DHS preparing to arrest leaders of sanctuary cities

[goatprairie]

"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"

 

[goatprairie]

This is a very bad idea and a very bad president if implemented. It baffles me that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would think that its ok for the federal government to bring criminal charges against local officials for failing to enforce federal laws against the citizens of that locality.

I understand the emotional response but think about it, say sometime in the not to distant future, the Feds criminalize ownership of guns by anyone over 65 who cannot prove they do not suffer from dementia. The local officials in retirement communities  refuse to enforce the Federal law. Using this precedent a future Dim administration comes in and locks up the local officials...

The way (and I don't like it ) to get local/state governments to comply with Federal law is by withholding Federal funding ..

Criminalizing the actions of locally elected officials defying Federal law is not the way to go and is an unconstitutional usurpation of local control by the Feds.....

So, basically you're saying it's perfectly alright to disobey a federal law? If they can disobey this law without consequences, why should they obey any federal law?

[DB]

Frankly I'm glad my state is refusing to comply with some federal environmental laws.

Remember how liberals went running to the federal government when California passed prop 187 that blocked public benefits to illegals. They got federal judges to declare it unconstitutional and override the state's voters. That only the federal government had the authority to deal with illegals.

Now California wants to claim the federal government has no role in dealing with illegals and that the state's authority rules the day.

Funny how that works...

[Fishrrman]

montanajoe wrote:
"This is a very bad idea and a very bad president if implemented. It baffles me that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would think that its ok for the federal government to bring criminal charges against local officials for failing to enforce federal laws against the citizens of that locality."

Was this a "bad idea", Joe?



I believe I was the first poster to this forum to call for the arrest of city/state government officials who would not back down from "sanctuary" laws in the face of federal agents. I think I was the first anywhere to suggest using such tactics against the leftist-communists.

I'm glad that the folks at DHS look into here once in a while... and saw it!  ;)

[Smokin Joe]

This is a very bad idea and a very bad president if implemented. It baffles me that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would think that its ok for the federal government to bring criminal charges against local officials for failing to enforce federal laws against the citizens of that locality.

I understand the emotional response but think about it, say sometime in the not to distant future, the Feds criminalize ownership of guns by anyone over 65 who cannot prove they do not suffer from dementia. The local officials in retirement communities  refuse to enforce the Federal law. Using this precedent a future Dim administration comes in and locks up the local officials...

The way (and I don't like it ) to get local/state governments to comply with Federal law is by withholding Federal funding ..

Criminalizing the actions of locally elected officials defying Federal law is not the way to go and is an unconstitutional usurpation of local control by the Feds.....

If the Federal Government can suspend its own laws and fight a war to impose its laws on other States, even those who have declared their independence from that same government, To the tune of 600K combatants killed and countless civilians starved after their crops and farms were seized  or burned, then it can damnsure shut down an egregious defiance of federal law by those states which want all the benefits of being part of the union but will not comply with the laws thereof.

This can be accomplished without the bloodshed and destruction wreaked the last time, but either have the collective balls to leave the Union (or try to do so), or comply with the compact. In or out, make up your mind.

[montanajoe]

Frankly I'm glad my state is refusing to comply with some federal environmental laws.

Exactly....I find it amusing/amazing that some "Conservatives" want the Fed's out there arresting  local officials.

Unfortunately, most on both on the left and right react emotionally to the issues that are important to them. As long as their issue is addressed now, they could care less what the logical extensions of that policy means in the big picture in the future with an opposing administration in place.

It's root, IMO,  is the kick the can down the road mentality that is pervasive in country...big problems are just to hard to solve so lets just do something now that makes us feel good...

[Smokin Joe]

Exactly....I find it amusing/amazing that some "Conservatives" want the Fed's out there arresting  local officials.

Unfortunately, most on both on the left and right react emotionally to the issues that are important to them. As long as their issue is addressed now, they could care less what the logical extensions of that policy means in the big picture in the future with an opposing administration in place.

It's root, IMO,  is the kick the can down the road mentality that is pervasive in country...big problems are just to hard to solve so lets just do something now that makes us feel good...

If the States were to allow people in despite national immigration policy, the border becomes no stronger than the weakest link. Once in, the Constitution guarantees full faith and credit for whatever documentation they might possess or acquire, and thus, one state can destroy the entire idea of a national border.

In the Preamble, the concept of better providing for common defense was laid out: A national border must be consistent, or it is of no effect. Sanctuary cities and states only provide the gaping pores through which the flow of invaders become harbored and legitimized. There is no way to have National Security, on the border, without National Policy, and enforcing that policy This is a National Issue, not a State one.

[driftdiver]

If the States were to allow people in despite national immigration [policy, the border becomes no stronger than the weakest link. Once in, the Constitution guarantees full faith and credit for whatever documentation they might possess or acquire, and thus, one sstate can destroy the entire idea of a national border.

