jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,254
- 29,154
too funny. just too funny. So why do states get federal money?Geez you people are terrible liars and stupid.
"Local Cops Cannot Arrest Someone For Committing A Federal Crime"
That is your quote.
Do us a favor. Delete your account here. You are too stupid for this place.
Yep. Jurisdiction: Where Can the Police Make Arrests? - Lawyers.com
Each state creates its own laws determining the territorial jurisdiction of its officers. That means a state is free to permit out-of-state or federal officers to arrest within the state and define the circumstances of that permission.
Permission to arrest is usually in the form of a written law that says who can make arrests in the state and under what circumstances. Many states have laws allowing cities, municipalities, and counties within the state to make similar agreements with each other. It’s common for neighboring cities and counties—especially in densely populated areas—to have written agreements by which officers may arrest in multiple jurisdictions.
A state can not authorize local cops to enforce federal law. The arrest has to be under a law the officer is authorized to enforce. The bank robbery example. The police officer arrests you under the state law prohibiting armed robbery. He does not arrest you under the federal law which he is not empowered to enforce.
One of us is an idiot. I think it's you. Post your link which shows the local cops are empowered to enforce federal law as local cops.
Dude don't twist stuff. Technically you are telling BOLD FACED LIES. A local police officer is bound by his Oath to observe Federal Law. That includes Immigration Law.
- It is a Felony with up to 10 years in prison to help an Illegal to evade capture and deportation.
- It is a Felony with up to 10 years in prison to help an Illegal to obtain a driver's license
- It is a Felony with up to 10 years in prison to help an Illegal register to vote
- It is a Felony with up to 10 years in prison to help an Illegal obtain employment
- It is a Felony with up to 10 years in prison to for an employer to knowingly employ an illegal.
- It is a Felony with up to 10 years in prison to help an Illegal obtain transportation or to provide transportation to an illegal
- It is a Felony with up to 10 years in prison to help an Illegal gain entry in to The US, or to smuggle them in to this country.
- It is a Felony with up to 10 years in prison to help an illegal prepare a tax return
- It is a Felony with up to 10 years in prison to help an Illegal to obtain a tax ID
- It is a Felony with up to 10 years in prison to knowingly accept a tax filing from an illegal by a government official.
So you are going to sit here and tell me, that Illegals can commit all manner of Federal Crimes, right in front of a Police Officer, and he cannot even detain them, or arrest them, or hold them under an ICE detainer?
And you are going to try to tell me, that no local police officer, county sheriff, State Patrolman can arrest anyone for committing the crimes bulleted above?
Your interpretation of THE LAW makes no sense.
I posted a link to a law website. You disagree with their interpretation.
How about the Supreme Court? Do you find the Supreme Court doesn't know the law as well as you do?
Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
The Supreme Court found that the Congress was in violation of the tenth amendment by requiring the police to perform certain actions.
One of us is an idiot. Now you should be aware that it is not me.
So are you deleting your account now?
You are totally Full Of Shit and Liar, just like your Obama Cock Sucking Immigration Lawyer's website.
States and Local Law Enforcement Are Authorized to Enforce Federal Law Asswipe. This is the case in most states, unless a state like California has taken measures to circumvent Federal Law, and trying to justify their felony violations of federal law through Illegal and Unlawful Legislation directing their own LE not to enforce Federal Law.
Are you even an American Citizen?
I am not going to go state by state to tear apart your lying argument. Here is a statement from The State of Connecticut on this.
FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
Criminal violations of the INA include such offenses as:
1. bringing in and harboring of certain undocumented aliens; (8 USC § 1324),
2. illegal entry of aliens; (8 USC § 1325(a)),
3. document fraud; (8 USC § 1324c),
4. reentry of aliens previously excluded or deported; (8 USC § 1326)
5. aiding or assisting aliens to enter illegally; (8 USC § 1327)
6. disobeying a removal order; (8 USC § 1253(a)),
7. registration of aliens; (8 USC § 1306),
8. importing aliens for immoral purposes; (8 USC § 1328), and
9. pattern or practice of hiring illegal aliens; (8 USC § 1324a(f)).
Express Authorization for State and Local Law Enforcement Officers to Enforce Immigration Law
The INA contains three provisions that explicitly authorize state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws (8 USC §§ 1357(g), 1103(a)(8), and 1253c. The following is taken directly from the March 11, 2004 CRS report on the ability of state and local police to enforce the INA (copy enclosed).
8 USC § 1357(g)
USC § 1357(g) authorizes the U.S. attorney general to enter into a written agreement with a state or municipality pursuant to which a state or municipal officer or employee, who the attorney general determines to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States may carry out such function at the state's or municipality's expense as long as it is consistent with state and local law.
Section 1357(g) permits state and local entities to tailor an agreement with the attorney general to meet local needs. The written agreement must specify the powers and duties that may or must be performed, and the duration of the authority. The entities must know and follow federal law governing immigration officers and must receive adequate training regarding the enforcement of immigration laws. The U.S. attorney general must direct and supervise the officers performing immigration functions under this law. Such officers are not federal employees except for certain tort claims and compensation matters, but they do enjoy federal immunity.
8 USC § 1103(a)(8)
Under 8 USC § 1103(a)(8), state and local officers may exercise the civil or criminal arrest powers of federal immigration officers (1) when expressly authorized by the U.S. attorney general; (2) when given consent by the head of the state or local law enforcement agency; and (3) the attorney general determination of an emergency exists because of a mass influx of aliens. This authority can be exercised only during the emergency situation. The attorney general can shorten or waive the otherwise normally required training requirements when necessary to protect public safety, public health, or national security.
8 USC §1252c
8 USC § 1252c authorizes state and local officers to arrest aliens who have presumably violated § 276 of the INA (Reentry of Removed Alien). Under § 1252c, state and local law enforcement officials can arrest and detain anyone who:
1. is an alien illegally present in the United States and
2. has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction, but only after the state or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from INS of his status and only for as long as may be required for INS to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing him from the United States.
Implied Authorization to Enforce INA
According to a recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to Congress, federal law does not preclude state and local officers from enforcing the criminal provisions of the INA. Thus, they may engage in such enforcement if state law permits them to do so, apart from the three provisions summarized above (Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement, March 11, 2004). This view has been supported by court cases in other jurisdictions, opinions of the U.S. (DOJ) and the attorney generals of New York and California.
Court Cases
Gonzales v. City of Peoria. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the INA (722 F.2d 468, 475 (9th Cir. 1983)). The Gonzalez case examined the city's policies, which authorized its police officers to arrest illegal immigrants for violating the criminal entry provisions of the INA (8 USC § 1324). The defendants argued that federal law prohibited state and local police officers from making such arrests. The court held that local police officers may, subject to state law, constitutionally stop or detain people when there is reasonable suspicion or, in the case of arrests, probable cause that they have violated, or are violating, the criminal provisions of the INA.
People v. Barajas. Likewise, in People v. Barajas, the California Court of Appeal upheld the authority of California local police officers to make arrests for violations of two provisions of the INA, 8 USC § 1325 (the illegal entry misdemeanor) and § 1326 (felony for alien to re-enter United States after deportation) (81 Cal. App.3d 999, (1978)). The court rejected the defendant's argument that the arrest was illegal under INA warrant requirements, (8 USC § 1357).
United States v. Salinas-Calderon. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations and to make arrests for violation of federal law (United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F. 2d 1298 (10th Cir. 1984)). In this case, a state trooper pulled over the defendant for driving erratically. He found six people in the back of the defendant's truck. After questing the passenger he learned that the driver and the others were in the country illegally. The court determined that the trooper had probable cause to detain and arrest all the individuals.
United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez. In a subsequent case, the Tenth Circuit considered the arrest by an Oklahoma police officer of a person suspected of drug dealing because he was an “illegal alien” (United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1999)). The arresting officer did not know when he made the arrest whether the defendant had committed a civil or criminal violation of INA. A specific provision in the INA (8 USC § 1252c) authorizes state officers to pick up and hold for deportation a previously deported alien who had been convicted of a crime in the United States and reentered illegally. The law requires state officers to obtain confirmation from the INS before making such an arrest. It was only after the arrest that it was discovered that the alien had a history of prior criminal convictions and deportations.
The defendant argued that the state police could only arrest him in compliance with the restrictions detailed in 8 USC § 1252c. Since his arrest did not meet the requirements of that provision, the defendant argued the arrest was unauthorized. The court held that § 1252c does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of the INA.
United States v. Santana-Garcia. The Tenth Circuit again considered the role of local law enforcement of immigration laws in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2001)). A Utah police officer stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation. The driver didn't speak English or have a driver's license. The officer learned that the driver and his passenger were traveling from Mexico to Colorado and that they were not legally in the country. The court held that the officer had probable cause to arrest both defendants for suspected violation of federal immigration law and concluded that state and local police officers have implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions to investigate and make arrests for violations of immigration law.
State Police Arrests of People Who Break Federal Law
IN SHORT
PHUCK YOU
YOU ARE A LIAR
GO BACK TO MEXICO!
Each state determines what laws the cops can enforce. The Federal Government can't require it. Which is exactly what I said. It is what the Supreme Court said in the Pintz case.
Go back to Mexico? I was born in Michigan you blithering idiot. I did nine years in the Army. I know I've earned the right to say any damn thing I please. While you were living in your mothers basement bitching about brown people.
You can't force the cops to enforce any federal law. The state can and is within its rights to prohibit that under the tenth amendment you moron. This does not prevent ICE agents from arresting a thousand illegals a day.
You are so full of shit it is unbelievable. If Hillary had been elected and tried to order the local police to enforce gun laws you would be screaming about States Rights. But give you a cause and you shot on States Rights in a second and demand that everyone enforce the laws you want them to.
If California doesn't want their cops enforcing immigration laws they are within their rights to do so. The same way that Colorado is within their rights to legalize marijuana. Yes the DEA can and do arrest people. But the local cops don't. Jackass.
