PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security So when does Obama sue "Sanctuary States"?


petegz28
07-07-2010, 06:03 AM
Ok, so he is all ready to take AZ to court over their new law on illegal immigration. Where are the suits being filed against "Sanctuary States" who are knowingly breaking the law???

Just curious.

blaise
07-07-2010, 06:04 AM
Hope.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 06:12 AM
Might as well add States that permit marjiuana use, medical or otherwise. Those are laws that conflict with Federal laws. Where are the law suits???

The Mad Crapper
07-07-2010, 06:17 AM
Hope.

Barack Hussein Obama!

Mmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Obama_Coin_ExactChange_160.gif

Hopey Change™

HonestChieffan
07-07-2010, 06:18 AM
With any luck several states will pass laws like Arizona.


Another question....can a state sue the federal government for Not doing enough on the border? Or another way to say it, could a state or states band together and force the government to do the border protection right?

petegz28
07-07-2010, 06:19 AM
With any luck several states will pass laws like Arizona.


Another question....can a state sue the federal government for Not doing enough on the border? Or another way to say it, could a state or states band together and force the government to do the border protection right?

What's going to crack me up is if the court rules in favor of AZ out of "empathy". ROFL

The Mad Crapper
07-07-2010, 06:23 AM
The country was so divided under Bush.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 07:21 AM
The lawsuit goes on to say that a "state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_immigration_enforcement_lawsuit

So where are the suits against sanctuary cities???

The Mad Crapper
07-07-2010, 07:23 AM
So where are the suits against sanctuary cities???

You just hate brown people.

orange
07-07-2010, 09:22 AM
So where are the suits against sanctuary cities???

What law do you think they're breaking?

Otter
07-07-2010, 09:40 AM
What law do you think they're breaking?

Knowingly harboring criminals for starters.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 09:44 AM
What law do you think they're breaking?

Aiding a criminal???

LOCOChief
07-07-2010, 09:47 AM
What law do you think they're breaking?


This was not a serious question right? I mean, you must know the answer.

orange
07-07-2010, 09:47 AM
Knowingly harboring criminals for starters.

Aiding a criminal???

Which is hooey. Illegal immigrants are not criminals to start with (it's a civil violation). And the cities aren't "harboring" them at all. They're not required by any law that I'm aware of to report them to ICE. It's voluntary as far as I know. Maybe you know something I don't, but your initial responses are not promising.

orange
07-07-2010, 09:48 AM
This was not a serious question right? I mean, you must know the answer.

No, I don't. Please tell me.

I'll repeat the question - Which law do you think they're breaking?

petegz28
07-07-2010, 09:51 AM
Which is hooey. Illegal immigrants are not criminals to start with (it's a civil violation). And the cities aren't "harboring" them at all. They're not required by any law that I'm aware of to report them to ICE. It's voluntary as far as I know. Maybe you know something I don't, but your initial responses are not promising.

You're right, orange. The word illegal in the term "illegal aliens" has no meaning whatsoever.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, 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, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.




I guess we fine and imprison non-criminals?

orange
07-07-2010, 09:54 AM
You're right, orange. The word illegal in the term "illegal aliens" has no meaning whatsoever.

What law do you think they're violating? I didn't ask anything about semantics.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 09:55 AM
What law do you think they're violating? I didn't ask anything about semantics.

:rolleyes:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, 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, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

So willfully not enforcing the law when you know someone is illegal is aiding in any fair minded person's opinion.

orange
07-07-2010, 09:58 AM
You're right, orange. The word illegal in the term "illegal aliens" has no meaning whatsoever.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, 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, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.


Come on now, don't be an idiot. THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH - THE ONE YOU PURPOSELY LEFT OUT - SURELY YOU KNEW I'D LOOK


(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.


CIVIL PENALTIES



I guess we fine and imprison non-criminals?

YES, WE DO. AS YOUR OWN SOURCE CLEARLY STATES.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:00 AM
Come on now, don't be an idiot. THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH - THE ONE YOU PURPOSELY LEFT OUT - SURELY YOU KNEW I'D LOOK


(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to
enter) the United States at a time or place other than as
designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil
penalty of -
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of
an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under
this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not
in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be
imposed.


CIVIL PENALTIES




YES, WE DO. AS YOUR OWN SOURCE CLEARLY STATES.

I left it out because it did not need to be pointed out. You said they weren't committed a crime. I showed you where you were wrong. You do realize things can be both criminal and civil, correct? I guess you just want to ignore the fact that you can be imprisoned for coming into the country illegally. Again, why would someone be imprisoned if they didn't commit a crime?

orange
07-07-2010, 10:01 AM
So willfully not enforcing the law when you know someone is illegal is aiding in any fair minded person's opinion.

Which law are these cities not enforcing?

Donger
07-07-2010, 10:02 AM
Section 1325 sets forth criminal offenses relating to (1) improper entry into the United States by an alien, (2) entry into marriage for the purpose of evading immigration laws, and (3) establishing a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading immigration laws. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended 8 U.S.C. § 1325 to provide that an alien apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01911.htm

orange
07-07-2010, 10:02 AM
Again, why would someone be imprisoned if they didn't commit a crime?

Because THAT'S THE CIVIL PENALTY, as it clearly states.

You know, like a SPEEDING FINE.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:03 AM
Which law are these cities not enforcing?

It's called aiding and abetting. By not enforcing the law they are indeed helping the criminal to succeed in a crime. Sorry, I know that probably doesn't sit well with you.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:04 AM
Because THAT'S THE CIVIL PENALTY, as it clearly states.

You know, like a SPEEDING FINE.

And, contrary to your claim, there are also civil penalties and I and now Donger have pointed out to you. Why you keep wanting us to pretend that part of the code doesn't exist is beyond me? And the Civil part does not speak of jail time. Sorry, you're wrong again.

HonestChieffan
07-07-2010, 10:05 AM
And, contrary to your claim, there are also civil penalties and I and now Donger have pointed out to you. Why you keep wanting us to pretend that part of the code doesn't exist is beyond me?


Its how obama.gov tells the faithful to talk.

Donger
07-07-2010, 10:06 AM
From what I've read over the last few days, it is the second (and so on) illegal entry when the criminal offense CAN be applied with a two year jail sentence, followed by deportation. But, it seems like our government rarely applies this and just deports (again) rather than go through the expense of jailing them.

orange
07-07-2010, 10:06 AM
You cannot "aid and abet" a non-criminal.

