0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ICE is definitely stepping up their game. They're very active in CA now, to the purported dismay of the local authorities. A showdown's comin'.
They need to go after political leaders who are advocating anarchy and actually engaging in harboring!Did you see Jerry Brown’s Senate Bill 54 which protects illegal entrants and violates federal law?The argument is repeatedly made that local police are under no obligation to enforce Federal Law. But the argument under review is not about “local police†being under an obligation “…to enforce Federal Law.†That argument is an intentional distraction injected into the conversation to avoid what is being argued. What is being argued is political hacks, such as the Governors and Mayors of sanctuary cities being in violation of the law when they order their local law enforcement officers to not cooperate with Federal ICE Agents. There is an enormous distinction between local political leaders ordering local law enforcement officers to not cooperate with ICE Agents, and local police refusing to cooperate. In this discussion we need to talk about the former and not the latter. We need to talk about local elected leaders, such as the communist, socialist, progressive Jerry Brown and his Senate Bill 54 which limits local law enforcement officers in their communications with Federal Ice Agents. And what has the court stated about local elected leaders restricting their law enforcement officers from cooperating with our federal government? For the answer to this question let us read Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s recent WRITTEN OPINION dealing with 8 U.S.Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service_“The constitutionality of Section 1373 has been challenged before. The Second Circuit in City of New York v. United States, 179F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999), addressed a facial challenge to Section 1373 in similar circumstances. By executive order, New York City prohibited its employees from voluntarily providing federal immigration authorities with information concerning the immigration status of any alien. Id. at 31-32. The city sued the United States, challenging the constitutionality of Section 1373 under theTenth Amendment._Id. at 32._The Second Circuit found that Section 1373 did not compel sate or local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program or conscript local employees into its service, and therefore did not run afoul of the rules gleaned from the Supreme Court’s Printz and New York decisions. City of New York, 179 F.3d at 35. Rather, the court held that Section 1373 prohibits local governmental entities and officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. Ibid. The Court found that the Tenth Amendment, normally a shield from federal power, could not be turned into “a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs.â€_______ Harboring illegal entrants is a criminal offense, which is exactly what elected political hacks in sanctuary cities/states are doing when they instruct local law enforcement officers to not cooperate with ICE Agents.And what is the definition of harboring? CLICK HERE for the Courts’ own words:â€In a later decision, the Second Circuit announced the following test for determining what constitutes shielding, concealing, and harboring under 8 U.S.C. § 1324: “harboring, within the meaning of § 1324, encompasses conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien's remaining in the United States illegally and to prevent government authorities from detecting his unlawful presence.†United States v. Kim, 193F.3d 567, 574 (2d Cir.1999) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 1173, 1180 (5th Cir.1977)(stating that proper test is whether charged conduct tended “substantially to facilitate an alien's remaining in the United States illegallyâ€) (quotingLopez, 521 F.2d at 441).â€So, as it turns out, when sanctuary city politicians direct their law enforcement officers to not cooperate with federal ICE Agents, they have crossed the line and are engaging in the act of harboring. The bottom line is, our open border crowd is intentionally eengaging in a distraction when talking about local police not being required to enforce federal law. The subject underdiscussion is about local elected politicians ordering local law enforcement officers to not cooperate with Federal Ice Agents ___ an act which falls within the definition of harboring as stated by the Court!So, when will Jeff Sessions grow a spine, send federal Marshalls into sanctuary cities and arrest, and then prosecute, local elected leaders who engage in the Act of Harboring? JWK American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
They need to go after political leaders who are advocating anarchy and actually engaging in harboring!Did you see Jerry Brown’s Senate Bill 54 which protects illegal entrants and violates federal law?
EXCELLENT post and welcome to TBR!
