DHS preparing to arrest sanctuary city leaders?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

INS? What a dumb ass!

 

[miketx]

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.

For what? Objecting to you supporting and encouraging criminals?

 

[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

How about a little more than innuendo?

you shouldn't use words you can't define, skippy

try again

 

[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.

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.

You seem upset. Maybe you should take a midol.

 

[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?

you shouldn't use words you can't define, skippy

try again

You alluded to something yet backed it up with nothing....the very essence of innuendo.

the definition of innuendo

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

You seem upset. Maybe you should take a midol.

Hide in your safe space and watch......

 

[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.

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?

How many of those other shootings would have been prevented had the gunman been an illegal alien and deported?

Have you called your elevator repairman, because it isn't getting to the top floor?

 

[del]

it's funny how the govt is made up of jackbooted thugs trying to take away their guns and freedumb when it's clive bundy, yet they can't suck enough govt dick when it comes to immigration.

well, maybe funny isn't the word.

 

[WEATHER53]

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.

Your statement is grotesquely incorrect
Elected officials may not declare that their city is a safe haven for criminals.
DHS does Not have Any problem identifying regions who have declared and advertised their willingness to harbor law breakers

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

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.

In which state court do you currently serve as a judge?

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Yes it is. It is technically incitement.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees free speech, and the degree to which incitement is protected speech is determined by the imminent lawless action test introduced by the 1969 Supreme Court decision in the case Brandenburg v. Ohio. The court ruled that incitement of events in the indefinite future was protected, but encouragement of "imminent" illegal acts was not protected. This "view reflects longstanding law and is shared by the Federalist Society, the ACLU, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and the vast majority of Americans, including most staunch free-speech advocates."[16]

Incitement - Wikipedia​

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

For what? Objecting to you supporting and encouraging criminals?

No, more like for encouraging murder.

Illegal aliens have you legal footing here and should be rounded up and executed.

Good, he shoulda killed him. One less lying fucking democrat.

 

[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!

whatever gets you through the night, zippy

I am sorry that went over your head. Would you like me to explain it to you?

 

[miketx]

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.

For what? Objecting to you supporting and encouraging criminals?

No, more like for encouraging murder.

Illegal aliens have you legal footing here and should be rounded up and executed.

Good, he shoulda killed him. One less lying fucking democrat.

You willfully call self defense murder. lol, Cause that's what I was talking about.

 

[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.

Yes it is. It is technically incitement.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees free speech, and the degree to which incitement is protected speech is determined by the imminent lawless action test introduced by the 1969 Supreme Court decision in the case Brandenburg v. Ohio. The court ruled that incitement of events in the indefinite future was protected, but encouragement of "imminent" illegal acts was not protected. This "view reflects longstanding law and is shared by the Federalist Society, the ACLU, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and the vast majority of Americans, including most staunch free-speech advocates."[16]

Incitement - Wikipedia​

There are two elements for the Brandenburg test. Intent on the part of the speaker, and likelihood that the criminal act will imminently occur.

Sanctuary city policies meet neither of them.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

it's funny how the govt is made up of jackbooted thugs trying to take away their guns and freedumb when it's clive bundy, yet they can't suck enough govt dick when it comes to immigration.

well, maybe funny isn't the word.

You do know that all charges were dropped in the Bundy case right?
On the other hand illegal immigration by definition is a crime.
Looks like you'll have to get your voters the American way....by your ideas.
Good luck with that....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

For what? Objecting to you supporting and encouraging criminals?

No, more like for encouraging murder.

Illegal aliens have you legal footing here and should be rounded up and executed.

Good, he shoulda killed him. One less lying fucking democrat.

You willfully call self defense murder. lol, Cause that's what I was talking about.

Of course it was. That's why it's so clear, right?

In your imaginary justice system, those posts were crimes.

 

[miketx]

The new lib mantra - Twist, deflect spin troll, lather rinse repeat.

 

[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.

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.

Your statement is grotesquely incorrect
Elected officials may not declare that their city is a safe haven for criminals.
DHS does Not have Any problem identifying regions who have declared and advertised their willingness to harbor law breakers

Well, they did. So it looks like they can.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Yes it is. It is technically incitement.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees free speech, and the degree to which incitement is protected speech is determined by the imminent lawless action test introduced by the 1969 Supreme Court decision in the case Brandenburg v. Ohio. The court ruled that incitement of events in the indefinite future was protected, but encouragement of "imminent" illegal acts was not protected. This "view reflects longstanding law and is shared by the Federalist Society, the ACLU, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, and the vast majority of Americans, including most staunch free-speech advocates."[16]

Incitement - Wikipedia​

There are two elements for the Brandenburg test. Intent on the part of the speaker, and likelihood that the criminal act will imminently occur.

Sanctuary city policies meet neither of them.

Seems to me they meet both, simply because I can read.