The "Mayor Libby Schaaf Act"

[AmmoManAaron]

This needs to pass!

?Mayor Libby Schaaf Act? would imprison gov?t officials who warn about ICE raids | Fox News

Kudos to Steve King for having the guts to put this bill forward.

 

[T.Lex]

So... curtailing the 1A helps us... how, exactly?

I mean, isn't it easy enough to just not tell people secret stuff when they've gone on record saying they're going to not keep stuff secret?

 

[Cameramonkey]

So... curtailing the 1A helps us... how, exactly?

I mean, isn't it easy enough to just not tell people secret stuff when they've gone on record saying they're going to not keep stuff secret?

But then locals will b**** about not being told about federal LE ops in their jurisdiction. I can also see potential harm to agents being mistaken for criminals when a cop sees something going down and wasnt aware that the warrant was being executed.

And just to make sure I understand. Is it or is it not a crime for me to use information I have received to warn a suspect and prevent his arrest? Like I discover my brother is under investigation and I call and tell him to run and dont go home because the cops are sitting around the corner waiting for him to come home.

 

[T.Lex]

But then locals will b**** about not being told about federal LE ops in their jurisdiction. I can also see potential harm to agents being mistaken for criminals when a cop sees something going down and wasnt aware that the warrant was being executed.

Well, yeah. Law enforcement in our federal system is complicated.

And just to make sure I understand. Is it or is it not a crime for me to use information I have received to warn a suspect and prevent his arrest? Like I discover my brother is under investigation and I call and tell him to run and dont go home because the cops are sitting around the corner waiting for him to come home.

In Indiana, I'm not sure. I kinda don't think it is a crime. Its been a LONG time since I was in that world, though.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

So... curtailing the 1A helps us... how, exactly?

I mean, isn't it easy enough to just not tell people secret stuff when they've gone on record saying they're going to not keep stuff secret?

I don't see how directly interfering with police action is a 1A issue. I'm interested in what the answer is to CM's question. Basically "aiding and abetting"

I do agree that not telling the locals is a good way to avoid the problem in theory, but see CM's comment. The locals will ***** and whine about being left out of the loop.

ETA: I see you posted at the same time I did.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So... curtailing the 1A helps us... how, exactly?

I mean, isn't it easy enough to just not tell people secret stuff when they've gone on record saying they're going to not keep stuff secret?

The 1st amendment includes interfering with law enforcement?

As for why the feds talk to the locals: https://www.ncirc.gov/deconfliction/

Event deconfliction is the process of determining when law enforcement personnel are conducting an event in close proximity to one another at the same time. Events include law enforcement actions, such as undercover operations, surveillance, and executing search warrants. When certain elements (e.g., time, date, location) are matched between two or more events, a conflict results. Immediate notification is made to the affected agencies or personnel regarding the identified conflict.Why Is Event Deconfliction Important to Me and My Agency?

Event deconfliction helps support and protect law enforcement officers in a variety of ways. Officers partaking in high-risk operations are able to enhance their personal safety and the safety of those around them. The use of an event deconfliction system also helps to reduce risk and liability, improve the wellness of officers, and safeguard citizens.
Using an event deconfliction system enables officers to identify operational conflicts and collaborate with other law enforcement agencies and officers. Officers are able to leverage each other's information and successfully apprehend criminals. Often, after entering an event into an event deconfliction system, officers discover that they are investigating the same subject as another law enforcement agency or officer.

 

[T.Lex]

The 1st amendment includes interfering with law enforcement?

Yes, at least in Indiana, to an extent.

That's why people can watch arrests go down and yell profanities.

As for why the feds talk to the locals: https://www.ncirc.gov/deconfliction/

Oh, I know why. It is totally a matter of best-practice.

My point is that the locals know that, too. If they take actions that undermine the federal authorities, that's a political issue, not a criminal one. The feds are free to either rely on local help or not.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

That's why people can watch arrests go down and yell profanities.

Is that actually interfering, or just being an annoyance? More importantly, is that what's under discussion?

