Jump to content

Washington threatens funding cut to California, other 'sanctuary' areas


rooster59

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Since these "sanctuary cities" are too pressed to spare the manpower. maybe President Trump could order the National Guard into service and use them to hunt down and arrest the illegals.

That would be federally funded manpower enforcing federal law.

Yes, time for hardball. Sweep aside the local authorities. Use the guard and federal agencies to raid workplaces and set up checkpoints. Everyone caught--out they go. No papers? Dump them in desert holding pens until they decide they're ready to go back home on their own. If local authorities interfere, arrest them. Go ahead and arrest the mayors, governors, and police chiefs who have already helped illegals reside and work in the US illegally. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

30 minutes ago, Emster23 said:

 And that war with Mexico? Why? " ...the forcible incorporation of almost one-half of Mexico's national territory as an event foreordained by providence, fulfilling Manifest Destiny to spread the benefits of U.S. democracy to the lesser peoples of the continent. Because of its military victory the United States virtually dictated the terms of settlement."

 One factor that led to Texas revolution was the Anglos wanted the freedom to keep slaves (humm). Mexico outlawed it in 1829. There were also issues of Americans coming to Texas and not learning, Spanish, and not becoming Catholic (both part of immigration agreement). Sounds a bit like many farangs here in Thailand. Mexico was also more or less a dictatorship at the time. I doubt if farangs here will lead a revolt over that issue, however....

Wasn't most of that land owned by native indians, and some guy from Spain claimed

it for Spain and the Spanish and the "c" church screwed the natives of  their lands??

First?

rice555

Edited by rice555
forgot word
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Usernames said:

Yes, time for hardball. Sweep aside the local authorities. Use the guard and federal agencies to raid workplaces and set up checkpoints. Everyone caught--out they go. No papers? Dump them in desert holding pens until they decide they're ready to go back home on their own. If local authorities interfere, arrest them. Go ahead and arrest the mayors, governors, and police chiefs who have already helped illegals reside and work in the US illegally. 

Yes, let's eliminate the rule of law in order to get those illegals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes, let's eliminate the rule of law in order to get those illegals.

The Law, should have been followed in the first place and maybe

we wouldn't have these problems NOW. 

rice555

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Usernames said:

Use the guard

When National Guard personnel operate under the control of the president, they are subject to the Posse Comitatus Act. When they operate under the control of a state governor, however, they are not subject to the act.

https://thinkprogress.org/how-trumps-reported-plan-to-round-up-undocumented-immigrants-could-actually-work-bfeec3a0446e

 

However, it's unlikely that states such as New York and California that have Democratic governors will support Trump's undocumented immigration sweeps. Even a state with a Republican governor may not be a sure Trump supporter such as Texas with over 1 million undocumented immigrants. State politics rise from local politics and at the grassroots level Hispanic undocumented immigrants might have strong political connections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

When National Guard personnel operate under the control of the president, they are subject to the Posse Comitatus Act.

I think you need to go back and read what the Posse Comitatus Act means:

Quote

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed on June 18, 1878 by President Rutherford B. Hayes. The purpose of the act – in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807 – is to limit the powers of the federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. It was passed as an amendment to an army appropriation bill following the end of Reconstruction, and was subsequently updated in 1956 and 1981.

source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

What law, exactly, is that?

What? You don't know?

Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any noncitizen who:[43]

 

  1. enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
  2. eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
  3. attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.

 

now now ilostmypassword what a disapointment you are. For such a genius I would have expected you to know this one. Bar stools are good places to ponder the law...

Edited by LazySlipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LazySlipper said:

What? You don't know?

Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any noncitizen who:[43]

 

  1. enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
  2. eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
  3. attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.

 

now now ilostmypassword what a disapointment you are. For such a genius I would have expected you to know this one. Bar stools are good places to ponder the law...

Actually, It is a crime to attempt to cross the border without authorization and if you are caught in the act you can be prosecuted.  But if you are already inside the united states without authorization then it's only a civil offense.  

That said, it's still completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.  

