DHS preparing to arrest sanctuary city leaders?

[del]

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

They're asked to hold people. They say no.

The SFPD is not under any legal obligation to turn people over to ICE when they get a detainer request.

As del has pointed out, in some places courts have ruled that ICE can't even make detainer requests.

Detainer is just a memo asking for someone to be held. It is not a court order to hold someone, like an arrest warrant. It's just a request - not a command.

They can say no, of course. They can also have funding to their state withheld and now face possible jail time for their decision.

Do you think the welfare constituents of their respective states will stand in unity with their illegal brethren when they don't get their checks?

No, actually they can't. Neither of those things are going to happen.

As for whatever you're blathering about "welfare constituents" and "their illegal brethren", I have no idea what in the name of fuck you're trying to say.

it's dog whistle stuff

I know. I like to watch them try to justify it, though.

try, indeed.

to a battle of wits etc. etc.

 

[miketx]

It's a direct c/p quote from my link with no editing. Lying does not win debates...doctor.

It continues thus:

The Justice Department’s review follows a chilling warning earlier this month from the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, who said California would feel the wrath of his agency because of its decision to become a sanctuary state. Homan also called for local and state elected officials to be charged with federal crimes for adhering to sanctuary policies.

Here it is again so you can read it yourself: Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

Oh, that's right. I forgot about Homan.

He's just a raging fuckwit, like you guys. He has no excuse.

The rabbit slurs the hunter that killed it.

Take a moment to read up on federal jurisdiction regarding your immigration laws. You may find it enlightening.

Federal vs. State Immigration Laws - FindLaw

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my fucking point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

yeah, well if they've got a warrant it's a different story.

they want people to be held without warrants, and that's illegal, bubby

Only for Americans, troll.

 

[Aba Incieni]

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

They're asked to hold people. They say no.

The SFPD is not under any legal obligation to turn people over to ICE when they get a detainer request.

As del has pointed out, in some places courts have ruled that ICE can't even make detainer requests.

Detainer is just a memo asking for someone to be held. It is not a court order to hold someone, like an arrest warrant. It's just a request - not a command.

They can say no, of course. They can also have funding to their state withheld and now face possible jail time for their decision.

Do you think the welfare constituents of their respective states will stand in unity with their illegal brethren when they don't get their checks?

No, actually they can't. Neither of those things are going to happen.

As for whatever you're blathering about "welfare constituents" and "their illegal brethren", I have no idea what in the name of fuck you're trying to say.

It's a political board...doctor. Do you think losing government money will sit well politically with the legal citizens who rely on that money? Do you think this is a good political decision for their leaders to make? Do you think the people will blame Moonbeam for protecting illegals and getting their gubment checks cut off?

nobody's checks are getting cut off.

jesus, you people are dumb

Whew that's a relief. I know grant monies have been refused.

It's for the illegals.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my fucking point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

They're asked to hold people. They say no.

The SFPD is not under any legal obligation to turn people over to ICE when they get a detainer request.

As del has pointed out, in some places courts have ruled that ICE can't even make detainer requests.

Detainer is just a memo asking for someone to be held. It is not a court order to hold someone, like an arrest warrant. It's just a request - not a command.

They can say no, of course. They can also have funding to their state withheld and now face possible jail time for their decision.

Do you think the welfare constituents of their respective states will stand in unity with their illegal brethren when they don't get their checks?

No, actually they can't. Neither of those things are going to happen.

As for whatever you're blathering about "welfare constituents" and "their illegal brethren", I have no idea what in the name of fuck you're trying to say.

It's a political board...doctor. Do you think losing government money will sit well politically with the legal citizens who rely on that money? Do you think this is a good political decision for their leaders to make? Do you think the people will blame Moonbeam for protecting illegals and getting their gubment checks cut off?

Do you think the President has the power to unilaterally stop all government funding to a state because they passed laws he doesn't like?

 

[WEATHER53]

In reading the posts on this thread, I find myself in awe of the depth of ignorance in this country regarding the law, the constitution, and civil rights. It is no wonder that attorneys bill over $500 per hour !The words, "due process" may just as well be a foreign language. I am a Sheriff Auxiliary Volunteer, and if I were to attempt to bring a deputy out in order to arrest a suspected undocumented alien strictly on the basis that he may not be legally in this country, I would be fired.

And if you had him behind bars for another offense would you just release him knowing that he is an illegal?

 

[del]

what part of due process eludes you?

 

[Aba Incieni]

They aren't asked to hunt down illegals, that's where you've lost the debate. They are asked to hold those already under arrest for another law enforcement agency to process them on other charges.

This process is much safer for ICE agents, who would otherwise have to raid homes and neighborhoods and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens.

They're asked to hold people. They say no.

The SFPD is not under any legal obligation to turn people over to ICE when they get a detainer request.

As del has pointed out, in some places courts have ruled that ICE can't even make detainer requests.

Detainer is just a memo asking for someone to be held. It is not a court order to hold someone, like an arrest warrant. It's just a request - not a command.

They can say no, of course. They can also have funding to their state withheld and now face possible jail time for their decision.

Do you think the welfare constituents of their respective states will stand in unity with their illegal brethren when they don't get their checks?

No, actually they can't. Neither of those things are going to happen.

As for whatever you're blathering about "welfare constituents" and "their illegal brethren", I have no idea what in the name of fuck you're trying to say.

It's a political board...doctor. Do you think losing government money will sit well politically with the legal citizens who rely on that money? Do you think this is a good political decision for their leaders to make? Do you think the people will blame Moonbeam for protecting illegals and getting their gubment checks cut off?

