DHS preparing to arrest sanctuary city leaders?

[Vandalshandle]

This just in. The DHS has discovered that they do not know what the precise definition of a "Sanctuary City", is, and is seeking guidance for such legal definition from Trump, the man with the "best words".

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about what I want, or what I feel. This isn't about my feelings, or yours.

I'm saying what the law is.

Aiding and abetting is against the law.

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

It' not the police who will be arrested. The mayors and other city officials who give the orders will be the ones who are arrested.

No, actually no one will be arrested.

We will see.

Honestly, I wish Trump would try some shit like that. It would go down like a lead baloon in the SCOTUS in minutes, but it would be great fun to watch.

The best part would be watching you fucktards die of cognitive dissonance while arguing that states are completely subservient to the all-powerful centralized state.

 

[mudwhistle]

Not gonna happen.

But keep your hopes up, it's fun to watch.

That's sorta why I ended the OP heading with a question mark. I don't know but to me it seems like they are breaking fed laws by helping illegals.

Well, that's the thing. Sanctuary city policies don't "help" illegal immigrants - they just don't help the feds.

There's no law that says states or cities have to actively help the federal government against their own interests.

Not turning them over to ICE isn't helping them? Sure it is.

No, it's not. It is simply failing to help INS.

In this country (with a few very specific exceptions), "crimes" require what's know as an "actus reas" - a criminal act. Failure to act is not a crime.

Letting someone go after their local due process, rather than holding them for INS is not an "act", but an absence of one.

Nope....by announcing that your state or city is officially a sanctuary for illegals you are encouraging a criminal act yourself.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about what I want, or what I feel. This isn't about my feelings, or yours.

I'm saying what the law is.

Aiding and abetting is against the law.

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

Uuuuugh.....Dem lead cities have come right out and said they'd protect the illegals.
Pretty much an admission of guilt.

Again, you're using feelings, not the law.

So laws are based on feewings huh?
Look...everyone knows dems only support illegal immigration for votes.
They came right out and admitted it.

No, laws aren't based on feelings. That's my point, fuckball.

You feel that sanctuary city leaders have committed a crime. They haven't.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This just in. The DHS has discovered that they do not know what the precise definition of a "Sanctuary City", is, and is seeking guidance for such legal definition from Trump, the man with the "best words".

So you're pissed that they want to get all their legal ducks in a row?
Sounds like you're cheering for illegal immigration.

 

[bodecea]

Aiding and abetting is against the law.

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

It' not the police who will be arrested. The mayors and other city officials who give the orders will be the ones who are arrested.

No, actually no one will be arrested.

We will see.

Honestly, I wish Trump would try some shit like that. It would go down like a lead baloon in the SCOTUS in minutes, but it would be great fun to watch.

The best part would be watching you fucktards die of cognitive dissonance while arguing that states are completely subservient to the all-powerful centralized state.

I cannot help but wonder what the current GOP administration's pick of Gorsuch would rule in such a case.

 

[bodecea]

That's sorta why I ended the OP heading with a question mark. I don't know but to me it seems like they are breaking fed laws by helping illegals.

Well, that's the thing. Sanctuary city policies don't "help" illegal immigrants - they just don't help the feds.

There's no law that says states or cities have to actively help the federal government against their own interests.

Not turning them over to ICE isn't helping them? Sure it is.

No, it's not. It is simply failing to help INS.

In this country (with a few very specific exceptions), "crimes" require what's know as an "actus reas" - a criminal act. Failure to act is not a crime.

Letting someone go after their local due process, rather than holding them for INS is not an "act", but an absence of one.

So you'd rather endanger the general public with raids in the streets rather than doing it in a safe manner and in a controlled environment?
kate got killed in the streets by a single illegal without the stress of being picked off the vine like a rotten tomato.

It IS touching how much you mourn for Kate who was killed by a richochet in San Francisco.......was there the same level of concern over those shot at church in Texas? In Charleston? At the movies in Colorado? In school in Connecticut and Colorado?

