Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
EXACTLY!So I picked a random "sanctuary city" from the list of 340.
Vineland, Colorado. Population: 251.
Vineland, Colorado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
YAWN
and?
so?
A city is not under legal obligation to enforce federal law. They usually cooperate with federal authorities, but they don't have to. If they were required to enforce federal law, they would have been held to that legal standard in a court of law. If the feds want to pass a law penalizing the cities for failure to cooperate with the feds, then they are trampling on cities legal jurisdiction. This would be a bad precedent, but it will not happen anyway, since Obama has already said that he would veto it.
so a city can violate any federal law??
like environmental laws?
civil right's laws?
worker laws??
really??? interesting
Again, there is no law requiring a city to enforce a federal law. If you think there is, feel free to cite it, chapter and verse.
and AGAIN; are you ok with cities not enforcing any of the other laws too???
I am perfectly content with cities enforcing city law, and feds enforcing federal law. I really don't think that it is a good idea for the FBI to arrest me for exceeding the speed limit in my town.
laughable deflection
I don't think you can find a post where the person who started this thread has ever advocated ignoring or breaking any lawNo, that is not what I am saying.Think about that sentence for a while. Ruminate on it. Ponder how it fits, or doesn't fit, into Republican principles of small, decentralized government.McConnell's senate will be drafting legislation to pull grant money away from these cites and give more to those that cooperate
Federal power being used to coerce local governments.
Whatever happened to the principle that local governments know what their people want better than the federal government does?
as long as you agree that local govts can ignore any federal law im all in. for instance, if localities in many states want to eliminate estate taxes and and exempt business from federal income taxes you would agree?
I have time and again pointed out to the rubes that their benchmarks will come back and snap them in their faces one day.
Today is that day.
They cheered when their right wing heroes disobeyed or refused to enforce federal laws. So their whining about other people ignoring federal laws rings hollow and hypocritical.
How do feel, then, about states not expanding Medicaid unless they get the federal moneies promised for doing so?Here's the list: Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States
From the anti-Mexican Center for Immigration Studies.
i clicked on my city, and see that they have passed a law saying that they will not hand over anyone to ICE unless ICE reimburses them for the detention.
Seems fair to me. I already pay federal taxes.
They do get the money. That's why Governor Kasich expanded Medicaid in Ohio. His state has been taxed for the expansion and so he wanted that money back.How do feel, then, about states not expanding Medicaid unless they get the federal moneies promised for doing so?Here's the list: Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States
From the anti-Mexican Center for Immigration Studies.
i clicked on my city, and see that they have passed a law saying that they will not hand over anyone to ICE unless ICE reimburses them for the detention.
Seems fair to me. I already pay federal taxes.
Local law enforce has a legal problem with detaining people based on the detainer list. It is not a federal warrant and is not a constitutionally valid basis for detaining a person. Typically, most of the so called sanctuary cities". do notify ICE that they are holding a person on the detain list. However, local law enforcement can't hold a person longer than 72 hours without legal cause. If ICE wants a person transferred to their custody, they need a warrant.Like as has already been said cities generally don't go out and look for illegals and that's not really the issue. The issue is those illegals with criminal records who are on the ICE detainer list the cities do have a legal obligation to hold if those illegals have been arrested for anything else for ICE to pick up. Some cities will not hold those illegals unless ICE sends them a specific "request". The problem with that (and the cities know it) is at least half the time the illegals are released before the ICE paperwork can be processed.There's a great deal of ignorance and misinformation, found mostly on the right, as to what constitutes a so-called 'sanctuary city.'
The Federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws, including immigration laws. (See e.g. Printz v. US)
“Cities and States aren’t obligated to use their own resources to help enforce Federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are just places that have standardized that decision to put those resources elsewhere.”
Sanctuary Cities and Immigration | LegalMatch Law Library
If a jurisdiction were to be asked by Federal authorities to detain someone suspected of having entered the country without authorization, such a jurisdiction would comply in accordance with Federal law.
But there is nothing compelling cities or other local jurisdictions to unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented, using their own limited resources, absent being requested to do so by Federal authorities, nor would a city making the decision to not unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented be in 'violation' of Federal immigration law.