Is a lookout's activities constitutionally protected? Have there been instances of dispatchers informing their criminal friends of raids, etc, and was that determined to be constitutionally protected behavior?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hmmm... this is interesting. I see both sides. Local government doesn't have to help federal government enforce laws right? So federal government should keep their ops to themselves. Also, a solid defense for the mayor, should she leak that information, would be that she did so for protection of legal residents who, based on how they look have been targeted and detained during such raids in the past.
If this Act was passes, and she is arrested, I could see the mayor trotting out a bunch of legal residents that have harassed by ICE, making her case. If the rights of American citizens or legal residents are, even on occasion, infringed, then I think this Act will have issue remaining law.... if it passes, of course.

 

[T.Lex]

Is that actually interfering, or just being an annoyance? More importantly, is that what's under discussion?

Is a lookout's activities constitutionally protected? Have there been instances of dispatchers informing their criminal friends of raids, etc, and was that determined to be constitutionally protected behavior?

Again, I'm not in that world - and this isn't legal advice - but I'm sharing observations.

A lookout is arguably part of a conspiracy. So that's different.

There are laws about "aiding and abetting" but that usually involves issues where the person knowingly/intentionally helps someone get away with something.

My cursory reviews of these public officials' actions suggests they do something more like posting on book of face, "Just a reminder that anyone in the country with visas should be prepared to have proof of their legal standing to work because enforcement actions could happen AT ANY TIME."

Even figuring "worst case" where they ride through town after hanging a lantern in the belfry yelling, "The ICE are coming! The ICE are coming!" I'm not sure that constitutes either conspiracy or aiding.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

A lookout is arguably part of a conspiracy. So that's different.

There are laws about "aiding and abetting" but that usually involves issues where the person knowingly/intentionally helps someone get away with something.

https://steveking.house.gov/sites/s...-18 - H.R. XXX the Mayor Libby Schaaf Act.pdf

It shall be unlawful for any officer, employee,6 or agent of a State or political subdivision thereof to obstruct, hinder, delay, or otherwise impede the enforcement of the laws of the United States, or to attempt to do so.

the term ‘obstruct, hinder, delay, or otherwise impede the enforcement of the laws of the United States’ shall include the purposeful broadcast by an officer, employee, or agent of a State or political subdivision thereof of information relating to any imminent action by a Federal law enforcement officer or agent

I'm failing to see the difference.

That said, there is case law that flashing your headlights to warn of police speed enforcement is constitutionally protected 'speech', so the courts might not agree.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Again, I'm not in that world - and this isn't legal advice - but I'm sharing observations.

A lookout is arguably part of a conspiracy. So that's different.

There are laws about "aiding and abetting" but that usually involves issues where the person knowingly/intentionally helps someone get away with something.

Helping them stay in the country illegally? Helping them avoid deportation?

My cursory reviews of these public officials' actions suggests they do something more like posting on book of face, "Just a reminder that anyone in the country with visas should be prepared to have proof of their legal standing to work because enforcement actions could happen AT ANY TIME."

^^^I could see this being fine^^^

vs. "ICE will be raiding such-and-such neighborhood tomorrow."

Even figuring "worst case" where they ride through town after hanging a lantern in the belfry yelling, "The ICE are coming! The ICE are coming!" I'm not sure that constitutes either conspiracy or aiding.

With my color choice above, I might be channeling Bug, lol.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

That said, there is case law that flashing your headlights to warn of police speed enforcement is constitutionally protected 'speech', so the courts might not agree.

I could see a fine line difference. Flashing your lights could be saying "stop speeding, there is law enforcement ahead" so the person is telling someone else to cease their illegal activity (speeding). With the immigration situation and warning of an ICE raid, the person doing the warning is NOT telling the person to cease their illegal activity (being in the country illegally), they are helping to person avoid capture for an ongoing crime.

 

[T.Lex]

So, part of the problem is that - in my understanding - not all immigration issues are criminal. In fact, relatively few of them are. They are civil enforcement matters. Deportation is a civil penalty, not a criminal punishment. So, having an illegal status - without more - is more like speeding than like theft. That's why the flashing-headlights thing is a pretty good analogy.

And, to be clear, my warning is a slippery slope issue. Given how gun-sanctuary cities are becoming a thing, it is worth considering how something like the proposed law could be used against gun rights advocates.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I could see a fine line difference. Flashing your lights could be saying "stop speeding, there is law enforcement ahead" so the person is telling someone else to cease their illegal activity (speeding). With the immigration situation and warning of an ICE raid, the person doing the warning is NOT telling the person to cease their illegal activity (being in the country illegally), they are helping to person avoid capture for an ongoing crime.