Maybe native born killers are just more efficient......

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Not gonna happen.

But keep your hopes up, it's fun to watch.

That's sorta why I ended the OP heading with a question mark. I don't know but to me it seems like they are breaking fed laws by helping illegals.

Well, that's the thing. Sanctuary city policies don't "help" illegal immigrants - they just don't help the feds.

There's no law that says states or cities have to actively help the federal government against their own interests.

Not turning them over to ICE isn't helping them? Sure it is.

No, it's not. It is simply failing to help INS.

In this country (with a few very specific exceptions), "crimes" require what's know as an "actus reas" - a criminal act. Failure to act is not a crime.

Letting someone go after their local due process, rather than holding them for INS is not an "act", but an absence of one.

Nope....by announcing that your state or city is officially a sanctuary for illegals you are encouraging a criminal act yourself.

Well, no. But even if that were true, it's not a crime to "encourage" criminal acts.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Aiding and abetting is against the law.

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

Uuuuugh.....Dem lead cities have come right out and said they'd protect the illegals.
Pretty much an admission of guilt.

Again, you're using feelings, not the law.

So laws are based on feewings huh?
Look...everyone knows dems only support illegal immigration for votes.
They came right out and admitted it.

No, laws aren't based on feelings. That's my point, fuckball.

You feel that sanctuary city leaders have committed a crime. They haven't.

They have come out and said publicly that they will not cooperate with federal authorities.
Okay fine....bring in hundreds of ICE officers and run roughshod over LA.
Any deaths are on your hands.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If liberals would support their country as fiercely as they try to aid illegals it would be a different place.

if cons had six brains, they'd be up to half a dozen.

If liberals had six times as many brains, they'd still have none.

BTW, you screwed the pooch on that one!

 

[del]

What are you babbling about?
I'm against all crime and for swift justice for the perpetrator be they white,black,brown,Republican or democrat.
See thats the difference between progressives and Conservatives. We dont look the other way for anyone.

you voted for trump, right?

peddle your bullshit elsewhere, s0n

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That's sorta why I ended the OP heading with a question mark. I don't know but to me it seems like they are breaking fed laws by helping illegals.

Well, that's the thing. Sanctuary city policies don't "help" illegal immigrants - they just don't help the feds.

There's no law that says states or cities have to actively help the federal government against their own interests.

Not turning them over to ICE isn't helping them? Sure it is.

No, it's not. It is simply failing to help INS.

In this country (with a few very specific exceptions), "crimes" require what's know as an "actus reas" - a criminal act. Failure to act is not a crime.

Letting someone go after their local due process, rather than holding them for INS is not an "act", but an absence of one.

Nope....by announcing that your state or city is officially a sanctuary for illegals you are encouraging a criminal act yourself.

Well, no. But even if that were true, it's not a crime to "encourage" criminal acts.

Seriously? You believe that? What a dumb ass!

 

[del]

If liberals would support their country as fiercely as they try to aid illegals it would be a different place.

if cons had six brains, they'd be up to half a dozen.

If liberals had six times as many brains, they'd still have none.

BTW, you screwed the pooch on that one!

whatever gets you through the night, zippy

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

It' not the police who will be arrested. The mayors and other city officials who give the orders will be the ones who are arrested.

No, actually no one will be arrested.

We will see.

Honestly, I wish Trump would try some shit like that. It would go down like a lead baloon in the SCOTUS in minutes, but it would be great fun to watch.

The best part would be watching you fucktards die of cognitive dissonance while arguing that states are completely subservient to the all-powerful centralized state.

I cannot help but wonder what the current GOP administration's pick of Gorsuch would rule in such a case.

He, like most Conservative judges, is a strong defender of federalism and state's rights.

So the answer to that question is probably not what many of the posters in this thread would want.

 

[del]

Well, that's the thing. Sanctuary city policies don't "help" illegal immigrants - they just don't help the feds.