In the Preamble, the concept of better providing for common defense was laid out: A national border must be consistent, or it is of no effect. Sanctuary cities and states only provide the gaping pores through which the flow of invaders become harbored and legitimized. There is no way to have National Security, on the border, without National Policy, and enforcing that policy This is a National Issue, not a State one.

@Smokin Joe

Securing the border is one of the few jobs of the fed. 

[goatprairie]

Exactly....I find it amusing/amazing that some "Conservatives" want the Fed's out there arresting  local officials.

Unfortunately, most on both on the left and right react emotionally to the issues that are important to them. As long as their issue is addressed now, they could care less what the logical extensions of that policy means in the big picture in the future with an opposing administration in place.

It's root, IMO,  is the kick the can down the road mentality that is pervasive in country...big problems are just to hard to solve so lets just do something now that makes us feel good...

You're not making any kind of coherent argument, and you're being evasive. If state officials are allowed to disobey fed. laws they don't like, what laws, in your opinion, should they obey? I don't get to pick and choose what fed. laws I like or don't like. If I don't pay my fed. taxes, men with guns show up at my door and haul me away in handcuffs.
Do you think it's some kind of joke when state officials refuse to accommodate federal officials in the performance of their jobs in stopping illegal immigration? Tell me what the fed. gov. should do when state officials deliberately try to impede the fed. gov. in stopping illegal immigration.

[DB]

If the States were to allow people in despite national immigration policy, the border becomes no stronger than the weakest link. Once in, the Constitution guarantees full faith and credit for whatever documentation they might possess or acquire, and thus, one state can destroy the entire idea of a national border.

In the Preamble, the concept of better providing for common defense was laid out: A national border must be consistent, or it is of no effect. Sanctuary cities and states only provide the gaping pores through which the flow of invaders become harbored and legitimized. There is no way to have National Security, on the border, without National Policy, and enforcing that policy This is a National Issue, not a State one.

That's a pretty good argument.

[montanajoe]

If the States were to allow people in despite national immigration policy, the border becomes no stronger than the weakest link. Once in, the Constitution guarantees full faith and credit for whatever documentation they might possess or acquire, and thus, one state can destroy the entire idea of a national border.

In the Preamble, the concept of better providing for common defense was laid out: A national border must be consistent, or it is of no effect. Sanctuary cities and states only provide the gaping pores through which the flow of invaders become harbored and legitimized. There is no way to have National Security, on the border, without National Policy, and enforcing that policy This is a National Issue, not a State one.

I agree that this is a Federal and not a State issue. 

It needs to be solved at the Federal level and is the job of the Congress critters to do so. The issue of sanctuary cities and the fact that corporate America, as well as a lot of mom and pop businesses, have been responsible for creating the illegal job market over the past few generations. That is the root problem and is what must be dealt with. But we all know as long as the boys on K street make the politicians rich for supporting the cheap labor express nothing will happen.

My argument is this is an idiot, emotionally driven response to the problem and in the end will have no effect other than give the left another tool to use against the right in the next Dim administration and to legitimize even more Federal interference in the lives of ordinary folks ....

[Cripplecreek]

I agree that this is a Federal and not a State issue. 

It needs to be solved at the Federal level and is the job of the Congress critters to do so. The issue of sanctuary cities and the fact that corporate America, as well as a lot of mom and pop businesses, have been responsible for creating the illegal job market over the past few generations. That is the root problem and is what must be dealt with. But we all know as long as the boys on K street make the politicians rich for supporting the cheap labor express nothing will happen.

My argument is this is an idiot, emotionally driven response to the problem and in the end will have no effect other than give the left another tool to use against the right in the next Dim administration and to legitimize even more Federal interference in the lives of ordinary folks ....

And Trump has made it very clear that he has no intent of upsetting the donor class. When he commuted the sentence of a major offender a couple weeks back, Trump's cheerleaders here declared it OK because it might bring a few more Jewish votes.

[Smokin Joe]

I agree that this is a Federal and not a State issue. 

It needs to be solved at the Federal level and is the job of the Congress critters to do so. The issue of sanctuary cities and the fact that corporate America, as well as a lot of mom and pop businesses, have been responsible for creating the illegal job market over the past few generations. That is the root problem and is what must be dealt with. But we all know as long as the boys on K street make the politicians rich for supporting the cheap labor express nothing will happen.

My argument is this is an idiot, emotionally driven response to the problem and in the end will have no effect other than give the left another tool to use against the right in the next Dim administration and to legitimize even more Federal interference in the lives of ordinary folks ....

