DHS Is Planning To Arrest Sanctuary City Leaders

[Swordsmyth]

According to The Washington Times, (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/16/dhs-asks-prosecutors-charge-sanctuary-city-leaders/)Nielsen confirmed Tuesday that her department has asked federal prosecutors to see if they can lodge criminal charges against sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues may be available,” Ms. Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Her confirmation came after California’s new sanctuary law went into effect Jan. 1, severely restricting cooperation the state or any of its localities could offer.


U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Tom Homan says those policies put his officers and local communities at more risk because they have to arrest illegal immigrants out in the community.
Mr. Homan told The Washington Times last July (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/26/thomas-homan-ice-chief-says-immigrant-sanctuaries-/) that he wanted to see local officials charged as complicit in human smuggling if they shielded illegal immigrants through sanctuary policies. Mr. Homan repeated that demand in an interview with Fox News earlier this year, setting off a firestorm of criticism.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-01-16/dhs-planning-arrest-sanctuary-city-leaders

[oyarde]

If the Feds feel like you owe taxes and do not pay they steal your stuff . Why would the Feds let cities have access to federal funds if they feel the law is not being followed ?. George Washington could show them how its done , he unleashed the Army on some whiskey maker- farmers and killed a few .

[euphemia]

Great. Maybe they will arrest the mayor of Nashville.

[tod evans]

Whether you agree with 'sanctuary' cities or not the feds arresting local leaders is a problem....

The constituents should be free to maim or kill their elected politicians but DC has no business in local affairs....

[Champ]

This is an issue that seems like it will continue to escalate if charges are actually filed against any of these so called "sanctuary city leaders." I think this may be a wake up call to ultra liberal leftists that always have believed the Fed always has ultimate authority. Since they want to let the hordes to continue migrating here, they are going to defend these city leaders, and in effect, defend state rights. This may get interesting.

[Origanalist]

This is an issue that seems like it will continue to escalate if charges are actually filed against any of these so called "sanctuary city leaders." I think this may be a wake up call to ultra liberal leftists that always have believed the Fed always has ultimate authority. Since they want to let the hordes to continue migrating here, they are going to defend these city leaders, and in effect, defend state rights. This may get interesting.

This is a good point. I wonder how many of them will be able to make that leap? What I mean by that is will they be able to understand that the federal government is too powerful or will they just blame Trump?

[mrsat_98]

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

[PierzStyx]

I hope the states and cities rebel and refuse to obey. Constitutionality, small government, nullification of laws that allow the government to seize the property and persons of tens of millions of people and imprison or exile them is what we need now more than ever. Let the Federal Slave Law hunters come and let the people resist.

[PierzStyx]

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html


The Constitution does not, however, explicitly provide that the power to deny admission or remove non-citizens rests with the federal government as opposed to state governments. Hence, in the early immigration cases the Supreme Court faced the problem of identifying the source of the federal government's exclusive and plenary power over immigration. Later cases found the plenary power to be an inherent sovereign power.


In other words, the Constitution doesn't grant said power, the US government just assumed it in violation of restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution.

[Swordsmyth]

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html


In other words, the Constitution doesn't grant said power, the US government just assumed it in violation of restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution.

Article 1 Section 9 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513274-Article-1-Section-9)

[Zippyjuan]

In other words, the Constitution doesn't grant said power, the US government just assumed it in violation of restrictions placed upon it by the Constitution.

States should not have any rights. They should submit to the Absolute Ruler in the White House.

[timosman]

States should not have any rights. They should submit to the Absolute Ruler in the White House.

Agree. This worked very well during Obama years.

[specsaregood]

This was entertaining:


https://youtu.be/gSi3S3T8GEw

[Danke]

This was entertaining:
https://youtu.be/gSi3S3T8GEwhttp://www.ronpaulforums.com/customavatars/thumbs/avatar17293_6.gif

[timosman]

This was entertaining:


It seems people have been missing an honest discussion about this immigration thing for a while.:cool:

[Valli6]

Wow! I've never seen anything like this before. Wish these guys received more coverage.

