DOJ Considering Arresting Sanctuary City Politicians

[Hookeye]

So don't arrest them.
Just beat the friggin' tar out of 'em

 

[Fargo]

So don't arrest them.
Just beat the friggin' tar out of 'em

Who are "em" and what is the standard of proof before you should be able to beat them?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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?

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.

That makes no sense. If we assume it's true, then we aren't a "sanctuary" by choice.

...and yes. If you do it by choice, given the cost of "hosting" illegals, you obviously have enough money and don't need federal tax dollars. Take the federal money and funnel it to border security and deportation.

 

[Fargo]

That makes no sense. If we assume it's true, then we aren't a "sanctuary" by choice.

...and yes. If you do it by choice, given the cost of "hosting" illegals, you obviously have enough money and don't need federal tax dollars. Take the federal money and funnel it to border security and deportation.

It makes perfect sense if you read the links I posted.

The Federal order is part of a settlement AGREEMENT between the city/MCSO and the ACLU. MCSO CHOSE to suspend detainer cooperation rather than fight the ACLU on the (likely illegal) detainer they honored and were getting sued over.

 

[phylodog]

Chalk up another reason not to like the ACLU I guess. If the feds want Marion Co to go back to honoring their detainers they should join in and help fund litigation to tell the ACLU to cram it.

I see a significant difference between the situation in Marion Co (forced) and that of these declared sanctuary cities (political choice).

As to arresting people, I don't know what laws are being violated to justify criminal charges. I'd prefer to see funding cut in response to this stupidity.

 

[Fargo]

Chalk up another reason not to like the ACLU I guess. If the feds want Marion Co to go back to honoring their detainers they should join in and help fund litigation to tell the ACLU to cram it.

I see a significant difference between the situation in Marion Co (forced) and that of these declared sanctuary cities (political choice).

As to arresting people, I don't know what laws are being violated to justify criminal charges. I'd prefer to see funding cut in response to this stupidity.

Funding cut is probably currently permissible under South Dakota v. Dole but would almost certainly take an act of Congress which I see being very unlikely.

Hence the bluster about arrest, which is almost certainly unconstitutional/illegal unless there are a bunch of additional facts.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I see a significant difference between the situation in Marion Co (forced) and that of these declared sanctuary cities (political choice).

Sure seems obvious.

 

[Fargo]

Marion County wasn't forced to do ****, they chose to agree to it rather than defend their actions.

 

[IndyDave1776]

My take on this is that one way or another, what Marion County did wasn't exactly voluntary, not in the sense of a bleeding heart mayor just up and declaring a sanctuary city.

I have one concern about the direction this discussion has taken: Why has no distinction been made between choosing not to enforce federal law and passively or actively obstructing the enforcement of federal law, particularly given that immigration is one of the relatively few areas of law enforcement where the federal government has clear constitutional authority?

 

[Libertarian01]

My take on this is that one way or another, what Marion County did wasn't exactly voluntary, not in the sense of a bleeding heart mayor just up and declaring a sanctuary city.

I have one concern about the direction this discussion has taken: Why has no distinction been made between choosing not to enforce federal law and passively or actively obstructing the enforcement of federal law, particularly given that immigration is one of the relatively few areas of law enforcement where the federal government has clear constitutional authority?

Hey now... I brought it up. I just didn't do it so directly and I guess I buried it in there with a bunch of other thoughts and questions.

We're on the same page, mostly.

Doug

 

[hoosierdoc]

States defying federal rules on MJ: wonderful

states defying federal rules on illegal aliens: awful

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Not sure about arresting public officials, but withholding funds from states that don't toe the federal line is nothing new. Didn't they withhold federal money for highway infrastructure if states didn't enforce the 55 mph speed limit years ago? I'm sure there are other examples, but that one comes to mind.

 

[KittySlayer]

Not sure about arresting public officials, but withholding funds from states that don't toe the federal line is nothing new. Didn't they withhold federal money for highway infrastructure if states didn't enforce the 55 mph speed limit years ago? I'm sure there are other examples, but that one comes to mind.

I think the Feds used the same financial arm twisting for 21 year old drinking age.

 

[BugI02]

[snip]
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"?[snip]

Not speaking to the larger argument, Fargo. This particular line of reasoning is specious. If the FedGov has any expenses at all (and we all know it does) it would be virtually impossible to return all tax dollars collected to any given state in some locally beneficial way. It would be an impossible balancing act. When I look at the map, I see only 19 states have any possibility of ever having a naval base. Must we then locate all of our airbases in the remaining 31 to balance things out? What about the Army, what about the absurd concentration in expenditures in DC? Have you complained to Indiana that the monies collected in your county are not all returned to the county in some beneficial way? If not, why would you expect FedGov to be bound by that idea but not StateGov?

