First Thing for New Attorney General: Jail Sanctuary Leaders

[HereWeGoAgain]

After 2 years of inaction on sanctuary city lunacy, finally the time has come to lower the boom on sanctuary city criminals. Oh, the Democrats want to talk about putting people in jail, do they ? How about putting in federal prison, every Democrat Senator who voted to protect sanctuary cities, 3 years ago, when they voted against the "Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act" ?

See How Your Senators Voted on Sanctuary Cities

And how about also imprisoning every political leader who has engaged in creating sanctuary city/county/state laws establishing sanctuary cities ? Every one of these US traitors has violated US Code 8, Section 1324, by concealing, harboring, or shielding from detection, illegal aliens.

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

And who were those scoundrels in the Senate who violated this law ? It is all those (almost every Democrat) who voted NAY (no) against this bill (aka Kate's Law). And here they are >>

One Democrat (Manchin-WV) voted for the bill. He's off the hook. One Republican (Kirk-IL) voted against it. He's on the hook.

Wanna play hard ball, guys ? You got it.

Banana republic time.

otto appears to be on stupid pills....

 

[otto105]

After 2 years of inaction on sanctuary city lunacy, finally the time has come to lower the boom on sanctuary city criminals. Oh, the Democrats want to talk about putting people in jail, do they ? How about putting in federal prison, every Democrat Senator who voted to protect sanctuary cities, 3 years ago, when they voted against the "Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act" ?

See How Your Senators Voted on Sanctuary Cities

And how about also imprisoning every political leader who has engaged in creating sanctuary city/county/state laws establishing sanctuary cities ? Every one of these US traitors has violated US Code 8, Section 1324, by concealing, harboring, or shielding from detection, illegal aliens.

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

And who were those scoundrels in the Senate who violated this law ? It is all those (almost every Democrat) who voted NAY (no) against this bill (aka Kate's Law). And here they are >>

One Democrat (Manchin-WV) voted for the bill. He's off the hook. One Republican (Kirk-IL) voted against it. He's on the hook.

Wanna play hard ball, guys ? You got it.

Banana republic time.

otto appears to be on stupid pills....

Badges? We don't need no stinking badges.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

After 2 years of inaction on sanctuary city lunacy, finally the time has come to lower the boom on sanctuary city criminals. Oh, the Democrats want to talk about putting people in jail, do they ? How about putting in federal prison, every Democrat Senator who voted to protect sanctuary cities, 3 years ago, when they voted against the "Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act" ?

See How Your Senators Voted on Sanctuary Cities

And how about also imprisoning every political leader who has engaged in creating sanctuary city/county/state laws establishing sanctuary cities ? Every one of these US traitors has violated US Code 8, Section 1324, by concealing, harboring, or shielding from detection, illegal aliens.

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

And who were those scoundrels in the Senate who violated this law ? It is all those (almost every Democrat) who voted NAY (no) against this bill (aka Kate's Law). And here they are >>

One Democrat (Manchin-WV) voted for the bill. He's off the hook. One Republican (Kirk-IL) voted against it. He's on the hook.

Wanna play hard ball, guys ? You got it.

Banana republic time.

otto appears to be on stupid pills....

Badges? We don't need no stinking badges.

Stupid pills are your badges?
Why am I not surprised......

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Okay, so what are the odds of this actually happening?

Do you support it or no?

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, so what are the odds of this actually happening?

Do you support it or no?

If there is enough evidence for an indictment, if there is a trial, and if they are found guilty, I'd support the decision, sure.

In a vacuum, however, I think this is just more dreamy talk radio silliness.
.

 

[protectionist]

So now you want to jail people for voting. The fact is that sanctuary cities and states are not breaking any laws. There is no requirement that local and state law enforcement cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies. Maybe everyone who voted for Trump should be arrested and jailed. That makes as much sense as you do.

FALSE! Of course they are breaking the law (US Code 8, Section 1324) by concealing, harboring, or shielding illegal aliens from detection.

And whether there is a requirement that local and state law enforcement cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies, isn't the point. It's not what the SC leaders are NOT DOING. That deflection does not address the point of the OP.

It is what sanctuary city leaders ARE DOING that is the problem > that sanctuary city leaders are violating federal law by concealing, harboring, or shielding illegal aliens from detection.

 

[protectionist]

I amn 100% sure it will never happen. If it does, it means a police state.

It is not a police state for law enforcement authorities to enforce the law.

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

 

[protectionist]

Why does anybody think it wouldn't happen ?

You break THE LAW, you get arrested.

NO LAWS are being broken.

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

(A) Any person who—

iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—

(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A), (iii), in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;

(iii)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and

(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A) (iii) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.

 

[protectionist]

Absent due process, of course.

Such is the authoritarian right.

No reason to think that.

Such is the mind wandering left.

 

[protectionist]

It isn't a 'crime' to refuse to use local resources to enforce Federal laws; in fact, the Federal government cannot force states and local jurisdictions to enforce Federal laws.

This DEFLECTION was already addressed in Post # 26. Ho hum.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They are aiding and abetting.
Thats a crime.

Aiding and abetting foreign invaders meets the Constitutional definition of treason. Not just any crime—the only crime explicitly defined as such in the Constitution, generally regarded as the most serious crime a citizen can commit, and punishable by death.

 

[protectionist]

If there is enough evidence for an indictment, if there is a trial, and if they are found guilty, I'd support the decision, sure.

In a vacuum, however, I think this is just more dreamy talk radio silliness.
.

What vacuum ? There are hundreds of sanctuary cities, many sanctuary counties, and a few sanctuary states in the US. The are all in violation of federal law, and the perpetrators should be arrested.

Why should these lawbreakers run around free, when thousands of other lawbreakers are in prison serving time ?

As for the statement "If there is enough evidence for an indictment", well gee, wouldn't that be hard to find ?..when the violators have put laws on their books attesting to their criminal activity.

 

[protectionist]

Aiding and abetting foreign invaders meets the Constitutional definition of treason. Not just any crime—the only crime explicitly defined as such in the Constitution, generally regarded as the most serious crime a citizen can commit, and punishable by death.

Even without a treason charge, US Code 8, Section 1324, can impose a death penalty on violators if (as stated in subsection B iv), if their violation results in the death of any person(s).

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Okay, so what are the odds of this actually happening?

Hopefully, extremely good odds.

 

[Mac1958]

If there is enough evidence for an indictment, if there is a trial, and if they are found guilty, I'd support the decision, sure.

In a vacuum, however, I think this is just more dreamy talk radio silliness.
.

What vacuum ? There are hundreds of sanctuary cities, many sanctuary counties, and a few sanctuary states in the US. The are all in violation of federal law, and the perpetrators should be arrested.

Why should these lawbreakers run around free, when thousands of other lawbreakers are in prison serving time ?

As for the statement "If there is enough evidence for an indictment", well gee, wouldn't that be hard to find ?..when the violators have put laws on their books attesting to their criminal activity.

Great, then get to it.

It ain't gonna happen, sorry. You're just dreaming.

THAT vacuum.
.

 

[protectionist]

Great, then get to it.

It ain't gonna happen, sorry. You're just dreaming.

THAT vacuum.
.

Th new AG needs to do just that. Get to it. And pay no attention to those who mindlessly say things like "it aint gonna happen". When they DO IT, it will be happening. DO IT.

Hopefully, the new guy will be more action-oriented than Jeff Sessions (although Session did do some other good things)