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


#361

BALONEY! You offered no court case in which the court allows “any person” to be exempt from harboring illegal entrants.

Additionally, I did offer a case in which the court confirmed “any person” can be prosecuted under the harboring statute.

"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.” SEE,:UNITED STATES v. ZHENG, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2002

Stop making crap up.

JWK


#362

Funny how in Slim’s world the states are sovereign in matters where he agrees with them, and subordinate in matters where he doesn’t…

It seems to me Slim thinks the best thing for America would be for our borders to be completely erased and the government to operate as an international charity for everyone in the world EXCEPT U.S. citizens who make less than $250,000 a year.

Jesus, this country is doomed, and in the near term, geopolitically speaking.


#363

Alright, I’ll admit I made a mistake there.

… But the argument was that technology is destroying jobs, leaving less for the rest of us. Is that what you believe RET?


#364

You are knowingly misrepresenting my position. I don’t misrepresent yours, is it too much to ask that you return the favor?

I have no problem with borders; I have a problem with using a collective to diminish individual rights.

RET thinks this is a “fair trade”, controlling immigration in light of welfare, but Natural rights don’t allow this to be a trade to start with. We all see that if we try making this same argument with any other right; neither guns, nor healthcare, nor corn can be controlled this way, just because they’re subsidized.

Since the logic doesn’t repeat, I don’t see how it applies.

Either immigrants have rights like James Madison said they did, which means we must treat them in Good faith, or we don’t have natural rights, and the only rights we have, are artificial ones sourced from a social charter, managed by Government.

Ergo, Government can rewrite them any way they choose.

That’s the implication of denying Natural Rights to innocent people.


#365

This was your entire reply to my question of what you consider Natural law to be.

Now you write, in reply to qixlqatl:

Can you possibly come up with a statement of Natural Law and Natural Rights that has some clarity?

As it stands, I can not apply any form of deductive logic to find consistency or contradiction in your statements. Natural Law and Natural Rights appear to be terms you throw out whenever you run out of other arguments.

The closest I can come to interpreting vour view of Natural Law is that governments should not be allowed to infringe on them. But they are so vague as to equate your idea of government to no government. Seriously, are you a libertarian anarchist?


#366

And the Constitution be dammed, or interpreted to mean whatever he wishes it to mean.

JWK


#367

Now you are misrepresenting your own position expressed in the thread. If you had no problem with borders, then you would have no problem with punishing those who invaded our borders, or those who harbor the invaders.

JWK


#368

And, once more, AS falsely claims that humanity has a “natural right” to go where they want and take what they want and, if anyone objects, they’re racists…or worse.


#369

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/16/dhs-asks-prosecutors-charge-sanctuary-city-leaders/


#370

No, that has never been my position. You need to acknowledge that Dave, or you’re misrepresenting it.

People do however have the right to Freedom of Movement. Just as surely as I can move from here in Colorado to Kansas, people have the right to move from Canada to New York.

You can regulate this right due to mitigating circumstances, and even revoke it due to bad behavior on the part of the individual person. Who they are, what they’ve personally done, not where they’re from.

But you may not unilaterally write laws that revoke the right without due process.

Equally, you may not de facto revoke the right by creating byzantine processes that stretch out the immigration process over the course of decades. That’s not engaging people in Good Faith.

If we want people to respect our laws, we must then craft laws & systems that respect them. It’s a two-way street. Trust here cannot be established by making things one-way.


#371

You’re misrepresenting what an invader is to the Constitution.

Remember, I apply Textualism ; what words in the Constitution meant at the time it was written.

“Invasion” refers to a political or military force, not individual persons merely seeking their personal advantage, whether that be travel, work, or association.

The only individual foreign persons (aliens) the Founding generation saw they could exclude from America, were those who robbed or physically harmed others, or those were citizens of a nation we were currently at war with.

There was no such thing as an “illegal alien” in the 18th century, because no one had to seek our permission merely to come here. So long as they behaved, people could come & go as they pleased.

This was de jure true for everyone (save the Chinese) until the 1890s. It was de facto true for everyone until 1914, which is when we started requiring passports.


#372

Anyone here who’s been following this discussion knows that my charge IS true, AS. You do NOT have a “natural right” to relocate from Canada to New York. Your “right” exists ONLY insofar as AMERICANS allow it to exist, and we do NOT acknowledge that it exists at all…because it DOESN’T. There simply IS NO SUCH “RIGHT.”


