DOJ Considering Arresting Sanctuary City Politicians

[BehindBlueI's]

So, when the city pays off some criminal who has filed a b.s. lawsuit claiming that IMPD roughed him up so that they don't have to bother defending the suit, is that a voluntary choice or were they forced to do it?

I am fascinated by this idea that the federal government should defund cities based on the motivation for not honoring detainers versus based on what they objectively have done. It's almost like they're supposed to be punished for what they think versus what they do...

See what else you can throw at the wall. Maybe something will stick. So far we have honoring ICE detainers will backfire on gun owners because XXXX and capitulating to a lawsuit is the same as political pandering.

But, yes, I already see the loophole. Just get someone to sue you and "volunteer" to not honor detainers. So, yes, no federal funds for Marion Co Sheriff's Office unless they actually lose in court. Maybe some of the funds they are using to make their pretend road patrol can go to defending the lawsuit.

 

[Fargo]

This whole thread really reminds me of a folks furiously braiding whips without a single thought about how how they might be used on their own backs.

Kinda like employees of the City of Indianapolis supporting "no questions asked" "immediate and total" defunding of cities that aren't cooperating with ICE...

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.

 

[phylodog]

This whole thread really reminds me of a folks furiously braiding whips without a single thought about how how they might be used on their own backs.

Kinda like employees of the City of Indianapolis supporting "no questions asked" "immediate and total" defunding of cities that aren't cooperating with ICE...

I'm open to listening to the potential consequences, perhaps I simply don't see the problem. Educate me and maybe I'll see things your way and you can stop with the thinly veiled insults. I am just a dumb cop after all, I don't have a law degree.

I liken this sanctuary city bull**** to sovereign citizens. You don't get to reap the benefits if you aren't willing to bear some of the responsibility.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm open to listening to the potential consequences, perhaps I simply don't see the problem.

Well, so far all we've got is vague something bad for gun owners because...well, that's where it gets vague.

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?

 

[Fargo]

I'm open to listening to the potential consequences. I liken this sanctuary city bull**** to sovereign citizens. You don't get to reap the benefits if you aren't willing to bear some of the responsibility.

Well, the first and most glaring consequences is that by your argument Indianapolis (which elected John Layton) should be "immediately and totally" defunded, "no questions asked".

Beyond that, you can't see any consequences of elected officials being arrested for not "cooperating" with ICE detainers. You know, ICE detainers of questionable legality, as Marion county has found out how much to it chagrin.

ICE detainers which there is no law saying that state or local entities have any olbligation to act on.


Keep in mind, immigration has been the sole province of the federal government per the Supreme Court going back centuries.

The constitution puts the responsibility for immigration solely on the Federal govt, Art. 1, Sec. 8. It is one of the reasons the federal government was created in the first place.

If state and local government's do not have a ability to not work for the federal government, there is no such thing as states sovreignty left, there's no such thing as federalism, and there is no such thing of states rights. You might as well just go ahead and burn what remains of the constitution, because we now know longer live in anything like a republic.

If this were allowed to happen, think through what the Democrats would like to do with this power the next time they get in office.

Why is it that everyone is willing to torch every principle of our representative republican form of government the moment "illegal immigrant" is mentioned?

 

[rugertoter]

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

GOOD! I hope they do! Still though, I will believe it when I see it.

 

[Fargo]

Well, so far all we've got is vague something bad for gun owners because...well, that's where it gets vague.

Did you bother to read the Printz case? The first time this was tried was to force the states to perform federal gun purchase checks.

I have pointed this out at least three times, don't know why you find it vague.

If Hillary was proposing to arrest the leaders of or defund the state of Indiana unless every LEO contact involving a firearm was reported for personal identifier registration to the federal government, I bet people might feel a little bit differently about this new power.

Or, lets defund any state that doesn't create an Obamacare exchange.

Or, let's defund any state that has constitutional carry.

 

[phylodog]

Then defund the MCSD. I don't agree with them agreeing not to honor the detainers. This sure isn't the first issue the lawyers have ****ed up for MCSD or the city of Indianapolis.

I addressed the arresting of politicians and admitted ignorance as to which laws they may have broken. I haven't advocated for anyone to be arrested.

You're correct, immigration is the responsibility of the federal government. As a member of this country, states have a responsibility to (at a minimum) cooperate with the efforts of the federal government in the execution of their rightful responsibilities. Refusing to hold prisoners who are already in custody is barely limited to failing to cooperate, it's pretty damned close to being complicit in the violation of those immigration laws, to the detriment of the nation and the state(s).

 

[BugI02]

[snip]
Why is it that everyone is willing to torch every principle of our representative republican form of government the moment "illegal immigrant" is mentioned?

Because we recognize an existential threat to The Republic, and when all else fails to deal with the problem out come the hammer and the nails

 

[phylodog]

If Hillary was proposing to arrest the leaders of or defund the state of Indiana unless every LEO contact involving a firearm was reported for personal identifier registration to the federal government, I bet people might feel a little bit differently about this new power.

Contact with a law abiding citizen who happens to be lawfull carrying a firearm does not involve criminal activity. Ice detainers involve not letting criminals out of jail before the feds can address their criminal conduct.

Or, lets defund any state that doesn't create an Obamacare exchange.

Would have been great if every state didn't create one.

Or, let's defund any state that has constitutional carry.

Is constitutional carry a position which is contrary to federal law?