Why don't you simply state the ACTUAL LAW that you think the cities are breaking?

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:06 AM
Its how obama.gov tells the faithful to talk.

It's like orange wants to pretend there is no crime committed at all. It's truly laughable.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:07 AM
You cannot "aid and abet" a non-criminal.

Why don't you simply state the ACTUAL LAW that you think the cities are breaking?

Oh, so now coming into the country illegally is not a crime? Boy, you have been smoking some good shit this week.

orange
07-07-2010, 10:07 AM
And, contrary to your claim, there are also civil penalties and I and now Donger have pointed out to you. Why you keep wanting us to pretend that part of the code doesn't exist is beyond me? And the Civil part does not speak of jail time. Sorry, you're wrong again.

Civil Penalties are NOT criminal penalties. Please point out the CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

And p.s Which LAW do you think these sanctuary cities are breaking? I mean, you've been searching for laws, obviously, why don't you simply find THE ONE?

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:08 AM
Orange, why don't you educate us all and show us where the law says it is not ILLEGAL to come into the country illegally???

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:10 AM
Maybe we need to help Orange out?

•Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction. Individual human societies may each define crime and crimes differently. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime

orange
07-07-2010, 10:10 AM
YOU'RE the one asking why the govt. doesn't sue "sanctuary cities" - and I'm asking YOU "sue them for what?"

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:11 AM
YOU'RE the one asking why the govt. doesn't sue "sanctuary cities" - and I'm asking YOU "sue them for what?"

And I told you. Go back and read slowly. It's not my fault you want to pretend someone who is here illegally didn't commit a crime.

But I will humor you. What about the Church in Chicago that harbored and illegal alien female to avoid her deportation and being separated from her son? That, my friend is illegal.

But did the Feds, State, County or City prosecute the church???? No.

orange
07-07-2010, 10:12 AM
Here's Maine (the first one that came up on the search):

§4-B. Civil violations
1. All civil violations are expressly declared not to be criminal offenses. They are enforceable by the Attorney General, the Attorney General's representative or any other appropriate public official in a civil action to recover what may be designated a fine, penalty or other sanction, or to secure the forfeiture that may be decreed by the law.
[ 2007, c. 173, §3 (AMD) .]
2. A law or ordinance may be expressly designated as a civil violation.
[ 1985, c. 282, §3 (NEW) .]
3. A law or ordinance which prohibits defined conduct, but does not provide an imprisonment penalty, is a civil violation, enforceable in accordance with subsection 1. A law or ordinance which is stated to be a criminal violation or which otherwise uses language indicating that it is a crime, but does not provide an imprisonment penalty is a civil violation, enforceable in accordance with subsection 1, unless the law or ordinance is an exception to the operation of this subsection.
[ 1985, c. 282, §3 (NEW) .]
4. Evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and seizure shall not be admissible in a civil violation proceeding arising under Title 22, section 2383.
[ 1985, c. 282, §3 (NEW) .]
SECTION HISTORY
1985, c. 282, §3 (NEW). 2007, c. 173, §3 (AMD).



All civil violations are expressly declared not to be criminal offenses.


I think that trumps wikipedia.

dirk digler
07-07-2010, 10:14 AM
From what I've read over the last few days, it is the second (and so on) illegal entry when the criminal offense CAN be applied with a two year jail sentence, followed by deportation. But, it seems like our government rarely applies this and just deports (again) rather than go through the expense of jailing them.

I have been reading up on how this whole immigration process works and it is really crazy.

First unless they catch them at the border then they can't deport them automatically.

If they catch them later they are detained where they can put up a $5000 bond if they can't pay the bond they sit in a federal detention facility for upwards of 2 years waiting for a hearing and going through the removal process. During this time we provide healthcare and what not to that individual. The one good thing is they have to find and pay for their own attorney other than that is just a bunch of bs.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:16 AM
Here's Maine (the first one that came up on the search):

§4-B. Civil violations
1. All civil violations are expressly declared not to be criminal offenses. They are enforceable by the Attorney General, the Attorney General's representative or any other appropriate public official in a civil action to recover what may be designated a fine, penalty or other sanction, or to secure the forfeiture that may be decreed by the law.
[ 2007, c. 173, §3 (AMD) .]
2. A law or ordinance may be expressly designated as a civil violation.
[ 1985, c. 282, §3 (NEW) .]
3. A law or ordinance which prohibits defined conduct, but does not provide an imprisonment penalty, is a civil violation, enforceable in accordance with subsection 1. A law or ordinance which is stated to be a criminal violation or which otherwise uses language indicating that it is a crime, but does not provide an imprisonment penalty is a civil violation, enforceable in accordance with subsection 1, unless the law or ordinance is an exception to the operation of this subsection.
[ 1985, c. 282, §3 (NEW) .]
4. Evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful search and seizure shall not be admissible in a civil violation proceeding arising under Title 22, section 2383.
[ 1985, c. 282, §3 (NEW) .]
SECTION HISTORY
1985, c. 282, §3 (NEW). 2007, c. 173, §3 (AMD).



All civil violations are expressly declared not to be criminal offenses.


I think that trumps wikipedia.

From your link. And I didn't use Wiki, dumbass.

3. A law or ordinance which prohibits defined conduct, but does not provide an imprisonment penalty, is a civil violation, enforceable in accordance with subsection 1. A law or ordinance which is stated to be a criminal violation or which otherwise uses language indicating that it is a crime, but does not provide an imprisonment penalty is a civil violation, enforceable in accordance with subsection 1, unless the law or ordinance is an exception to the operation of this subsection.

The link I gave you from the U.S.C. clearly states that you can be imprsioned for up to 6 months.

You're running yourself into your own grave.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code - Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, 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, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.


In other words, as I tried to tell you alread, it is both a civil an criminal ordeal.

orange
07-07-2010, 10:18 AM
Christie clarifies: 'Illegal' immigrants are in civil violation
Published: Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 12:03 PM Updated: Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 12:23

The office of U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie on Monday issued a statement addressing criticism of remarks he made regarding illegal immigration at a church forum in Dover Sunday.

In response to a question from an audience member, Christie said that immigrants are not committing a crime by being in the country illegally.

Monday, Christie said that while entering the country illegally is considered a federal misdemeanor, simply lacking legal immigration status is a civil violation.

"I can only enforce the laws that they give me," Christie said at the forum sponsored by the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey and the First United Methodist Church of Dover.

