DOJ Considering Arresting Sanctuary City Politicians

[Kurr]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/d...city-politicians/ar-AAuMYp8?OCID=ansmsnnews11

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

 

[joncon]

Sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[Thor]

Be fun to see some of those perp walks...I wonder if Guv Moonbeam would call out the Guard to try and stop them...or if someone like DCommieO would try to have the city police resist.

 

[Parrthed]

I say round 'em up. You know they will use every power they want to take from their people to protect themselves.

 

[halfmileharry]

Arrest them. I'm sure they'll claim it's unconstitutional but treat them like a common citizen.
EVEN if it's against the law they can have their day in court.

 

[miguel]

And it looks like some will play along. Oooo-rah.

Oakland Bans Cooperation With Federal Immigration Agents; Braces For ICE Raids « CBS San Francisco

"When asked if she were willing to go to jail to defend those policies, Schaaf answered emphatically “Yes!”"

 

[ghitch75]

jerk every federal dime from them and lock them up.....

 

[Fargo]

Have you guys considered that if the feds are allowed to force state and local's to do their federal law enforcement for them, that isn't a bell they can be unrung or a door that can really be closed, especially as regards Firearm laws?

 

[Denny347]

Have you guys considered that if the feds are allowed to force state and local's to do their federal law enforcement for them, that isn't a bell they can be unrung or a door that can really be closed, especially as regards Firearm laws?

Who cares...we are talking about illegal immigrants!!!

 

[phylodog]

Local law enforcement officers do not have the authority to enforce federal laws. This issue is about cooperation with federal authorities, not doing their jobs for them. If municipalities don't want to cooperate with the enforcement of federal laws I reckon that's their prerogative. The automatic, no questions asked response should be immediate and total withdrawal of any and all federal funding to that municipality. Seems simple enough, let the cards fall where they may.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Have you guys considered that if the feds are allowed to force state and local's to do their federal law enforcement for them, that isn't a bell they can be unrung or a door that can really be closed, especially as regards Firearm laws?

What's the firearms equivalent of ignoring an ICE Detainer?

 

[Fargo]

What's the firearms equivalent of ignoring an ICE Detainer?

Refusing to run NICS interim checks mandated under the Brady act is probably the closest historical analog.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Refusing to run NICS interim checks mandated under the Brady act is probably the closest historical analog.

I still don't get it. If the argument is this somehow gives Feds some new power and it'll backfire on gun owners, how does ignoring a ICE detainer translate into new problems for gun owners?

ICE: We want a detainer on this suspected illegal alien while he's in jail for another crime.
State: No, we love illegal aliens and are letting him out.

Gun equivalent: ???

 

[T.Lex]

Better than the gun analogy is marijuana, medical or otherwise legalized.

If a local LEO/politician doesn't want to cooperate, principles of federalism say they don't have to.

The structural issue at stake is more important than guns.

Quick hypothetical about guns:
Feds might say vets with PTSD shouldn't have guns. State LEOs/elected leaders might disagree. If the feds want help taking those guns away, doesn't seem to me like the locals should be forced to help with that.

 

[phylodog]

Holding someone for federal LE who is already in jail is not enforcing federal law. The marijuana and PTSD Vets analogies are not the same thing. Federal LE from sea to shining sea utilizes local jails to hold their inmates until such time as they are ordered into a federal penitentiary. Letting an inmate out of jail after being notified that they are to be held for violations of federal law is not a refusal to enforce federal laws, its a lot closer to assisting a criminal and/or interfering with a federal LE investigation.

Like I said, I'm all about state's rights. If a state decides not to cooperate with the federal government then federal government should immediately stop any and all funding to that state. Just might start a non violent revolution and reset some things back the way they used to (should) be.

 

[Libertarian01]

I don't mind the idea of Feds enforcing federal law and State and local folks enforcing local laws. The problem is that to enforce all the laws cooperation is necessary to solve real crimes and maintain order.

What if the locals were denied access to federal, and possibly other states, lists of child molesters? Do the Feds have to cooperate? What about a serial killer pattern that the FBI has worked on? When the killings begin in California do the Feds have to give access?

This is a very bad situation that could snowball into a noncooperation level that will have severe repercussions. These local idiots may mean well, they may be playing to their base, but they do not comprehend that the door swings both ways.

It is one thing to chose noncooperation, it is another to legislate it.

Would the action of voting preemptively to legislate noncooperation meet the standard of conspiracy to violate the law? Serious question here. We're not talking about Colorado voting to decriminalize marijuana on its own rail, but to actively try to rip out the federal rail.

This is just bad.

Regards,

Doug

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Better than the gun analogy is marijuana, medical or otherwise legalized.

If a local LEO/politician doesn't want to cooperate, principles of federalism say they don't have to.

The structural issue at stake is more important than guns.

Quick hypothetical about guns:
Feds might say vets with PTSD shouldn't have guns. State LEOs/elected leaders might disagree. If the feds want help taking those guns away, doesn't seem to me like the locals should be forced to help with that.

That's not what's under discussion. ICE isn't coming in and grabbing deputies and police and forcing them into immigration raids.

I don't mind the idea of Feds enforcing federal law and State and local folks enforcing local laws. The problem is that to enforce all the laws cooperation is necessary to solve real crimes and maintain order.

