The blatant illegality of "sanctuary cities"

“Sanctuary cities” are illegal. Period. The states [much less municipalities] do not have enumerated power to control or enforce the border security of this nation. Thus, illegal aliens are federal fugitives. Local governments who wittingly harbor [broadcast it even] federal fugitives….are themselves in violation of the law.

Per Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a)


Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — 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.


Encouraging/Inducing — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who — encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.


Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.


Penalties: With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years.

We even have at least one candidate for POTUS nomination, who has publicly endorsed this violation of law. I invite somebody…anybody…..to tell me why the political elite are not subject to the penalties of violating statute law, as is the private citizen?

Topic h/t to Always On Watch

Advertisements

50 thoughts on “The blatant illegality of "sanctuary cities"

  1. I invite somebody…anybody…..to tell me why the political elite are not subject to the penalties of violating statute law, as is the private citizen?

    Because we are no longer a nation of laws,and the constitution is on its deathbed.

    The law is whatever the District of Criminals says it is. They hold the power, and they can issue exemptions and ignore the inconvenient laws.

    How did we get here?

    * Bipartisanship: The two parties ceased all but token opposition of one another, and have formed themselves into a criminal collusion hiding behind a potemkin DemonCrap-GOOP kabuki

    * The press has become part of the ruling class, and therefore has no incentive whatsoever to rock the boat. As Michael Savage says, “The Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column.”

    I don't know how to fix it. We gave the House majority to the Repubes, and then we gave them the Senate, and what has changed? They're not even a minor speed bump or pothole along Obama's Progressive Long March.

    Like

  2. “”Sanctuary cities” are illegal. Period.”

    Not according to the courts.

    “I invite somebody…anybody…..to tell me why the political elite are not subject to the penalties of violating statute law, as is the private citizen?”

    It is not their job to enforce every federal law, to investigate every possible violation of federal law, or to even identify whether a given actor in an investigation is here in the country legally or not. This is a complicated issue and I think you are not approaching it in a way that would be conducive to understanding it.

    JMJ

    Like

  3. No Jersey, it's not a complicated issue. It's a violation of US Code. And “sanctuary cities” aren't just turning a blind eye to the law….they're broadcasting their status as a safe haven from prosecution.

    I'm interested in either changing the law, if that's what is needed…..or upholding the law. Not pretending that it doesn't exist.

    Like

  4. I'm well aware that some court cases have upheld to flouting of the law…but you're missing the point.

    These cities in question [by and large] not only do not comply with federal statue law, they prohibit their law enforcement and other officials from making any inquiries into the legal status of persons within their jurisdiction. They are not only ignoring the law, they're actively working against it.

    Not only are these cities in violation of Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a), they're in violation of Title III of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 274 8 USC 1324.

    Do you actually support a society where our government is not required to conform to it's own laws; whereas plebs like you or I are not exempt? That is the point.

    Like

  5. Jersey: Do you admit that the “sanctuary cities” being used to protect killers is a problem? And that it is a different issue from the sanctuaries protecting people who might be booted out solely due to problems with immigration status?

    Like

  6. I just see this differently. Remember, I'm a city guy. And remember, I spent 5 years working with people here illegally.

    Cities have to deal with problems unique to their dense, multi-ethnic, interconnected nature. On top of that, I heard a conservative commentator yesterday (I don't recall who) say if the cities did go out of their way to deal with immigration, the prisons would be so immediately overloaded they wouldn't be able to handle it at all.

    There is a much better way of fixing this and then the cities wouldn't have to deal with this at all. But immigration is a FEDERAL matter, no one city or state and resolve it. This has to be dealt with FEDERALLY.

    JMJ

    Like

  7. dmarks, in a free society without clairvoyance, we can't stop every killing before it happens. The main reason the cities ignore immigration status is because the federal government can't handle the problem. The cities can't, constitutionally or economically, just hold people forever waiting for the feds to come get them. We need a big upgrade of immigration services and law enforcement and it HAS to happen at the FEDERAL level.

    JMJ

    Like

  8. If a cop looks the other way when some hard-working illegal alien jaywalks or something, I could probably live with that. But when you have a fellow like this San Francisco POS who had already been arrested 7 times and deported 5 times, to not report HIM to ICE is about as morally repugnant as it gets.

    Like

  9. The solution to this problem is to punish employers who hire non-citizens or people without work visas. But the Conservative “solution” is to go after the poor immigrants who only want to work while giving employers a pass. Why? Going after brown people who are “taking our jobs” makes the racist base feel good, while ignoring illegal hiring is what the plutocrats desire. We need comprehensive immigration reform. Complaining about sanctuary cities is a way of ignoring the real issue.

