisdiction.

And the case in question had nothing to do with deportation. Which is why the liberal justices are crazy in their position.



posted on Mar, 5 2020 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
The minority said the law gives the feds sole jurisdiction, the majority said not in "these cases", which means that it will not always be the case.

edit on 5-3-2020 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join