Christie's comment drew criticism from Morristown Mayor and Democratic congressional candidate Donald C. Cresitello, as well as scores of comments on Internet message boards.

Critics called his statements incorrect, and indicative of a lax approach to immigration enforcement by the federal government.

Monday, Christie's office is sued a written statement defending the comments, saying they accurately reflected federal law.

"He did not say, nor did he mean, that entering this country through any means other than the appropriate immigration channels is a lawful act," the statement read. "It is not."

The controversy has highlighted one of the most widely misunderstood aspects of immigration law.

Q: Christie said immigrants in the county illegally are not automatically committing a crime by their presence. Is that true?

A: Yes. "Illegal presence" as the offense is called, is not a violation of the U.S. criminal code. A person cannot be sent to prison for being here without authorization from immigration authorities. It is, however, a violation of civil immigration laws, for which the federal government can impose civil penalties, namely deportation.

Q: But he was later asked a hypothetical question about someone sneaking across the border and said that's not a crime either. Is that true, too?

A: No. "Improper entry by an alien" as it is called, is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail.

It is considered difficult to prosecute because unless authorities catch someone in the act of crossing the border, it is easier to just deport them than spend the time and money needed to prove how they crossed the border. Even in border states, first-time offenders are rarely prosecuted because the court system would be inundated with millions of cases.

Q: So it's a crime to enter the country illegally, but not a crime to be here illegally. How can you do one without the other?

A: It's not hard, and millions of people have done it. People obtain legal visas to enter the U.S. for work, study or tourism and then simply remain in the coun try after the visa expires. Of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, studies show about 40 percent to 50 percent came here legally but are now illegal immigrants.

This is Right-wing hero Chris Christie. Argue with him.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:19 AM
Christie clarifies: 'Illegal' immigrants are in civil violation
Published: Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 12:03 PM Updated: Tuesday, April 29, 2008, 12:23

The office of U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie on Monday issued a statement addressing criticism of remarks he made regarding illegal immigration at a church forum in Dover Sunday.

In response to a question from an audience member, Christie said that immigrants are not committing a crime by being in the country illegally.


8


0


13
Share

Monday, Christie said that while entering the country illegally is considered a federal misdemeanor, simply lacking legal immigration status is a civil violation.

"I can only enforce the laws that they give me," Christie said at the forum sponsored by the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey and the First United Methodist Church of Dover.

Christie's comment drew criticism from Morristown Mayor and Democratic congressional candidate Donald C. Cresitello, as well as scores of comments on Internet message boards.

Critics called his statements incorrect, and indicative of a lax approach to immigration enforcement by the federal government.

Monday, Christie's office is sued a written statement defending the comments, saying they accurately reflected federal law.

"He did not say, nor did he mean, that entering this country through any means other than the appropriate immigration channels is a lawful act," the statement read. "It is not."

The controversy has highlighted one of the most widely misunderstood aspects of immigration law.

Q: Christie said immigrants in the county illegally are not automatically committing a crime by their presence. Is that true?

A: Yes. "Illegal presence" as the offense is called, is not a violation of the U.S. criminal code. A person cannot be sent to prison for being here without authorization from immigration authorities. It is, however, a violation of civil immigration laws, for which the federal government can impose civil penalties, namely deportation.

Q: But he was later asked a hypothetical question about someone sneaking across the border and said that's not a crime either. Is that true, too?

A: No. "Improper entry by an alien" as it is called, is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail.

It is considered difficult to prosecute because unless authorities catch someone in the act of crossing the border, it is easier to just deport them than spend the time and money needed to prove how they crossed the border. Even in border states, first-time offenders are rarely prosecuted because the court system would be inundated with millions of cases.

Q: So it's a crime to enter the country illegally, but not a crime to be here illegally. How can you do one without the other?

A: It's not hard, and millions of people have done it. People obtain legal visas to enter the U.S. for work, study or tourism and then simply remain in the coun try after the visa expires. Of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, studies show about 40 percent to 50 percent came here legally but are now illegal immigrants.

The law says otherwise. You bitch about people arguing semantics and you try this shit? You have been shown multiple times what the law says. And read the first sentence you posted slowly. Lacking immigration status is civil. Entering the country illegally can be both civil and criminal. DUH!

orange
07-07-2010, 10:21 AM
The law says otherwise. You bitch about people arguing semantics and you try this shit? You have been shown multiple times what the law says.

Argue with Chris Christie - former U.S. Attorney, now New Jersey Governor. ROFL


A: Yes. "Illegal presence" as the offense is called, is not a violation of the U.S. criminal code. A person cannot be sent to prison for being here without authorization from immigration authorities. It is, however, a violation of civil immigration laws, for which the federal government can impose civil penalties, namely deportation.

Donger
07-07-2010, 10:23 AM
Q: But he was later asked a hypothetical question about someone sneaking across the border and said that's not a crime either. Is that true, too?

A: No. "Improper entry by an alien" as it is called, is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail.

It is considered difficult to prosecute because unless authorities catch someone in the act of crossing the border, it is easier to just deport them than spend the time and money needed to prove how they crossed the border. Even in border states, first-time offenders are rarely prosecuted because the court system would be inundated with millions of cases.

Orange, you just hung yourself. It IS a criminal offense (misdemeanor for the first time) but again, our government would rather not prosecute to save money and instead just deport.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:23 AM
Orange, you overlooked this in your post I am sure...


Q: But he was later asked a hypothetical question about someone sneaking across the border and said that's not a crime either. Is that true, too?

A: No. "Improper entry by an alien" as it is called, is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail.

orange
07-07-2010, 10:26 AM
Maybe we need to help Orange out?
•Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction. Individual human societies may each define crime and crimes differently. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime

And I didn't use Wiki


ROFLROFLROFL

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:26 AM
Orange, you just hung yourself. It IS a criminal offense (misdemeanor for the first time) but again, our government would rather not prosecute to save money and instead just deport.

I've pointed that out to him several times now. It's like talking to my dog. No matter how many pictures I give him he just isn't going to understand.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:27 AM
ROFLROFLROFL

I didn't use Wiki for the U.S.C., which is what you accused me of.

What other bullshit tricks are you going to try?

Don't be sore that you got your ass kicked. It happens.

Donger
07-07-2010, 10:29 AM
I've pointed that out to him several times now. It's like talking to my dog. No matter how many pictures I give him he just isn't going to understand.

