Richard Fowler lies by misdirection on Foxnews about sanctuary cities


#1

This evening, 1/24/2018, Richard Fowler appeared on The Story (fox News Channel) with Martha MacCallum. The subject being sanctuary cities and their elected leaders who violate the law. Fowler went on and on about court rulings in which the court agrees the federal government cannot force local state leaders to enforce federal immigration law. Of course, this argument repeatedly used by Mr. Fowler is a clever misdirection, and is not the issue at hand. The Trump Administration is not attempting to compel elected leaders in sanctuary cites to enforce federal law. In fact, the Trump Administration is asking these leaders to abide by federal law, and in particularly, abide by 8 U.S. Code § 1324 which makes it a crime for any person to harbor illegal entrants!

Now just what did our court say with respect to this very issue?

In UNITED STATES v. ZHENG, United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit, 2002 the court stated:

“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 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)

Now, with regard to Fowler’s intentional misdirection, that the Trump Administration may not force local elected leaders to enforce federal law, he is absolutely correct. But this is not what the argument is about. The argument is about local elected leaders in sanctuary cities, instructing their law enforcement officers to not cooperate with federal immigration officers. 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.”


Harboring illegal entrants is a criminal offense, which is exactly what elected political hacks in sanctuary cities/states are doing when they instruct local law enforcement officers to not cooperate with ICE Agents.

So, next time Richard Fowler trots out his misdirection about the Trump Administration wrongfully attempting to force local political hacks to enforce federal law, do not hesitate to pimp slap him in his fat face by instructing him there is a vast difference in trying to compel local politicians to enforce federal law and our federal government cautioning local political hacks against the criminal act of harboring.

JWK


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


#2

I see this as the nuance (not really a "nuance", but rather, as you said “a vast difference” . . . but seen, or perhaps I should say, NOT seen, by one here as a nuance not amounting to a DIFFERENCE) that defines the situation.

Your statement here is the crux of the issue . . . unfortunately it will not be recognized as such by that . . . person. Nevertheless, my compliments for drawing the distinction so clearly.


#3

What is the test which determines the Act of Harboring?

You probably are right. But, there is no question Richard Fowler, a lawyer, was intentionally being disingenuous and misdirecting while on Foxnews Channel, and nobody called him out!.

Here is the LINK where Fowler intentionally misdirects by suggesting the Trump Administration is trying to “take over” local police forces. As previously documented, the Court has confirmed local politicians cannot direct local police officers to not cooperate with federal law enforcement officers, and, the Court has also confirmed that “any person”, which would include local politicians, can be arrested for harboring. The only question here is, do “sanctuary city” politicians [mayors and governors] violate the harboring statute when they direct their law enforcement officers to not cooperate with federal ICE Agents. In this respect the law seems crystal clear.

And what is the test for harboring? CLICK HERE for the Courts’ own words:

”In a later decision, 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.” United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 574 (2d Cir.1999) (emphasis added); see also 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).”

So, as it turns out, when sanctuary city politicians direct their law enforcement officers to not cooperate with federal ICE Agents, they have crossed the line and are engaging in the act of harboring.

I wonder when someone at Foxnews Channel will take the time and clear this matter 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 other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.


#4

Cities can certainly have their Federal Grants removed over this.

But it’s another nuance to say removing Federal Grants is the same thing as putting people local officials in jail. It’s not.

Federal grants are a privilege the Feds can remove at any time for any reason; while nullification is a right of the States.

State authorities don’t have to cooperate; they just can’t stop the Feds from enforcing the laws themselves ( which is yet another nuance being overlooked here).


#5

Stop with the distraction and shyster lawyer act

I see you have decided to use the same distraction shyster lawyer Richard Fowler used on Foxnews Channel.

What we are talking about here is whether or not local political leaders in sanctuary cities are breaking the law when they instruct local law enforcement officers to not cooperate with Federal ICE Agents.

As I have previously documented, THE ARE BREAKING THE LAW!

:roll_eyes:

JWK


#6

It doesn’t matter; Federal law --> state official.