To simply label lack of a spending/taxation balance as overtaxation of any particular state as if it were somehow a truth worthy of consideration is begging the question

 

[Fargo]

Not speaking to the larger argument, Fargo. This particular line of reasoning is specious. If the FedGov has any expenses at all (and we all know it does) it would be virtually impossible to return all tax dollars collected to any given state in some locally beneficial way. It would be an impossible balancing act. When I look at the map, I see only 19 states have any possibility of ever having a naval base. Must we then locate all of our airbases in the remaining 31 to balance things out? What about the Army, what about the absurd concentration in expenditures in DC? Have you complained to Indiana that the monies collected in your county are not all returned to the county in some beneficial way? If not, why would you expect FedGov to be bound by that idea but not StateGov?

To simply label lack of a spending/taxation balance as overtaxation of any particular state as if it were somehow a truth worthy of consideration is begging the question

I wasn't lamenting a lack of taxation to spending ratio balance, most federal spending will and should be unbalanced because it is related to an enumerated power, like funding the military.

I was criticizing that the federal government takes tax dollars and then puts them in the grant pool and only gives them to states that pass laws that they like. I was specifically referencing it in the context of being all about states rights.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

My take on this is that one way or another, what Marion County did wasn't exactly voluntary, not in the sense of a bleeding heart mayor just up and declaring a sanctuary city.

I have one concern about the direction this discussion has taken: Why has no distinction been made between choosing not to enforce federal law and passively or actively obstructing the enforcement of federal law, particularly given that immigration is one of the relatively few areas of law enforcement where the federal government has clear constitutional authority?

I can't imagine anyone seriously believing that freely and voluntarily declaring "sanctuary" is the same as agreeing in exchange for limiting financial loss. Blackmail is voluntary if that's the criteria. What "voluntary" looks like in Fargo-land:

"[FONT=&quot]As part of the stipulated judgment, Lopez-Aguilar is dropping his claims for damages and attorney fees as well as his state-law tort claims of false arrest and imprisonment."[/FONT]

Looks like the state objects to the settlement: https://www.indystar.com/story/news...sheriffs-office-violates-state-law/927506001/ So, yeah, not exactly CA.

As for the second part, it becomes a matter of both authority and resources. As phylo pointed out, (most) local and state LEOs can't enforce federal law. The executive branch also has the authority to decide where resources are best spent. So, if the Feds could come in, deputize every officer as an ICE agent, and make them do immigration raids or be fired that's an obvious overreach. ICE detainers have minimal resource requirements (up to 48 hours of jail time) and the Feds routinely use local jails just as locals routinely use the US Marshal service (example from one of my cases: robbery suspect arrested in Indy for robbery in California, the Marshals will transport him back). That relationship is pretty well established, and the purpose of jails is to hold suspected criminals.

 

[Leadeye]

Federal marshals didn't haul Daley out of his office in cuffs when he destroyed Meigs field, I have no reason to believe that any big city leadership is going to face the consequences of their actions.

 

[Fargo]

I can't imagine anyone seriously believing that freely and voluntarily declaring "sanctuary" is the same as agreeing in exchange for limiting financial loss. Blackmail is voluntary if that's the criteria. What "voluntary" looks like in Fargo-land:

"[FONT=&amp]As part of the stipulated judgment, Lopez-Aguilar is dropping his claims for damages and attorney fees as well as his state-law tort claims of false arrest and imprisonment."[/FONT]

Looks like the state objects to the settlement: https://www.indystar.com/story/news...sheriffs-office-violates-state-law/927506001/ So, yeah, not exactly CA.

As for the second part, it becomes a matter of both authority and resources. As phylo pointed out, (most) local and state LEOs can't enforce federal law. The executive branch also has the authority to decide where resources are best spent. So, if the Feds could come in, deputize every officer as an ICE agent, and make them do immigration raids or be fired that's an obvious overreach. ICE detainers have minimal resource requirements (up to 48 hours of jail time) and the Feds routinely use local jails just as locals routinely use the US Marshal service (example from one of my cases: robbery suspect arrested in Indy for robbery in California, the Marshals will transport him back). That relationship is pretty well established, and the purpose of jails is to hold suspected criminals.

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...

 

[KellyinAvon]

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams, 1798

 

[Fargo]

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams, 1798

Absent conquest, I am of the opinion that people generally get the government that they deserve. Government is a reflection of society, not the other way around. Adams was on to something...