quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Except it wasn't as much an issue on everybody's mind until the election and now more people are engaged in the debate. There's plenty of info out there that suggests people don't support sanctuary cities. Even a previous UC Berkeley poll showed Californians don't support some of those policies.

Not so, Johnny. Bill Clinton signed into law the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,

IIRIRA addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Section 287(g) is part of the act that permits the U.S. Attorney General to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement. This section does not simply deputize state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce immigration matters.[3]

This provision was implemented by local and state authorities in five states: California, Arizona, Alabama, Florida and North Carolina by the end of 2006.[4] From Wiki.

Notice there is nothing that mandates action by state and local public officials.

And 8 U.S. Code 1324 as I read it requires the condition of "knowingly" harboring an illegal alien before a felony can be charged. I haven't found any other law that would put public officials in legal jeopardy re: the OP.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: InfoMan


idealistically - it would also include aiding and abetting because it allows the city to provide illegals medical and financial support through healthcare and welfare, and theoretically it could also cover accessory and obstruction of justice because they are willingly not enforcing Federal Law, making them partially responsible for anything illegal that is done by those illegals.


Do you have a cite for this ignorant shit or do you just make it up as you go along?

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Except it wasn't as much an issue on everybody's mind until the election and now more people are engaged in the debate. There's plenty of info out there that suggests people don't support sanctuary cities. Even a previous UC Berkeley poll showed Californians don't support some of those policies.

Not so, Johnny. Bill Clinton signed into law the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,

IIRIRA addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Section 287(g) is part of the act that permits the U.S. Attorney General to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement. This section does not simply deputize state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce immigration matters.[3]

This provision was implemented by local and state authorities in five states: California, Arizona, Alabama, Florida and North Carolina by the end of 2006.[4] From Wiki.

Notice there is nothing that mandates action by state and local public officials.

And 8 U.S. Code 1324 as I read it requires the condition of "knowingly" harboring an illegal alien before a felony can be charged. I haven't found any other law that would put public officials in legal jeopardy re: the OP.

idealistically - it would also include aiding and abetting because it allows the city to provide illegals medical and financial support through healthcare and welfare, and theoretically it could also cover accessory and obstruction of justice because they are willingly not enforcing Federal Law, making them partially responsible for anything illegal that is done by those illegals.

However, ultimately, it is all just pure political bullshit which not only doesn't matter, but it doesn't do much to solve any such problem nor change any ones outlook either way. It is just a statement people drum up to take up column space and minutes of air time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Except it wasn't as much an issue on everybody's mind until the election and now more people are engaged in the debate. There's plenty of info out there that suggests people don't support sanctuary cities. Even a previous UC Berkeley poll showed Californians don't support some of those policies.

Not so, Johnny. Bill Clinton signed into law the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,

IIRIRA addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Section 287(g) is part of the act that permits the U.S. Attorney General to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement. This section does not simply deputize state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce immigration matters.[3]

This provision was implemented by local and state authorities in five states: California, Arizona, Alabama, Florida and North Carolina by the end of 2006.[4] From Wiki.

Notice there is nothing that mandates action by state and local public officials.

And 8 U.S. Code 1324 as I read it requires the condition of "knowingly" harboring an illegal alien before a felony can be charged. I haven't found any other law that would put public officials in legal jeopardy re: the OP.

idealistically - it would also include aiding and abetting because it allows the city to provide illegals medical and financial support through healthcare and welfare, and theoretically it could also cover accessory and obstruction of justice because they are willingly not enforcing Federal Law, making them partially responsible for anything illegal that is done by those illegals.

However, ultimately, it is all just pure political bullshit which not only doesn't matter, but it doesn't do much to solve any such problem nor change any ones outlook either way. It is just a statement people drum up to take up column space and minutes of air time.

Yah, I dont see it. I know a lot of states who dont obey a lot of federal laws, for instance the law that says you have to inform the fed of any committments and felons and so on. (For NICS) it doesnt happen a lot. Its an unfunded mandate, you could send entire state governments to jail from the lowest streetsweeper to the governor and everyone in between.

Do you turn in every one who you know is an illegal alien? are you looking to go to jail?