His point (I assume) is that it is only a criminal offense if the authorities actually catching the illegals crossing the border, essentially catching them red-handed. Once they are in, they are only committing a civil offense.

dirk digler
07-07-2010, 10:29 AM
Ahh it makes sense now. Just like I posted above unless they catch them in the act they can't automatically deport them that is why it is a crime.

If they catch them 2-days later at Home Depot it is a civil offense.

Strange

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:30 AM
His point (I assume) is that it is only a criminal offense if the authorities actually catching the illegals crossing the border, essentially catching them red-handed. Once they are in, they are only committing a civil offense.

That makes no sense since you can't have one without the other. That may be his point, but it makes no sense.

dirk digler
07-07-2010, 10:30 AM
His point (I assume) is that it is only a criminal offense if the authorities actually catching the illegals crossing the border, essentially catching them red-handed. Once they are in, they are only committing a civil offense.

I think that is the correct interpretation of the law.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:31 AM
Ahh it makes sense now. Just like I posted above unless they catch them in the act they can't automatically deport them that is why it is a crime.

If they catch them 2-days later at Home Depot it is a civil offense.

Strange

I wonder then if I can rob a bank and as long as I get away I only get charged with tax evasion on my new found monies???

orange
07-07-2010, 10:32 AM
Orange, you just hung yourself. It IS a criminal offense (misdemeanor for the first time) but again, our government would rather not prosecute to save money and instead just deport.

Orange, you overlooked this in your post I am sure...

Q: So it's a crime to enter the country illegally, but not a crime to be here illegally. How can you do one without the other?

A: It's not hard, and millions of people have done it. People obtain legal visas to enter the U.S. for work, study or tourism and then simply remain in the country after the visa expires. Of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, studies show about 40 percent to 50 percent came here legally but are now illegal immigrants.


Plus, CITIES don't tend to catch people at the board - expecially not health workers, family counselors, etc.

So I go back to my question - WHICH LAW DO YOU THINK THE CITIES ARE BREAKING?

Let's put it another way - WHAT ARE SANCTUARY CITIES REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO THAT THEY ARE NOT DOING?

Donger
07-07-2010, 10:32 AM
Ahh it makes sense now. Just like I posted above unless they catch them in the act they can't automatically deport them that is why it is a crime.

If they catch them 2-days later at Home Depot it is a civil offense.

Strange

Yeah, it's like you can shoot someone who is breaking into your house, but you have to offer them cookies and drink if they are already in.

dirk digler
07-07-2010, 10:33 AM
I wonder then if I can rob a bank and as long as I get away I only get charged with tax evasion on my new found monies???

LMAO That is essentially what it is. Really strange and logically it doesn't make sense

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:35 AM
Q: So it's a crime to enter the country illegally, but not a crime to be here illegally. How can you do one without the other?

A: It's not hard, and millions of people have done it. People obtain legal visas to enter the U.S. for work, study or tourism and then simply remain in the country after the visa expires. Of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, studies show about 40 percent to 50 percent came here legally but are now illegal immigrants.


Plus, CITIES don't tend to catch people at the board - expecially not health workers, family counselors, etc.

So I go back to my question - WHICH LAW DO YOU THINK THE CITIES ARE BREAKING?

In which once they stay after the visa has expired that have just entered the country illegally. And I have explained that to you already. Keep squirming though, it's fun to watch.

dirk digler
07-07-2010, 10:35 AM
After reading Orange's latest post that makes it a little clearer but you would think they would have a criminal punishment if you haven't had a green card which would prove you entered illegally.

orange
07-07-2010, 10:36 AM
I didn't use Wiki for the U.S.C., which is what you accused me of.

What other bullshit tricks are you going to try?

Don't be sore that you got your ass kicked. It happens.

I accused you of using the Wiki when you used the Wiki.

I said nothing about the U.S.C.

Donger
07-07-2010, 10:37 AM
Q: So it's a crime to enter the country illegally, but not a crime to be here illegally. How can you do one without the other?

A: It's not hard, and millions of people have done it. People obtain legal visas to enter the U.S. for work, study or tourism and then simply remain in the country after the visa expires. Of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, studies show about 40 percent to 50 percent came here legally but are now illegal immigrants.


Plus, CITIES don't tend to catch people at the board - expecially not health workers, family counselors, etc.

So I go back to my question - WHICH LAW DO YOU THINK THE CITIES ARE BREAKING?

Let's put it another way - WHAT ARE SANCTUARY CITIES REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO THAT THEY ARE NOT DOING?

You seem to acknowledge that illegal presence is a civil violation of the law. If so, is not offering sanctuary to illegals helping them avoid civil penalties (such as deportation)?

I doubt that these cities would be willing to forgive my next civil violation, such as a speeding ticket.

dirk digler
07-07-2010, 10:38 AM
In which once they stay after the visa has expired that have just entered the country illegally. And I have explained that to you already. Keep squirming though, it's fun to watch.

Nope that is not correct. They came here legally and got a visa and then decided to stay after it expired. That is a civil punishment.

orange
07-07-2010, 10:41 AM
You seem to acknowledge that illegal presence is a civil violation of the law. If so, is not offering sanctuary to illegals helping them avoid civil penalties (such as deportation)?

I doubt that these cities would be willing to forgive my next civil violation, such as a speeding ticket.

I don't think so. I don't think there's any obligation by anyone to report a non-criminal. If your neighbor lets his weeds grow to finable height, you're not REQUIRED to turn him in. You won't get a fine along with him for non-reporting.

By "offering sanctuary" what exactly do you mean? I'm thinking it's application here is simply not reporting illegal aliens to ICE.

mlyonsd
07-07-2010, 10:45 AM
I doubt that these cities would be willing to forgive my next civil violation, such as a speeding ticket.

I bet if you tried arguing your way out of it you'd eventually wear them down.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:46 AM
I don't think so. I don't think there's any obligation by anyone to report a non-criminal. If your neighbor lets his weeds grow to finable height, you're not REQUIRED to turn him in. You won't get a fine along with him for non-reporting.

By "offering sanctuary" what exactly do you mean? I'm thinking it's application here is simply not reporting illegal aliens to ICE.

Ah, now we are back to pretending they are non-criminals. They committed a crime, but not really, heh?

The Mad Crapper
07-07-2010, 10:48 AM
LMAO at Orange.

Donger
07-07-2010, 10:52 AM
I don't think so. I don't think there's any obligation by anyone to report a non-criminal. If your neighbor lets his weeds grow to finable height, you're not REQUIRED to turn him in. You won't get a fine along with him for non-reporting.