Maybe. Lawyers and courts love nothing more than to split the split hairs a bit finer. I certainly wouldn't want to place a substantial wager on either outcome.

 

[T.Lex]

Along those same lines, politicians at every level are experienced in saying things in certain ways to avoid certain consequences.

Loopholers gonna loophole.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I could see a fine line difference. Flashing your lights could be saying "stop speeding, there is law enforcement ahead" so the person is telling someone else to cease their illegal activity (speeding). With the immigration situation and warning of an ICE raid, the person doing the warning is NOT telling the person to cease their illegal activity (being in the country illegally), they are helping to person avoid capture for an ongoing crime.

Yes. Apples and oranges. Headlights warn them to stop so they dont get caught. This is a case of they are already busted, and you are preventing them from being arrested.

Edit: I would say its more akin to pulling your car in front of the officer's cruiser so he cant pull out and chase after the speeder, or purposefully driving too slow to block them from pursuing the speeder.

 

[BluedSteel]

So, part of the problem is that - in my understanding - not all immigration issues are criminal. In fact, relatively few of them are. They are civil enforcement matters. Deportation is a civil penalty, not a criminal punishment. So, having an illegal status - without more - is more like speeding than like theft. That's why the flashing-headlights thing is a pretty good analogy.

And, to be clear, my warning is a slippery slope issue. Given how gun-sanctuary cities are becoming a thing, it is worth considering how something like the proposed law could be used against gun rights advocates.

I added emphasis above for this reason: Immigration issues are not always a crime but entering the country by any means other than an official border checkpoint is. In fact I believe it also a crime to leave most of the member countries of the UN by any means than official border checkpoint. So most of the so-called immigrants so hotly disputed now have committed a crime in their countries of origin (as well as the countries they passed through to get here) BEFORE they break the law by crossing the U.S. border illegally. The problem is this crime has never been prosecuted until now.

I invite my fellow INGOers to fact check me on this; because I honestly don't have the time to do a thorough search through the morass of the web. But I think you'll find that all the South and Latin American countries prohibit anyone crossing any border in any direction without a passport and a visa. Even to leave.

If the UN were to apply the same laws to Mexico as it is currently beating Italy over the head with then Mexico would be required to accept all the "asylum seekers" piling up on the southern border. Because they, like Italy would be the first country these "refugees" entered. Funny how that works. And how it doesn't. It probably just a coincidence that those eastern European countries are building fences and wall along their borders, isn't it?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...trump-europe-border-walls-migrants/532572002/
Hungary asks EU to help pay for anti-migrant border fence - Business Insider

 

[T.Lex]

I added emphasis above for this reason: Immigration issues are not always a crime but entering the country by any means other than an official border checkpoint is. In fact I believe it also a crime to leave most of the member countries of the UN by any means than official border checkpoint. So most of the so-called immigrants so hotly disputed now have committed a crime in their countries of origin (as well as the countries they passed through to get here) BEFORE they break the law by crossing the U.S. border illegally. The problem is this crime has never been prosecuted until now.

I invite my fellow INGOers to fact check me on this; because I honestly don't have the time to do a thorough search through the morass of the web. But I think you'll find that all the South and Latin American countries prohibit anyone crossing any border in any direction without a passport and a visa. Even to leave.

If the UN were to apply the same laws to Mexico as it is currently beating Italy over the head with then Mexico would be required to accept all the "asylum seekers" piling up on the southern border. Because they, like Italy would be the first country these "refugees" entered. Funny how that works. And how it doesn't. It probably just a coincidence that those eastern European countries are building fences and wall along their borders, isn't it?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...trump-europe-border-walls-migrants/532572002/
Hungary asks EU to help pay for anti-migrant border fence - Business Insider

I kinda don't care what other countries treat as a crime. (Some consider things like criticizing the government and being homosexual to be crimes, too.)

Regarding the US law, it is a misdemeanor to enter without the approval of a border agent. A fine and no more than 6 mos in jail. In state court, that kind of thing is often eligible for a deferral/diversion program or expungement.

