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


#341

I see you are still embarrassed about bringing up the Printz case only to find out the Court, in that case, confirmed what I have been telling you. Political hacks in sanctuary cities may not prohibit law enforcement officers from voluntarily cooperating with federal law enforcement officers.

JWK


#342

The Printz Case is relevant (along with the other decision you’ve seemed to have forgotten about), when it comes to Congress compelling a lower authority to do what it wants.

Both Printz and New York v. United States (1992) affirm Congress can’t do that.

However, Grant money runs by different rules. Grant money is a privilege the Feds can revoke at any time, for virtually any reason.

What is not a privilege, is nullification. Lower authorities have the right to ignore enforcing Federal laws, according to Printz and New York v. United States (1992). So you can’t punish officials for doing it, as that would void nullification.

It would void Federalism.

On threat of losing Grant money. Which is a privilege.

Nullification is a right. Congress can’t interfere with that, and we see that, when we look at other law.

No official has been punished for allowing their State/city to ignore Federal laws relating to environmental, media, drug, or aviation concerns. If Congress had the power to do this, they would have exercised it by now.


#343

As previously pointed out to you, Printz is relevant to the subject being discussed for one reason only. It confirms State politicians may not prohibit state law enforcement officers from voluntarily cooperating with federal law enforcement officers.

JWK


#344

For the purposes of the Grant ( and no, Printz didn’t say that, THE CITY OF CHICAGO vs Sessions did.)

Section 1373, is a Federal condition of the Grant. If the city violates that condition, the Feds may pull the funding supplied through that grant, without it being considered a 10th amendment violation.

City officials can still tell their officers not to cooperate with INS; they’ll just have less funding afterwards.

Pulling a grant, is not the same as compelling Local authorities by force to enforce the law.


#345

AS,

I see you are still stuck on deflection and obfuscation.

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)

Carry on old boy.

JWK


#346

You’re projecting. You haven’t even owned up to the fact that the court case was about Grant money.

You sidestepped that fact, repeatedly. Which tells me you knew before I even said anything, that the decision wasn’t the justification you were looking for.

You thought you’d pull the wool over my eyes.

Sorry, but I read what’s given to me.


#347

Wrong. I posted the exact words used in the court’s opinion. You apparently have a disagreement with the written opinion.

JWK


#348

I emboldened their words before, showing that they were referring to private individuals, for private gain.

But there is no private gain for an official who refuses to enforce a Federal Law. You have nothing to make that case with.

If anything, your court case shows they lose something; Federal Funding.


#349

So additional voters aren’t “something of value” to these criminal politicians??? Since when?


#350

That’s a problem for your viewpoint Dave; you can’t interfere with States choosing (by both their leaders, and their voters) which Federal Laws they’ll enforce.

That’s Federalism, that’s prudential judgement at work. States did it with Obamacare, with Gun laws, with environmental laws, and unless you’re saying that you’re prepared to let States no longer have a voice in those things, Immigration law is also something they can nullify.

It’s a two-way street Dave, it doesn’t apply simply to the Federal laws you don’t like, and fail to apply to the Federal laws you do.


#351

I see you are still stuck on self denial. From the case:

"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 court was crystal clean when it stated “any person”.

JWK


#352

John, you’re quoting a Federal law, that States choose not to enforce.

Nullification thus applies. Otherwise, you are saying officials can be punished for not following Obamacare, or Global Warming laws.

Two-way street.


#353

So you do support the secession of the confederacy? Oh, wait, YOU get to have it both ways, not us, right? I’m so confused. Wait, the feds are absolutely right and must be obeyed in all things… until they disagree with you, at which time the feds magically become completely wrong in all things and must be defied at all cost and anyone who disagrees is some form of fascist…

Yeah, you’re just a little inconsistent in your positions. You don’t like American immigration law? Take your state and GTFO. Secede, if you have the guts (I bet you don’t). You’re really good at whining on the internet about how you should get to hire people who aren’t subject to the same laws as citizens so their labor can be cheaper; how are you at actual actions? Crazy idea: instead of insisting on importing foreign labor that isn’t subject to (or simply doesn’t obey) the laws that make domestic labor so expensive, how about we ease the regulatory and tax burden on domestic labor so it can be cheaper? Nah, that’s just crazy talk…


#354

No, because were not a Confederacy.

I said it before (did you look?, said it twice.), they don’t have to enforce Federal laws, but they also can’t stop Federal Authorities from enforcing the law themselves.

Which is a marker of a Federation, not a Confederation.

In a Confederate system, the States would have absolute domain, and could keep out Federal Authorities if they wished. Equally, none of their court cases would be subject to purview by Federal courts.

Neither of these things apply, nor was I advocating they were. Indeed, it was Federal court cases I was using to justify the States stances; not State ones.

