DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks.

[johnwk]

See: DOJ Considering Arresting Sanctuary City Politicians

January, 2018

”The Department of Justice is considering subjecting state and local officials to criminal charges if they implement or enforce so-called sanctuary policies that bar jurisdictions from cooperating with immigration authorities. Immigration advocates argue such a move would be illegal.”

The irrefutable fact is, federal law, 8 U.S.C. § 1373, prohibits any person, even elected political hacks such as New York City’s communist Mayor Bill de Blasio, California’s socialist Governor Jerry Brown, and even progressive Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago, from prohibiting law enforcement officers from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement officers.

To confirm this fact see Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s WRITTEN OPINION

“The constitutionality of Section 1373 has been challenged before. The Second Circuit in City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999), addressed a facial challenge to Section 1373 in similar circumstances. By executive order, New York City prohibited its employees from voluntarily providing federal immigration authorities with information concerning the immigration status of any alien. Id. at 31-32. The city sued the United States, challenging the constitutionality of Section 1373 under the Tenth Amendment.

Id. at 32.

The Second Circuit found that Section 1373 did not compel state or local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program or conscript local employees into its service, and therefore did not run afoul of the rules gleaned from the Supreme Court’s Printz and New York decisions. City of New York, 179 F.3d at 35. Rather, the court held that Section 1373 prohibits local governmental entities and officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. Ibid. The Court found that the Tenth Amendment, normally a shield from federal power, could not be turned into “a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs.”


The irrefutable fact is, harboring illegal entrants is a criminal offense, which is exactly what elected political hacks in sanctuary cities/states are doing, and the law against harboring applies to “any person”! SEE: UNITED STATES v. ZHENG, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2002:


“In considering this appeal, we first examine the language of the statute at issue. “As with any question of statutory interpretation, we begin by examining the text of the statute to determine whether its meaning is clear.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 285 F.3d 1329, 1331 (11th Cir.2002); see also Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1185 (11th Cir.1997) (“In construing a statute we must begin, and often should end as well, with the language of the statute itself.”). The Appellees assert that the language of § 1324 restricts its application to individuals who are in the business of smuggling illegal aliens into the United States for employment or those who employ illegal aliens in “sweatshops.” We disagree. Section 1324 applies to “[a]ny person” who knowingly harbors an illegal alien. Although § 1324 and § 1324a appear to cover some of the same conduct, “the fact that Congress has enacted two sections encompassing similar conduct but prescribing different penalties does not compel a conclusion that one statute was meant to limit, repeal, or affect enforcement of the other.” United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 573 (2d Cir.1999). The Supreme Court has noted that statutes may “overlap” or enjoy a “partial redundancy,” United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 118, 99 S.Ct. 2198, 2201, 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979), and yet be “fully capable of coexisting.” Id. at 122, 99 S.Ct. at 2203. We agree with the Second Circuit’s analysis of §§ 1324 and 1324a that “nothing in the language of these two sections ․ preclude[s] their coexistence.” Kim, 193 F.3d at 573. The plain language of § 1324 does not limit its reach to certain specific individuals, and thus, the Government properly charged the Appellees with violating this statute.”


The irrefutable fact is, any public servant who has taken an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, who “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” can be prosecuted under 8 U.S. § 1324 (a)

It’s about time our Federal Department of Justice goes after public servants who flaunt the law and shield from detection illegal entrants who have turned American Citizens into tax slaves to pay for the economic needs of these law breakers.

JWK


American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of **** hole countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

[PierzStyx]

So we're praising the violation of the US Constitution here these days. All those ideas of state's rights and nullification just out the window. The ideas of small limited government tossed in favor of a huge powerful centralized state with the power to seize the assets and property of tens of millions of people and imprison or exile them. Natural rights universal to all people are stomped upon in favor of Federal supremacy and government domination.

Good to know you've won the victory over yourself and have come to love Big Brother.

You're also a sh!tholeperson turning America into a sh!thole country.

[donnay]

So we're praising the violation of the US Constitution here these days. All those ideas of state's rights and nullification just out the window. The ideas of small limited government tossed in favor of a huge powerful centralized state with the power to seize the assets and property of tens of millions of people and imprison or exile them. Natural rights universal to all people are stomped upon in favor of Federal supremacy and government domination.

