Richard Fowler lies by misdirection on Foxnews about sanctuary cities


#21

Now you’re playing with words.

Putting people in jail if they don’t cooperate with federal authorities IS doing that.

There’s no other way to describe it.

It’s not “asking” if you’re throwing people in jail if they don’t go along.


#22

:roll_eyes:

There you go again with another intentional misdirection and mischaracterization of the facts which yet again confirms you are not here to add to a productive discussion, but to disrupt and be a nuisance.

The narrative you describe, putting mayors and governors of sanctuary cities “… in jail if they don’t cooperate with federal authorities …” is an intentional mischaracterization. What is advocated is to put these political hacks in jail if they order their local law enforcement officers to not cooperate with federal ICE Agents, as mentioned above. This is the specific action ___ interfering with law enforcement activities ___ which crosses the line as indicated by the Court, and crossing this line meets the test which defines the act of harboring. The prohibited action has nothing to do with cooperating ___ it merely forbids an intentional action by these mayors and governors to interfere with law enforcement activities.

You really need to stop your intentional mischaracterizations and misdirections :roll_eyes:

JWK


#23

Which they’re allowed to do, as elected leaders of their Domains. They are the heads of their State-level organizations, not the Federal Government.

The only organization at the State level that the Feds can order to be mobilized, is the National Guard. Everyone else is at the purview of the State authorities.

Federal laws cannot overwrite that, because the Feds, do not pay the bills for State level law enforcement. They who pays the bills, writes the rules. As it should be.


#24

BS… So now “no State level law enforcement agency” receives money to pay their bills from the federal government? What cave have YOU been living in, AS?


#25

Nope, they get grants for equipment, and if the Federal Government wants to pull those grants, the very grant talked about in the court case John brought up, because the States aren’t listening to them, then fair game.

Grants are not the same as throwing someone in jail. They are a privilege the Feds can revoke at any time, for any reason.

Again, the City of Chicago was getting a grant for airfield development when the Mayor destroyed Meigs Field. The FAA sued the city for the value of that grant. That was something the Feds could do. They could not throw him jail.


#26

These politicians won’t be arrested and jailed for refusing to help enforce federal law. They’ll be arrested for harboring illegals…and they’ve put their guilt out there for anyone to see.


#27

Sophistry; that is punishing them for not enforcing Federal Law.

It’s only Federal law that says they’re illegal to begin with; States can take a different stance if they want.
Just like if a certain business is illegal.

And remember, in the 19th century, they were the only entities that took any stance at all on immigration, and it worked BETTER.


#28

Thank you for your opinion but it has been debunked by our Court. And this has been pointed out to you before!

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.

And what is the definition of 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.

JWK


#29

Which was a court case about a Federal Grant. Something you keep sidestepping.

The Court did not, nor could it change the City’s policy, the policy stood even after this decision was handed down.

So thanks John, it proves me right.


#30

What has just been proven is your intentional dishonesty by editing out what the court found. What you edited out is:

_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 fact is, the court confirms, political elected leaders are prohibited " . . . from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS.

Keeping this in mind, Jerry Brown’s Senate Bill 54 does exactly what the court stated is a prohibited act ____ the Bill prohibits voluntary communications between local law enforcement officers and ICE Agents with regard to illegal entrants. And let us not forget that Calif. AG, Xavier Becerra, has actually threatened America citizens in the community, who dare to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.

Why do you support this outright anarchy?

JWK


#31

Wrong. You are misrepresenting this court case.

NYC Executive Order 124 (1989) stood for 4 more years after this decision, the City continued the policy.

And it was replaced with this one in 2003, that does the same darn thing:

NYC, still doesn’t share information on illegals with the Federal Government, unless they’ve committed a crime other than being undocumented.

If the court case was ruling on this (and it wasn’t, it was ruling on Grant funding, that’s why NYC sued the Feds, not the other way around), you have some explaining to do John.


#32

:roll_eyes:

I quoted the court opinion verbatim.

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.”


What you posted is a NY Executive Order from 2003. What I posted is a Court Opinion from September 15, 2017

Stop making stuff up!


#33

Addressing a court case dealing with NYC from 1999

THIS:

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.”

The court did not strike the policy down. You have no way of explaining that, if they were using 1373 the way you claim.


#34

And this is from your court case, the Chicago one from 2017:

Haggling over the conditions for a Federal Grant. That’s all this is. It’s right there in the introduction, and you keep ignoring it.

Quit ignoring stuff you don’t like John. They state outright that the consequence of ignoring 1373, is the City/State foregoing the funds of the grant. That’s it.


#35

:roll_eyes:

Once again you put your dishonesty on display and edit out the significant parts from what you quote.

Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s ruling continues:

"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 court held that Section 1373 prohibits local governmental entities and officials from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. Thus, Jerry Brown’s Senate Bill 54 violates the rule that elected public leaders may not forbid local law enforcement officers from voluntarily exchanging immigration information with the INS. If they do it can result in a punishment.

JWK


#36

As a condition of the grant. They listed the consequence of failing to comply John, in your own source, both from the District Attorney who was advocating the case for the Federal Government, and from the court.

Denial of grant funds, that’s it. No authority to arrest people, or change city policy.

Which is why the NYC policy stood.

If you had an explanation for how it is the NYC policy stood even after the 1999 court case decision, you’re not offering it.


#37

Governor Jerry Brown puts illegal aliens above state workers

You just can’t make up the crap which happens in California!

In dealing with a deficit, it is absolutely stunning that Jerry Brown is in court trying to renege on pension benefits promised to current state workers, while he has had almost $50 million added to California’s state budget to assist legal and illegal entrants.

JWK


#38

No, he’s trying to cut back on “airtime” where employees buy extra years to pad out their retirement pay.

This is the bare minimum-sane thing California could do. The only thing “wrong” about it, is that it’s likely not enough.


#39

:roll_eyes:

The fact is, Jerry Brown is trying to put illegal aliens above state workers.


#40

:roll_eyes:

Once again you put your dishonesty on display and edit out the significant parts from what you quoted from me. I continued as follows:

Thus, Jerry Brown’s Senate Bill 54 violates the rule that elected public leaders may not forbid local law enforcement officers from voluntarily exchanging immigration information with the INS. If they do it can result in a punishment.

JWK