- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If I can be arrested for harboring a fugitive, why can a city get away with it?
Posted on 3/28/17 at 11:58 pm to Five0
Posted on 3/28/17 at 11:58 pm to Five0
quote:
From my link, you don't say.
Did you miss the how part to that sentence?
quote:
by limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Some decline to use city or state tax dollars to enforce federal immigration laws. Many prohibit local officials from asking people about their immigration status.
Again, basically we're not spending our money to do your job or helping you do it. That's a far cry from telling the feds to go frick themselves or hiding illegals from the feds.
I don't disagree with you on the principle of sanctuary cities. My only point is that, legally speaking, cities or even states are free to what is described in the quoted text.The commandeering clause clearly states that the feds cannot force state governments to do their job.They can if they like, but if they wish to take a hands off approach that is their prerogative.
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 12:02 am
2
Posted on 3/29/17 at 12:02 am to TigernMS12
They are ignoring immigration holds.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 12:02 am to Five0
quote:
However, any local government has the right, under the Constitution to tell the feds to do their own work.
Precisely why they should lose all federal funding.
And the feds have every right to do this and it wouldn't hurt my feelings.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 12:06 am to Five0
quote:
They are ignoring immigration holds.
If someone is on a federal hold in a state institution, the state has no obligation to hold them for the feds. Otherwise the feds would be able to use states jails (and money) to indefinitely keep people for all sorts of federal offenses, which violates the commandeering clause. It may be different if a state institution just released in mass a group of people so they could avoid capture as soon as they were booked, but simply letting one or two people go when the feds won't come get them (if the feds place a hold on someone they know where they are), then that's on the feds.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 1:27 am to Celery
quote:Is the state breaking a law when they execute someone?
There's a lot of things state and local governments can do that people get arrested for. Like execute someone, etc.
See the difference?
Posted on 3/29/17 at 1:29 am to TigernMS12
quote:That's not true. In some cases the ARE doing that and have stated their intention to do so in the future.
Also, sanctuary cities, as retarded as they are, are not harboring in the sense that they are impeding the capture of illegals
Posted on 3/29/17 at 3:57 am to L.A.
This is about as stupid as the Trumpkin-esque argument "I PAY MY TAXES SO THE POLICE WORK FOR ME DERRRPPPP"
Posted on 3/29/17 at 5:42 am to Rakim
quote:
The wrath of the federal government needs to come down on these rogue states like a hammer.
I think Jeff Sessions will.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 5:59 am to Hightide12
quote:
Logic is not an ally of our regressive brethren sadly.
Logic is exactly what the analogy in the article is lacking, actually. So called "sanctuary cities" do not actively help undocumented residents hide from federal authorities.
If it's the policy of local police not to ask about immigration status, that's not actively harboring a fugitive. According to the forced analogy of this article, that'd be like arresting you for not asking your friend if he was fugitive every time he came over to your house. If a city refuses to hold a person in jail past their scheduled released date because ICE may or may not come to take them away in 2 or 3 days, that's still not actively harboring a fugitive. That'd be like arresting you because you failed to execute a citizens arrest.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:05 am to L.A.
Is Colorado harboring fugitives from federal marijuana laws?
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:28 am to SUB
quote:
You serious Clark? He made a simple analogy.
nope - not a simple analogy = it was a tortured attempt to create something that appeared like an analogy.
instantly ignored.
apples vs oranges = yeah they are both 'fruits' but . . . . . . . . . . .
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:30 am to Celery
quote:
There's a lot of things state and local governments can do that people get arrested for. Like execute someone, etc.
But they can do that because, well, it's legal for them to do that. They are breaking the law by harboring criminals. See the difference?
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:30 am to L.A.
The entire premiss that a city can violate federal law and get away with it is unbelievable.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:30 am to L.A.
quote:
If you had a friend that committed a violent crime, and you helped that friend avoid law enforcement,
I think the concept of knowingly is in play here. If your friend just drops by for a visit, you cannot be expected to know that he just kidnapped/raped/murdered a toddler.
BUT - if law enforcement puts out his name as a suspect, then yeah, you could be liable.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:33 am to SUB
quote:
You serious Clark? He made a simple analogy.
And he was pointing out how his analogy wasn't relevant.
The state's job is to uphold the law. They are circumventing the law by becoming sanctuaries. They are aiding and abetting criminal activity. THAT is against the law. It is not, however, against the law for the state to execute murderers.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:37 am to L.A.
In the 1830s, Mexico had a rule that you can't have your own cannon, but the Texans at Gonzales said "Come and Take It."
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:38 am to TigernMS12
quote:
If anyone could prove that cities were actively aiding criminals and impeding law enforcement from doing their job, then by all means convene a grand jury. I'd be all for it, as I think the idea of a sanctuary city is retarded. However, any local government has the right, under the Constitution to tell the feds to do their own work.
States should not selectively enforce the law. Period. What happens if the states decide the federal government should track down and arrest kidnappers that cross state lines? is it ok, to give them sanctuary?
Further, it wouldn't be difficult to prove they are sanctuary cities. Most of them openly advertise/admit it and openly defy the law.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:39 am to L.A.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:40 am to TigernMS12
quote:
Again, basically we're not spending our money
No problem. then you will have no problem if the Federal Government says, "We are not sending you any more of "our" money."
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:41 am to DawgsLife
quote:
States should not selectively enforce the law. Period. What happens if the states decide the federal government should track down and arrest kidnappers that cross state lines? is it ok, to give them sanctuary?
So you're saying that Northern states should have returned runaway slaves?
quote:
Most of them openly advertise/admit it and openly defy the law.
Sometimes that's a good thing.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News