Good to know you've won the victory over yourself and have come to love Big Brother.

You're also a sh!tholeperson turning America into a sh!thole country.

I am curious, what would you do at this point? As much as I love Dr. Paul, he would have this same conundrum had he become president.

Trump is in a position that he is damned if he does, damned if he don't with regards to the problems bankrupting our country.

[nikcers]

I am curious, what would you do at this point? As much as I love Dr. Paul, he would have this same conundrum had he become president.

Trump is in a position that he is damned if he does, damned if he don't with regards to the problems bankrupting our country.

Dr. Paul, Ron or Rand, would never pick Sessions to head up the DOJ.

[donnay]

Dr. Paul, Ron or Rand, would never pick Sessions to head up the DOJ.

Oh okay. The president elect has between two to four thousand positions open with his transition.

I would say, walk a mile in his moccasins first...I do not think that would be an easy task to fill those positions with people you can trust.

[nikcers]

Oh okay. The president elect has between two to four thousand positions open with his transition.

I would say, walk a mile in his moccasins first...I do not think that would be an easy task to fill those positions with people you can trust.

Lets have the fox guard the henhouse

[Superfluous Man]

If the DOJ does grow this spine, I hope that local sheriffs, or better yet, ordinary civilian members of the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment, also grow spines and arrest anyone from the DOJ who comes trying to arrest them.

[Superfluous Man]

I am curious, what would you do at this point? As much as I love Dr. Paul, he would have this same conundrum had he become president.

What conundrum is that?

I can't fathom RP supporting threats like this against local politicians. Can you?

[johnwk]

So we're praising the violation of the US Constitution here these days. All those ideas of state's rights and nullification just out the window. The ideas of small limited government tossed in favor of a huge powerful centralized state with the power to seize the assets and property of tens of millions of people and imprison or exile them. Natural rights universal to all people are stomped upon in favor of Federal supremacy and government domination.

Good to know you've won the victory over yourself and have come to love Big Brother.

You're also a sh!tholeperson turning America into a sh!thole country.

You should think, and research your opinions, before exhibiting your ignorance. The powers reserved by the States under the Tenth Amendment are not violated by forbidding state political hacks from prohibiting state law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration officers.

Now, return to the OP and read!


JWK


There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from $#@! hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.

[johnwk]

If the DOJ does grow this spine, I hope that local sheriffs, or better yet, ordinary civilian members of the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment, also grow spines and arrest anyone from the DOJ who comes trying to arrest them.

Your bold words do not increase the size of your penis, sonny boy.

[johnwk]

Lets have the fox guard the henhouse

How about abiding by the law? Eh?


JWK

[The Northbreather]

What conundrum is that?

I can't fathom RP supporting threats like this against local politicians. Can you?

NOPE

[TheCount]

How about abiding by the law? Eh?

Which law?

[timosman]

What conundrum is that?

I can't fathom RP supporting threats like this against local politicians. Can you?

He would probably use letters of marquee and reprisal instead.

[johnwk]

Which law?

The Constitution and those laws made in pursuance thereof.


JWK





American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

[TheCount]

The Constitution and those laws made in pursuance thereof.

Which ones?

Is there a law forcing local police to be deputized as immigration enforcement agents?

[timosman]

Which ones?

Is there a law forcing local police to be deputized as immigration enforcement agents?

Aren't you splitting hairs? Something unusual for a commie.

[TheCount]

Aren't you splitting hairs? Something unusual for a commie.

It's also unusual for a child rapist to want fewer immigrants, but here you are.

[timosman]

It's also unusual for a child rapist to want fewer immigrants, but here you are.

How subtle.

[donnay]

What conundrum is that?

The conundrum: Who to trust?

I can't fathom RP supporting threats like this against local politicians. Can you?

The minute Dr. Paul went to cut off the welfare/warfare state do you think he would not have the chaos current going on? If you think Dr. Paul could bring home troops "we walked in, we can just walk out." against the MIC you are clueless to how corrupt the country has become.

This corruption did not happen over night and it certainly cannot be taken away over night. Baby steps is the best way to go to root-out this corruption and I think Trump is doing a damn good job at this point.

[timosman]

If the DOJ does grow this spine, I hope that local sheriffs, or better yet, ordinary civilian members of the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment, also grow spines and arrest anyone from the DOJ who comes trying to arrest them.