By "offering sanctuary" what exactly do you mean? I'm thinking it's application here is simply not reporting illegal aliens to ICE.

I quick perusal of what a "sanctuary city" is tells me that if offers protection of illegal immigrants. This is accomplished by refusing to allow the city's employees (such as police) to inquire about a person's immigration status. So, Arizona's law is the exact opposite. Interesting.

As far as I can tell, even in non-sanctuary cities, authorities are not required to ascertain immigration status.

It's another example of how poor federal law is with regard to illegal immigration.

dirk digler
07-07-2010, 10:54 AM
I don't think so. I don't think there's any obligation by anyone to report a non-criminal. If your neighbor lets his weeds grow to finable height, you're not REQUIRED to turn him in. You won't get a fine along with him for non-reporting.

By "offering sanctuary" what exactly do you mean? I'm thinking it's application here is simply not reporting illegal aliens to ICE.

Sanctuary ordinances are basically saying that city employees can't inquire about immigration status

Donger
07-07-2010, 10:55 AM
Ah, now we are back to pretending they are non-criminals. They committed a crime, but not really, heh?

Well, technically, he's correct according to the law. Unless they are caught at the border, they are treated just like any other person of illegal presence (such as a visa violator). That apparently changes if the illegal re-enters after a first deportation, and they are at that point felons.

orange
07-07-2010, 10:56 AM
Sanctuary ordinances are basically saying that city employees can't inquire about immigration status

Right... and as Donger points out

As far as I can tell, even in non-sanctuary cities, authorities are not required to ascertain immigration status.


[edit] Ooops, a little late. But still accurate.

So this is probably WHY Obama doesn't sue sanctuary cities. Probably why no previous administration sued them, either.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 10:59 AM
Right... and as Donger points out

As far as I can tell, even in non-sanctuary cities, authorities are not required to ascertain immigration status.


[edit] Ooops, a little late. But still accurate.

So this is probably WHY Obama doesn't sue sanctuary cities.

Yeah, that's exactly why he doesn't. Because they don't enforce a law he doesn't want enforced. Instead he sues the State that wants to enforce the law. Go fucking figure.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 11:00 AM
Well, technically, he's correct according to the law. Unless they are caught at the border, they are treated just like any other person of illegal presence (such as a visa violator). That apparently changes if the illegal re-enters after a first deportation, and they are at that point felons.

I disagree. Otherwise you wouldn't have even the token round ups and deportations.

mlyonsd
07-07-2010, 11:03 AM
I disagree. Otherwise you wouldn't have even the token round ups and deportations.

I don't think local or state officers do round ups. I think the feds do those.

Donger
07-07-2010, 11:04 AM
I disagree. Otherwise you wouldn't have even the token round ups and deportations.

Well, from what I've been reading, many of the ICE roundups are specifically targeted at going after the illegals who have also committed criminal offenses.

I don't like it, but it sure seems like unless they are caught at the border (or are a repeat offender), they are not committing any criminal offense by being here.

mlyonsd
07-07-2010, 11:06 AM
I don't like it, but it sure seems like unless they are caught at the border (or are a repeat offender), they are not committing any criminal offense by being here.

Which could probably be changed if we had politicians with nads.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 11:09 AM
Well, from what I've been reading, many of the ICE roundups are specifically targeted at going after the illegals who have also committed criminal offenses.

I don't like it, but it sure seems like unless they are caught at the border (or are a repeat offender), they are not committing any criminal offense by being here.

From what I have read that is not the case. I have read about them targeting companies where there is suspicion of illegals being on the payroll.

orange
07-07-2010, 11:09 AM
I don't think local or state officers do round ups. I think the feds do those.

Well, from what I've been reading, many of the ICE roundups are specifically targeted at going after the illegals who have also committed criminal offenses.

I don't like it, but it sure seems like unless they are caught at the border (or are a repeat offender), they are not committing any criminal offense by being here.

There are some non-federals doing the roundups. The immigration law has a section that allows local/state police depts. to enforce immigration laws in cooperation with the Feds - again, a voluntary program. That's how Arpaio does it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_Section_287(g)

It has a lot of problems. They recently had a blistering report from an Inspector General so reforms are underway.

dirk digler
07-07-2010, 11:12 AM
Right... and as Donger points out

As far as I can tell, even in non-sanctuary cities, authorities are not required to ascertain immigration status.


[edit] Ooops, a little late. But still accurate.

So this is probably WHY Obama doesn't sue sanctuary cities. Probably why no previous administration sued them, either.

Here is a interesting paper on this subject. But I found this interesting.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:FD8SY2dV5tYJ:trac.syr.edu/immigration/library/P48.pdf+local+law+enforcement+immigration&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjQdv-oseeCJYtML-hA3dts_4eeWFFZYOcHtZt6lMQjRCWrBiwnoF-uwnacPzcASbdwm2lcRgV6OYAU9xIodlv0zu488glf1Bot6IPTAg1d8b97UiqCK6Ob919eaTmfyy6XLUlj&sig=AHIEtbTA_LfthogQlWQ3zYUiTlAJQ70dkQ

For example, when state or local officers question the immigration status of someone they have detained for a state or local violation, they may contact an ICE agent at the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC).5 The federal agent may then place a detainer on the suspect, requesting the state official to keep the suspect in custody until a determination can be made as to the suspect’s immigration status.
However, the continued detention of such a suspect beyond the needs of local law enforcement, and solely designed to aid in enforcement of federal immigration laws,may be unlawful.6

HonestChieffan
07-07-2010, 11:13 AM
reforms are underway.


Come November for damn sure.

dirk digler
07-07-2010, 11:16 AM
I don't like it, but it sure seems like unless they are caught at the border (or are a repeat offender), they are not committing any criminal offense by being here.

I believe that is correct Donger. Which goes back to what I am reading is why local and state officials can't do anything about illegal immigration because it is classified as a civil offense. Now in the case of smuggling or any criminal offense they can prosecute.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 11:18 AM
There are some non-federals doing the roundups. The immigration law has a section that allows local/state police depts. to enforce immigration laws in cooperation with the Feds - again, a voluntary program. That's how Arpaio does it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_Section_287(g)

It has a lot of problems. They recently had a blistering report from an Inspector General so reforms are underway.

non-federal??

http://www.cis.org/SmithfieldImmigrationRaid-Unionization

In January 2007, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents raided the Smithfield pork plant in Tar Heel, N.C. Seven months later, ICE agents made more arrests at workers’ homes in surrounding areas. Other illegal workers, fearing they might be detained, left the plant on their own.

orange
07-07-2010, 11:20 AM
Come November for damn sure.