Nullification applies, they just can’t stop Federal Authorities from caring out the law.

There’s a whole bunch of ways you can say State officials in Colorado have broken UNIFORM CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT, which as you can read here:

Under our current laws however, Local Police Departments do not cooperate in enforcing these laws when it comes to marijuana.


#7

So now you have decided to troll and destroy this thread too by bringing up drug abuse.

GIVE IT A FREAKEN BREAK PAL! Drug abuse has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

:roll_eyes:


#8

John, you can’t just ignore arguments you don’t agree with.

Federal Drug law also states Local officials must cooperate, yet States Clearly get away with not doing it.

Which means your entire argument about Immigration is in jeopardy; it proves my point, that you are holding immigration law in isolation compared to other Federal law.

Which is precisely the point the court is going to find.


#9

:roll_eyes:


#10

You’re being inconsistent with the law John. The court is going to rule foul on you.


#11

Nobody CARES what you think about marijuana laws here, AS. This is about ILLEGAL ALIENS…not pot. The two issues are NOT analogous. We CAN identify who is in this country illegally. It will take some work, but it CAN be done. When found, they need to be shipped out…period.


#12

You missed the point.

You cannot hold immigration laws in isolation from other Federal laws that the States also ignore.

Either you enforce all of the Federal laws this way, all the environmental laws, all of the drug laws, all of the healthcare laws, or none of them.

Choose which your position is. And be consistent from now on.


#13

Your point is to troll. You have no point on the subject being discussed.:roll_eyes:


#14

Says the guy touting an emoticon in an obnoxious manner, across several threads, all in an attempt to get a rise out of the other person.

Trollish behavior 101 John.

And yes, I did put forth an argument on this topic; you just don’t like acknowledging any objection that you can’t hand waive away.


#15

No, I didn’t “miss the point.” Your “point” is that since 7 States now are trying to ignore marijuana laws–including some of their OWN, BTW–then it’s OK for States to harbor illegal aliens in defiance of federal immigration law…and that’s pure BS.


#16

WRONG Dave.

My point, is that you need to enforce all Federal laws this way, or none of them.

Either nullification exists, or it doesn’t, make up your mind.

Arbitrarily deciding a law you like is worth enforcing, is not an option.

The entire idea of nullification is that States decide, not you or the Federal Government!


#17

A trolls’ argument having nothing to do with Richard Fowler lying by misdirection, something you are very adept at.

:roll_eyes:


#18

That’s what you’re doing.

You don’t respond to argument, and you only seek to get a rise.

Your frustration is your own doing.


#19

:roll_eyes: You really need to grow up and stop your adolescent nonsense.

Getting back to the subject of the thread, “Richard Fowler lies by misdirection on Foxnews about sanctuary cities”, the irrefutable fact is, when sanctuary city mayors/governors order their local law enforcement officers to not cooperate with federal ICE Agents in a manner which shields or interferes with detecting the unlawful presence of illegal entrants, they are violating federal law and engaging in the criminal act of harboring, and can be arrested and prosecuted.

And what is the test for harboring? CLICK HERE for the Courts’ own words:

”In a later decision, 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.” United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 574 (2d Cir.1999) (emphasis added); see also 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).”

So, as it turns out, when sanctuary city politicians direct their law enforcement officers to not cooperate with federal ICE Agents, as mentioned above, they have crossed the line and are engaging in the act of harboring.

Richard Fowler went on and on about court rulings in which the court agrees the federal government cannot force local state leaders to enforce federal immigration law. But this narrative, “forcing local law enforcement officers” to do something, is a clever misdirection, and certainly is not the issue at hand.

The Trump Administration is not attempting to compel elected leaders in sanctuary cites or their law enforcement officers to enforce federal law. The Trump Administration is asking these leaders to do nothing more than abide by federal law, and in particularly, abide by 8 U.S. Code § 1324 which makes it a crime for any person to harbor illegal entrants!

JWK

Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary


#20

Johnwk, please cool the “troll” and other namecalling. That’s getting into not-so-cool-by-forum-rules territory.