Richard Fowler lies by misdirection on Foxnews about sanctuary cities


#41

Yes. Jerry Brown puts illegal entrants above California state workers

See Cases could open door to pension cuts for California workers

December 18th, 2017

“SACRAMENTO — For decades in California, a sacrosanct rule has governed public employees’ pensions: Benefits promised can never be taken away.
But cases before the state Supreme Court threaten to reverse that premise and open the door to benefit cuts for workers still on the job.”

And the above comes after Jerry Brown gets almost $50 million to help legal and illegal immigrants.

See Nearly $50 million in the California state budget will go to expanded legal services for immigrants

June 15, 2017,

“California state lawmakers approved $45 million in a state budget plan to expand legal services for immigrants, a response to the Trump administration’s call to increase deportations.

The funds, greater than what Gov. Jerry Brown earmarked in May and which will be an ongoing allocation through 2020, will go to a coalition of legal services agencies, immigrant rights groups and faith-based organizations called One California.”

And AS actually suggests Jerry Brown is not putting illegal aliens above California’s state workers?

:roll_eyes:

Like I previously said, you can’t make up the crap that happens in California.


#42

BS. PLEASE stop this nonsense, AS. The FACT is, ANYONE harboring or protecting from arrest, a single illegal alien CAN be charged with a federal crime. Whether they WILL be is strictly up to the U.S. AG…period.


#43

A private citizen, not a local official, doing it in their capacity as an official.

You can’t punish people for doing what their voters put them in office to do.

Congress cannot order those officials around.

Period.


#44

They’re taking away airtime.

Sorry John, but I have the scoop on you, I know people who work in public pension management; it’s airtime, which they were not promised.

And I find “putting illegals above” hilarious, when they’re spending something like $800 million a year just on Union dues.

The top paid 50 public employees in California, alone, cost more than $50 million.


#45

John,

This is your source:

This is what it says in opening statement about what it concerns:

Now be honest, and admit this is about conditions for grant money. Let’s see you do at least that much, as you can’t deny it now.


#46

BS. NOTHING in the law exempts “public officials” from the law. Not a single word.


#47

See above.

You’ll be hard-pressed to find a single “local official” who was elected specifically in order to defy federal law. Every Democrat elected in Kalifornia was elected because of the goodies they promised voters for electing them. NO Democrat would ever be elected if what their ACTUAL intent to do to their constituents ever became common knowledge.


#48

Your above nonsense has already been debunked at the top of the thread. :roll_eyes:

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.”

In case you missed it, the Court told you, with regard to your above assertion: We disagree. Section 1324 applies to “[a]ny person” who knowingly harbors an illegal alien.

The court even took the time to instruct you on the test which confirms harboring, CLICK HERE to recall what the Court told you. It told you:

”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 and are subject to the penalties prescribed by law…just as is “any person”, as stated to you by the Court!

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)

JWK


#49

No one on this end disputed that. But you dispute the Court ruling which confirms a punishment can be imposed if local governmental entities and officials restrict the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS.

:roll_eyes:


#50

State Officials are exempted in their capacity as officials, from following Federal Law, if State law says something else.

Ergo, police officers, don’t have to shut down marijuana dispensaries. They’re under no legal pressure to do it.

In their capacity as officials. That’s what you’re overlooking Dave.

Now, if a Police Officer was personally running a dispensary on the side, could the Feds then punish him? Yes! Because he’s personally involved, outside of his capacity as an official. In that context, he’s just a private citizen.

To the same degree, you’d have to show an official either hiding illegals on their own property, or hiring them inside their own side business, to punish them as a private citizen, harboring illegals for their own benefit.

You cannot punish them simply for refusing to enforce Federal laws. That’s how the law stands Dave. You can read about it in the two court cases used to underline the 10th amendment as to why.

You may disagree with the court for having decided that, but that’s the law as it stands. That’s jurisprudence.


#51

The Court case states what the punishment is. What is it John?

As in your own source we see the Attorney General while arguing that depriving the funds did not constitute “irreparable harm”, stated that if following the new conditions would harm the city’s relationship with the immigrant community, they could simply decline the “modest funds of the grant.”

Losing grant money. That’s all it says John, no other consequence is offered. Because the case is entirely about grant money, not Federal jurisdiction of immigration, or what laws the States can or can’t pass on it.