If the Federal Government presents a state jurisdiction with a warrant for a person they are currently holding, then the State will comply with that. But if the Federal government issues only a request to hold on to someone whom the state already has in custody or in a legal process, then the State is not obliged to do so.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, It is a crime to attempt to cross the border without authorization and if you are caught in the act you can be prosecuted.  But if you are already inside the united states without authorization then it's only a civil offense.  

That said, it's still completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.  

If the Federal Government presents a state jurisdiction with a warrant for a person they are currently holding, then the State will comply with that. But if the Federal government issues only a request to hold on to someone whom the state already has in custody or in a legal process, then the State is not obliged to do so.  

 

Did you read the law?

The article states: "Aliens can be classified as unlawfully present for one of three reasons" it goes on in the same paragraph...

... 

Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any noncitizen who:[43]

  1. enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
  2. eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
  3. attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.

 

Last time I checked unlawful is synonymous of illegal.

 

Also, the law mentions sanctuary cities (300 in total) and what I underlined and bolded [sic] for you in particular is the part where it says 'eludes' examination. Which means that even if they came in on a visa or without authorization (in both cases) they are breaking the law.

 

Read on because everything is covered. Moreover, why are you trying to shove it up everyone's arse?

You got a bone to pick with everyone who disagrees with you, or do you feel you have to right every wrong?

 

Oh and by the way, if you have ever worked for someone and they "request" you to do something they are actually telling you to do it and if you don't you either get fired or your salary gets docked. Just as Washington is threatening to do.

 

IMHO requesting is the polite way of doing things and IN MY OPINION the rogue states should comply and then go to court.

 

 

 

Edited by LazySlipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The jurisdictions have until June 30 to provide evidence to the federal government that they are not violating any laws."

Maybe I am wrong, but harboring suspects or fugitives (in this case immigrants who elude inspection) is breaking the law. So, if a state is, let's say, an entity and it knows it has illegal or 'waiting to be processed' immigrants and it is not complying with a  Federal REQUEST, then--aren't those states kinda breaking the law?

Edited by LazySlipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, LazySlipper said:

 

Did you read the law?

The article states: "Aliens can be classified as unlawfully present for one of three reasons" it goes on in the same paragraph...

... 

Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, "Improper entry of alien", provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any noncitizen who:[43]

  1. enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
  2. eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
  3. attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.

 

Last time I checked unlawful is synonymous of illegal.

 

Also, the law mentions sanctuary cities (300 in total) and what I underlined and bolded [sic] for you in particular is the part where it says 'eludes' examination. Which means that even if they came in on a visa or without authorization (in both cases) they are breaking the law.

 

Read on because everything is covered. Moreover, why are you trying to shove it up everyone's arse?

You got a bone to pick with everyone who disagrees with you, or do you feel you have to right every wrong?

 

Oh and by the way, if you have ever worked for someone and they "request" you to do something they are actually telling you to do it and if you don't you either get fired or your salary gets docked. Just as Washington is threatening to do.

 

IMHO requesting is the polite way of doing things and IN MY OPINION the rogue states should comply and then go to court.

 

 

 

"Oh and by the way, if you have ever worked for someone and they "request" you to do something they are actually telling you to do it and if you don't you either get fired or your salary gets docked. Just as Washington is threatening to do."

 

"IMHO requesting is the polite way of doing things and IN MY OPINION the rogue states should comply and then go to court."

 

Wow! I know of at least 9 people who will be astounded by your likening of the Federal-State relationship to that of an employer-employee.  Those 9 people being the justices of the Supreme Court. Particularly the conservative ones who are very very strong Federalists.

Once again, a request is not an order. The Feds can issue a warrant if they so choose.

 

"Moreover, why are you trying to shove it up everyone's arse?"

 

I always thought that the phrase "seat of learning" applied to educational institutions and was not literally an anatomical reference. Live and learn.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, LazySlipper said:

"The jurisdictions have until June 30 to provide evidence to the federal government that they are not violating any laws."