That 287(g) program has been around since 1996. It's available to any state or local law enforcement agency.

This is who has signed up:


ICE currently has 287 (g) MOAs with the Alabama Department of Public Safety/State Police, the Arizona Department of Corrections and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. ICE also has MOAs with the county sheriff’s departments in Maricopa County, Ariz.; Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, Calif.; Cobb County, Ga.; Alamance, Gaston and Mecklenburg counties, N.C.; and Davidson County, Tenn.

Three whole states and ten counties. :doh!:

I get the feeling "roundin' em up and shippin' em back" just isn't as big a priority around the country as you think it is.

orange
07-07-2010, 11:23 AM
non-federal??

http://www.cis.org/SmithfieldImmigrationRaid-Unionization

In January 2007, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents raided the Smithfield pork plant in Tar Heel, N.C. Seven months later, ICE agents made more arrests at workers’ homes in surrounding areas. Other illegal workers, fearing they might be detained, left the plant on their own.

I said "some" non-federals. Did I need two "somes?" - to "sum" it up, I guess

petegz28
07-07-2010, 11:23 AM
That 287(g) program has been around since 1996. It's available to any state or local law enforcement agency.

This is who has signed up:


ICE currently has 287 (g) MOAs with the Alabama Department of Public Safety/State Police, the Arizona Department of Corrections and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. ICE also has MOAs with the county sheriff’s departments in Maricopa County, Ariz.; Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, Calif.; Cobb County, Ga.; Alamance, Gaston and Mecklenburg counties, N.C.; and Davidson County, Tenn.

Three whole states and ten counties. :doh!:

I get the feeling "roundin' em up and shippin' em back" just isn't as big a priority around the country as you think it is.

3 states?

Six-State Illegal Alien Raid: All For Show?
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/12/13/six-state-illegal-alien-raid/

petegz28
07-07-2010, 11:24 AM
I said "some" non-federals. Did I need two "somes?" - to "sum" it up, I guess

You said "these are some", not "some of these". To sum it up.

Donger
07-07-2010, 11:26 AM
From what I have read that is not the case. I have read about them targeting companies where there is suspicion of illegals being on the payroll.

Well, in that case they are going after the employer (mainly) and it looks like if the employer "reasonably knows" that the employee is an illegal, they are committing a felony by employing them.

That's pretty comical.

dirk digler
07-07-2010, 11:26 AM
Case Law

The issue of whether state and local law enforcement agencies are precluded from enforcing provisions of the INA was analyzed in the Ninth Circuit case of Gonzalez v. City of Peoria.33 In Gonzalez, the Ninth Circuit examined the City of Peoria’s policies that authorized local officers to arrest illegal immigrants for violating the criminal entry provision of the INA (8 U.S.C. §1324).34 The arrestees claimed that the INA represented a full federal occupation of the field, which would in turn preempt state action.

The court turned to the legislative history of §132435 and determined that when Congress specifically removed language limiting the enforcement of §1324 to federal officers and inserted specific language authorizing local enforcement, that “it implicitly made the local enforcement authority as to all three criminal statutes (i.e., §§1324, 1325, 1326) identical.”36

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit declared that local police officers may, subject to state law, constitutionally stop or detain individuals when there is reasonable suspicion or, in the case of arrests, probable cause that such persons have violated, or are violating, the criminal provisions of the INA.

With regards to preemption, the Gonzalez court determined that the criminal immigration provisions were “few in number,” “relatively simple in their terms,” constituted a “narrow and distinct element” of the INA, and did not require a “complex administrative structure” consistent with exclusive federal control. The court, therefore, concluded that the criminal provisions did not support the inference that the federal government occupied the field of criminal immigration enforcement.

With respect to civil immigration enforcement, Gonzalez has been construed to support the argument that states do not possess the authority, “inherent” or otherwise, (unless specifically granted by Congress) to enforce the civil enforcement measures of the INA. In conducting a preemption analysis for certain criminal provisions of the INA, the Ninth Circuit in Gonzalez made a distinction between the civil and criminal provisions of the INA, and assumed that the former constituted a pervasive and preemptive regulatory scheme, whereas the latter did not. The court stated:

We assume that the civil provisions of the Act regulating authorized entry, length of stay, residence status, and deportation, constitute such a pervasive regulatory scheme, as would be consistent with the exclusive federal power over immigration. However, this case [Gonzalez] does not concern that broad scheme,but only a narrow and distinct element of it — the regulation of criminal immigration activity by aliens.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the authority of state officials to enforce the provisions of the INA “is limited to criminal provisions.”

orange
07-07-2010, 11:27 AM
3 states?

Six-State Illegal Alien Raid: All For Show?
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/12/13/six-state-illegal-alien-raid/

That raid was by the Feds, apparently. It doesn't mention any state police. My point about the 287(g)s above is how few of them there are.

Donger
07-07-2010, 11:30 AM
That 287(g) program has been around since 1996. It's available to any state or local law enforcement agency.

This is who has signed up:


ICE currently has 287 (g) MOAs with the Alabama Department of Public Safety/State Police, the Arizona Department of Corrections and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. ICE also has MOAs with the county sheriff’s departments in Maricopa County, Ariz.; Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, Calif.; Cobb County, Ga.; Alamance, Gaston and Mecklenburg counties, N.C.; and Davidson County, Tenn.

Three whole states and ten counties. :doh!:

I get the feeling "roundin' em up and shippin' em back" just isn't as big a priority around the country as you think it is.

Your information seems to be out-of-date:

http://www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/news/factsheets/section287_g-1.pdf

71 agreements between ICE and non-federal authorities.

petegz28
07-07-2010, 11:34 AM
Case Law

The issue of whether state and local law enforcement agencies are precluded from enforcing provisions of the INA was analyzed in the Ninth Circuit case of Gonzalez v. City of Peoria.33 In Gonzalez, the Ninth Circuit examined the City of Peoria’s policies that authorized local officers to arrest illegal immigrants for violating the criminal entry provision of the INA (8 U.S.C. §1324).34 The arrestees claimed that the INA represented a full federal occupation of the field, which would in turn preempt state action.