The "real" problem (IMHO) are the people who actually enter legally, and either intentionally or unintentionally, overstay their visa. They successfully avoided that misdemeanor crime you mention, so are not "illegal." They have remained "unlawfully" but have not - from what I can tell - committed a crime.

ETA:
Linkification-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325#a

 

[BluedSteel]

I kinda don't care what other countries treat as a crime. (Some consider things like criticizing the government and being homosexual to be crimes, too.)

Regarding the US law, it is a misdemeanor to enter without the approval of a border agent. A fine and no more than 6 mos in jail. In state court, that kind of thing is often eligible for a deferral/diversion program or expungement.

The "real" problem (IMHO) are the people who actually enter legally, and either intentionally or unintentionally, overstay their visa. They successfully avoided that misdemeanor crime you mention, so are not "illegal." They have remained "unlawfully" but have not - from what I can tell - committed a crime.

ETA:
Linkification-
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325#a

When you're right, you're right. And you are. Don't blame you for not caring about source-country law, I was just trying to point out that the immigrants in question don't care whose laws they break, even their own. As for overstaying a proper visa, that's a problem every developed country is having a genuine issue with right now. Ours, like many European ones; is in a no-win situation because the problem was ignored for so long it's now to the point where the logistics of tracking down and dealing with them presents an insurmountable logistical hurdle.

But as for the "real" problem, let me tell you about my ex-brother in-law. X was in the country illegally for 14 years when he married my sister. He spoke almost no English, but my sister is so fluent in Spanish that she easily passes as a native speaker. So communication was no problem for them. X was the outward personification of a doting hispanic gentleman, with a large and friendly family both locally and on both coasts [some of who were in the country legally, some were not]. He was from El Salvador, and bragged of having walked all the way into California. Bragged of the fact that if he was ever caught he'd be back inside the country within weeks. He had parents and a daughter in San Salvador and worked hard to support himself, my sister, paid child support for kids in Kentucky and sent half his paycheck "home" to support his daughter and his parents. On the surface a stand-up guy.

When his southernmost daughter got pregnant and was about to turn 18 he decided he needed to get her into the country legally. Quick. So Sis agreed and started the paperwork necessary to sponsor her and get X legal. Then comes the Aha! moment. The forms required him to list all his "encounters" with the legal system. Turns out he was arrested multiple times in California for charges ranging from intoxication to possession and assault. Did some time there. Was arrested for public intox and possession in North Carolina, did some time in jail. Was arrested for DWI, Assault, Battery and others in Kentuky during a nasty break-up with the mother of his kids. Did jail time and still had a restraining order in his name. Was arrested in IN for DUI, possession, etc., ended up doing the weekend jail thing. Huhhhh. Pattern.

Day comes for his hearing before an Immigration judge in Chicago. Formalities exchanged. Judge asks X if his statements/paperwork are complete and true. Paperwork is a sworn affidavit which includes questions about outstanding legal issues, completeness and truthfulness of answers, warnings on the penalties for perjury. Note that last one.

X swears he's changed his ways, is dutifully married, his kids in KY need his support, his daughter down south needs his help, blah, blah. Now the fed legal eagle stands up, and points out that X has lied. That in fact he has two outstanding warrants for his arrest in Los Angeles at this very moment. Guess what happens. Do the bailiffs take him into custody over the outstanding warrants? Is he disqualified from bringing his daughter into the country and/or from obtaining citizenship? No. Of course not. Judge tells him he has six months to settle his California issues and reapply. Then Sends Him Home.

The guy is in the country illegally for over a decade; has served jail time in four states [including time for domestic and other violence], gets caught committing perjury before a judge in a federal courtroom ---- and they do nothing. Send him home.

That's not my definition of the "real" problem. That's my experience with it. And I say if you can get these guys on a misdemeanor at the border and use that as the basis for deportation then that's money saved in the long run by getting ahead of the curve.

No, they're not all criminals. Yes, they should be treated decently and with the respect due all human beings. My point is, long before they arrive here they are already in trouble [criminal, economic or otherwise] in their own countries; and they gladly break their own laws to get here before they break ours. There will always be instances of merit for specific individuals. But on the whole our past immigration policies have been a large scale disaster. A very expense one both in terms of dollars spent and damage done. It simply must stop.