DHS preparing to arrest sanctuary city leaders?

[theDoctorisIn]

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......

I don't need to "hide", emotional trainwreck. I'm not the one having a breakdown.

 

[miketx]

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.

The question is though, can the get away with it?

 

[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.

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.

No, that's because you're retarded.

Ask your DUI lawyer about it.

 

[del]

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.

you've got the simple part down.

 

[WEATHER53]

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.

Wrong again. Declarations from elected officials of intent to harbour criminals and assisting thereof is a crime itself

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

The question is though, can the get away with it?

The answer to that question is yes. Your fantasies of jackbooted federal thugs arresting lawmakers isn't going to happen.

But I encourage you to hold your breath.

 

[Picaro]

About time...cry regressives...cry for criminals.

DHS preparing to arrest leaders of sanctuary cities

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen confirmed Tuesday that her department has asked federal prosecutors to see if they can lodge criminal charges against sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues may be available,” Ms. Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Her confirmation came after California’s new sanctuary law went into effect Jan. 1, severely restricting cooperation the state or any of its localities could offer....


DHS asked prosecutors to charge sanctuary city leaders

Let's hope so; these organized crime labor racketeering gangs need to be prosecuted under the RICO laws.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong again. Declarations from elected officials of intent to harbour criminals and assisting thereof is a crime itself

No, it's not.

You don't get to just make up laws because of your feelings.

 

[miketx]

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.

The question is though, can the get away with it?

The answer to that question is yes. Your fantasies of jackbooted federal thugs arresting lawmakers isn't going to happen.

But I encourage you to hold your breath.

I think that remains to be seen. Also federal LE are not jackbooted thugs, they are people enforcing the law. Now if it turns out cities and states can get away with this, I think that will end up being worse the fed LE arresting the politicians because of the message it will send to law abiding Americans who are sick of the government doing as it pleases.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong again. Declarations from elected officials of intent to harbour criminals and assisting thereof is a crime itself

No, it's not.

You don't get to just make up laws because of your feelings.

But according to you it's ok for local governments to disregard laws because of their feelings.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

Wrong again. Declarations from elected officials of intent to harbour criminals and assisting thereof is a crime itself

No, it's not.

You don't get to just make up laws because of your feelings.

But according to you it's ok for local governments to disregard laws because of their feelings.

There is no law that states that local law enforcement must obey the orders of federal law enforcement.

If anyone tried to pass such a law, it would be thrown out on its face.

 

[miketx]

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.

Wrong again. Declarations from elected officials of intent to harbour criminals and assisting thereof is a crime itself

No, it's not.

You don't get to just make up laws because of your feelings.

But according to you it's ok for local governments to disregard laws because of their feelings.

There is no law that states that local law enforcement must obey the orders of federal law enforcement.

If anyone tried to pass such a law, it would be thrown out on its face.

Then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and see how it plays out.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

No, that's because you're retarded.

Ask your DUI lawyer about it.

I don't drink, and I am not retarded. I probably have more legal training than you do!

The intent is to allow criminal activity and the likelihood is a certainty.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Wrong again. Declarations from elected officials of intent to harbour criminals and assisting thereof is a crime itself

No, it's not.

You don't get to just make up laws because of your feelings.

But according to you it's ok for local governments to disregard laws because of their feelings.

There is no law that states that local law enforcement must obey the orders of federal law enforcement.

If anyone tried to pass such a law, it would be thrown out on its face.

How ironic....since you leftists have been making up laws from the bench for the last 8 years or so.
It's just a matter of doing the same back at you.

Meanwhile these fuckers will be out of office till they wait for their trials.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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......

I don't need to "hide", emotional trainwreck. I'm not the one having a breakdown.

LOL...emotional breakdown.
You're the dumb assess with their feet to the fire.
On a side note. I stand to benefit from illegals and the cheap labor they represent since I'm retired.
Yet I'd rather pay more for those services if they benefitted real Americans.
Why are you against the American worker? Is it votes or your desire for cheap labor at the cost of Americans?

 

[Aba Incieni]

They're progs. Maybe they can put them all in one big cell and call it the mud crotch room.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

No, that's because you're retarded.

Ask your DUI lawyer about it.

I don't drink, and I am not retarded. I probably have more legal training than you do!

The intent is to allow criminal activity and the likelihood is a certainty.

Ok. Well, with your extensive legal training - tell me exactly what crime sanctuary cities "intend to allow".

Title and section, if you can.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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......

I don't need to "hide", emotional trainwreck. I'm not the one having a breakdown.

LOL...emotional breakdown.
You're the dumb assess with their feet to the fire.
On a side note. I stand to benefit from illegals and the cheap labor they represent since I'm retired.
Yet I'd rather pay more for those services if they benefitted real Americans.
Why are you against the American worker? Is it votes or your desire for cheap labor at the cost of Americans?

I assure you, my feet are not near any fire.

Why is it that every post you make is assigning straw men to your "opponents"?

I know it's easy to pretend that you've won when you knock down a strawman you built yourself, but do you really think you're fooling anyone?

 

[jknowgood]

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.

I see your point, but they are harboring illegals, some which are very bad people, and most Americans don't want them here. So their interest isn't the interest of most Americans. In which in one way or the other, if will effect all of us, and not in a good way.

 

[Gracie]

About time...cry regressives...cry for criminals.

DHS preparing to arrest leaders of sanctuary cities

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen confirmed Tuesday that her department has asked federal prosecutors to see if they can lodge criminal charges against sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues may be available,” Ms. Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Her confirmation came after California’s new sanctuary law went into effect Jan. 1, severely restricting cooperation the state or any of its localities could offer....


DHS asked prosecutors to charge sanctuary city leaders

Good. They can start with ALL of california.