Simply enough, the folks on K street aren't paying the price. It is the rest of the country who lose work/jobs, who take up the slack in tax revenues (or debt), who suffer the injuries perpetrated by criminal elements, whose very voice is muted and distorted by the influx of voices which should have no presence, much less say in how things are done, who are not of this country. That the greed of a few, whether they be billionaires or not influences those who are making policy contrary to law is allowed to supersede the law the rest of us must abide by IS the problem. If those policies were not implemented whether for pecuniary or political gain (same thing in the long run), then someone is defying the law which the rest of us must abide by, at our expense.
Yep, We, The People, have a dog in this fight. Our safety, security, and ultimately, our prosperity depend on enforcing those laws, and if those entrusted with doing so practice willful nonfeasance, they should be removed from office; if they are defiant accessories to breaking those laws and announce such, then removed in handcuffs if necessary.

 For those who consider their acts to be "Civil Disobedience", they should go check their Little Red Book (Mao's Revolutionary Handbook). Prison time is a real risk of such disobedience, and if it is at all morally or legally justified, the place to address that opinion is in the courts, and ultimately the Congress where such law is made for the security of this Nation; the nation our countrymen (and women) and even ourselves, have paid a price (sometimes the ultimate price) to secure for generations. What is the point of having our military around the world to 'make the Homeland safe', if we leave the doors and windows open to invasion at home?

Who among us would routinely be able to announce in national or international media that we would suborn and assist through nonfeasance countless felonies and not suffer any consequences for that action?

The K Street crowd and those they represent aren't the ones who suffer the depredations of their influence, and perhaps they should, could the general public boycott their wares produced with illegal labor.

[Bigun]

Simply enough, the folks on K street aren't paying the price. It is the rest of the country who lose work/jobs, who take up the slack in tax revenues (or debt), who suffer the injuries perpetrated by criminal elements, whose very voice is muted and distorted by the influx of voices which should have no presence, much less say in how things are done, who are not of this country. That the greed of a few, whether they be billionaires or not influences those who are making policy contrary to law is allowed to supersede the law the rest of us must abide by IS the problem. If those policies were not implemented whether for pecuniary or political gain (same thing in the long run), then someone is defying the law which the rest of us must abide by, at our expense.
Yep, We, The People, have a dog in this fight. Our safety, security, and ultimately, our prosperity depend on enforcing those laws, and if those entrusted with doing so practice willful nonfeasance, they should be removed from office; if they are defiant accessories to breaking those laws and announce such, then removed in handcuffs if necessary.

 For those who consider their acts to be "Civil Disobedience", they should go check their Little Red Book (Mao's Revolutionary Handbook). Prison time is a real risk of such disobedience, and if it is at all morally or legally justified, the place to address that opinion is in the courts, and ultimately the Congress where such law is made for the security of this Nation; the nation our countrymen (and women) and even ourselves, have paid a price (sometimes the ultimate price) to secure for generations. What is the point of having our military around the world to 'make the Homeland safe', if we leave the doors and windows open to invasion at home?

Who among us would routinely be able to announce in national or international media that we would suborn and assist through nonfeasance countless felonies and not suffer any consequences for that action?

The K Street crowd and those they represent aren't the ones who suffer the depredations of their influence, and perhaps they should, could the general public boycott their wares produced with illegal labor.

Very well said and 100% true!    

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I agree that this is a Federal and not a State issue. 

It needs to be solved at the Federal level and is the job of the Congress critters to do so. The issue of sanctuary cities and the fact that corporate America, as well as a lot of mom and pop businesses, have been responsible for creating the illegal job market over the past few generations. That is the root problem and is what must be dealt with. But we all know as long as the boys on K street make the politicians rich for supporting the cheap labor express nothing will happen.

My argument is this is an idiot, emotionally driven response to the problem and in the end will have no effect other than give the left another tool to use against the right in the next Dim administration and to legitimize even more Federal interference in the lives of ordinary folks ....

It is being solved.  Arresting those impeding the arrest of those who have broken federal laws will solve it.

Why in the world would Congress need to be involved?  We already have laws on the books and need to simply execute them.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If the States were to allow people in despite national immigration policy, the border becomes no stronger than the weakest link. Once in, the Constitution guarantees full faith and credit for whatever documentation they might possess or acquire, and thus, one state can destroy the entire idea of a national border.

In the Preamble, the concept of better providing for common defense was laid out: A national border must be consistent, or it is of no effect. Sanctuary cities and states only provide the gaping pores through which the flow of invaders become harbored and legitimized. There is no way to have National Security, on the border, without National Policy, and enforcing that policy This is a National Issue, not a State one.

A very forceful point.  If any state allows non-citizens into its state not approved by the federal government, then any other state should have the right to stop anybody else from outside the state from entering the state to ensure its citizens remain safe from lawbreakers.

The agreement made by signing off on the entry of that state into the Union is otherwise compromised, and vetting at the state border is not only called for, but required.