And certainly not throwing people in jail, which would constitute irreparable harm.


#52

Nonsense, AS. NOTHING in the law differentiates between the average citizen (or non-citizen, for that matte) and an elected “official.” Not a single word.


#53

in that particular case.

At least you now know those who violate the law in question can be punished. Thank you for confirming what I and others have been telling you.

JWK

:roll_eyes:


#54

You can’t cause irreparable harm. They state that specifically.

Removing funds, isn’t harmful. Throwing people in jail would be, so you can’t do it.

Certainly not over grant conditions. You can’t throw people in jail, for not following the requirements for a grant, that’s just nonsense.


#55

The decision does:

“…guilty of conspiring to conceal, harbor, and shield from detection aliens in buildings and motor vehicles for the purpose of commercial advantage and private financial gain

Both charges have the same stipulation. Sorry Dave. It’s private & commercial interest. That’s it.

You can’t punish a cop or an official for not enforcing marijuana laws, and you can’t punish them for not enforcing immigration laws, as in neither case do they gain something of commercial or private interest.

Same story, for the same reasons. 10th amendment. The jurisprudence confirms it.


#56

BS. An EXCELLENT case can be made that harboring illegal aliens IS for both “commercial advantage” and “private financial gain” on the part of politicians.


#57

Not for them; they’re not running whatever business those illegals happened to be employed at.

If they are running such a business, then the Feds can punish them.

You also have the problem Dave, of a Negative vs Positive action.

People who hide illegals in a business, are affirmatively breaking the law (positive action)

State officials or police department are not affirming anything when they don’t enforce laws. They are refraining from acting (negative action).

They’re committing no action. And punishing people for not taking an action, has a higher standard attached than the former.

It’s also because It’s a positive vs negative, that your argument doesn’t hold here. The court was ruling on a affirmative action, not a refrain from action.

You don’t punish people who see an illegal, and don’t call it in. It makes no sense.
And those people are very different, from people who employ illegals. That’s self-evident.


#58

So you REALLY believe that these leftie politicians are NOT gaining materially by not only refusing to cooperate with ICE, but threatening to jail those who do? WHY would ANY politician want to protect illegal criminals UNLESS they hoped to get something from them down the road…or, in the case of Kalifornia…IMMEDIATELY at the ballot box? It’s against Kalifornia law for ANY public employee to even inquire as to the immigration status of those with whom they come in contact in the course of their business. It’s ALSO “legal” to issue illegals a Kalifornia driver’s license. It’s also Kalifornia law to, at the time a DL is issued, ALSO give each licensee, a voter registration application–and help them fill it out. It stands to reason that thousands–if not MILLIONS–of illegal aliens are now registered to vote in Kalifornia, most with the idea that they are so ENTITLED. Who do you think they’ll vote FOR? Republicans who want the federal law obeyed–meaning send them home where they belong, or Democrats who are protecting them and giving them all the rights and privileges of a citizen, free tuition, free legal advice and aid, free medical care and sheltering them from deportation?


#59

Dave, you already made this point, and it doesn’t work here because:

  1. This is a refrain from action., and

  2. The ruling is on a affirmative action, not a refrain.

  3. These are officials protected by the 10th amendment. So long as they are exercising State law and their authority, properly invested in them by voters, you can’t punish them for exercising it.

The Federal government doesn’t have that right. There are two court cases underlying the 10th amendment that affirm the right for States to refuse. State officials can ignore enforcing Federal Laws, it does not matter which law we’re talking about.

You can’t just save nullification for those Federal laws you don’t like, for it’s States and lower authorities that are the arbiter of nullification. They decide it.

  • Not happening until April of this year.
  • To use the license to register to vote, you needed to have already proven your citizenship with a birth certificate or a passport.
  • Illegals could already register to vote in the far “leakier” automated registering system. This new system attaching registration to the drivers license, doesn’t make it easier. Because in the prior system, you didn’t even need proof, you just checked a box.

Nobody; most would vote for no one.

Why? Because even natural-born, poor Hispanic Americans, have less than 40% voter participation. They are the worst demographic for this.

Democrats know this, hence why they want to force everyone to vote Dave. You know this.


#60

BS. This has been happening for at LEAST the last 3 years in Kalifornia. I have a close friend who lives in LA and attended USC and he says it’s common knowledge that this has been going on since just after the 2012 election.