Maybe I am wrong, but harboring suspects or fugitives (in this case immigrants who elude inspection) is breaking the law. So, if a state is, let's say, an entity and it knows it has illegal or 'waiting to be processed' immigrants and it is not complying with a  Federal REQUEST, then--aren't those states kinda breaking the law?

Kinda No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Srikcir said:

When National Guard personnel operate under the control of the president, they are subject to the Posse Comitatus Act. When they operate under the control of a state governor, however, they are not subject to the act.

https://thinkprogress.org/how-trumps-reported-plan-to-round-up-undocumented-immigrants-could-actually-work-bfeec3a0446e

 

However, it's unlikely that states such as New York and California that have Democratic governors will support Trump's undocumented immigration sweeps. Even a state with a Republican governor may not be a sure Trump supporter such as Texas with over 1 million undocumented immigrants. State politics rise from local politics and at the grassroots level Hispanic undocumented immigrants might have strong political connections.

There IS a way that they would have no choice:

 

Martial law on the national level may be declared by Congress or the president. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, of the Constitution, Congress has the power "[t]o provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions." Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, of the Constitution declares that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." Neither constitutional provision includes a direct reference to martial law. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted both to allow the declaration of martial law by the president or Congress. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last time I looked its the "United" states of America, NOT the federal republic of America. There is the supremacy clause in the constitution, which basically says federal constitution and laws overrides state laws and constitution. The constitution was written for a union of "autonomous" states and laws are made by congress.

F*cknuckle is issuing executive orders, that are not covered by the supremacy clause, An executive order can only ever cover the existing constitution or existing laws, its not an instrument to make up or enforce new laws or stuff outside of the constitution. There is a 3rd section of government, the judiciary, who checks that people are not stepping outside of the constitution or existing laws.

Overriding executive power is a concept created by Hollywood, leader of the free world, the aliens invade and go straight to the white house etc, Thankfully its not true, otherwise you could end up with a reality TV show star doing whatever he wants by signing his name.

 

 

Edited by Peterw42
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

the Supreme Court has interpreted both to allow the declaration of martial law by the president or Congress. 

US Congress has never approved martial law with the exception of allowing President Lincoln to use martial law for the US military to arrest, detain and try civilians in military courts. However, when Lincoln tried to suspend habeas corpus, the Supreme ruled such suspension was unconstitutional.

 

So it's hypothetically conceivable that the President could unilaterally with congressional acquiencence or with congressional approval use martial law to mobilize (as of 2016) the 1.3 million active duty military with 800,000 reserve forces to fan out throughout the US to detain and arrest undocumented immigrants. However, that may create more of a national conflict among Americans than issues stemming from the presence of undocumented immigrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Kinda No.

You babble well but I guess you kinda did not read the law article I posted here in its entirety, just proving once again that you are not just a bar stool lawyer, but more than that you are a merry go round lawyer.

 

And, as far as I know, the law is always subject to interpretation and that is what the states are doing when refusing to hand over illegal immigrants who have committed crimes.

 

to quote the op

"President Donald Trump has vowed to strip federal funds from dozens of state and local governments that do not fully cooperate with U.S. immigration agents, arguing they endanger public safety when they decline to hand over for deportation illegal immigrants who are arrested for crimes."

 

Seems to me you are just trying to show off your whatever when you argue against this clear cut "REQUEST"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LazySlipper said:

You babble but I guess you kinda did not read the law article I posted here just proving once again that you are not just a bar stool lawyer, but more than that you are a merry go round lawyer.

I didn't see anything you posted that had to do with the right of the Federal government to commandeer the services of local law enforcement or about the unlawfuless of local law enforcement refusing to comply with a federal request.

I will say that your name-calling has not yet convinced me of the soundness of your position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

US Congress has never approved martial law with the exception of allowing President Lincoln to use martial law for the US military to arrest, detain and try civilians in military courts. However, when Lincoln tried to suspend habeas corpus, the Supreme ruled such suspension was unconstitutional.

