Richard Fowler lies by misdirection on Foxnews about sanctuary cities


#81

:vb-unhappy:

Learn your lesson John. You can’t use conditions for federal grants as a pretense to arrest people. That’s not how law works.

The idea you could PRETEND those were same is just :vb-lol::vb-lol::vb-lol:

The only people who’ll believe your fantasies are those who read your sources as little as you do.

Case in point, the Judge debunked you.


#82

:roll_eyes:


#83

Guess which Judge this is John? :vb-lol:


#84

:roll_eyes:


#85

Okay, you don’t have to guess:

"Leinenweber wrote in his decision Friday that the “rule of law is undermined” if he allowed Sessions to continue what is likely unconstitutional conduct in other cities while the lawsuit here is pending.

“An injunction more restricted in scope would leave the Attorney General free to continue enforcing the likely invalid conditions against all other Byrne JAG applicants,” wrote Leinenweber"

The judge you brought up is saying these things. :vb-lol:


#86

:roll_eyes:


#87

Border Patrol cracks down on those engaging in harboring illegal entrants

See Border Patrol arrests man who gave aid to immigrants crossing the desert

01/23/18

An Arizona man was reportedly arrested last week on a federal harboring charge after Border Patrol agents surveilled a building near the Mexico border where food, water and clean clothes were provided to immigrants.

And what exactly is the criminal offense called “harboring”? see 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

(A)Any person who—

_ (iii)knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;_

_(II)aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, _

shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B)

Is it not time to also charge and arrest communist/socialist elected leaders of sanctuary cities and states like California’s Governor Jerry Brown and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio?

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


#88

So you think that “commercial advantage” and “private financial gain” is limited ONLY to the relationship between illegals and the businesses that hire them? That’s pretty naïve thinking, AS.


#89

According to the court case, because that’s all it was dealing with.

Sorry Dave, but the case concerns affirmative actions, not refrains from action, and certainly not officials acting on their authority.

So you’re barking up the wrong tree. If you want this authority, you’ll need a different decision.


#90

I’m not arguing about what your vaunted “decision” said or didn’t say. I’m saying that the description of what constitutes “harboring” in no way precludes political entities from being guilty of it and having to pay the price for doing it…period.


#91

… you are once again attempting to obfuscate and deflect!

:roll_eyes:


#92

Amendment 10, you can’t move past it Dave.

You are not the decider on what qualifies as an Amendment 10 exception, the States are.

You don’t get to abrogate laws you don’t like, and hold enforcement for the laws you do.

Federalism. That’s our system. It exists for a reason, even if you don’t like it.


#93

:roll_eyes: Another mindless post void of substance related to the subject of the thread.

In regard to the Tenth Amendment the court has already confirmed it is not a bar against prosecuting those engaged in harboring. let us read Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s recent WRITTEN OPINION as it relates to the Tenth Amendment and harboring.

“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

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


#94

You can’t misrepresent Judge Leinenweber John, it just makes your argument sound pathetic.

If he won’t even let Sessions take Grant funding away from Sanctuary cities, he’s not going to let you throw people in jail.


At some point, you’re just going to have to give reality its due. Anyone here can read what the Judge said right there in the article, and realize he’s not on your side.

No amount of theatrics on your part will change what Judge Leinenweber says he won’t do, nor him calling Session’s actions unconstitutional.


#95

What on Earth has the 10th Amendment have to do with the NATIONAL interest in stopping illegal immigration? Have you READ IT lately? The Constitution CLEARLY reserves to the federal government the right and authority to control immigration, therefore, the 10th Amendment doesn’t apply in ANY political entity’s efforts to thwart the federal government’s control of immigration or immigrants. Certainly not in the case of some far-left-controlled City, County or State.


#96

State Authority checks Federal laws.

It doesn’t matter which Federal law you’re talking about. All Federal laws are under their scrutiny.

Again, the Feds can enforce the laws themselves, and the States can’t interfere, but nor are they obligated to help the Feds in any way.

That’s the two-way street. Federal court cases have underlined this.


#97

Nonsense.


#98

Uh, Dave, Federal Court cases, there’s two of them underlying that States can rebuff Congress telling them diddly squat.

You don’t get to arbitrarily decide where States have that discretion.

You don’t get to affirm nullification for laws you hate, and deny it for ones you don’t.

The law isn’t your as-you-please device, other people, other lawmakers, can & do get to make decisions you don’t like. Period.


#99

:roll_eyes: