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


Incorrect, I answered the topic in the thread: court precedent outlines personal gain. If personal gain isn’t involved, then you can’t prosecute for this reason.

You can’t punish public officials for putting in policies the people in cities and States voted them into office to do. That’s the problem for you John.


The statutory law is very clear and makes no mention of “personal gain”. Additionally, the Court has established a test for harboring.

In United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 574 (2d Cir.1999) 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.”

Also see 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 illegally”) (quoting Lopez, 521 F.2d at 441).



Once again the attempt is made to morph “illegal immigrants” into “immigrants”, every illegal immigrant is a criminal and every sanctuary city/state establishes themselves as such for the expressed and sole purpose of allowing one specific group of criminals to ignore the laws that citizens must obey at the point of a government gun.

The idea that it is “good police work” to force the citizens who pay you to obey the law while openly refusing to enforce the law on criminals is ludicrous, the suggestion that this establishes a “better relationship between police and the public” is intellectually offensive.

The only motivation for this is to create absolute dominance for the extreme Left in the electorate, the police comply because the extreme Left also rubber stamp their Union demands in exchange for ignoring criminals and persecuting citizens with endless draconian rules and regulations.

It is no coincidence that the hotbeds of racism and crime are the places where these policies and politicians reign.

Of course the crimes that are committed by illegals are left off the statistics because illegals are “protected” from the law.

Once you remove all their crimes from the reported list you have a Leftist Utopia of poverty, dependence and indoctrinated idiocy; the perfect climate for Extreme Left ideas to flourish.


Not at all RET, I mean even legal immigrants will resist police, because they know illegals they don’t want to help the Police catch.

You can’t avoid this problem, yet you aren’t addressing it. What Police departments are doing, is a response to a practical problem.

How do you, as the Police, court a relationship with a community of people who, if you enforce this law, will no longer self-report?

You’re conflating two different things here.

Not enforcing the Federal law, is NOT the same as failing to enforce local ordinances.

With the latter part, I’am willing bet, it’s a case of where there is widespread apathy about the law, and the Police pick & choose what they enforce, because the city is over-regulated.

Detroit is once again the poster child for this. Even without a sizable illegal population, they have immense ill-compliance with local laws. Because the City Government writes too many, and they’re too costly for most people & businesses to follow.

Hence their Operation Compliance. Which was the wrong thing to do, but I digress.


You are dodging, sanctuary laws are specifically and solely designed to exempt criminals from the laws that citizens must obey.

I have no doubt that this creates a great relationship between the criminals who are given a free pass and the police but that is NOT the motivation and that “great relationship” comes at the expense of complete disrespect of law enforcement by the citizens.

As I said, it is intellectually offensive to even suggest such nonsense.

The only “relationship” that matters to the politicians and police departments who embrace sanctuary laws is the relationship with money and power.

If they could preserve the respect of the citizens in the process they would but if they must choose it is the citizens who get the boot and they lose no sleep over it.


Again, you’re colluding two different things.

Immigration is FEDERAL law, failing to enforce that, is not the same as failing to enforce LOCAL laws of the city itself.

I get that, sometimes, punishing an illegal doesn’t follow through. Such as when the Police let an illegal go after they crash into a car without car insurance for instance.

But the real enemy here is overregulation; as even with cities without a large illegal presence ( and plenty of leftists in the heads of Government) there is widespread lack of enforcement of local ordinances.

You’re blaming illegals for something, that happens anyway, among poor people regardless of if they’re foreign or American. And if I’m wrong, then you’d have to explain Detroit.

Maybe not where you are, but it is with Police elsewhere.

They don’t seem to think that their position is “disrespectuful”. I think, they think, that they’re confronting a practical problem.

No RET, you’re treating people as cartoon villains, not as real people.

You completely disregard the possibility that people can be (from your perspective) wrong, yet still rational in why they hold their position.

Automatically assuming that corruption is behind their stance, doesn’t map the reality here.


