Fl. House bans sanctuary cities, will punish local leaders who flaunt law


#21

Two cases… one was about coercing background checks on gun owners, the other was defying Environmental law.

Liberal… right

Justice Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, William Rehnquist…


#22

Talk about deflections, all you have done is ignore the subject of the thread and disrupted a discussion about punishing local elected leaders who flout immigration law.

:roll_eyes:


#23

Wrong, I’am on topic, I’m saying you can’t punish them, because the 10th amendment doesn’t allow for it.

The very judge whose opinion tout, won’t even let the AG take away grant funding from sanctuary cities. He’s not going to let you put people in jail, as there’s no way he wouldn’t too see that as irreparable harm.

The same irreparable harm that decided Printz.

Face it John, you’re promoting a pipe dream. Anyone with any common sense can see that.

You’re all bark, no substance.


#24

:roll_eyes:

Harboring is not protected under the Tenth Amendment. The court already instructed you on that.

JWK


#25

Advocates of illegal entrants misrepresent DOJ’s intentions

.

See DOJ Considering Arresting Sanctuary City Politicians
1/16/2018

”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.”

Later in the article we find: “Immigration advocates said charging local or state officials with crimes for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities would be unlawful and a violation of the Constitution.”

But that ___ “. . . charging local or state officials with crimes for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities …” is not what the Trump Administration is considering. The Trump Administration is considering prosecuting elected leaders who are forbidding law enforcement officers to voluntarily cooperate with federal ICE Agents. There is an enormous distinction between local political leaders ordering local law enforcement officers to not cooperate with ICE Agents, and local police refusing to cooperate.

And what has the court stated about local elected leaders restricting their law enforcement officers from cooperating with our federal government?

For the answer to this question let us read Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s recent WRITTEN OPINION dealing with 8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service

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.”


So, as it turns out, what the Trump Administration is considering is not a violation of the Constitution, as alleged by the advocates of illegal entrants. What the Trump Administration is considering is the prosecution of local elected leaders who forbid local law enforcement officers from cooperating with Federal ICE Agents. In fact, those elected leaders are in violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, as noted by the court, and their actions also constitute the criminal offense of Harboring

JWK


American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance the economic needs of millions of poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled aliens who have invaded America borders.


#26

Except you’re using a federal law to justify that, and the 10th Amendment allow states to ignore it.

Sorry John, but your source doesn’t hold. States do not have to enforce any Federal law, it doesn’t matter which law you’re talking about.


#27

:roll_eyes:


#28

By the same token, States cannot VIOLATE any Federal Law with impunity. There’s a vast difference between enforcing a federal law and VIOLATING it. You need to learn the difference, AS.


#29

… Their discretion seems to be pretty damn wide to do that Dave.

New York v. United States (1992), the State of New York broke with Federal waste disposal regulations, and the court sided with the former.


#30

It amuses me to see liberal Democrats utilize federalism when it comes to the protection and harboring foreign parasitical law breakers. It seems they are incapable of doing anything right.


#31

? Whose a liberal or Democrat here?

Everyone should own guns (the biggest ones they can find/afford), the military rocks, Obamacare was (is?) awful, and so was the President who fostered it.

Planned Parenthood should be defunded, Government spending should be reined in, “Russian interference” in the election is so overblown as to be a joke.

Low taxes & Free markets work, Bernie Sanders is a pseudo-intellectual with no Got Dang sense, the Environmentalists and SJWs are mostly zealots, and are in at least a few cases masquerading (neo) Marxists trying to make people forget the fact that their ideas failed & killed 100s of millions of people.

Prayer in schools should be welcomed, Churches should be allowed to say whatever the hell they want about politics, and under no Got dang circumstance should a Nun be required to buy birth control. Or anyone else for that matter.

Oh yeah, and get the Feds the hell out of ANWR, the Petroleum Reserve, or any other Alaskan territory it wants to mismanage. If Alaskans want to develop it, and get us some more of that awesome black gold to wack the Russian economy even more into the dirt with, Congress should have no say in it. Especially them greenies overly concerned about “warming”. :vb-unhappy:


#32

let us read Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s recent WRITTEN OPINION

"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.”

:roll_eyes:


#33

Let us Read what Judge Leinenweber told Sessions about Grants for sanctuary cities:

Debunked John, you’re peddling fantasy. The Judge, as anyone can see, isn’t on your side.

Heck, Dave just admitted it.


#34

Apples/oranges, misdirection/obfuscation

:roll_eyes:


#35

I did no such thing, AS. I said there’s a VAST difference between refusing to enforce a law and actually VIOLATING the law, which the court CLEARLY points out. If you provide “sanctuary” to a criminal alien, you are BREAKING the law. If you simply IGNORE the federal law concerning criminal aliens that’s another thing altogether.


#36

Yes you did, you admitted the Judge wasn’t on your side.

Because you tried to say this about him::

What Judge Leinenweber may think of as “irreparable harm” and what IS “irreparable harm” are likely two completely different things.

Except… he decided it.

And New York did that, by not following Waste Disposal regulations when ridding themselves of their own waste.

Where is your misunderstanding here? They broke the law & the court said “10th amendment”.


#37

:roll_eyes:


#38

let us read Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s recent WRITTEN OPINION

"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.”

:roll_eyes:


#39

Let us Read what Judge Leinenweber told Sessions about Grants for sanctuary cities:

Debunked John, you’re peddling fantasy. The Judge, as anyone can see, isn’t on your side.

Heck, Dave just admitted it.


#40

Apples/oranges obfuscation and deflection.

:roll_eyes:

"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.”