Current Events > ICE to consider charging sanctuary city leaders with smuggling!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.numbersusa.com/news/ice-considers-charging-sanctuary-city-leaders-smuggling
---

Well, aiding and abetting is a crime.
---

Very true. I think their actions are treasonous.
---

If it gets Rahm Emanuel out of office I'm all for it.
---

Kind of a fair, next. You can disagree with federal laws, but as a government official actively declaring that your city is just sort of arbitrarily going to ignore specific ones is just bad practice.
---

Good. I'd like to see the mayors go to prison

Yeah gl with that.
---

I mean it is aiding and abetting
---

I'm glad to see you guys agree that these people should be punished. They are actually drawing more attention to their illegal population by making such a fuss. Meanwhile, ICE is probably getting ready to strike.

We cannot have this treasonous, mutinous level of dissent in our government.
---

People that are opposed to this don't realize they are taking an ideological stance similar to the confederacy, states rights over federal law, which was the basis of the rebellion that led to the civil war.
---

Tezlok posted...

Good. I'd like to see the mayors go to prison

And the police chiefs and the city councils and any other public officials thumbing their nose at the law.

And if CA becomes a sanctuary state then I hope they lead Brown away in cuffs too. God I would record that and play it over and over again.
---

These people are acting like Trump was the first president to declare illegal immigration a crime. They are committing crimes by allowing so many immigrants to skip the legal process. Why? No other reason than to be defiant.
---

--kresnik-- posted...

They are committing crimes by allowing so many immigrants to skip the legal process.

How so?

Asherlee10 posted...

1. Is it not better to gather illegal immigrants into one location, contained? At that point we might could push them onto the track of legal immigration

They don't do that though. They just sign up for welfare and live off the county.

Asherlee10 posted...

2. Is it truly the responsibility of local authorities to police on a federal level?

Most police officers swear an oath that includes upholding the constitution. This means following federal law as well as state and local.
---

JE19426 posted...

--kresnik-- posted...

They are committing crimes by allowing so many immigrants to skip the legal process.

How so?

There's a legal process, and whether people like it or not, being in this country illegally is a crime. Therefore, the cities are harboring criminals while specifically doing so to defy an order of the president.

They are screwing over so many people who tried to immigrate legally and since we've defined illegal aliens as criminals, they are subjecting their citizens to living amongst them.

We get it; you guys like trump.
---

OrtegaTron posted...

Most police officers swear an oath that includes upholding the constitution. This means following federal law as well as state and local.

There's a difference between following the law, and enforcing the law.

--kresnik-- posted...
Therefore, the cities are harboring criminals while specifically doing so to defy an order of the president.

And that's a crime how?

Harboring criminals is illegal.
---

JE19426 posted...

There's a difference between following the law, and enforcing the law.

As a police officer, their job is to enforce the law.
---

And guees what Sanctuary Cities have their own police force, so they run the risk of breaking Sanctuary City Law.
---

OrtegaTron posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

1. Is it not better to gather illegal immigrants into one location, contained? At that point we might could push them onto the track of legal immigration

They don't do that though. They just sign up for welfare and live off the county.

Asherlee10 posted...

2. Is it truly the responsibility of local authorities to police on a federal level?

Most police officers swear an oath that includes upholding the constitution. This means following federal law as well as state and local.

Citation needed about welfare

--kresnik-- posted...

Harboring criminals is illegal.

Even when there's no warrant out for there arrest? Which law does that violate?

OrtegaTron posted...

As a police officer, their job is to enforce the law.

Yes, state law not Federal law.

Sir Will posted...

Yeah gl with that.

---

--kresnik-- posted...

They are screwing over so many people who tried to immigrate legally and since we've defined illegal aliens as criminals, they are subjecting their citizens to living amongst them.

Legal Immigrants have to live with them? Since when?

JE19426 posted...

As a police officer, their job is to enforce the law.

Yes, state law not Federal law.

The oath says the constitution specifically. You're either dense or trolling.
---

Talk like TC's sure is similar to the people who were hating on abolitionists
---

Look, man. You break the law and you're a criminal. You can't interpreter it any other way. Being here undocumented is a crime, and for good reason.
---

Blue_Inigo posted...

Talk like TC's sure is similar to the people who were hating on abolitionists

Oh, here we go...
---

OrtegaTron posted...

The oath says the constitution specifically.

And?

JE19426 posted...

OrtegaTron posted...

The oath says the constitution specifically.

And?