This was entertaining:

https://youtu.be/gSi3S3T8GEw

[Brian4Liberty]

This was entertaining:


https://youtu.be/gSi3S3T8GEw

This is where reality contradicts the radical left conditioning and propaganda. Opposition to immigration is strong and growing in African-American, Hispanic American and legal immigrant communities.

[Brian4Liberty]

This is a good point. I wonder how many of them will be able to make that leap? What I mean by that is will they be able to understand that the federal government is too powerful or will they just blame Trump?

Quite the opposite. They will try to change the US into a sanctuary nation at the Federal level, and then force it on all of the States.

[Origanalist]

Quite the opposite. They will try to change the US into a sanctuary nation at the Federal level, and then force it on all of the States.

Seems like a bad time to try that but I'm sure they have plans for just that.

[tod evans]

This is a good point. I wonder how many of them will be able to make that leap? What I mean by that is will they be able to understand that the federal government is too powerful or will they just blame Trump?

A big federal government is fine-n-dandy as long as the free-shit keeps flowing to the right groups of people....

[Brian4Liberty]

This is where reality contradicts the radical left conditioning and propaganda. Opposition to immigration is strong and growing in African-American, Hispanic American and legal immigrant communities.

Poll: Black Americans the Most Supportive of Dramatically Reducing Legal Immigration Levels (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/28/poll-black-americans-most-supportive-dramatically-reducing-legal-immigration-levels/)


Black Americans are the most supportive group in the United States of dramatically lower legal immigration levels, down from where the U.S. currently admits more than 1 million legal immigrants a year, a new poll reveals.

According to a detailed Harvard-Harris poll, black Americans are more likely than any other demographic group to support lower yearly legal immigration levels, down to a fourth of current immigration levels.

[oyarde]

How many arrests have been made ?

[Zippyjuan]

Poll: Black Americans the Most Supportive of Dramatically Reducing Legal Immigration Levels (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/28/poll-black-americans-most-supportive-dramatically-reducing-legal-immigration-levels/)

The poll did not ask if they wanted to reduce or increase or maintain current levels of immigration. Only asked how many they thought might be OK. Most chose something in the middle.

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/23/580037717/what-the-latest-immigration-polls-do-and-dont-say


The Harvard Harris poll tried the question yet another way: "In your opinion, about how many legal immigrants should be admitted to the U.S. each year?" It then provided a series of choices: zero to fewer than 250,000, 250,000 to 499,999 and so on up to 2.5 million or more.

It's hard to know how to interpret the results of that question without the context of current immigration levels. As of 2016, the U.S. accepted nearly 1.2 million new legal permanent residents, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Of those, just over half were new arrivals. The rest of people received changes in status — for example, some might have been refugees who became legal permanent residents.

The poll found that 72 percent of people chose some number under 1 million, which might suggest that those people want to reduce legal immigration. But then, the question didn't provide them with current immigration levels. There was no way for many of them to know what direction they were arguing for immigration to move in. As a result, this is one way that this poll's results may have been misleading.

[Brian4Liberty]

The poll did not ask if they wanted to reduce or increase or maintain current levels of immigration. Only asked how many they thought might be OK. Most chose something in the middle.

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/23/580037717/what-the-latest-immigration-polls-do-and-dont-say

LOL. So now you don't like polls? That's a new one. Something wrong with Harvard-Harris? Or is it just that government and leftist polls are the only perfect ones?

[Zippyjuan]

LOL. So now you don't like polls? That's a new one. Something wrong with Harvard-Harris? Or is it just that government and leftist polls are the only perfect ones?

The poll did not ask if they preferred more or less immigration. It cannot be used to say that blacks or anybody prefers more or fewer immigrants.

"Would you like two scoops of ice cream or one?" (without knowing they could have three)

"People want less ice cream!"