You are absolutely wrong in brining up the Printz case in relation to the subject of the thread. And when it was shown to you the case actually confirms political hacks in sanctuary cities may not prohibit law enforcement officers from voluntarily cooperating with federal law enforcement officers, you resort to your fallback tactic of misdirection and obfuscation.
The irrefutable fact is, harboring illegal entrants is a criminal offense, which is exactly what elected political hacks in sanctuary cities are doing.
And what does the law say?
People subject to punishment under 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens do not have to be involved in smuggling to be prosecuted. Harboring can apply to “any person” who knowingly harbors an illegal entrant. SEE,: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 flaunt the law, especially those in New York, California, Oregon and Iowa!
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.