DHS seeks to pursue charges against sanctuary city leaders

[Starman]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/16/dhs-asks-prosecutors-charge-sanctuary-city-leaders/

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen confirmed Tuesday that her department has asked federal prosecutors to see if they can lodge criminal charges against sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues may be available,” Ms. Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Her confirmation came after California’s new sanctuary law went into effect Jan. 1, severely restricting cooperation the state or any of its localities could offer.

Good luck. As sanctuary city laws are perfectly legal, I'm not sure how they are gonna pull that off.

 

[vraiblonde]

As sanctuary city laws are perfectly legal,

No, they're not. I'm not even sure why you'd say that.

Now, perhaps they can argue state's rights (wouldn't that be a scream?) , but other than that states do indeed have to abide by federal laws.

 

[black dog]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/16/dhs-asks-prosecutors-charge-sanctuary-city-leaders/



Good luck. As sanctuary city laws are perfectly legal, I'm not sure how they are gonna pull that off.

If I had been the President, I already would have put Federal Officers in the precincts that take care of LE in the Sanctuary cities.

 

[Starman]

No, they're not. I'm not even sure why you'd say that.

They certainly are, chicka. Printz v. United States. Have someone read it to you. Slowly.

 

[Starman]

If I had been the President, I already would have put Federal Officers in the precincts that take care of LE in the Sanctuary cities.

Of course you would have. But that too would be unconstitutional. Not that you care about pesky details like that though.

 

[This_person]

They certainly are, chicka. Printz v. United States. Have someone read it to you. Slowly.

I think it is a little different, perhaps. In Printz, there was a temporary specific order to local police chiefs. In sanctuary cities, there is a specific order to defy federal law. It is subtle, but different nonetheless in that Printz ordered local government to perform actions and left open voluntary action, whereas the sanctuary city laws do not allow for voluntary compliance.

It MAY not apply. It may. I would argue it does not, but I would also argue that every unfunded mandate of any kind would therefore not apply to any government agency below federal. I would argue there should be no TSA, to Dept of Ed, not HUD, no standing army, etc., etc., etc., so there's that to go with it, too

 

[This_person]

Of course you would have. But that too would be unconstitutional. Not that you care about pesky details like that though.

No, not so much. Federal LE absolutely can be in the precincts they want, enforcing federal law.

 

[vraiblonde]

They certainly are, chicka. Printz v. United States. Have someone read it to you. Slowly.

Who told you that Printz has anything whatsoever to do with this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

Maybe you need someone to read it to you. Gun ownership is a right spelled out in our Constitution. Illegal immigration, not so much.

 

[Starman]

Who told you that Printz has anything whatsoever to do with this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

Maybe you need someone to read it to you. Gun ownership is a right spelled out in our Constitution. Illegal immigration, not so much.

Good lord you are ignorant.

 

[vraiblonde]

Good lord you are ignorant.

Great comeback. So intelligent and thought-provoking.

 

[black dog]

Of course you would have. But that too would be unconstitutional. Not that you care about pesky details like that though.

Absolutely untrue, In Montgomery County MD when someone is arrested by local LE the Federal Agencies are notified with a name and finger prints. If the Fed's want that person that is in custody at the jail, they pick them up when the city or county that has them retained the is releasing the inmate.. It also happens quite often at the PG co jail..
I know for a fact it happens, I have friends that are LE in both counties that I grew up with..

 

[This_person]

Absolutely untrue, In Montgomery County MD when someone is arrested by local LE the Federal Agencies are notified with a name and finger prints. If the Fed's want that person that is in custody at the jail, they pick them up when the city or county that has them retained the is releasing the inmate.. It also happens quite often at the PG co jail..
I know for a fact it happens, I have friends that are LE in both counties that I grew up with..

That's voluntary compliance. Strawman is arguing that punishing the sanctuary cities for non-compliance is akin to mandatory compliance, which Printz found violates the 10th amendment. I would argue any sanctuary law would not apply because the sanctuary law forces non-compliance with federal law. Printz found voluntary compliance to be well within the rights of local LE, so I see a strong difference between forced non-compliance and forced compliance, personally.

 

[Starman]

Great comeback. So intelligent and thought-provoking.

Well, chicka, if you understand our federal system you'd understand that the federal government cannot commandeer the states to work for them, at state expense, to actively enforce federal law.

 

[vraiblonde]

Just a refresher:

When something is found "unconstitutional" it means that particular proposal violates an Amendment spelled out in our US Constitution.

It appears that some of us don't understand the back and forth of the Printz decision, and what exactly the Supremes decided on.

As you were.

 

[vraiblonde]

Well, chicka, if you understand our federal system you'd understand that the federal government cannot commandeer the states to work for them, at state expense, to actively enforce federal law.

Sure they can. They do it all the time.

 

[Starman]

Sure they can. They do it all the time.

No, they don't.

 

[Starman]

Just a refresher:

When something is found "unconstitutional" it means that particular proposal violates an Amendment spelled out in our US Constitution.

It appears that some of us don't understand the back and forth of the Printz decision, and what exactly the Supremes decided on.

As you were.

Good introspection this morning. You certainly don't understand. Better get to work fixing that -- time's a wasting.

 

[Hijinx]

I don't know anything about the law, but what I cannot understand is why any community wants to give shelter to criminal offenders.
Not that deportation works. Most of them return before ICE changes shifts.

 

[awpitt]

Sure they can. They do it all the time.

The only real thing the Feds can do is withhold federal funding from states and cities that don't do their bidding. Take the old "national speed limit for example. Back in the 70's, the feds passed the national speed limit law which made the maximum speed limit 55mph even though speed limits are a state function. The way the feds made this work was by making federal road funding conditional on the states adopting the 55mph speed limit.

 

[black dog]

That's voluntary compliance. Strawman is arguing that punishing the sanctuary cities for non-compliance is akin to mandatory compliance, which Printz found violates the 10th amendment. I would argue any sanctuary law would not apply because the sanctuary law forces non-compliance with federal law. Printz found voluntary compliance to be well within the rights of local LE, so I see a strong difference between forced non-compliance and forced compliance, personally.

Anytime Finger Prints are run The Feds know about it and whom owns said finger prints, The Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System is run and maintained by the FBI.. City's, Counties & States can keep criminal records but certainly most will also be run through the FBI's NCIC data base.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) manages the official national criminal history database through the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). The NCIC stores information regarding open arrest warrants, arrests, stolen property, missing persons, and dispositions regarding felonies and misdemeanors.
To think that someone has been incarcerated and not run through the Federal Data bases is silly.