They simply dont ask about their immigration status for this and that, thats all. Its not like you can tell they are illegal just by looking at them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: InfoMan




8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

do you just spout 'cite' and baseless insults as your go along?
seriously you haven't really contributed anything to the discussion.


My insultrs are not baseless. You have a history of posting bullshit.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
Thus far in this discussion I have pointed out your ignorance.
There are federal felonies and federal misdomeanors. You do not seem to know the difference.

quote:

The federal government requiring local law enforcement to work without compensation is unconstitutional.
You have stated other wise and I have asked you to provide validation. Thus far you have failed to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You do not like the way I post, now isn't that special.
It has nothing to do with addressing the issue but you continue to post that sort of inane bullshit rather than actually address the issues.
You don't like my typos don't read my post. I do not care.
If you cannot address the issue then phoque off and die no one cares what you like or don't like.
Grow up or shut the phoque up.
If you cannot validate your opinion it remains opinion and worth a little less than the price of used shit paper.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

According to federal statute, if and when anyone suffers death or injury at the hands of illegals in these cities the officials responsible can be charged with accessory and do prison time

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Except it wasn't as much an issue on everybody's mind until the election and now more people are engaged in the debate. There's plenty of info out there that suggests people don't support sanctuary cities. Even a previous UC Berkeley poll showed Californians don't support some of those policies.

Not so, Johnny. Bill Clinton signed into law the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,

IIRIRA addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Section 287(g) is part of the act that permits the U.S. Attorney General to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement. This section does not simply deputize state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce immigration matters.[3]

This provision was implemented by local and state authorities in five states: California, Arizona, Alabama, Florida and North Carolina by the end of 2006.[4] From Wiki.

Notice there is nothing that mandates action by state and local public officials.

And 8 U.S. Code 1324 as I read it requires the condition of "knowingly" harboring an illegal alien before a felony can be charged. I haven't found any other law that would put public officials in legal jeopardy re: the OP.

idealistically - it would also include aiding and abetting because it allows the city to provide illegals medical and financial support through healthcare and welfare, and theoretically it could also cover accessory and obstruction of justice because they are willingly not enforcing Federal Law, making them partially responsible for anything illegal that is done by those illegals.

However, ultimately, it is all just pure political bullshit which not only doesn't matter, but it doesn't do much to solve any such problem nor change any ones outlook either way. It is just a statement people drum up to take up column space and minutes of air time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny
FR
I think arresting city officials is going a little too far at this point. Cutting off funding is an appropriate measure but there's no reason to start getting martial over this. If the data I've seen is right then most people don't support sanctuary cities and these leaders will probably be getting voted out of office anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny
FR
I think arresting city officials is going a little too far at this point. Cutting off funding is an appropriate measure but there's no reason to start getting martial over this. If the data I've seen is right then most people don't support sanctuary cities and these leaders will probably be getting voted out of office anyway.

There might not be any way for the Federal Government to do that. Remember with the Obamacare Medicaid funding and the attempt to coerce States into expanding Medicaid? SCOTUS overturned the coercion by saying the Feds couldn't cut off Medicaid funding if a State declined to expand Medicaid, except for any funds offered specifically for expanding Medicaid.

If Federal funding to States or directly to a City is based on something the State/City is still doing, cutting that funding off wouldn't be Constitutional, either. The only funding that might be able to be cut off, is funding specifically for assistance in enforcing immigration laws.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny
FR
I think arresting city officials is going a little too far at this point. Cutting off funding is an appropriate measure but there's no reason to start getting martial over this. If the data I've seen is right then most people don't support sanctuary cities and these leaders will probably be getting voted out of office anyway.

There might not be any way for the Federal Government to do that. Remember with the Obamacare Medicaid funding and the attempt to coerce States into expanding Medicaid? SCOTUS overturned the coercion by saying the Feds couldn't cut off Medicaid funding if a State declined to expand Medicaid, except for any funds offered specifically for expanding Medicaid.

If Federal funding to States or directly to a City is based on something the State/City is still doing, cutting that funding off wouldn't be Constitutional, either. The only funding that might be able to be cut off, is funding specifically for assistance in enforcing immigration laws.