    Like

  10. A solution to this problem is to punish employers who hire non-citizens or people without work visas.

    I completely agree. Yet nobody here has argued against that. Instead, you miss the very point I've made. Change the law, or follow the law. If not, you support and/or are, the criminal.

    Like

  11. We can all rest easy now….Dervish has weighed in with his thoughtful and cogent treatise on the benefits of local government acting contrary to US Code…..showing once again, in a Liberal paradise..that the State reigns supreme.

    Like

  12. I'm more pro immigration than anyone here probably. But I am not so stupid as to deny that illegal immigration is illegal based solely on my own emotions without any regard to law.

    To do so is the worst sort of nonsense, and reflects nothing but a deep contempt of the very idea of the rule of law and our Constitution.

    Like

  13. Illegal immigration is indeed illegal. Nobody said wasn't. It's pretty bad nonsense when someone replies to a comment making assertions about things being said that were clearly not said.

    As for the benefits of sanctuary cities… There are benefits, although I discussed none of them… Which makes CI's comment quite nonsensical.

    Like

  14. CI might very well have a huge problem with being proven wrong. He might also be rather outraged at major meteor strikes taking out an entire continent. However, neither situation has come up recently, so one can only speculate how he would feel.

    Like

  15. Nor have your statements concerning firearms. One can even argue that there haven't even been any serious attempts to refute these arguments. But I am just going by what I have seen in the comments/posts on the blog recently.

    Like

  16. He's wrong on guns, but he is very good in reading from the pro-gun murder script. This, however, is one of the clearest cut cases of CI being proven wrong. Jersey was right…

    According to a 2009 Congressional Research Service report that discussed local law enforcement agencies' responsibilities under § 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), the “primary federal restrictions on state and local sanctuary policies” concern a state or local refusal to maintain or share immigration status information. However, the report noted that the 1996 law “does not require entities to collect such information in the first place” and the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit indicated that “Congress cannot directly compel states to collect and share information regarding immigration status with federal immigration authorities”… (Source).

    Yes, my source is Media Matters (which dmarks might object to) but this information is fact, not opinion. The actions of these “sanctuary cities” are NOT in direct contravention to US Code. CI saying they are HAS been completely refuted.

    Like

  17. dmarks: Yeah, he lives for free, unearned stuff.

    And you would know this how? I've never indicated anything of the sort in any blog post or comment. Has dmarks hired a PI to investigate me? Does dmarks have my phone tapped? Has he hacked into my computer and installed spyware? Please explain how you came by this information or admit you are full of excrement (as usual).

    Like

  18. CI: Post your continuing false assertions in the correct topic.

    Thank you CI for AT LAST calling out dmarks for his BS. Although I don't know where the “correct topic” for dmarks' false assertions is located. I didn't know there was a post on this blog where dmarks' lies about me was the topic. Can you link to it?

    Like

  19. CI: Telling people how they feel and how they think has been your standard crutch. You don't appreciate it when it's directed to you?

    But this has never happened. How you feel is how you feel. Why would I say otherwise? As for me not appreciating it when it's directed to me… so.. what you're saying is that dmarks only FEELS that I live for free unearned stuff? That sounds probable, but how do you know? Is it the same person behind the “Constitutional Insurgent” Blogger ID and the “dmarks” Blogger ID? That makes sense, given how fast CI adopted the dmarks terminology re “fetish”, “fan blogs”, “homoerotica”, etc. I was actually going to say something about my suspicion that you two might be the same person.

    Like

  20. Fact being “pure opinion” (depending on who is presenting said facts) = dmarks' delusion. If the information I excerpted above is wrong… how about you tell us what the correct information is?

    Like

  21. You've specifically told dmarks that he wasn't “hassled” after he stated that this is how he felt. Unless you have some sort of universal metric for what constitutes feeling “hassled”, then you are guilty of using your crutch. Doesn't sound like you care for being on the receiving end of your own tactic.

    I'm not remotely interested ion the rest of your theory. Go create yet another blog about it if you feel so strongly. Don't forget to comment to yourself, so it does lie in obscurity.

    Ultimately, this is why people consider you a dick. You're less interested in debating an issue, than you are debating a personality. Then, when people are tired of your stale and trite antics, and block you….you create a whiny fetish blog, capturing conversations you haven't been deemed to be mature enough to participate in.

    Like

  22. From the actual report (see the top of page 4)…

    Although IIRIRA § 642 prohibits states and localities from barring the transfer or maintenance of information regarding immigration status, it does not require entities to collect such information in the first place.

    The Congressional Research Service is a public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works primarily and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

    The actions of these “sanctuary cities” are NOT in direct contravention to US Code. CI saying they are HAS been completely refuted.

    Like

  23. I'm sure you meant to say that you disagree with me on guns, because the facts are on my side on that subject.

    Regarding “sanctuary cities”, I addressed this with Jersey above. I acknowledged that there are opinions that the ability for state and local government to flout federal law; that exactly what your examples are…opinion. CRS does not set nor enforce law. And for the cases and opinions that have encouraged state and local government to disregard such, Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a), and Title III of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 274 8 USC 1324 has not been altered nor rescinded.

    Like

  24. Mr. Sanders said: “Thank you CI for AT LAST calling out dmarks for his BS. “

    I see that Mr. Sanders is jubilant that I was smacked down for something. That's fine, as it is his blog and not Dervish Sander's attempt at a new fanboy blog.

    However, looking at the comments here, not only is there no example of him smacking me down, there's no B.S. from me.

    Oh well. We move on…

    Like

  25. If you were to smack me down, C.I.? I would whine for about 20 comments about it. And then I would go off and create two or three fanboy blogs about you of my own. I use “about you” rather loosely: they would not really be about you, but about a strawman charicature I would fabricate that would have only coincidental resemblance to you.

    And on the fanboy blogs, I would write thousand-word treatises on stuff you really didn't say.

    That's what I'm supposed to do, right, Dervish?

    Like

  26. No, pure opinion is what you get when you are so addled as to confuse partisan campaign sites with news.

    It has nothing to do with “who is presenting said facts”, because it is opinion, not facts. And it is exactly the same (low) value if it comes from Media Matters, or from Limbaugh or Heritage.

    Like

  27. dmarks: I use “about you” rather loosely: they would not really be about you, but about a strawman charicature I would fabricate that would have only coincidental resemblance to you.

    You already do that – by way of comments. If you wanted to post your strawman carictures of me to your blog – there would be nothing I could do to stop you. As for my “fetish blog” (as you call it), that is my outlet for refuting your strawman caricatures of me. (Me “defending” Mao, for example).

    CI: You've specifically told dmarks that he wasn't “hassled” after he stated that this is how he felt.

    Baloney. I never did that. It was YOU who said you were hassled. I said you were not. I never said anything regarding how you felt about it given the fact that I do not care how you felt. I am positive you did feel hassled… But again… I said absolutely nothing concerning your feelings as that is not something I am in any way concerned about.

    Like

  28. …the 1996 law “does not require entities to collect such information in the first place”.

    A provision that does not exist in a law can't be enforced nor can anyone be in “direct contravention” to a provision in a law that does not exist. If you are interested in changing the law, that is one thing. But you can't keep insisting that a non-existant provision within a law should be “upheld”. Well, I suppose you can do so if you pretend that it does exist… But nobody will take you seriously… Which is why I suspect Jersey exited this discussion long ago. Why continue arguing with someone who does not care about the facts – but only about what they feel the law says?

    I'm sure you meant to say that you disagree with me on guns…

    I said what I meant.

    Like

  29. My comment has no links in it. In any case, no refutation, so I will take your reply as an admission that you very frequently strawman caricatures of me in your comments. As for the crying baby, I assume this is a picture of dmarks reacting to me calling him out on his dishonesty re who is creating the strawmen caricatures. Boo-hoo, dmarks.

    Like

  30. It was YOU who said you were hassled. I said you were not.

    So then, since 'being hassled' is the individual first person perspective of a particular action/activity….how could you possibly judge whether or not I was hassled? Please now cite for me the empirical parameters of what constitutes 'hassled' [other than an individual feeling], and how a disinterested third party, many times removed from the situation, can possibly render a judgement regarding the opinion of the first person?

    I eagerly await your answer.

    Like

  31. CI: Sometimes it is sort of like a college level class that has gotten boring, and an obnoxious third grader (one is 14 years old but has been flunked back many times for refusal to learn) had wandered in. The nonsensical proclamations break the boredom.

    Like

  32. “Why? Going after brown people who are “taking our jobs” makes the racist base feel good”

    That's probably evidence of Mr. Sanders' own racism. Immigrants are found in black, white, and brown.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s