The ridiculous notion that so-called 'sanctuary cities' are somehow 'aiding and abetting' those undocumented from being detained by Federal authorizes is an absolute lie.
That's why something like Kate's Law is needed which requires by federal law that all illegals who have a felony and has returned to the US (and has been arrested on anything else in whichever city they're in) will automatically be handed over to the feds and will serve an automatic 5 year sentence before being deported.
Most likely the law will not pass as some idiot wingnuts in congress have attached an anti-sanctuary city bill to it which no Democrat will vote for. Both sides are more concerned with politics, as usual.
It's two different things altogether, we'll have to agree to disagree.Like as has already been said cities generally don't go out and look for illegals and that's not really the issue. The issue is those illegals with criminal records who are on the ICE detainer list the cities do have a legal obligation to hold if those illegals have been arrested for anything else for ICE to pick up. Some cities will not hold those illegals unless ICE sends them a specific "request". The problem with that (and the cities know it) is at least half the time the illegals are released before the ICE paperwork can be processed.There's a great deal of ignorance and misinformation, found mostly on the right, as to what constitutes a so-called 'sanctuary city.'
The Federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws, including immigration laws. (See e.g. Printz v. US)
“Cities and States aren’t obligated to use their own resources to help enforce Federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are just places that have standardized that decision to put those resources elsewhere.”
Sanctuary Cities and Immigration | LegalMatch Law Library
If a jurisdiction were to be asked by Federal authorities to detain someone suspected of having entered the country without authorization, such a jurisdiction would comply in accordance with Federal law.
But there is nothing compelling cities or other local jurisdictions to unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented, using their own limited resources, absent being requested to do so by Federal authorities, nor would a city making the decision to not unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented be in 'violation' of Federal immigration law.
The ridiculous notion that so-called 'sanctuary cities' are somehow 'aiding and abetting' those undocumented from being detained by Federal authorizes is an absolute lie.
That's why something like Kate's Law is needed which requires by federal law that all illegals who have a felony and has returned to the US (and has been arrested on anything else in whichever city they're in) will automatically be handed over to the feds and will serve an automatic 5 year sentence before being deported.
Most likely the law will not pass as some idiot wingnuts in congress have attached an anti-sanctuary city bill to it which no Democrat will vote for. Both sides are more concerned with politics, as usual.
Cities are under no such legal obligation.
Another example of the same thing is that the State of Colorado has legalized pot, although it is still illegal under federal law. The state does not have to turn over to the feds anyone they have in their custody who also grows pot.
The detainer list is a defacto federal bench warrant. And yes most cities do comply but some openly defy the feds, San Francisco and L.A. are two of those, I hope Kate's family's law suit bankrupts them.Local law enforce has a legal problem with detaining people based on the detainer list. It is not a federal warrant and is not a constitutionally valid basis for detaining a person. Typically, most of the so called sanctuary cities". do notify ICE that they are holding a person on the detain list. However, local law enforcement can't hold a person longer than 72 hours without legal cause. If ICE wants a person transferred to their custody, they need a warrant.Like as has already been said cities generally don't go out and look for illegals and that's not really the issue. The issue is those illegals with criminal records who are on the ICE detainer list the cities do have a legal obligation to hold if those illegals have been arrested for anything else for ICE to pick up. Some cities will not hold those illegals unless ICE sends them a specific "request". The problem with that (and the cities know it) is at least half the time the illegals are released before the ICE paperwork can be processed.There's a great deal of ignorance and misinformation, found mostly on the right, as to what constitutes a so-called 'sanctuary city.'
The Federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws, including immigration laws. (See e.g. Printz v. US)
“Cities and States aren’t obligated to use their own resources to help enforce Federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are just places that have standardized that decision to put those resources elsewhere.”
Sanctuary Cities and Immigration | LegalMatch Law Library
If a jurisdiction were to be asked by Federal authorities to detain someone suspected of having entered the country without authorization, such a jurisdiction would comply in accordance with Federal law.
But there is nothing compelling cities or other local jurisdictions to unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented, using their own limited resources, absent being requested to do so by Federal authorities, nor would a city making the decision to not unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented be in 'violation' of Federal immigration law.
The ridiculous notion that so-called 'sanctuary cities' are somehow 'aiding and abetting' those undocumented from being detained by Federal authorizes is an absolute lie.
That's why something like Kate's Law is needed which requires by federal law that all illegals who have a felony and has returned to the US (and has been arrested on anything else in whichever city they're in) will automatically be handed over to the feds and will serve an automatic 5 year sentence before being deported.
Most likely the law will not pass as some idiot wingnuts in congress have attached an anti-sanctuary city bill to it which no Democrat will vote for. Both sides are more concerned with politics, as usual.
Illegal aliens do not have constitutional rights as we do. The only right they should have is the right to get the fuck outLocal law enforce has a legal problem with detaining people based on the detainer list. It is not a federal warrant and is not a constitutionally valid basis for detaining a person. Typically, most of the so called sanctuary cities". do notify ICE that they are holding a person on the detain list. However, local law enforcement can't hold a person longer than 72 hours without legal cause. If ICE wants a person transferred to their custody, they need a warrant.Like as has already been said cities generally don't go out and look for illegals and that's not really the issue. The issue is those illegals with criminal records who are on the ICE detainer list the cities do have a legal obligation to hold if those illegals have been arrested for anything else for ICE to pick up. Some cities will not hold those illegals unless ICE sends them a specific "request". The problem with that (and the cities know it) is at least half the time the illegals are released before the ICE paperwork can be processed.There's a great deal of ignorance and misinformation, found mostly on the right, as to what constitutes a so-called 'sanctuary city.'
The Federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws, including immigration laws. (See e.g. Printz v. US)
“Cities and States aren’t obligated to use their own resources to help enforce Federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are just places that have standardized that decision to put those resources elsewhere.”
Sanctuary Cities and Immigration | LegalMatch Law Library
If a jurisdiction were to be asked by Federal authorities to detain someone suspected of having entered the country without authorization, such a jurisdiction would comply in accordance with Federal law.
But there is nothing compelling cities or other local jurisdictions to unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented, using their own limited resources, absent being requested to do so by Federal authorities, nor would a city making the decision to not unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented be in 'violation' of Federal immigration law.
The ridiculous notion that so-called 'sanctuary cities' are somehow 'aiding and abetting' those undocumented from being detained by Federal authorizes is an absolute lie.
That's why something like Kate's Law is needed which requires by federal law that all illegals who have a felony and has returned to the US (and has been arrested on anything else in whichever city they're in) will automatically be handed over to the feds and will serve an automatic 5 year sentence before being deported.
Most likely the law will not pass as some idiot wingnuts in congress have attached an anti-sanctuary city bill to it which no Democrat will vote for. Both sides are more concerned with politics, as usual.
In general, first-generation immigrants, whether in the country illegally or not, commit fewer violent and property crimes than either second-generation or native-born citizens. And there's scant evidence that San Francisco is more dangerous than non-sanctuary cities of a similar size. In fact, its murder rate is about one-third that of non-sanctuary Indianapolis.Number of sanctuary cities grows to 340; thousands of illegals released to commit new crimes
And, as a result????
v
v
v
v
All told, 9,295 immigrants whom ICE wanted to pick up from January through September last year were released instead.
Of those, 5,947 had significant criminal records
McConnell's senate will be drafting legislation to pull grant money away from these cites and give more to those that cooperate
Think about that sentence for a while. Ruminate on it. Ponder how it fits, or doesn't fit, into Republican principles of small, decentralized government.
Federal power being used to coerce local governments.
Whatever happened to the principle that local governments know what their people want better than the federal government does?
Remember that the next time a law enforcement official says he is not going to enforce gun laws.Think about that sentence for a while. Ruminate on it. Ponder how it fits, or doesn't fit, into Republican principles of small, decentralized government.
Federal power being used to coerce local governments.
Whatever happened to the principle that local governments know what their people want better than the federal government does?
Doesn't explain why some states are deliberately breaking federal laws. Of course, they get away with it because the federal government isn't following the laws on the books and encourage states to do the same.
While states should make their own decisions, they must be compliant with federal laws.
How do feel, then, about states not expanding Medicaid unless they get the federal moneies promised for doing so?Here's the list: Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States
From the anti-Mexican Center for Immigration Studies.
i clicked on my city, and see that they have passed a law saying that they will not hand over anyone to ICE unless ICE reimburses them for the detention.
Seems fair to me. I already pay federal taxes.
No, it's not. The detainee list issued by ICE has exactly the same information contained in online detainee database, first name, last name, country of origin, birth date A-number and status (either not in custody or the name of the immigration facility where the person is held). It is not a warrant because it does not list the violation and is not signed by federal judge.The detainer list is a defacto federal bench warrant. And yes most cities do comply but some openly defy the feds, San Francisco and L.A. are two of those, I hope Kate's family's law suit bankrupts them.Local law enforce has a legal problem with detaining people based on the detainer list. It is not a federal warrant and is not a constitutionally valid basis for detaining a person. Typically, most of the so called sanctuary cities". do notify ICE that they are holding a person on the detain list. However, local law enforcement can't hold a person longer than 72 hours without legal cause. If ICE wants a person transferred to their custody, they need a warrant.Like as has already been said cities generally don't go out and look for illegals and that's not really the issue. The issue is those illegals with criminal records who are on the ICE detainer list the cities do have a legal obligation to hold if those illegals have been arrested for anything else for ICE to pick up. Some cities will not hold those illegals unless ICE sends them a specific "request". The problem with that (and the cities know it) is at least half the time the illegals are released before the ICE paperwork can be processed.There's a great deal of ignorance and misinformation, found mostly on the right, as to what constitutes a so-called 'sanctuary city.'
The Federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws, including immigration laws. (See e.g. Printz v. US)
“Cities and States aren’t obligated to use their own resources to help enforce Federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are just places that have standardized that decision to put those resources elsewhere.”
Sanctuary Cities and Immigration | LegalMatch Law Library
If a jurisdiction were to be asked by Federal authorities to detain someone suspected of having entered the country without authorization, such a jurisdiction would comply in accordance with Federal law.
But there is nothing compelling cities or other local jurisdictions to unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented, using their own limited resources, absent being requested to do so by Federal authorities, nor would a city making the decision to not unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented be in 'violation' of Federal immigration law.
The ridiculous notion that so-called 'sanctuary cities' are somehow 'aiding and abetting' those undocumented from being detained by Federal authorizes is an absolute lie.
That's why something like Kate's Law is needed which requires by federal law that all illegals who have a felony and has returned to the US (and has been arrested on anything else in whichever city they're in) will automatically be handed over to the feds and will serve an automatic 5 year sentence before being deported.
Most likely the law will not pass as some idiot wingnuts in congress have attached an anti-sanctuary city bill to it which no Democrat will vote for. Both sides are more concerned with politics, as usual.
The courts say otherwise. It we did not extend any constitutional rights to those detained by ICE, then other countries would follow suit by denying rights to American held in their country.Illegal aliens do not have constitutional rights as we do. The only right they should have is the right to get the fuck outLocal law enforce has a legal problem with detaining people based on the detainer list. It is not a federal warrant and is not a constitutionally valid basis for detaining a person. Typically, most of the so called sanctuary cities". do notify ICE that they are holding a person on the detain list. However, local law enforcement can't hold a person longer than 72 hours without legal cause. If ICE wants a person transferred to their custody, they need a warrant.Like as has already been said cities generally don't go out and look for illegals and that's not really the issue. The issue is those illegals with criminal records who are on the ICE detainer list the cities do have a legal obligation to hold if those illegals have been arrested for anything else for ICE to pick up. Some cities will not hold those illegals unless ICE sends them a specific "request". The problem with that (and the cities know it) is at least half the time the illegals are released before the ICE paperwork can be processed.There's a great deal of ignorance and misinformation, found mostly on the right, as to what constitutes a so-called 'sanctuary city.'
The Federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws, including immigration laws. (See e.g. Printz v. US)
“Cities and States aren’t obligated to use their own resources to help enforce Federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are just places that have standardized that decision to put those resources elsewhere.”
Sanctuary Cities and Immigration | LegalMatch Law Library
If a jurisdiction were to be asked by Federal authorities to detain someone suspected of having entered the country without authorization, such a jurisdiction would comply in accordance with Federal law.