 

So it's hypothetically conceivable that the President could unilaterally with congressional acquiencence or with congressional approval use martial law to mobilize (as of 2016) the 1.3 million active duty military with 800,000 reserve forces to fan out throughout the US to detain and arrest undocumented immigrants. However, that may create more of a national conflict among Americans than issues stemming from the presence of undocumented immigrants.

Unfortunately, I don't think the President does need congressional approval.  

 "However, the Supreme Court has interpreted both [clauses of the Constitution] to allow the declaration of martial law by the president or Congress. ."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/law/law-divisions-and-codes/martial-law

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the OP... the reason we are all arguing or debating.......... they (sanctuary states) decline to hand over for deportation illegal immigrants who are arrested for crimes." <---- 

This quote is from the OP.......... and seems to me that REQUESTING SANCTUARY STATES to hand over , and I quoteth [sic] once more.... illegal immigrants who are arrested for crimes is nothing more than common sense.

 

You want illegal immigrants who committed crimes to walk free? Damn... what has become of this world?

 

As far as I get it from reading the OP... this is what this whole article is about and as per my initial post I don't think we would be allowed to stay here if we were illegal immigrants who committed crimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LazySlipper said:

From the OP... the reason we are all arguing or debating.......... they (sanctuary states) decline to hand over for deportation illegal immigrants who are arrested for crimes." <---- 

This quote is from the OP.......... and seems to me that REQUESTING SANCTUARY STATES to hand over , and I quoteth [sic] once more.... illegal immigrants who are arrested for crimes is nothing more than common sense.

 

You want illegal immigrants who committed crimes to walk free? Damn... what has become of this world?

 

As far as I get it from reading the OP... this is what this whole article is about and as per my initial post I don't think we would be allowed to stay here if we were illegal immigrants who committed crimes.

No, you were maintaining that what the states or municipalities were doing was in defiance of the law.  I pointed out that it wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what I said:

 

Quote

Since the state has no grounds to continue holding them, why shouldn't they be released?

 

The "no grounds" part is what's important.  That means, if the state has determined that the detainee has actually NOT committed a crime, or was detained only on suspicion and then no evidence could be produced to justify continued incarceration, then why not release?  States just can't continue holding people indefinitely if there's no good reason to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

No, you were maintaining that what the states or municipalities were doing was in defiance of the law.  I pointed out that it wasn't.

Getting old... can't remember my prior posts so

 

Show me verbatim where I said that... I have no issues eating some humble pie.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Here's what I said:

 

 

The "no grounds" part is what's important.  That means, if the state has determined that the detainee has actually NOT committed a crime, or was detained only on suspicion and then no evidence could be produced to justify continued incarceration, then why not release?  States just can't continue holding people indefinitely if there's no good reason to do so.

 

Wow.. based on this OP that is a lot of background informationl that really needs to be dug up cos it ain't included here. I did not see that in this OP. TV reporting at its best.

Edited by LazySlipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LazySlipper said:

because they are criminals

 

If they have been convicted, then they are criminals.  I have no problems with criminals remaining in jail to serve out their sentence.

 

If they have not been convicted, then they are suspects or detainees.  Evidence needs to be produced within a reasonable amount of time to justify continued incarceration of suspects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, attrayant said:

If they have been convicted, then they are criminals.  I have no problems with criminals remaining in jail to serve out their sentence.

Then deported. Agreed.

 

"If they have not been convicted, then they are suspects or detainees.  Evidence needs to be produced within a reasonable amount of time to justify continued incarceration of suspects."

 

But would we be extended that courtesy here in Thailand? As immigrants?

 

 

Edited by LazySlipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LazySlipper said:

 

Wow.. based on this OP that is a lot of background material that really needs to be dug up. I did not see that in this OP. TV reporting at its best.

 

What the hell does "tv reporting" mean?  This is a message board, not network TV, and we are discussing a topic.  It's a bit early to be hitting the bottle already.

 

Are you saying that states should just continue to hold everyone who has been detained for any reason, whether or not there is a good reason to do so?  Most states have laws that give a prosecutor 72 hours to bring charges.  Otherwise, suspects must be released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...