If the goal is to enforce the law, that's a pretty solid plan. Realistically, it does work that way to an extent. My office is a good example. By IC code, Feds can enforce certain state laws but not all (like felonies but not traffic codes). Local police can be deputized by the feds to be Federal Task Force Officers, allowing them to enforce certain federal laws. We have several Task Force guys. On a recent search warrant and arrest related to a Hobbs Act eligible robber who shot a clerk, I was shoulder to shoulder with an FBI agent doing the searching.

 

[Fargo]

Holding someone for federal LE who is already in jail is not enforcing federal law. The marijuana and PTSD Vets analogies are not the same thing. Federal LE from sea to shining sea utilizes local jails to hold their inmates until such time as they are ordered into a federal penitentiary. Letting an inmate out of jail after being notified that they are to be held for violations of federal law is not a refusal to enforce federal laws, its a lot closer to assisting a criminal and/or interfering with a federal LE investigation.

Like I said, I'm all about state's rights. If a state decides not to cooperate with the federal government then federal government should immediately stop any and all funding to that state. Just might start a non violent revolution and reset some things back the way they used to (should) be.

If it is a federal warrant, yes. ICE detainers are not warrants nor court orders and have no such force of law. For example, last I checked Marion county is actually prohibited by a FEDERAL court order from honoring ICE detainers standing alone.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news...hibits-ice-detainers-marion-county/844115001/

Judge Rules For Marion County Man Detained On Immigration Charge ? WFHB

I am also curious how the federal government overtaxing the citizens of a state and then refusing to give the money back unless the state bows to its will is somehow being "all about states rights"?

The question of whether states can be directly forced to help enforce federal law was answered by the US Supreme Court years ago. Printz v. United States is the case and it was over local law-enforcement being forced to help out with gun purchase background checks.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

 

[phylodog]

I am also curious how the federal government overtaxing the citizens of a state and then refusing to give the money back unless the state bows to its will is somehow being "all about states rights"?

Probably because you also believe this is about local law enforcement enforcing federal law.

I'm local law enforcement and I have enforced federal law, to do so I was sworn in as a Federal Marshall and provided with credentials. Once I forfeited those I no longer had that authority. I've also stopped numerous illegal aliens and allowed them to go because I could not legally enforce the federal immigration laws.

While on the SWAT team I assisted the federal agencies in executing search warrants on numerous occasions (in addition to providing security at major events, POTUS visits, etc.). Different animal. There was no requirement for us to assist, if the Chief decided he did not agree with the particular law being enforced he could have decided not to allow us to cooperate. We've purchased equipment over the years with the assistance of federal grant money. Once we decide we aren't going to assist the feds any longer they can decide they aren't going to provide those grants to our agency any longer. It's cooperation.

As far as federal taxes and the return of those taxes, I never claimed the system was as it should be but ya gotta **** with the cock ya got. Once states start weening off of that teet perhaps things might start swinging back the way they were intended.

As far as this particular topic is concerned, we are talking about the enforcement of federal laws which, when broken cost both the states and federal government billions of dollars per year. If the states don't want to cooperate with enforcement efforts I guess the feds could spend a few trillion dollars to build federal holding facilities in each major city and hire 50,000 ICE agents to work to keep them filled. I suspect that may have an effect on those returned tax dollars as well.

 

[Fargo]

Probably because you also believe this is about local law enforcement enforcing federal law.

I'm local law enforcement and I have enforced federal law, to do so I was sworn in as a Federal Marshall and provided with credentials. Once I forfeited those I no longer had that authority. I've also stopped numerous illegal aliens and allowed them to go because I could not legally enforce the federal immigration laws.

While on the SWAT team I assisted the federal agencies in executing search warrants on numerous occasions (in addition to providing security at major events, POTUS visits, etc.). Different animal. There was no requirement for us to assist, if the Chief decided he did not agree with the particular law being enforced he could have decided not to allow us to cooperate. We've purchased equipment over the years with the assistance of federal grant money. Once we decide we aren't going to assist the feds any longer they can decide they aren't going to provide those grants to our agency any longer. It's cooperation.

As far as federal taxes and the return of those taxes, I never claimed the system was as it should be but ya gotta **** with the cock ya got. Once states start weening off of that teet perhaps things might start swinging back the way they were intended.

As far as this particular topic is concerned, we are talking about the enforcement of federal laws which, when broken cost both the states and federal government billions of dollars per year. If the states don't want to cooperate with enforcement efforts I guess the feds could spend a few trillion dollars to build federal holding facilities in each major city and hire 50,000 ICE agents to work to keep them filled. I suspect that may have an effect on those returned tax dollars as well.

Have you ever considered that under the current situation, you work for a "sanctuary" city? Should your department be defunded from all federal grants like a OPO, body armor, etc. because Marion county is not honoring ICE detainers?

I am not in favor of sanctuary cities refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, for the most part just the opposite. But, much like a white supremacist wanting to give a speech, I will argue against what they are doing, while absolutely defending their constitutional right to do it.

Remember, this is a thread about ARRESTING the people elected at the state level because they don't want to cooperate with the feds. It is nothing like U.S. Marshall or joint task force postings like you are referring to above.