Do you think the President has the power to unilaterally stop all government funding to a state because they passed laws he doesn't like?

Do you think he has to? lol

 

[Aba Incieni]

what part of due process eludes you?

Defiance of federal laws gets everyone else thrown in the slammer. Why are they exempt? Individual rogue states do not trump the Union of the 50 states.

I've posted the federal jurisdiction laws as proof. All you've done is spoof wishes.

 

[WEATHER53]

Due process

what part of due process eludes you?

does not vacate nor eliminate being arrested. Due process is applied after arrest or detainment to determine if a crime was committed and in the case of illegals the crime is current and ongoing
You don't get tried(due process) first and arrested second especially in the commission of an ongoing illegal act
You guys literally try and sell the case that law enforcement efforts are the bad deed

 

[Vandalshandle]

In reading the posts on this thread, I find myself in awe of the depth of ignorance in this country regarding the law, the constitution, and civil rights. It is no wonder that attorneys bill over $500 per hour !The words, "due process" may just as well be a foreign language. I am a Sheriff Auxiliary Volunteer, and if I were to attempt to bring a deputy out in order to arrest a suspected undocumented alien strictly on the basis that he may not be legally in this country, I would be fired.

And if you had him behind bars for another offense would you just release him knowing that he is an illegal?

It is not my job to deal with federal suspects. However, I might be a little more vigilant if the feds will take a shift or two issuing speeding tickets for the county in return,

 

[del]

what part of due process eludes you?

Defiance of federal laws gets everyone else thrown in the slammer. Why are they exempt? Individual rogue states do not trump the Union of the 50 states.

I've posted the federal jurisdiction laws as proof. All you've done is spoof wishes.

i can explain but i can't make your exceedingly dim self understand.

*shrug

 

[del]

Due process

what part of due process eludes you?

does not vacate nor eliminate being arrested. Due process is applied after arrest or detainment to determine if a crime was committed and in the case of illegals the crime is current and ongoing
You don't get tried(due process) first and arrested second especially in the commission of an ongoing illegal act
You guys literally try and sell the case that law enforcement efforts are the bad deed

holding someone on an ice detainer is illegal.

pretty simple, really

 

[Aba Incieni]

what part of due process eludes you?

Defiance of federal laws gets everyone else thrown in the slammer. Why are they exempt? Individual rogue states do not trump the Union of the 50 states.

I've posted the federal jurisdiction laws as proof. All you've done is spoof wishes.

i can explain but i can't make your exceedingly dim self understand.

*shrug

Let's talk about me, fanboy.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Due process

what part of due process eludes you?

does not vacate nor eliminate being arrested. Due process is applied after arrest or detainment to determine if a crime was committed and in the case of illegals the crime is current and ongoing
You don't get tried(due process) first and arrested second especially in the commission of an ongoing illegal act
You guys literally try and sell the case that law enforcement efforts are the bad deed

Wrong. And, while I am at it, here is a video a guy took telling the border patrol that he is not going to allow them to search his car without probable cause:

 

[WEATHER53]

Due process

what part of due process eludes you?

does not vacate nor eliminate being arrested. Due process is applied after arrest or detainment to determine if a crime was committed and in the case of illegals the crime is current and ongoing
You don't get tried(due process) first and arrested second especially in the commission of an ongoing illegal act
You guys literally try and sell the case that law enforcement efforts are the bad deed

holding someone on an ice detainer is illegal.

pretty simple, really

Incorrect
Releasing someone that you know to be committing an illegal act is what is illegal

 

[WEATHER53]

Due process

what part of due process eludes you?

does not vacate nor eliminate being arrested. Due process is applied after arrest or detainment to determine if a crime was committed and in the case of illegals the crime is current and ongoing
You don't get tried(due process) first and arrested second especially in the commission of an ongoing illegal act
You guys literally try and sell the case that law enforcement efforts are the bad deed

Wrong. And, while I am at it, here is a video a guy took telling the border patrol that he is not going to allow them to search his car without probable cause:

Apples and oranges for everyone to see

 

[Vandalshandle]

Want to see more?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Due process

what part of due process eludes you?

does not vacate nor eliminate being arrested. Due process is applied after arrest or detainment to determine if a crime was committed and in the case of illegals the crime is current and ongoing
You don't get tried(due process) first and arrested second especially in the commission of an ongoing illegal act
You guys literally try and sell the case that law enforcement efforts are the bad deed

holding someone on an ice detainer is illegal.

pretty simple, really

Incorrect
Releasing someone that you know to be committing an illegal act is what is illegal

Don't give up your day job to practice law, Weather.

 

[WEATHER53]

On the checkpoint refusal there is no probable cause
Releasing someone you already have in custody that you know to be illegally in the country is nowhere near the same thing. Keep posting videos though as it is excellent self defeat of whatever point it is you think you are making

 

[Vandalshandle]

Due process

what part of due process eludes you?

does not vacate nor eliminate being arrested. Due process is applied after arrest or detainment to determine if a crime was committed and in the case of illegals the crime is current and ongoing
You don't get tried(due process) first and arrested second especially in the commission of an ongoing illegal act
You guys literally try and sell the case that law enforcement efforts are the bad deed

holding someone on an ice detainer is illegal.

pretty simple, really

Incorrect
Releasing someone that you know to be committing an illegal act is what is illegal

I have no authority to try and convict someone of being an illegal alien. Until someone is convicted of being an illegal, he is NOT an illegal. If the feds want to pick up a convict, they can bring a warrant. Until then, he is just a suspect.