I don’t see why we can’t do both (legally).

The problem in both domains is the same; over-regulation.

We make it too difficult for businesses to hire people, whether they be foreign or domestic.

We do afterall have noncompliance among perfectly American businesses. Detroit is the “shining” example of that. Because their regulatory state is overwrought, and thus almost everyone there is breaking some sort of ordinance, or they wouldn’t be in business.

The city Government heads, in the height of their own lack of self-awareness, pretended that the noncompliance was the issue creating their problems, instead of the regulations they had written. Out of that, they tried to force businesses into line with Operation Compliance.

It didn’t work. To the shock of no one but them. But it did work to put their economy in an even larger pit.


#355

It’s amazing you think those jobs are ones that can be handled by barely literal third world cart pushers.

No it doesn’t.
Not even in poor countries, much less in developed ones
http://www.jspes.org/summer2013_lynn.html

So IQ is about 5x as important as economic freedom when it comes to simply not being able to find work.

Except labor participation rates are falling.

If you have 40 million new people with sub 90 IQs, and only20 million new jobs that are suitable for sub-90 IQs, you do not have “new jobs for low IQ workers”. You have too few jobs for the number of people who can perform them. You will have a labor participation rate of 50%(at best) among those people.


#356

I literally have an Iraqi coworker, whose brother works in wholesale.

Advertising? Ever get a call from an Indian? There’s a Douglas Adams joke in there somewhere…
And no, they’re not all calling from India. And there’s other things they do.

Yes, it does, and does it generally in two ways:

1. Technology make things that only high skilled workers could do, into jobs a low skilled person + a piece of technology can do.

Peter Diamandis put together a prize for a “medical tricorder”, just so medicine could be administered by low-skilled people, rather than Nurse Practitioners and Doctors.

But we don’t even need that tricorder to have that reality:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/03/23/high-tech-and-robots-can-create-more-low-skilled-jobs-not-just-destroy-them/#65f7a6273669

2. Sealing up loose ends the technology itself creates.

A good example of that is again, airline baggage handing. You could in theory automate it (and we have tried), but it’s very costly, and it’s far easier just to train a few people to handle it.

We may eventually automate it, but that in of itself points out something you’ve taken for granted here.

( btw, if you want a more recent example, Amazon. )

We don’t automate overnight. There are time horizons to doing that, as well as costs. There may be a possibility to automate, but it would incur such a high cost that it would be next to impossible for company to do it.

In an economy where over half of business computers are still running Windows XP (so no wifi functionality), and where filing systems are partly paper-based, you’re taking a lot for granted, the biggest thing being time. Time periods that leaves decades for workers to do something that isn’t cost-effective to do otherwise.

So your source states economic freedom correlates with employment. Just in case it wasn’t clear, from the source:

The results are that economic freedom independently explains (after accounting for the relationship of both with IQ) a further 12.9% of the variance in unemployment, with less economic freedom increasing rates of unemployment.

And equally, nothing of this proves the Futurist argument correct. Unemployment on the whole still isn’t being driven by technology.

This is an argument Futurists and Economists have been having for over a century, and the Economists keep winning it, just like they’ve also been winning the debate against the Biologists over concerns of resources.

Cwolf, the argument is out there if you’re interested to look at it (and I can show it to you if need be), but I have to ask, are you?

  1. Demographics; the population is aging.

  2. Subsidized schooling, we’re keeping more kids in College & other schools for longer periods of time than we did in the past.

  3. Disability insurance. The number of people on this has doubled since 1995.

This isn’t anything to do with jobs. There are temporary disruptions caused by technology, but when we sort through the whole length of the business cycle, trends in that category point up.


#357

Another obfuscation and misdirection. I am referencing a federal law which prohibits “any person” to engage in harboring.

Stop making crap up!

JWK

American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of $#@!-hole countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.


#358

A law that States can nullify, which is affirmed by the two court cases I mentioned.

States have to enforce that law, for the law to apply. Otherwise, it doesn’t.

Federal officials can enforce it themselves upon private individuals in the state harboring illegals, but not State Officials who simply aren’t enforcing the law. State officials have the right to ignore the law. Just like how those same officials could ignore Gun laws & Obamacare.

I’m sorry John, but you’re wrong. The only thing you can do to these States and cities, is to take their Federal grants away. That’s the only thing the jurisprudence on this allows.

And thank God for that; Obamacare was awful, it’s a good thing the Feds can’t make State officials comply this way.


#359

Who knew Windows XP had no “Wifi Capability”, I guess I just dreamed about having Wifi working on all of my business networks since Windows 2000.

Just keep inventing stuff to say to avoid answering the questions that collapse your narrative…


#360

I guess you forgot that Obamacare had, built in, a provision which ALLOWED States to opt out, provided they had an alternative method.