Bill to punish lawless officials in sanctuary cities with fines and jail time


#1

See Bill Would Punish Sanctuary City Officials For Protecting Illegals

”Indiana Republican Rep. Todd Rokita has introduced a bill to punish elected officials in sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal officials in enforcing U.S. immigration laws.

Rokita told Fox News that the bill will levy up to $1 million fines and up to five year imprisonment against such authorities.”

Thank you Representative Rokita for applying the spirit of 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - “Bringing in and harboring certain aliens” to lawless officials who intentionally work to conceal, harbor, and/or shield from detection, or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, illegal entrants, especially illegal entrants known to have engaged in criminal conduct.

For the uniformed, SEE:8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

(A)Any person who—

(iii)knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(II)aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

JWK

American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax slaves and forced to finance the personal economic needs of millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders.


#2

If our Attorney General will not enforce U.S. Code 1324 today what makes you think that he would enforce Rep. Rokita’s bill if it were to become law?

Hell’s bells, I would be thrilled if Ryan would allow it to come up for a vote. Put these weasels on the record.


#3

If he doesn’t, then President Trump needs to give him his walking papers!

BTW, see UNITED STATES v. ZHENG, United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit, 2002

Sanctuary city officials can be prosecuted under 8 U.S. Code § 1324

"In considering this appeal, we first examine the language of the statute at issue. “As with any question of statutory interpretation, we begin by examining the text of the statute to determine whether its meaning is clear.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 285 F.3d 1329, 1331 (11th Cir.2002); see also Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1185 (11th Cir.1997) (“In construing a statute we must begin, and often should end as well, with the language of the statute itself.”). The Appellees assert that the language of § 1324 restricts its application to individuals who are in the business of smuggling illegal aliens into the United States for employment or those who employ illegal aliens in “sweatshops.” We disagree. Section 1324 applies to “[a]ny person” who knowingly harbors an illegal alien. Although § 1324 and § 1324a appear to cover some of the same conduct, “the fact that Congress has enacted two sections encompassing similar conduct but prescribing different penalties does not compel a conclusion that one statute was meant to limit, repeal, or affect enforcement of the other.” United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 573 (2d Cir.1999). The Supreme Court has noted that statutes may “overlap” or enjoy a “partial redundancy,” United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 118, 99 S.Ct. 2198, 2201, 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979), and yet be “fully capable of coexisting.” Id. at 122, 99 S.Ct. at 2203. We agree with the Second Circuit’s analysis of §§ 1324 and 1324a that “nothing in the language of these two sections ․ preclude[s] their coexistence.” Kim, 193 F.3d at 573. The plain language of § 1324 does not limit its reach to certain specific individuals, and thus, the Government properly charged the Appellees with violating this statute."

The irrefutable fact is, any public servant who has taken an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, who “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” can be prosecuted under 8 U.S. § 1324 (a)

It’s time for the Trump Administration to go after public servants who flaunt the law, especially those in New York, California, Oregon, etc.

JWK


#4

Except, these officials are voted into office in these places to do this. You’ll turn them into martyrs, and the Republicans will have a PR coup on their hands.

There’s an easier method; just cut off the benefits the Federal system is giving these places.

If the problem here is that people aren’t comfortable with taxpayers footing the bill for foreigners, then let the local taxpayers who voted for these officials, foot the bill for them themselves. Fair is fair.


#5

Either way works for me. Both would be best I think. Cut off funds, and prosecute.


#6

But they’re doing what their constituents want them to do. Self-determination is an important component of Federalism.

Using Federal powers to punish it, just creates a tool of Federal discretion in local matters that the left will use against us in the same way when they get back into power. “Do what we say, endorse the policies we want, or we throw you in jail”.

The better method is not to punish them, but to let them own the consequences of their decision. That’s how Federalism is supposed to work.

Social laboratories, where the societies there-in can rise or fall based upon the merits of their own decisions.

If you, as a citizen, don’t like their decisions? Move away. Vote with your feet.


#7

There is a reason I don’t live in New Orleans itself. I live on the Northshore. I wouldn’t live in that corrupted cesspool if they paid me to. Well, maybe if they actually paid me to, but it would be very expensive for them. Very expensive. And, I’d have to find a spot that was secluded from the general populace, gated, walled, and surrounded by empty land.


#8

Part of Federalism is to abide by “The Laws of the United States”. The very purpose of our Founders granting a power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization was to prevent states from indiscriminately granting citizenship to foreigners who may then be forced upon other states.