#373

Well it’s wrong, and that settles it.

My position is my position afterall. You do not determine what my position is, I DO.

No, Madison stated it: Aliens have rights equal to that of Americans. If you do anything less, you are saying rights stem from Government, not God.

Choose which it is Dave. Is it Government, or God?

It does. It existed for 138 years here, people came & went as they pleased, without any permission. History proves you wrong.


#374

#375

Oh, BS. NO NATION on the planet permits unfettered, uncontrolled immigration…which is MATERIALLY different from “travel.” You are saying that every human on the planet has the “natural right” to settle in the U.S. IRRESPECTIVE of what U.S. citizens want, and that’s just pure, BS. No such “right” exists and NEVER has. Look up how many mafiosos were deported to Sicily in the 20’s, 30’s and 40’s. It was more than just a few. Why bother to ferret out the evil-doers AFTER they come here? Why not just prohibit them from coming in the first place? Makes MUCH more sense to me.


#376

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

“…secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” this does not deny that all people have natural rights but We the People are endeavoring to secure these rights for OURSELVES AND OUR POSTERITY. The rest of humanity is left to their own devices.

“…provide for the common defence…” This doesn’t mean that we must welcome 100,000 armed aliens approaching our border with respect and good faith since they are merely exercising their “natural right” to travel and bear arms.

You twist his words and in any event he didn’t manage to get this clause into the final draft of the Constitution.

WRONG. They came with the tacit permission of We the People through our government. There was no eternal commitment.

Your arguments continue to be beyond absurd. You still haven’t replied to my question about your being a Libertarian Anarchist. May I take your silence as consent?


#377

You have no right to travel upon my property without my permission, nor an unfettered right to enter upon the geographical location called the United States of America without first obtaining permission. Got it?

JWK


#378

It is painfully obvious that he doesn’t Get It.


#379

Jeff Sessions may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks.

Also See: DOJ Considering Arresting Sanctuary City Politicians

January, 2018

”The Department of Justice is considering subjecting state and local officials to criminal charges if they implement or enforce so-called sanctuary policies that bar jurisdictions from cooperating with immigration authorities. Immigration advocates argue such a move would be illegal.”

The irrefutable fact is, federal law, 8 U.S.C. § 1373, prohibits any person, even elected political hacks such as New York City’s communist Mayor Bill de Blasio, California’s socialist Governor Jerry Brown, and even progressive Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago, from prohibiting law enforcement officers from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement officers.

To confirm this fact see Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s WRITTEN OPINION

“The constitutionality of Section 1373 has been challenged before. The Second Circuit in City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999), addressed a facial challenge to Section 1373 in similar circumstances. By executive order, New York City prohibited its employees from voluntarily providing federal immigration authorities with information concerning the immigration status of any alien. Id. at 31-32. The city sued the United States, challenging the constitutionality of Section 1373 under the Tenth Amendment.

Id. at 32.

The Second Circuit found that Section 1373 did not compel state or local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program or conscript local employees into its service, and therefore did not run afoul of the rules gleaned from the Supreme Court’s Printz and New York decisions. City of New York, 179 F.3d at 35. Rather, the court held that Section 1373 prohibits local governmental entities and officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. Ibid. The Court found that the Tenth Amendment, normally a shield from federal power, could not be turned into “a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs.”

The irrefutable fact is, harboring illegal entrants is a criminal offense, which is exactly what elected political hacks in sanctuary cities/states are doing, and the law against harboring applies to “any person”! 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 about time our Federal Department of Justice goes after public servants who flaunt the law and shield from detection illegal entrants who have turned American Citizens into tax slaves to pay for the economic needs of these law breakers.

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.


#380

ACLU falsely asserts no basis to prosecute sanctuary city leaders

See ACLU Comment on ICE Acting Director Remarks on Sanctuary Cities

“Homan’s statement ratchets up the intimidation tactics, but there’s no valid basis to prosecute any state or local official under federal criminal law for carrying out a sanctuary policy. And if the federal government targets state and local officials who have spoken out against the Trump administration’s extremist policies, there would be serious First Amendment problems as well.”

Speaking out against a law, and actually violating the law are two entirely different matters.

The fact is, sanctuary city leaders are in violation of the law if they prohibit local law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement officers. Additionally, any person, and this would include elected local leaders, who engages in harboring illegal entrants, are also in violation of criminal law.

The ACLU needs to stop giving out fake information which may very well land local political leaders in jail!

JWK