[Smokin Joe]

It is being solved.  Arresting those impeding the arrest of those who have broken federal laws will solve it.

Why in the world would Congress need to be involved?  We already have laws on the books and need to simply execute them.

Depending on POV, there are two ways to eliminate illegal immigration (although only one would work, really).

The first is to emplace a physical barrier and enforce the law. There will always be that small group who make it across, so this would never be 100% effective, only a question of massive reduction, increasing with efficacy.
 
The second is to eliminate the law against illegal immigration, which would be more effective legally because with the stroke of a pen there would be no illegals at all, but which would be the national suicide the globalists crave.

[Smokin Joe]

A very forceful point.  If any state allows non-citizens into its state not approved by the federal government, then any other state should have the right to stop anybody else from outside the state from entering the state to ensure its citizens remain safe from lawbreakers.

The agreement made by signing off on the entry of that state into the Union is otherwise compromised, and vetting at the state border is not only called for, but required.

But at that point any credentials acquired while resident in the sanctuary state such as a driver's license, would no longer receive full faith and credit under the Constitution, and that could be used to legitimize (universally) the illegals' documentation and status through a Constitutional challenge, much like the legal cascade that occurred over homosexual unions. (but, for some reason, not CCW permits).

[Sanguine]

Depending on POV, there are two ways to eliminate illegal immigration (although only one would work, really).

The first is to emplace a physical barrier and enforce the law. There will always be that small group who make it across, so this would never be 100% effective, only a question of massive reduction, increasing with efficacy.
 
The second is to eliminate the law against illegal immigration, which would be more effective legally because with the stroke of a pen there would be no illegals at all, but which would be the national suicide the globalists crave.

I'm assuming that your first option includes enforcing current laws that remove the magnets - as in, make it much less attractive to come into the country illegally.

[sneakypete]

Not one will spend 24 hours in a jail cell.

@Cripplecreek

Maybe not a local or state jail,but a federal detention center may be a lot harder for them to get out of.

[sneakypete]

This is a very bad idea and a very bad president if implemented. It baffles me that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would think that its ok for the federal government to bring criminal charges against local officials for failing to enforce federal laws against the citizens of that locality.

I understand the emotional response but think about it, say sometime in the not to distant future, the Feds criminalize ownership of guns by anyone over 65 who cannot prove they do not suffer from dementia. The local officials in retirement communities  refuse to enforce the Federal law. Using this precedent a future Dim administration comes in and locks up the local officials...

The way (and I don't like it ) to get local/state governments to comply with Federal law is by withholding Federal funding ..

@montanajoe

I would agree with you if this were a States Rights Issue and the people being locked up were citizens,but it's not. Immigration is a federal issue from the word "go",and by definition the people they are after are either foreigners,citizens helping foreigners to break the law,or both. This is the sort of thing the federal government is obligated to do by our laws.

Criminalizing the actions of locally elected officials defying Federal law is not the way to go and is an unconstitutional usurpation of local control by the Feds.....

[edpc]

@Cripplecreek

Maybe not a local or state jail,but a federal detention center may be a lot harder for them to get out of.

Rendition

[Smokin Joe]

I'm assuming that your first option includes enforcing current laws that remove the magnets - as in, make it much less attractive to come into the country illegally.

Yep. There are two ways to rid your home of unwelcome 'guests' (and I am making an analogy, but not a metaphor). One involves using poisoned bait. The problem with that is that bait is bait, and poisoned or not, it attracts the very thing you don't want, or it would not be effective at all.

The other is to trap them into extinction--elimination.

I favor the latter approach, as it gets rid of the problem without attracting more.

Unfortunately, that simile breaks down in that the only poison in this bait is the chance to develop obesity and heart problems from eating fast food. Yes, incentives such as welfare need to be eliminated. Why spend millions on programs to teach English as a second language when it isn't adequately being taught as a first language in many areas? Time to get our priorities straight and look after our own. If people from elsewhere wnat to join up and become Americans, let them do it right.

[Bigun]

I'm assuming that your first option includes enforcing current laws that remove the magnets - as in, make it much less attractive to come into the country illegally.

@sanquine

I'm not the guy you asked the question of, but I will tell you that if I were in charge anyone here illegally would not be getting any government benefits at all and, in addation to that, would not be able to get a job, rent a place to live, or obtain anything else that would aid their illegal presence here.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

But at that point any credentials acquired while resident in the sanctuary state such as a driver's license, would no longer receive full faith and credit under the Constitution, and that could be used to legitimize (universally) the illegals' documentation and status through a Constitutional challenge, much like the legal cascade that occurred over homosexual unions. (but, for some reason, not CCW permits).

One must either adher to the entire Constitution or none of it.  There is no in-between.

I say all bets are off if one state refuses to abide by it, so others must be able to protect themselves.