Connect the dots. I can't critically think for you. Sorry, that may be beyond your capability. Reading comprehension and all.
---

OrtegaTron posted...

Connect the dots. I can't critically think for you. Sorry, that may be beyond your capability. Reading comprehension and all.

2/10 trolling. Make it less obvious you are trolling in future.

JE19426 posted...

OrtegaTron posted...

Connect the dots. I can't critically think for you. Sorry, that may be beyond your capability. Reading comprehension and all.

2/10 trolling. Make it less obvious you are trolling in future.

I'm calling out your poor reading comprehension. This just solidifies my point.
---

OrtegaTron posted...

I'm calling out your poor reading comprehension. This just solidifies my point.

Come on you troll better then this. Believe in yourself. Make it less obvious.

Smuggling entails intent and willfully harboring whatever.

Those charges will never see the light of day.
---

Put those sanctuary leaders in prison. They will not stop, if there are no consequences. It's a human nature thing.
---

s0nicfan posted...

Kind of a fair, next. You can disagree with federal laws, but as a government official actively declaring that your city is just sort of arbitrarily going to ignore specific ones is just bad practice.

asherlee kind of covered this, but the issue is the extent to which federal authorities can force police to do their bidding

for instance, I don't think most people would be okay with the federal government forcing local police to raid marijuana dispensaries and then charging state and local government with money laundering and drug charges. But you could use the same logic to say that they should.
---

the drug thing is actually much more egregious, because local authorities usually just ignore immigration status as part of sanctuary policies, whereas with pot you need to get actual authority to do a thing from a governing body
---

JE19426 posted...

OrtegaTron posted...

Most police officers swear an oath that includes upholding the constitution. This means following federal law as well as state and local.

There's a difference between following the law, and enforcing the law.

But there is no difference between enforcing the law and following it. You have to follow the law to enforce it

First, undocumented presence isn't a crime. Even illegal entry is a misdemeanor. Second, nothing these leaders are doing fits any reasonable definition of the felony of human smuggling. So you guys are fine with elected officials being jailed for crimes they did not commit because of your political opposition to them?
---

legendary_zell posted...

First, undocumented presence isn't a crime. Even illegal entry is a misdemeanor. Second, nothing these leaders are doing fits any reasonable definition of the felony of human smuggling. So you guys are fine with elected officials being jailed for crimes they did not commit because of your political opposition to them?

Of course they are. Racists will go to whatever lengths they must to punish non-white people and white people aiding them.
---

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/numbers-usa/
---

s0nicfan posted...

Kind of a fair, next. You can disagree with federal laws, but as a government official actively declaring that your city is just sort of arbitrarily going to ignore specific ones is just bad practice.

"We republicans believe in small government except when small government tries to help brown people."
---

Asherlee10 posted...

sktgamer_13dude posted...

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/numbers-usa/

Dang...

That puts them roughly equivalent on the right to CNN on the left:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Kind of a fair, next. You can disagree with federal laws, but as a government official actively declaring that your city is just sort of arbitrarily going to ignore specific ones is just bad practice.

"We republicans believe in small government except when small government tries to help brown people."

"We democrats believe in large government except when large government tries to enforce laws"

See, I can do it too.
---

s0nicfan posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Kind of a fair, next. You can disagree with federal laws, but as a government official actively declaring that your city is just sort of arbitrarily going to ignore specific ones is just bad practice.

"We republicans believe in small government except when small government tries to help brown people."

"We democrats believe in large government except when large government tries to enforce laws"

See, I can do it too.

Difference here is democrats try to change the laws of big government where as republicans overrule small government with big government when it fits them better.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

Difference here is democrats try to change the laws of big government where as republicans overrule small government with big government when it fits them better.

And when democrats change the laws of big government do they expect local government to follow them? Should southern states arbitrarily ignore trans rights, or gay rights, or abortion rights, simply because they don't personally agree with them?

The law is the law, and if you don't like the law you make new laws or remove old ones. You don't just arbitrarily skip the ones you don't like, and that applies to all parties.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Kind of a fair, next. You can disagree with federal laws, but as a government official actively declaring that your city is just sort of arbitrarily going to ignore specific ones is just bad practice.

"We republicans believe in small government except when small government tries to help brown people."

lol what a shit post.

How about the United States is a nation of laws. Yeah doesn't really fit yer narrative does it.

I mean these are federal laws being willfully ignored. So I guess they should just throw their hands in the air and simply go oh well according to you.
---