This is the point where your fake and coward anarchist cheerleading can get people in trouble.

[johnwk]

Which ones?

See the OP

JWK

[Valli6]

Now, this is how you drain a swamp!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part VIII › § 1324

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

(A) Any person who—

(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

(v)

(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—

(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;

(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;

(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and

(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

Lower down:

(c) Authority to arrest
No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

[Swordsmyth]

Article 1 Section 9

[Zippyjuan]

Now, this is how you drain a swamp!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part VIII › § 1324


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

Lower down:

"Certain aliens". Which ones?

at a place other than a designated port of entry

Ah- so it applies to those who did not use a "authorized point of entry" even if they had permission to enter. If they came via an airport or legal crossing point, they are fine (half of those who entered the country did so legally and stayed). It can apply to those legally in the country as well as those here illegally if they did not use an official entry point. If they used a legal entry point, it doesn't apply either way -whether they were here legally or illegally so to enforce it you have to prove where and how they entered the country.

, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter,

Law only discusses those who brought such people into the country. A city which does not use its police force to round up illegal immigrants does not seem to be covered by this law.

Authority to arrest

No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

Authority to arrest is not the same as a duty or requirement to arrest.

[Swordsmyth]

Law only discusses those who brought such people into the country. A city which does not use its police force to round up illegal immigrants does not seem to be covered by this law.

The irrefutable fact is, harboring illegal entrants is a criminal offense, which is exactly what elected political hacks in sanctuary cities/states are doing, and the law against harboring applies to “any person”! SEE: UNITED STATES v. ZHENG, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2002:


“In considering this appeal, we first examine the language of the statute at issue. “As with any question of statutory interpretation, we begin by examining the text of the statute to determine whether its meaning is clear.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 285 F.3d 1329, 1331 (11th Cir.2002); see also Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1185 (11th Cir.1997) (“In construing a statute we must begin, and often should end as well, with the language of the statute itself.”). The Appellees assert that the language of § 1324 restricts its application to individuals who are in the business of smuggling illegal aliens into the United States for employment or those who employ illegal aliens in “sweatshops.” We disagree. Section 1324 applies to “[a]ny person” who knowingly harbors an illegal alien. Although § 1324 and § 1324a appear to cover some of the same conduct, “the fact that Congress has enacted two sections encompassing similar conduct but prescribing different penalties does not compel a conclusion that one statute was meant to limit, repeal, or affect enforcement of the other.” United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 573 (2d Cir.1999). The Supreme Court has noted that statutes may “overlap” or enjoy a “partial redundancy,” United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 118, 99 S.Ct. 2198, 2201, 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979), and yet be “fully capable of coexisting.” Id. at 122, 99 S.Ct. at 2203. We agree with the Second Circuit’s analysis of §§ 1324 and 1324a that “nothing in the language of these two sections ․ preclude[s] their coexistence.” Kim, 193 F.3d at 573. The plain language of § 1324 does not limit its reach to certain specific individuals, and thus, the Government properly charged the Appellees with violating this statute.”


The irrefutable fact is, any public servant who has taken an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, who “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” can be prosecuted under 8 U.S. § 1324 (a)

Authority to arrest is not the same as a duty or requirement to arrest.

all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

[Superfluous Man]

The conundrum: Who to trust?



The minute Dr. Paul went to cut off the welfare/warfare state do you think he would not have the chaos current going on? If you think Dr. Paul could bring home troops "we walked in, we can just walk out." against the MIC you are clueless to how corrupt the country has become.

This corruption did not happen over night and it certainly cannot be taken away over night. Baby steps is the best way to go to root-out this corruption and I think Trump is doing a damn good job at this point.

I didn't say that RP would have an easy task or be successful. But his philosophy and Sessions' are worlds apart.

Trump and Sessions, on the other hand, are not worlds apart. They are two peas in a pod.

[Superfluous Man]

all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

Immigration law is not criminal law.

[timosman]

Immigration law is not criminal law.

Deportation is not incarceration.

[johnwk]

Immigration law is not criminal law.

Any alien who enters our country illegally after they have been caught once, is in fact violating immigration law and can be sent to jail.


Stop making crap up.

JWK