Sanctuary City Law

[Wolffman]

I understand from news articles that someone has introduced a law (I think in the House) to charge those that enforce local sanctuary city laws, or interfere with federal LEOs attempting to arrest someone from a sanctuary city.
I have no idea if this will go anywhere.
But, might this not be a double-edged sword regarding the second amendment? For example, might federal officers use a precedent like this to say "we're taking your guns. Get in our way and you will be arrested."
I also know several states attempted to pass laws that would jail federal officers for trying to enforce confiscation.
Who wins (besides not us)?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/16/dhs-asks-prosecutors-charge-sanctuary-city-leaders/ Homel and S ecurity to step in.

 

[HoughMade]

It will be interesting to see where this goes. Who knows?

What I do know is that states cannot enforce laws that supposedly make it illegal for federal law enforcement to enforce federal laws. Unconstitutional and purely symbolic. The states know this...or should.

 

[T.Lex]

Oops, I didn't realize this thread existed. I posted about this in the Immigration thread.

TL;DR from the other thread. Even the threat of a criminal investigation for this is scary.

 

[Spear Dane]

It will be interesting to see where this goes. Who knows?

What I do know is that states cannot enforce laws that supposedly make it illegal for federal law enforcement to enforce federal laws. Unconstitutional and purely symbolic. The states know this...or should.

California knows nothing of the sort. They are too busy inhaling the smell of their own bovine brown stuff and thinking it's roses in bloom.

 

[T.Lex]

So this is interesting.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/pol...ed-texas-sanctuary-cities-ban-ags-office-says

Texas passed a law saying "No" to sanctuary cities and the related policies.

San Antonio Police Chief arrested a guy in a truck carrying illegals. (Well, I don't think he PERSONALLY arrested the guy, but his department did.) Driver was prosecuted, but the illegals were released. They were not held for federal authorities. Well, maybe they were and the feds released them. But, we don't need to worry about facts to conduct an investigation.

In the past, he has said police didn't have the authority to hold the immigrants because they weren't being charged criminally, according to the San Antonio Express-News. He has also said immigration agents were notified of the incident and were not prevented from being involved in the case.

Apparently, violators of the anti-sanctuary city law can be subject to fines and jail time.

 

[T.Lex]

First, I read an article from Cali about how they are going to "enforce" the new law on sanctuary cities. Coincidentally - and ironically - I was on the crapper.

Second, I'm not going to link. It is way past too absurd. I will, however, summarize.

Third, I didn't follow the lawmaking on this because its Cali. I try to avoid knowing too much about what happens there because it tends to be completely irrelevant to my life. But, these were the high points of the article.
- Apparently this law made it illegal for Cali employers to share confidential information with the federales without a subpoena. Ok. I get that. This one actually makes sense, and should be the practice of every employer for every LEO. After that, it gets really kooky.
- The law requires employers to demand to see the subpoena. Wait. What. LEO says, "Sir, this is a subpoena for the records." Employer, "Sir, I'll need to see the subpoena." LEO, "Uh... yes, it is here in my hand. I'm showing it to you." Employer, "Yeah, but I had to ask."
- The law requires feds to get a warrant before a search of an employer. That can't be right. The state can't "require" a federal agent to do something that is allowed under federal law... like ask for consent. I believe it also prohibits employers from providing consent. That doesn't make sense either.
- There's a requirement for employers to notify employees of a federal audit of employment records. Ok. So.... what.

This whole thing seems like a comic book level story about an alternative dimension.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

SacBee: ‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says

California's top cop warns employers to follow state law on immigration | The Sacramento Bee

(thanks, T, I was unaware of this thread)

 

[T.Lex]

I wish we could find some sort of de facto secession for California. Like, keep them part of the US, but let them build their own dystopia. Make them a protectorate like Guam or Puerto Rico or something. Let them live with the results of their choices.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I wish we could find some sort of de facto secession for California. Like, keep them part of the US, but let them build their own dystopia. Make them a protectorate like Guam or Puerto Rico or something. Let them live with the results of their choices.

Secession? I say kick them out! Lol!

Regarding the AG threatening prosecutions for cooperating with the federales... I believe that is just the tip of the tyrannic iceberg to come. Anything and everything in order to cling to power. Hope I'm wrong, but fear I'm not... it's a slippery slope and power is a siren's song.