You're obviously pissed, I'm not. I'd like to see an apples to apples comparison so I can understand your side because as of now, I don't. I see a continuation of the liberal agenda where some municipalities (and the left) are working in direct opposition to the federal government on an issue which (their decision) does nothing to help this country. I'm going to need a compelling reason to grant those liberal municipalities a pass on this one.

 

[Fargo]

Because we recognize an existential threat to The Republic, and when all else fails to deal with the problem out come the hammer and the nails

That falls on the people that the constitution says it falls on, specifically the federal government. The solution to its failure is not to destroy the sovereignty of the states.

Congress has every power that it needs to enact a rational immigration code and to appropriate money to enforce it.

 

[Fargo]

Is constitutional carry a position which is contrary to federal law?

Nope, and nor is local law-enforcement not honoring ICE detainers.

As I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, they aren't warrants, they aren't court orders, and they do not carry such force of law. That is part of what has Indianapolis in trouble with them.

 

[phylodog]

Nope, and nor is local law-enforcement not honoring ICE detainers.

As I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, they aren't warrants, they aren't court orders, and they do not carry such force of law. That is part of what has Indianapolis in trouble with them.

I'm aware. Is not letting criminals out of jail unconstitutional?

 

[Fargo]

I'm aware. Is not letting criminals out of jail unconstitutional?

Unless there is a PC finding to hold them, yes it is unconstitutional. U.S. Const. Am 4.

You are acting like ice holds carry some sort of burden of proof. Once again they are/were issuing them without PC which is why the city of Indianapolis got in trouble.

You are acting like these are proven illegal immigrants (or even PC) when that is simply not the case in any way. If they were, the feds could have a warrant issued and actually order their detention.

 

[phylodog]

Feds: Hey police guys, go arrest those illegal immigrants for us.

Local LE: Nah, that's not in our wheelhouse.

Feds: I'll arrest or defund you if you don't.

I'm in agreement with you Fargo that this is bad and not something we want.





Feds: Hey police guys, you know that illegal immigrant you already have in jail? Don't let him go, I'm going to deport him.

Local LE: Nah, FU, go catch him again. We'll house anyone else you arrest for anything else but we like illegal immigrants cause they vote democrat so we're letting them go.

Feds: I'm gonna arrest your Mayor/Chief/Sheriff or possibly withhold federal funds since you're being complicit in criminal activity.

Local LE: Whatever....

I don't have an issue with the federal government's position in this scenario (**Assuming there is a law broken to justify an arrest). If I have a misunderstanding of the situation please help me understand.

 

[phylodog]

Unless there is a PC finding to hold them, yes it is unconstitutional. U.S. Const. Am 4.

You are acting like ice holds carry some sort of burden of proof. Once again they are/were issuing them without PC which is why the city of Indianapolis got in trouble.

You are acting like these are proven illegal immigrants (or even PC) when that is simply not the case in any way. If they were, the feds could have a warrant issued and actually order their detention.

If this is the situation it sounds like the issuance of detainers needs an overhaul. I would expect there to be PC before holding someone.

 

[Fargo]

Feds: Hey police guys, go arrest those illegal immigrants for us.

Local LE: Nah, that's not in our wheelhouse.

Feds: I'll arrest or defund you if you don't.

I'm in agreement with you Fargo that this is bad and not something we want.





Feds: Hey police guys, you know that illegal immigrant you already have in jail? Don't let him go, I'm going to deport him.

Local LE: Nah, FU, go catch him again. We'll house anyone else you arrest for anything else but we like illegal immigrants cause they vote democrat so we're letting them go.

Feds: I'm gonna arrest your Mayor/Chief/Sheriff or possibly withhold federal funds since you're being complicit in criminal activity.

Local LE: Whatever....

I don't have an issue with the federal government's position in this scenario.If I have a misunderstanding of the situation please help me understand.

Yeah, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.

There is no PC required that the guy that they tell you to cage is an illegal immigrant and not a US citizen.

The proceeding that they're asking you to hold him on is not criminal in nature, it's a civil administrative proceedings.

If they do screwup and have you hold someone that shouldn't be, the burden falls on you. See for example, the City of Indianapolis.

This cluster is solely of the federal government's making. It alone has the ability to create immigration law, and to appropriate funds to enforce it. Under no circumstance should they be allowed to shove this crap off on the states.

 

[Fargo]

If this is the situation it sounds like the issuance of detainers needs an overhaul. I would expect there to be PC before holding someone.

Yes, I believe you and I are in complete agreement that it requires an overhaul. If these were actual warrants being issued on a PC finding, you and I would be in pretty much complete agreement that the states damn well better honor them.

 

[phylodog]

Yes, I believe you and I are in complete agreement that it requires an overhaul. If these were actual warrants being issued on a PC finding, you and I would be in pretty much complete agreement that the states damn well better honor them.

See there? All I needed was an explanation. It seems we do agree and I hope an overhaul is forthcoming, I'm in favor of criminals being held accountable and treated accordingly.

 

[Fargo]

See there? All I needed was an explanation. It seems we do agree and I hope an overhaul is forthcoming, I'm in favor of criminals being held accountable and treated accordingly.

Part of what frustrates me so much about the whole thing is how impotent our immigration code and enforcement have become.

Even with the vast majority of jurisdictions cooperating with ice, there has been virtually nothing accomplished in so far as creating a workable immigration framework or enforcing it.

Both parties are pandering in my opinion, the Democrats just want to ignore all immigration law, and the Republicans don't have much interest in any system which could actually be enforced as a practical matter.