The court turned to the legislative history of §132435 and determined that when Congress specifically removed language limiting the enforcement of §1324 to federal officers and inserted specific language authorizing local enforcement, that “it implicitly made the local enforcement authority as to all three criminal statutes (i.e., §§1324, 1325, 1326) identical.”36

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit declared that local police officers may, subject to state law, constitutionally stop or detain individuals when there is reasonable suspicion or, in the case of arrests, probable cause that such persons have violated, or are violating, the criminal provisions of the INA.

With regards to preemption, the Gonzalez court determined that the criminal immigration provisions were “few in number,” “relatively simple in their terms,” constituted a “narrow and distinct element” of the INA, and did not require a “complex administrative structure” consistent with exclusive federal control. The court, therefore, concluded that the criminal provisions did not support the inference that the federal government occupied the field of criminal immigration enforcement.

With respect to civil immigration enforcement, Gonzalez has been construed to support the argument that states do not possess the authority, “inherent” or otherwise, (unless specifically granted by Congress) to enforce the civil enforcement measures of the INA. In conducting a preemption analysis for certain criminal provisions of the INA, the Ninth Circuit in Gonzalez made a distinction between the civil and criminal provisions of the INA, and assumed that the former constituted a pervasive and preemptive regulatory scheme, whereas the latter did not. The court stated:

We assume that the civil provisions of the Act regulating authorized entry, length of stay, residence status, and deportation, constitute such a pervasive regulatory scheme, as would be consistent with the exclusive federal power over immigration. However, this case [Gonzalez] does not concern that broad scheme,but only a narrow and distinct element of it — the regulation of criminal immigration activity by aliens.

Accordingly, the court concluded that the authority of state officials to enforce the provisions of the INA “is limited to criminal provisions.”

So basically Congress could grant AZ the right to enforce federal law but instead they are suing them. Nice.

orange
07-07-2010, 11:35 AM
Your information seems to be out-of-date:

http://www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/news/factsheets/section287_g-1.pdf

71 agreements between ICE and non-federal authorities.

I got it from their own website:

http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/070622factsheet287gprogover.htm

Figures.

[edit] That website is dated June 2007, and taking a quick glance at the pdf it seems most of the signons were 2007 or later. I guess it took off then. Maybe the immigration reform debate then sparked some interest.

vailpass
07-07-2010, 11:42 AM
It must be awfully lonely being Orange.

orange
07-07-2010, 11:45 AM
It must be awfully lonely being Orange.

Yes, it is lonely at the top. Unless YOU can come up with the law that the sanctuary cities are breaking that no one else can seem to find - the one that I said doesn't exist. Knock me off my perch if you can.

vailpass
07-07-2010, 11:52 AM
Yes, it is lonely at the top. Unless YOU can come up with the law that the sanctuary cities are breaking that no one else can seem to find - the one that I said doesn't exist. Knock me off my perch if you can.

:) You go girl!!!!

HonestChieffan
07-07-2010, 12:03 PM
Yes, it is lonely at the top. Unless YOU can come up with the law that the sanctuary cities are breaking that no one else can seem to find - the one that I said doesn't exist. Knock me off my perch if you can.


Top of what?

orange
07-07-2010, 12:06 PM
Top of what?

The pile, of course.


I'll leave it to you what ChiefsPlanet DC is a pile of.

vailpass
07-07-2010, 12:49 PM
The pile, of course.


I'll leave it to you what ChiefsPlanet DC is a pile of.

:D Nice.

HoneyBadger
07-07-2010, 06:23 PM
Yes, it is lonely at the top. Unless YOU can come up with the law that the sanctuary cities are breaking that no one else can seem to find - the one that I said doesn't exist. Knock me off my perch if you can.

I'm pretty sure the original question was asking about Sanctuary STATES, not cities. I guess the high altitude at the top of that "perch" has really messed with your ability to think things through properly.

orange
07-07-2010, 06:30 PM
I'm pretty sure the original question was asking about Sanctuary STATES, not cities. I guess the high altitude at the top of that "perch" has really messed with your ability to think things through properly.

No, actually he had two or three posts about Sanctuary Cities/States this morning; I chose to respond generally in only one. You wouldn't know this without context, so I won't hold it against you; though you MIGHT have noticed that none of the posters in real-time - including petegz28 himself - had the slightest problem following the argument.

... And you MIGHT have actually noticed this exchange back on the first page:


So where are the suits against sanctuary cities???

So where are the suits against sanctuary cities???What law do you think they're breaking?

Thanks for playing, please come again.


http://fineartamerica.com/images-medium/mountain-king-david-wagner.jpg

The Mad Crapper
07-07-2010, 07:10 PM
No, actually he had two or three posts about BLAH BLAH BLAHmedium/mountain-king-david-wagner.jpg[/img]

Just shut the fuck up already you commie stooge.

Donger
07-14-2010, 01:55 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/14/justice-sanctuary-cities-are-no-arizona/

Justice: Sanctuary cities are no Arizona

The Obama administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, whereas Arizona's new immigration law was singled out because it "actively interferes" with enforcement.

"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. "That's what Arizona did in this case."

But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate says the administration is misreading it, and says drawing a distinction between sanctuary cities and Arizona is "flimsy justification" for suing the state.

"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law --who fail to comply with the law -- is absurd," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. "Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not."

Officials in Arizona say they've been unfairly singled out by President Obama and Mr. Holder, who last week sued to overturn Arizona's law, arguing it could lead to a patchwork of state laws.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on illegal immigration --commonly called sanctuary cities -- are just as guilty of creating a patchwork, and violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

And Mr. Smith said the administration doesn't appear to understand that law, which requires localities to share information on illegal immigrants with federal authorities.

"The White House is just plain wrong on the premise since the Arizona law mirrors federal law - it does not 'interfere' with it," he said.

The Arizona law, which goes into effect July 29 unless a court blocks it, requires authorities to inquire about the legal status of anyone they detain who they have reasonable suspicion might be in the country illegally. The law as amended specifically prohibits using race or ethnicity as a reason for suspicion.

Messages left with Mrs. Brewer's office Wednesday were not returned, but in her statement after the lawsuit was filed, she said Arizona was being targeted.

"President Obama's administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of 'sanctuary' policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local 'sanctuary' policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials," she said.

Mr. Obama took an active role in targeting Arizona, including ordering the Justice Department to get involved. But on sanctuary cities, the White House has deflected questions, repeatedly telling a reporter it would get an answer as to the president's thinking but eventually shifting questions over to the Justice Department.