There's no law that says states or cities have to actively help the federal government against their own interests.

Not turning them over to ICE isn't helping them? Sure it is.

No, it's not. It is simply failing to help INS.

In this country (with a few very specific exceptions), "crimes" require what's know as an "actus reas" - a criminal act. Failure to act is not a crime.

Letting someone go after their local due process, rather than holding them for INS is not an "act", but an absence of one.

Nope....by announcing that your state or city is officially a sanctuary for illegals you are encouraging a criminal act yourself.

Well, no. But even if that were true, it's not a crime to "encourage" criminal acts.

Seriously? You believe that? What a dumb ass!

trump u grad, are you?

 

[mudwhistle]

Aiding and abetting is against the law.

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

It' not the police who will be arrested. The mayors and other city officials who give the orders will be the ones who are arrested.

No, actually no one will be arrested.

We will see.

Honestly, I wish Trump would try some shit like that. It would go down like a lead baloon in the SCOTUS in minutes, but it would be great fun to watch.

The best part would be watching you fucktards die of cognitive dissonance while arguing that states are completely subservient to the all-powerful centralized state.

I think the criminality of what you fuckers are doing pretty much changes the rules.
I wouldn't be surprised if war wasn't declared and a suspension of Habius Corpus was the result.
This is Sedition of the first order.
That is what you cocksuckers are doing.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well, that's the thing. Sanctuary city policies don't "help" illegal immigrants - they just don't help the feds.

There's no law that says states or cities have to actively help the federal government against their own interests.

Not turning them over to ICE isn't helping them? Sure it is.

No, it's not. It is simply failing to help INS.

In this country (with a few very specific exceptions), "crimes" require what's know as an "actus reas" - a criminal act. Failure to act is not a crime.

Letting someone go after their local due process, rather than holding them for INS is not an "act", but an absence of one.

Nope....by announcing that your state or city is officially a sanctuary for illegals you are encouraging a criminal act yourself.

Well, no. But even if that were true, it's not a crime to "encourage" criminal acts.

Seriously? You believe that? What a dumb ass!

If it was, half the conservatives on this site would be in prison.

 

[del]

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

It' not the police who will be arrested. The mayors and other city officials who give the orders will be the ones who are arrested.

No, actually no one will be arrested.

We will see.

Honestly, I wish Trump would try some shit like that. It would go down like a lead baloon in the SCOTUS in minutes, but it would be great fun to watch.

The best part would be watching you fucktards die of cognitive dissonance while arguing that states are completely subservient to the all-powerful centralized state.

I think the criminality of what you fuckers are doing pretty much changes the rules.
I wouldn't be surprised if war wasn't declared and a suspension of Habius Corpus was the result.
This is Sedition of the first order.

oh, look

a con who thinks the rules should be different when it's something they want

didn't see that coming.....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Aiding and abetting" is against the law.

But just like every other crime, it has a strict set of elements required to prove it. It doesnt work by feelings.

Sanctuary city policies do not meet those elements.

It' not the police who will be arrested. The mayors and other city officials who give the orders will be the ones who are arrested.

No, actually no one will be arrested.

We will see.

Honestly, I wish Trump would try some shit like that. It would go down like a lead baloon in the SCOTUS in minutes, but it would be great fun to watch.

The best part would be watching you fucktards die of cognitive dissonance while arguing that states are completely subservient to the all-powerful centralized state.

I think the criminality of what you fuckers are doing pretty much changes the rules.
I wouldn't be surprised if war wasn't declared and a suspension of Habius Corpus was the result.
This is Sedition of the first order.
That is what you cocksuckers are doing.

Sorry buddy. Your authoritarian fantasies aren't going to play out the way they do in your head.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What are you babbling about?
I'm against all crime and for swift justice for the perpetrator be they white,black,brown,Republican or democrat.
See thats the difference between progressives and Conservatives. We dont look the other way for anyone.

you voted for trump, right?

peddle your bullshit elsewhere, s0n

How about a little more than innuendo?