So, sanctuary cities are now encouraging foreigners to invade our borders and seek refuge in their cities, and they eventually wind up in other cities where they inflict injury upon the good people residing there.

The fact is, sanctuary city politicians cannot lawfully stop police from reporting illegal entrants to the Feds.

See Judge Harry Leinenweber’s OPINION which confirms that State political elected hacks such Mayor Rahm Emanuel and New York City’s communist mayor Bill de Blasio, are forbidden to compel city law enforcement officers from the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS!

Judge Harry Leinenweber wrote:

”At its core, this case boils down to whether state and local governments can restrict their officials from voluntarily cooperating with a federal scheme. The Court has not been presented with, nor could it uncover, any case holding that the scope of state sovereignty includes the power to forbid state or local employees from voluntarily complying with a federal program. “

and…

”The Court denies the City’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction with respect to the compliance condition, because the City has failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.“

The notion that San Francisco is free to invite any foreigners into their city without any oversight by Congress is a notion without support when reviewing the legislative intent of our Constitution and various Supreme Court cases, e.g., see Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884)

”The act of Congress of August 8, 1882, “to regulate immigration,” which imposes upon the owners of steam or sailing vessels who shall bring passengers from a foreign port into a port of the United States, a duty of fifty cents for every such passenger not a citizen of this country, is a valid exercise of the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations.”

”The contribution levied on the ship owner by this statue is designed to mitigate the evils incident to immigration from abroad by raising a fund for that purpose, and it is not, in the sense of the Constitution, a tax subject to the limitations imposed by that instrument on the general taxing power of Congress.”

Also see, Arizona v. United States, 2012

”The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. … This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations….”

The bottom line, with reference to the subject of the thread is, State political elected hacks such as twinkle toes Mayor Rahm Emanuel and New York City’s communist mayor Bill de Blasio, are forbidden by federal law to compel city officers from the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS! It’s time to lock these lawless city officials up!

JWK


#9

But not the power to determine immigration. Not the power to determine who could stay here & work.

That was implicitly left to the States to decide for themselves. You know this John, you’ve said it before yourself in your attempt to explain why there were no explicit Federal laws on immigration until the late 19th century.

Texas in the 1950s, forgoed Bracero, to embrace an independent policy of open borders.

Eisenhower did not punish them for it. And still illegal immigration fell by over 95% during his tenure.

This decision embraced federalism & it worked, because States tend to understand their own circumstances, better than the Federal Government understands it for them. Also, because economics reinforced the policy, rather than fighting it.


#10

:roll_eyes:


#11

^

Thanks for conceding. B)


#12

Sanctuary city officials can be prosecuted under 8 U.S. Code § 1324

Did you miss: UNITED STATES v. ZHENG, United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit, 2002

"In considering this appeal, we first examine the language of the statute at issue. “As with any question of statutory interpretation, we begin by examining the text of the statute to determine whether its meaning is clear.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 285 F.3d 1329, 1331 (11th Cir.2002); see also Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1185 (11th Cir.1997) (“In construing a statute we must begin, and often should end as well, with the language of the statute itself.”). The Appellees assert that the language of § 1324 restricts its application to individuals who are in the business of smuggling illegal aliens into the United States for employment or those who employ illegal aliens in “sweatshops.” We disagree. Section 1324 applies to “[a]ny person” who knowingly harbors an illegal alien. Although § 1324 and § 1324a appear to cover some of the same conduct, “the fact that Congress has enacted two sections encompassing similar conduct but prescribing different penalties does not compel a conclusion that one statute was meant to limit, repeal, or affect enforcement of the other.” United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 573 (2d Cir.1999). The Supreme Court has noted that statutes may “overlap” or enjoy a “partial redundancy,” United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 118, 99 S.Ct. 2198, 2201, 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979), and yet be “fully capable of coexisting.” Id. at 122, 99 S.Ct. at 2203. We agree with the Second Circuit’s analysis of §§ 1324 and 1324a that “nothing in the language of these two sections ․ preclude[s] their coexistence.” Kim, 193 F.3d at 573. The plain language of § 1324 does not limit its reach to certain specific individuals, and thus, the Government properly charged the Appellees with violating this statute."

The irrefutable fact is, any public servant who has taken an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, who “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” can be prosecuted under 8 U.S. § 1324 (a)

It’s time for the Trump Administration to go after public servants who flout the laws of the United States. An example needs to be made!