But there is nothing compelling cities or other local jurisdictions to unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented, using their own limited resources, absent being requested to do so by Federal authorities, nor would a city making the decision to not unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented be in 'violation' of Federal immigration law.
The ridiculous notion that so-called 'sanctuary cities' are somehow 'aiding and abetting' those undocumented from being detained by Federal authorizes is an absolute lie.
That's why something like Kate's Law is needed which requires by federal law that all illegals who have a felony and has returned to the US (and has been arrested on anything else in whichever city they're in) will automatically be handed over to the feds and will serve an automatic 5 year sentence before being deported.
Most likely the law will not pass as some idiot wingnuts in congress have attached an anti-sanctuary city bill to it which no Democrat will vote for. Both sides are more concerned with politics, as usual.
You mean like Iran & Mexico already do?The courts say otherwise. It we did not extend any constitutional rights to those detained by ICE, then other countries would follow suit by denying rights to American held in their country.Illegal aliens do not have constitutional rights as we do. The only right they should have is the right to get the fuck outLocal law enforce has a legal problem with detaining people based on the detainer list. It is not a federal warrant and is not a constitutionally valid basis for detaining a person. Typically, most of the so called sanctuary cities". do notify ICE that they are holding a person on the detain list. However, local law enforcement can't hold a person longer than 72 hours without legal cause. If ICE wants a person transferred to their custody, they need a warrant.Like as has already been said cities generally don't go out and look for illegals and that's not really the issue. The issue is those illegals with criminal records who are on the ICE detainer list the cities do have a legal obligation to hold if those illegals have been arrested for anything else for ICE to pick up. Some cities will not hold those illegals unless ICE sends them a specific "request". The problem with that (and the cities know it) is at least half the time the illegals are released before the ICE paperwork can be processed.There's a great deal of ignorance and misinformation, found mostly on the right, as to what constitutes a so-called 'sanctuary city.'
The Federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws, including immigration laws. (See e.g. Printz v. US)
“Cities and States aren’t obligated to use their own resources to help enforce Federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are just places that have standardized that decision to put those resources elsewhere.”
Sanctuary Cities and Immigration | LegalMatch Law Library
If a jurisdiction were to be asked by Federal authorities to detain someone suspected of having entered the country without authorization, such a jurisdiction would comply in accordance with Federal law.
But there is nothing compelling cities or other local jurisdictions to unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented, using their own limited resources, absent being requested to do so by Federal authorities, nor would a city making the decision to not unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented be in 'violation' of Federal immigration law.
The ridiculous notion that so-called 'sanctuary cities' are somehow 'aiding and abetting' those undocumented from being detained by Federal authorizes is an absolute lie.
That's why something like Kate's Law is needed which requires by federal law that all illegals who have a felony and has returned to the US (and has been arrested on anything else in whichever city they're in) will automatically be handed over to the feds and will serve an automatic 5 year sentence before being deported.
Most likely the law will not pass as some idiot wingnuts in congress have attached an anti-sanctuary city bill to it which no Democrat will vote for. Both sides are more concerned with politics, as usual.
Federal gun laws are unconstitutional...It's federal government trying to coerce local governments.Think about that sentence for a while. Ruminate on it. Ponder how it fits, or doesn't fit, into Republican principles of small, decentralized government.McConnell's senate will be drafting legislation to pull grant money away from these cites and give more to those that cooperate
Federal power being used to coerce local governments. Whatever happened to the principle that local governments know what their people want better than the federal government does?
It's federal government enforcing federal law
Right wingers cheer when Sheriffs say they won't enforce federal gun laws.
Hmmmm...
Wrong.Federal gun laws are unconstitutional...It's federal government trying to coerce local governments.Think about that sentence for a while. Ruminate on it. Ponder how it fits, or doesn't fit, into Republican principles of small, decentralized government.McConnell's senate will be drafting legislation to pull grant money away from these cites and give more to those that cooperate
Federal power being used to coerce local governments. Whatever happened to the principle that local governments know what their people want better than the federal government does?
It's federal government enforcing federal law
Right wingers cheer when Sheriffs say they won't enforce federal gun laws.
Hmmmm...