In his original directions to Justice to review the Arizona law, Mr. Obama asked for lawyers to look into both potential conflicts with federal immigration law and potential civil rights violations, such as racial profiling.

When it was file July 6, though, the Justice Department lawsuit only attacked the law as infringing on federal prerogatives. It did not make any allegations the law violates civil rights.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez defended the Arizona lawsuit on Monday, telling the American Constitution Society the federal government can't tolerate different policies.

"You cannot have a system of 50 quarterbacks in the immigration system because immigration includes issues of law enforcement, it involves decisions with implications in foreign policy, it involves incidents with humanitarian implications, and you can't have 50 states making immigration law and have a coherent system," Mr. Perez said, according to MainJustice.com, which covers the Justice Department.

Sanctuary cities are difficult to categorize, and there is no hard-and-fast rule for the label.

A 2007 report from the Justice Department's inspector general found 15 cities that don't regularly inform federal authorities when they arrest an illegal immigrant, and 10 cities that wouldn't regularly tell authorities when a known illegal alien was being released from custody.

The IG report said two jurisdictions [-] Oregon and the city and county of San Francisco [-] acknowledge themselves as sanctuaries, while another 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service listed 32 jurisdictions it said might be considered sanctuary cities.

But the IG report also said even those cities that are categorized as sanctuary cities include language in their policies saying local authorities should cooperate to the extent required by federal law.

The Arizona law has become a flashpoint for the broader immigration debate, with polls showing a majority of voters support the crackdown.

Arizona officials say the federal government has failed in its responsibility to police the borders, and say they are suffering a crime wave spurred by illegal immigration. They said the law is meant to fill in the gaps in enforcement.

On Wednesday, two Republican senators announced they will introduce an amendment to a bill that would halt the Justice Department lawsuit.

petegz28
07-14-2010, 01:59 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/14/justice-sanctuary-cities-are-no-arizona/

Justice: Sanctuary cities are no Arizona

The Obama administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, whereas Arizona's new immigration law was singled out because it "actively interferes" with enforcement.

"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. "That's what Arizona did in this case."

But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate says the administration is misreading it, and says drawing a distinction between sanctuary cities and Arizona is "flimsy justification" for suing the state.

"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law --who fail to comply with the law -- is absurd," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. "Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not."

Officials in Arizona say they've been unfairly singled out by President Obama and Mr. Holder, who last week sued to overturn Arizona's law, arguing it could lead to a patchwork of state laws.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on illegal immigration --commonly called sanctuary cities -- are just as guilty of creating a patchwork, and violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

And Mr. Smith said the administration doesn't appear to understand that law, which requires localities to share information on illegal immigrants with federal authorities.

"The White House is just plain wrong on the premise since the Arizona law mirrors federal law - it does not 'interfere' with it," he said.

The Arizona law, which goes into effect July 29 unless a court blocks it, requires authorities to inquire about the legal status of anyone they detain who they have reasonable suspicion might be in the country illegally. The law as amended specifically prohibits using race or ethnicity as a reason for suspicion.

Messages left with Mrs. Brewer's office Wednesday were not returned, but in her statement after the lawsuit was filed, she said Arizona was being targeted.

"President Obama's administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of 'sanctuary' policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local 'sanctuary' policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials," she said.

Mr. Obama took an active role in targeting Arizona, including ordering the Justice Department to get involved. But on sanctuary cities, the White House has deflected questions, repeatedly telling a reporter it would get an answer as to the president's thinking but eventually shifting questions over to the Justice Department.

In his original directions to Justice to review the Arizona law, Mr. Obama asked for lawyers to look into both potential conflicts with federal immigration law and potential civil rights violations, such as racial profiling.

When it was file July 6, though, the Justice Department lawsuit only attacked the law as infringing on federal prerogatives. It did not make any allegations the law violates civil rights.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez defended the Arizona lawsuit on Monday, telling the American Constitution Society the federal government can't tolerate different policies.

"You cannot have a system of 50 quarterbacks in the immigration system because immigration includes issues of law enforcement, it involves decisions with implications in foreign policy, it involves incidents with humanitarian implications, and you can't have 50 states making immigration law and have a coherent system," Mr. Perez said, according to MainJustice.com, which covers the Justice Department.

Sanctuary cities are difficult to categorize, and there is no hard-and-fast rule for the label.

A 2007 report from the Justice Department's inspector general found 15 cities that don't regularly inform federal authorities when they arrest an illegal immigrant, and 10 cities that wouldn't regularly tell authorities when a known illegal alien was being released from custody.

The IG report said two jurisdictions [-] Oregon and the city and county of San Francisco [-] acknowledge themselves as sanctuaries, while another 2005 report by the Congressional Research Service listed 32 jurisdictions it said might be considered sanctuary cities.

But the IG report also said even those cities that are categorized as sanctuary cities include language in their policies saying local authorities should cooperate to the extent required by federal law.

The Arizona law has become a flashpoint for the broader immigration debate, with polls showing a majority of voters support the crackdown.

Arizona officials say the federal government has failed in its responsibility to police the borders, and say they are suffering a crime wave spurred by illegal immigration. They said the law is meant to fill in the gaps in enforcement.

On Wednesday, two Republican senators announced they will introduce an amendment to a bill that would halt the Justice Department lawsuit.

I read this earlier. It's funny, one place breaks the law and it's ok, one place gets accused of maybe breaking the law and we sue.

orange
07-14-2010, 03:39 PM
But the IG report also said even those cities that are categorized as sanctuary cities include language in their policies saying local authorities should cooperate to the extent required by federal law.


Which law are they violating again?

The Mad Crapper
10-07-2010, 09:27 AM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Km4_4TAt2hY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Km4_4TAt2hY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

The Mad Crapper
10-08-2010, 10:09 AM
Why isn't Nicky Diaz in jail?

Otter
10-08-2010, 10:11 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/14/justice-sanctuary-cities-are-no-arizona/

Justice: Sanctuary cities are no Arizona

The Obama administration said this week that there is no reason to sue so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal authorities, whereas Arizona's new immigration law was singled out because it "actively interferes" with enforcement.

"There is a big difference between.....

Barack Hussein Obama is the epitome of a hypocrite and lost any moral ground he had to stand on. Our president is, once again, a lying piece of shit.

ROYC75
10-08-2010, 11:40 AM
Why isn't Nicky Diaz in jail?

Because the left isn't done using here yet.

petegz28
10-08-2010, 12:38 PM
Because the left isn't done using here yet.

Rep