JWK

American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax slaves and forced to finance the personal economic needs of millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders.


#13

Uh, no, you missed it John:

"A jury found Appellees Chang Qin Zheng (“Chang”), Zheng Wei Zheng (“Zheng”), and Jin Shuang Zheng, a.k.a. Shuang Jin Zheng (“Jin”), guilty of conspiring to conceal, harbor, and shield from detection aliens in buildings and motor vehicles for the purpose of commercial advantage and private financial gain "

That’s far afield of a public servant, doing precisely what people put them into office to do.

Next you’ll call for putting State officials in jail for floating Federal marijuana laws… and be equally wrong for doing so.

Then the left will prosecute State officials for not enforcing SJW, “civil rights” laws, and will also be wrong for doing so.

So pull Federal funding, and let the local taxpayers bear their weight.

They voted for this policy, so let them bear it. Fair is Fair.


#14

Wrong. You apparently ignore what the court stated: “We disagree. Section 1324 applies to “[a]ny person” who knowingly harbors an illegal alien.”

We are talking about the laws of the United States being flouted by sanctuary city officials.
:roll_eyes:


#15

Got it wrong again John:

We must also examine the other pertinent language Congress used in § 1324. This section provides for a ten-year imprisonment term for any person who knowingly harbors an illegal alien for commercial advantage or private financial gain. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(i). The statute fails to specifically define “commercial advantage” or “private financial gain,” but the meanings of these terms are hardly arcane. Terms that are not statutorily defined are ascribed their “ordinary or natural meaning.” Nat’l Coal Ass’n v. Chater, 81 F.3d 1077, 1081 (11th Cir.1996) (per curiam) (citing Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476, 114 S.Ct. 996, 1001, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994)); see also United States v. Stewart, 311 U.S. 60, 63, 61 S.Ct. 102, 105, 85 L.Ed. 40 (1940) (assuming that Congress used a word in its usual and well-settled sense). We therefore look to other sources and common sense to aid in the interpretation of these terms. See United States v. Porter, 591 F.2d 1048, 1053 (5th Cir.1979).4

The usual meaning of “commercial” is “of, in, or relating to commerce.” Webster’s New Int’l Dictionary (3d ed.1986). Commerce is defined as “the exchange or buying and selling of commodities esp. on a large scale.” Id. The word “advantage” signifies “a more favorable or improved position or condition;” a “benefit, profit, or gain of any kind.” Id. Thus, a common-sense understanding of “commercial advantage” is a profit or gain in money obtained through business activity. "

You messed up. This is distinctly connected to private gain. The parsing was whether it wasn’t in a sweat shop condition, or if they weren’t in the explicit business of human smuggling, would the statutes still apply?

Further, not seeking after illegals, is not the same as harboring them. Courts still have to rule on that.

So again John, thanks for conceding. B)


#16

You are ignoring the problem. Sanctuary cities are encouraging foreigners to invade our borders and seek refuge in their cities, and these illegal entrants eventually wind up in other cities where they inflict injury upon the good people residing there. When these sanctuary cities prevent their beloved illegal entrants from leaving their cities, that would be “fair” and would protect the good citizens of other cities who are now suffering the consequences of illegal entrants who escape from sanctuary cities.

JWK


#17

“[a]ny person” who knowingly harbors an illegal alien.” means “any person”.


#18

Okay, and so if these cities paid for these people on their own, how long do you think it would take for them to change their policy?

If you’re understanding of the issue is correct, they’ll fold pretty quickly. And you’ll do it without federal overreach, that the left could use against us for SJW causes.

You don’t think about means John, and what the left could do with it if they get their hands on it. You need leave that power constrained, and just embrace the Federalist solution.

Which is the same argument the left gives about guns. They argue that their own gun control policies don’t work, because they can’t force people in other cities & states to comply. Thus, the Federal Government should enforce a universally strict standard.

Quit giving them openings John. Quit giving them tools they can use against us.


#19

Who stands to make a commercial gain, they defined it right there in the words I put in bold above.

You skipped over it. You thought they were exuding commercial gain, when they were in fact, stating that more than just sweat shops and human traffickers apply. That even otherwise normal businesses who don’t conduct their deals underground, if caught employing an illegal, can still be punished.

That is what they were parsing.


#20

Why else would “sanctuary cities” opt for illegals if NOT for some form of commercial gain?