I mentioned nothing about corruption, I said their motivation was their own personal interests of money and power without regard to what the citizens think or how they are harmed.

You place absolute faith in the excuses that government offers regardless of how ludicrous those excuses are when examined.

Throwing all the citizens under the bus to improve your relationship with criminals is the poster child of imbecilic excuses.


That’s what AS always does, in addition to constantly switching the subject of the thread. And when one does supply documentation refuting his assertions, he nuts up and refuses to acknowledge he was wrong.



It doesn’t matter what you call it, your description is off the mark. These police are acting rationally and doing what they think is right.

That you fail to acknowledge that, means you’re treating them as cartoons, not as flesh-and-blood people.

Not just criminals; entire immigrant communities, because again, plenty of legal immigrants (and their kids) have illegal friends and family here, who they are afraid for, when ICE comes a’knocking

They will resist cooperating with Police, they will fail to self-report other crimes, if you antagonize them, by going after the people they care about.

You want to pretend it’s just the illegals being antagonized, just the criminals, but that just isn’t the case. It’s entire networks of people.


You have no idea what you’re talking about, if there’s one group in this country that loses no sleep worrying about the consequences of their illegal behavior it is illegal immigrants; they can gun citizens down in cold blood and not lose one defender from the left.

And you also are woefully ignorant regarding legal immigrants, they are offended and frustrated that they get lumped in with criminals because Racist Leftists cannot comprehend that decent people choose their allies based on character; not skin tone.

You throw every decent person under the bus when you assume “communities” are formed independent of everything that matters.

How many murderous, thieving child molesters do you express solidarity with just because they share your ethnicity? If the answer is ZERO then ask yourself why you assume Mexicans are blind to everything but skin tone.


Again, you focus on just the illegal immigrants, and not the people they’re connected to. I don’t get why you do this.

These people outnumber the illegals themselves, and Police need them on their side to do their jobs effectively.

How do you court that relationship? You’re not answering that.

Except most illegals, are not violent criminals RET:

Most are just people trying to get by.

Just like in every other social group.

Most (violent) crimes, are committed serially by a small group of people. Put those people in jail, crime rates drop dramatically.

Entire motorcycle & auto theft surges have been brought to a halt, just because a handful of people were arrested.


BS. Rank and file officers DO NOT believe this crap and “support sanctuary cities.” Some Police CHIEFS do, but they are beholden to their mayors and city councils where, in cities like Dallas, San Antonio or Houston they are all LEFT-WINGERS who want illegals because that means more votes for them…if not immediately, then eventually.


That’s BS. EVERY “unauthorized alien” (read ILLEGAL) IS a criminal by definition. They became criminals the instant they stepped over the border without a visa or invitation or the SECOND they stayed past their visa’s expiration date.


Violent criminals. Most are not.


Forgive me, but I know of those who do:

Your opinion, isn’t the only one. Pigeon toeing them as just leftists or ideologues, isn’t confronting them as they actually are.

Until you realize rational people can disagree with you, you aren’t coming to this issue as it actually exists.


Law enforcement officers are entitled to have any opinion they want. But when it comes to the rule of law and harboring illegal entrants, LEOs I know want to enforce the law and be obedient to their oath of office.



And that’s what you’re ignoring John.

Rule of law in these cities, as voted on by the people living there is to ignore the Federal law.

States & cities do this across several other domains of law; they do it for Drug laws, they do it for media piracy laws, they do it for licensing laws.

In Federalism, lower authorities have discretion as to which laws they’ll enforce, as voted on by the people who live there.

It’s the Social laboratories at work.


But that is the antithesis of the rule of law. The rule of law means the laws apply equally to everyone, everywhere. Either the Constitution grants jurisdiction over immigration to the federal government or it doesn’t. (It appears to me that it does.) Don’t like the laws of the US Government? Get them altered, get over it or get out.


You may “know of those who do”, but PappaDave said “rank and file.” That has a specific meaning.


I see you edited what I wrote and then responded to your own edit. What I wrote was: