Barr announces sweeping new sanctions, 'significant escalation' against left-wing sanctuary cities
Hopefully this time around it will stick.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Speaking at the National Sheriff’s Association 2020 Winter Legislative and Technology Conference in Washington, D.C., Barr said the Justice Department would immediately file multiple lawsuits against sanctuary jurisdictions for unconstitutionally interfering with federal immigration enforcement, and implement unprecedented national reviews of left-wing sanctuary governments and prosecutors.
"Let us state the reality upfront and as clearly as possible," Barr began. "When we are talking about sanctuary cities, we are talking about policies that are designed to allow criminal aliens to escape. These policies are not about people who came to our country illegally but have otherwise been peaceful and productive members of society. Their express purpose is to shelter aliens whom local law enforcement has already arrested for other crimes. This is neither lawful nor sensible."
The DOJ has now filed a federal complaint against the State of New Jersey seeking declaratory and injunctive relief "against its laws that forbid state and local law enforcement from sharing vital information about criminal aliens with DHS," Barr said.
That was a reference to New Jersey Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive 2018-6, which the DOJ says illegally bars officials from sharing the immigration status and release dates of individuals in custody. It also requires New Jersey law enforcement to “promptly notify a detained individual, in writing and in a language the individual can understand” if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) files an immigration detainer request for the individual.
Additionally, "we are filing a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against King County, Washington, for the policy ... that forbids DHS from deporting aliens from the United States using King County International Airport," Barr said.
That lawsuit targets King County Executive Order PFC-7-1-EO, which the DOJ said has dramatically increased operating costs for ICE as detainees have had to be transported to Yakima, Washington. The executive order unconstitutionally conflicts with the federal Airline Deregulation Act, which "prohibits localities such as King County from enacting or enforcing laws or regulations that relate to prices, routes, or services of air carriers," the DOJ said.
"Further, we are reviewing the practices, policies, and laws of other jurisdictions across the country. This includes assessing whether jurisdictions are complying with our criminal laws, in particular the criminal statute that prohibits the harboring or shielding of aliens in the United States," Barr added, noting that the DOJ would support DHS with "federal subpoenas to access information about criminal aliens in the custody of uncooperative jurisdictions."
And, Barr said, "we are meticulously reviewing the actions of certain district attorneys who have adopted policies of charging foreign nationals with lesser offenses for the express purpose of avoiding the federal immigration consequences of those nationals’ criminal conduct. In pursuing their personal ambitions and misguided notions of equal justice, these district attorneys are systematically violating the rule of law and may even be unlawfully discriminating against American citizens."
Prosecutors in New York and California have changed their policies so that prosecutors explicitly consider so-called "collateral consequences," including deportation, before pursuing certain charges.
Sanctuary cities, Barr said, are defined as those with policies that allow "criminal aliens to escape" federal law enforcement -- and some jurisdictions are becoming "more aggressive" in undermining immigration authorities, with local politicians even developing "schemes" to circumvent immigration officials.
In 2018, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf blew the whistle on an imminent raid by federal immigration authorities, tweeting out a warning to illegal immigrants in advance and helping them hide.
As the president did during last week's State of the Union address, the attorney general cited several instances in which illegal immigrants were able to commit deadly crimes because they were sheltered by left-wing sanctuaries.
"In November, ICE filed a detainer for an alien who was arrested for assaulting his own father," Barr said. "The local police in New York City that had the alien in custody ignored the detainer. So the alien was released onto the streets, and last month, he allegedly raped and killed 92-year-old Maria Fuertes, affectionately known as 'abuelita,' a fixture of her Queens neighborhood."
And, In October 2017, DHS "identified a convicted criminal alien with four prior removals at a city jail in Washington State," Barr continued. "DHS filed a detainer. Subsequently, the alien fought with jail staff and was taken to a local medical center for treatment. But after receiving treatment, local officials released the alien in violation of the detainer. In January 2018, the alien was arrested and booked for murdering and dismembering his cousin."
While the Constitution entrusts the police power to the states and does not require states to affirmatively assist federal authorities in implementing and enforcing immigration law, Barr said, it does clearly prohibit the states from actively interfering with federal immigration officials.
"The Founding Fathers carefully divided responsibility and power between the federal government and the state governments," Barr said. The 'Supremacy Clause' in Article VI of the Constitution provides that the 'Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land.'"
He added: "This Clause is a vital part of our constitutional order. Enforcing a country’s immigration laws is an essential function of the national government. And no national government can enforce those laws properly if state and local governments are getting in the way. While federal law does not require that 'sanctuary jurisdictions' actively assist with federal immigration enforcement, it does prohibit them from interfering with our enforcement efforts."
Barr emphasized that there is no way to determine how many "criminal aliens" are in the U.S., in part because of "local policies," although recent estimates under the Obama administration put the number as high as 2 million.
Charging that so-called "sanctuary" cities that protect illegal immigrants are jeopardizing domestic security, Attorney General Bill Barr announced a slew of additional sanctions that he called a "significant escalation" against left-wing local and state governments that obstruct the "lawful functioning of our nation's immigration system."
Prosecutors in New York and California have changed their policies so that prosecutors explicitly consider so-called "collateral consequences," including deportation, before pursuing certain charges.
Sanctuary cities, Barr said, are defined as those with policies that allow "criminal aliens to escape" federal law enforcement -- and some jurisdictions are becoming "more aggressive" in undermining immigration authorities, with local politicians even developing "schemes" to circumvent immigration officials.
In 2018, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf blew the whistle on an imminent raid by federal immigration authorities, tweeting out a warning to illegal immigrants in advance and helping them hide.
As the president did during last week's State of the Union address, the attorney general cited several instances in which illegal immigrants were able to commit deadly crimes because they were sheltered by left-wing sanctuaries.
"In November, ICE filed a detainer for an alien who was arrested for assaulting his own father," Barr said. "The local police in New York City that had the alien in custody ignored the detainer. So the alien was released onto the streets, and last month, he allegedly raped and killed 92-year-old Maria Fuertes, affectionately known as 'abuelita,' a fixture of her Queens neighborhood."
And, In October 2017, DHS "identified a convicted criminal alien with four prior removals at a city jail in Washington State," Barr continued. "DHS filed a detainer. Subsequently, the alien fought with jail staff and was taken to a local medical center for treatment. But after receiving treatment, local officials released the alien in violation of the detainer. In January 2018, the alien was arrested and booked for murdering and dismembering his cousin."
While the Constitution entrusts the police power to the states and does not require states to affirmatively assist federal authorities in implementing and enforcing immigration law, Barr said, it does clearly prohibit the states from actively interfering with federal immigration officials.
"The Founding Fathers carefully divided responsibility and power between the federal government and the state governments," Barr said. The 'Supremacy Clause' in Article VI of the Constitution provides that the 'Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land.'"
He added: "This Clause is a vital part of our constitutional order. Enforcing a country’s immigration laws is an essential function of the national government. And no national government can enforce those laws properly if state and local governments are getting in the way. While federal law does not require that 'sanctuary jurisdictions' actively assist with federal immigration enforcement, it does prohibit them from interfering with our enforcement efforts."
Barr emphasized that there is no way to determine how many "criminal aliens" are in the U.S., in part because of "local policies," although recent estimates under the Obama administration put the number as high as 2 million.
"Assuming that estimate was accurate, the numbers are likely even higher today despite the Trump Administration’s consistent and concerted efforts to find and deport this criminal population," Barr said.
It is the "rule of law that is fundamental to ensuring both freedom and security," Barr asserted, saying law enforcement officers are increasingly under fire in "heinous" attacks that "come against the backdrop of cynicism and disrespect for law enforcement."
Barr touted the DOJ's lawsuit against California and other states over their sanctuary policies. The suit over California involves the law prohibiting the federal government from conducting operations in its own affiliated private immigration facilities and detention centers.
The law, Barr said, was a "blatant attempt by the State to prohibit DHS from detaining aliens, and to interfere with the ability of the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service to manage federal detainees and prisoners."
"The department sued the State of California to enjoin numerous state laws that attempted to frustrate federal immigration enforcement," Barr said. "We prevailed on several of our claims in the lower courts, and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will grant our request to review the remaining issues and side with us against California’s obstructionist policies."
He concluded, "Today is a significant escalation in the federal government’s efforts to confront the resistance of 'sanctuary cities.' But by no means do the efforts outlined above signify the culmination of our fight to ensure the rule of law, to defend the Constitution, and to keep Americans safe. We will consider taking action against any jurisdiction that, or any politician who, unlawfully obstructs the federal enforcement of immigration law."
Barr's new sanctions come as the Trump administration has already announced other initiatives targeting illegal immigration in the wake of the president's State of the Union address last week.
Last week, Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf exclusively told Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" that DHS was immediately suspending enrollment in Global Entry and several other Trusted Traveler Programs (TTP) for all New York state residents — a dramatic move in response to the liberal state's recently enacted sanctuary "Green Light Law."
Barr slammed the law in his speech Monday, calling it "unlawful."
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations Todd Owen later told Fox News that up to 800,000 New Yorkers could be affected by the rule change within the next five years. Owen said people with pending Global Entry applications would be refunded, and that those with active applications would not be affected until their renewal date.
Illegal immigrants rushed to New York Department of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) in large numbers after the "Green Light Law," which allowed them to obtain driver's licenses or learner's permits regardless of their immigration status, took effect last December. The law also permitted applicants to use foreign documents, including passports, to be submitted in order to obtain licenses.
In a letter to top New York state officials obtained exclusively by Fox News, Wolf noted that the New York law prohibited DMV agencies across the state from sharing criminal records with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE.
"In New York alone, last year ICE arrested 149 child predators, identified or rescued 105 victims of exploitation and human trafficking, arrested 230 gang members, and seized 6,487 pounds of illegal narcotics, including fentanyl and opioids," Wolf wrote to New York officials. "In the vast majority of these cases, ICE relied on New York DMV records to fulfill its mission."
The "Green Light Law," Wolf went on, "compromises CBP's ability to confirm whether an individual applying for TTP membership meets program eligibility requirements."
"This Act and the corresponding lack of security cooperation from the New York DMV requires DHS to take immediate action to ensure DHS' s efforts to protect the Homeland are not compromised," he said
Tags
Who is online
54 visitors
About time. This country barely survived after that last caravan..../sarc
Thank God! We also need to take back the House, win a super majority in the Senate and get some strong legislation on this with severe punishments for cities, states and officials who defy immigration law.
Voted up!
You fail to mention employers who defy immigration law and hire illegals and are never fined/penalized/jailed. Current laws are ignored by cities, states and officials. It is not just sanctuary cities/states, it is ALL places where current laws are not upheld, and that includes red cities/states.
That's part of it for sure. However, the big inducement now is to getting those illegals voting. That's the grand game the democrats are playing.
I never said anyone was defending those practices, I merely pointed out that there are current laws that are not being adhered to regardless of city/state politics.
You do yourself a disservice when you repeat false GOP talking points. Please post some specific examples, some facts about how Democrats are trying to get illegals voting...facts please, not opinion.
Just one word about Barr's sanctions. GOOD!
The states have slowly but surely began superseding Fed law and replacing it with their laws. The way Fed law works is that, unless otherwise specified in the Constitution, states have to abide by Fed law on a national level. They can write corresponding laws that are equal to or tougher than Fed law, but they can not write laws that are weaker or overturn Fed law.
I'm glad to see what DOJ is doing in this instance. What would be a helluva lot better is if Congress, in its entirety, would get off their azzes and quit the damn freebee game in all aspects, including immigration.
Why are so many liberals dead-set against immigration laws being enforced?
Why do Democrats continue to risk American citizens' health and well-being by putting illegal aliens above their legal constituents?
Why do so many American Democrats continue to elect people who clearly have little regard for their safety?
Let's see if I can figure that one out.....
Do voting trends tell the tale?
And even if they don't like immigration laws, why are they so cavalier about releasing dangerous criminals back into society when they could easily help get them removed from the entire country?
It's like finding a poisonous bug in your house. OK, maybe you aren't the kind of person who steps on bugs. Fine. Don't kill it if that helps you sleep at night. But you could still trap it and throw it outside. Why let it run free in the house? I just don't get it.
The types of things they say are just odd too. They think every person who illegally crosses our borders are automatically asylum seekers. Where did they get that idea? And when you point out the crime from people who aren't supposed to be here, they just point at our own citizens and point our their crimes. WTF? Who gives a shit if illegals theoretically commit less crime? Less is still more than none. Who would want to share a country with people who think like that?
OMG I did not know that one was out there. That's insane - and legally flawed on multiple levels. Blatant interference. Wow.
This is the legal line and it's been pretty well established in the case law by now. Local governments don't have to help the federal government, but they can't get in the way, either. This means that not all sanctuary policies will be illegal. But in cases where law enforcement is literally prohibited from simple communication or federal officials can't even use the airport, I think the local governments will lose in the courts.
The path to discouraging the passive non-cooperation is probably through the use of the spending power. Generally, that flows through Congress, but the Executive may have some limited discretion in that area.
Aiding, Abetting and Harbouring are all violations of the Immigration laws - and that is exactly what sanctuary areas do - aid, abet and harbor.
Agreed, but there's a line. Pointing a bank robber away from the cops chasing him makes one an accessory, but passively watching him escape and not alerting the police is - legally - ok.
Federalism is kind of similar. Under the rules of federalism, the states can aid the feds if they want to, but they don't have to. However, getting in their way is not ok.
Yep. But this is a very tricky area based on where states draw the line. I feel the two party political system has devolved to where the line is poorly chosen more to just stick it to the other side than to actually do good. Case in point the reporting to the NICS system. A lot of states are so bad in their reporting but I think most everyone could agree that this is an area where states should be standing up to work with the federal government.
Not checking one's immigration status when being questioned is not Aiding, Abetting and Harboring, nor is the State/City telling ICE to do their own jobs and not make city cops do it for them.
What are ALL "City Cops " hired to do ?
F barr, the horse he rode, twice on sundays.
FROM THE ARTICLE:
While the Constitution entrusts the police power to the states and does not require states to affirmatively assist federal authorities in implementing and enforcing immigration law, Barr said, it does clearly prohibit the states from actively interfering with federal immigration officials.
"The Founding Fathers carefully divided responsibility and power between the federal government and the state governments," Barr said. The 'Supremacy Clause' in Article VI of the Constitution provides that the 'Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land.'"
He added: "This Clause is a vital part of our constitutional order. Enforcing a country’s immigration laws is an essential function of the national government. And no national government can enforce those laws properly if state and local governments are getting in the way. While federal law does not require that 'sanctuary jurisdictions' actively assist with federal immigration enforcement, it does prohibit them from interfering with our enforcement efforts."
So, I see a couple of things here:
1. While the Constitution entrusts the police power to the states and does not require states to affirmatively assist federal authorities in implementing and enforcing immigration law, Barr said, it does clearly prohibit the states from actively interfering with federal immigration officials.
In what ways are local officials interfering with federal officials? Not assisting is not the same as interfering, and Barr knows, or should know that.
2. And no national government can enforce those laws properly if state and local governments are getting in the way.
Sounds like a federal grab for more power and perhaps wanting to simply overthrow local and state governments altogether.
Nothing would surprise me anymore.
1) Telling local law enforcement that they are forbidden to communicate with federal officers and 2) Blocking federal officers from using a public airport to do their jobs.
That’s definitely true here in Californication where the idiot state government prevents conservative business owners and rural county law enforcement from cooperation with ICE even though they want to do so.
How does not talking to them interfere? It just makes the feds do their own jobs.
Public airport? Really? King County International Airport is owned by the Federal government?
It's more than simply "not talking to them." It is the state making it a crime for local LEOs to talk to the feds even though they want to. Local law enforcement agencies routinely set their own agendas and determine their own best practices. Now the state is stepping in to obstruct ongoing cooperation.
Federal agencies have jurisdiction over virtually every aspect of airport operations. That's true of any airport, much less an international one. The federal government conducts all sorts of business in that airport. It's a federal port of entry. On what possible grounds do you imagine that the state can start telling the federal government it can't use the facility to transport people being deported?
Imo Steve sounds absolutely correct.
This is only giving more power to the feds.
Something the right use to be against.
If they can wrestle control of local jurisdictions, do you think it will end with one aspect?
It seems some think that the federal government putting 'sanctions' on a state or withholding funds from a state is a good thing.
It seems to me the right wing has gone from state rights to federal takeover or else, all within three years of a presidency.
The federal government is free to pursue violators of federal crimes wherever they may go. Getting in the way of that is - and always has been - a crime.
If your local sheriff wants to call ICE and let them know he has a criminal in custody that ICE is looking for, he should be allowed to do that. For what possible reason would you seek to prevent him from doing that?
From what I can see if a sheriff wants to do that, there is nothing stopping it.
It is what the local jurisdictions want to do.
Take San Francisco for example, they turn over violent criminals.
It is not enough for this administration as they want complete compliance.
Older article yet pertains.
The California sanctuary law basically only states that they don't have to post or send ICE release dates for prisoners. They still detain violent criminals and judges have discretion as well. ICE can still go into jails and question people.
I wonder if these folks feel the same way about the sanctuary cities being proposed in Virginia, in response to the new gun control laws.
Consider the stakes. One kind of sanctuary city is trying to protect violent criminals who shouldn't even be in the country. The other one is trying to preserve the Constitutional rights of American citizens. I feel no shame in supporting the latter.
And what kind is that? From what I can tell, even 'sanctuary cities' let ICE pick up violent criminals.
Now they are actually flouting ignoring judicial orders.
Ah, so apparently you support local governments breaking laws as long as it's for a cause you support. Got it.
A crime? Please provide a link to the California criminal code you are citing.
Changing your story? You stated it was a public airport, not a private one, why can't you back up your own claim? Or are you going to move the goalposts and try to change your story again?
Constitution outlines state vs federal rights. Are you saying that the federal government can over ride individual states?
Gun ownership.........illegal occupation of a foreign land.
One is against the law. The other is a Constitutional right. Let me know if you need some help sorting that out. I'm here for you.
It's also perfectly legal for a state to require background checks by gun sellers, and to restrict gun ownership by people who are considered to be dangers.
Just as FEDERAL law restricts gun ownership by convicted felons.
Let me know if you need some help sorting that out, or if you prefer to cling to hypocrisy.
Charged language doesn't make you correct. It makes you look willfully obtuse.
Please don't try to distract with stupid garbage. You think you're attacking the logic of an argument, but you aren't.
Why don't you explain why you want to protect illegal alien criminals?
Who said it wasn't? And who said they don't already? Let me help you out with the red flag portion. Say you don't like your neighbor..........no. They don't like you. Now, they turn you in because you are a domestic violence risk in their opinion fully unsubstantiated. Full investigation fucks up your life and reputation as there will always be that "risk" and uncertainty among some even though you are completely found innocent of such ridiculous assumption that someone made. How do you suppose that would feel?
Did my "charged language" offend you?
1.) I'm sorry
2.) It won't happen again
3.) Number 1 and 2 are lies
4.) I wasn't talking to you anyway
It's pretty simple. You either think illegal alien criminals should be roaming the streets of America or you don't. Choose now.
Within the process and procedures set out by State legislators.
Yep, again, the State legislature makes the rules. Under the Constitution, States are sovereign.
I find it hypocritical that when states like Texas pass legislation that REQUIRES localities to cooperate with the Feds and makes it illegal for them to pass non-cooperation legislation, the RW cheers.
Well gee Tacos!, there MUST be some 'possible grounds' because ICE isn't using that airport for deportations OR incoming to 'detention facilities'. You remember when Trump threatened to dump immigrants right?
Why do you want illegal alien criminals roaming the streets?
Why are you posting bullshit strawmen?
Pffft.
Why are you dodging the central issue? You either want illegal alien criminals walking the streets of America or you want to get rid of them. Which do you choose? Choose now and end the bullshit.
False choice.
The actual choice here is being a country of the rule of law or the rule of man.
Choose now.
Then I can only assume that you support letting the criminals run free but you won't say so out loud because you know it's a reprehensible and indefensible position.
Trump Administration Files New Lawsuits Against Sanctuary Jurisdictions
"The King County, Washington lawsuit is somewhat more complicated. It challenges the County's policy of refusing to let Immigration and Customs Enforcement use the municipal airport for flights that deport immigrants. There are some complexities here related to federal aviation law, which I will leave to those more expert on the subject than I am. But the commandeering and intergovernmental immunity issues are basically similar to those in the New Jersey case. Here too, the federal government is claiming the right to coerce state and local governments into helping enforce federal law, and also claiming that refusal to help qualifies as "discrimination" against the federal government. And these claims have all the same flaws as they did in other cases where the federal government has made them.
In October, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to take the California "sanctuary state" case , which raises much the same issue as the New Jersey case. The Trump administration lost on this issue in the lower courts (at the hands of both Republican and Democratic-appointed judges), and I doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn those rulings. But, obviously, if it does, that would have major implications for the New Jersey litigation and other similar cases.
If the administration somehow manages to win these cases, it would s et a dangerous precedent that goes far beyond immigration policy , creating a road map for federal coercion of states and local governments that can be used on many issues. Those on the right who now cheer Trump's efforts to coerce sanctuary cities may not be so happy when future Democratic presidents use similar tactics on issues such as gun control, education, or the "Green New Deal." Particularly in our highly polarized era , Americans with a wide range of ideological commitments have good reason to support strong judicial enforcement of constitutional limits on federal power over state and local governments."
I suppose if you don't stand for freedom, a little coercion isn't so bad.
It must be proven that they are illegal AND that they are criminals first.
That is the law.
It is also the law that holding someone beyond their release date is illegal UNLESS there is evidence to hold them and NO MORE than 48 hours. ICE usurps that time limit the vast majority of the time and then leaves local municipalities and county/state governments holding the bag for the cost of detentions. There of a ton of studies, one in Georgia that documented that the state spends about 1.5 million a year on immigration detentions, MANY for people who would normally just get a ticket and MOST of whom have NOT been convicted of ANYTHING.
The Feds are blowing off the cost just like Trump does when he leaves localities holding the bag for the cost of policing his rallies. They are both large scale grifters and local taxpayers are left paying the bills and needing to cut other services.
You be you Tacos!.
Our current laws state that an illegal alien is subject to deportation.
Why would anyone who professes to support the rule of law want illegal aliens roaming about the country?
What exactly is the point of states or counties or cities passing sanctuary policies which put the well-being of American citizens at risk?
And why do so many on the left cheer for that crap?
Just answer the very simple question or move on. Posting a bunch of platitudes or irrelevant "facts" is just an evasion tactic.
People get murdered or raped and you treat it like it's a fucking game. You be you, I guess.
AFTER they get a hearing. You know, that whole innocent until proven guilty thingy.
Why would anyone continue to post that ridiculous strawman?
There is a very good argument that sanctuary cities are MORE safe for US citizens. The immigrant community cooperating with LEOs is one of them.
I only speak for myself Tex.
It may surprise you that I need not accept YOUR either or FALSE choices nor your FALSE charactorizations. Live with it.
What brought you to that utterly hyperbolic and unfounded conclusion?
Always.
Well, of course after a hearing. I certainly didn't suggest otherwise, and don't see where anyone else did, either. Leave it to you to argue something no one claimed. Why do you do that so often?
Seems like it becomes a strawman every time there is a tough question someone doesn't want to answer.
There is a very good argument against sanctuary cities, counties, and states. I am sure the victims of illegal alien crimes are just thrilled to hear that other illegal aliens are cooperating with law enforcement. I wonder when illegal aliens will be stand-up enough to cooperate with ICE.
Right, so you support releasing them until their hearing. /s
Seriously Tex, WHY should they be held in JAIL until ICE gets around to picking them up and then in DETENTION for who the fuck knows how long before they get a hearing? Do you have ANY idea how long the immigration backlog is in this country? If they haven't been convicted of anything, they should be released with a order to appear.
Oh and PLEASE spare me the 'they never show up' bullshit because that has been debunked.
This from the strawman king.
You're all about not arguing something no one claimed right?
YOU would NEVER do that yourself right?
So unless you're a hypocrit, here is where you PROVE that I stated that I wanted illegal aliens roaming about the country. Post the comment number where I said that Tex.
I'll wait.
1. There are documented cases of illegal aliens murdering or raping people and the crimes could have been avoided if local authorities had cooperated with ICE to deport them.
2. You continue to play the usual games of distorting what people have said, arguing straw men or just general rude statements followed by pearl clutching from about you are the one being personally attacked.
Those are the things that brought me to my very reasonable conclusions. So they weren't unfounded. You have erred. Again.
Oh believe me, no one expects you to face the truth. It's just fun shining on a light on your repeated refusal to do it.
No fucking need to wait. I didn't state that you wanted illegal aliens roaming about the country.
FFS.
HERE is what I actually posted:
Please take note of the FACT that I asked a question. And if you profess to support the rule of law, how could you possibly want illegal aliens roaming about? Illegal aliens are here ILLEGALLY by definition. That means they broke a law.
So once again (sigh, it is really, really old now) you claim I stated something I did not.
Why do you insist on arguing what I don't state?
OMG that's dumb. No one here has said they couldn't get a hearing. Why the fuck are you talking about hearings??
By all means! Have a freakin hearing!
What everyone is saying is that we don't want them running free when ICE wants to see them. Usually that means they are wanted for an alleged crime, some immigration violation that warrants this level of attention, or they have been convicted of some crime. Either way, they need to be handed over to ICE and there is no justification for not doing it.
We're not talking about some hard-working, otherwise law-abiding housekeeper or gardener who was minding his/her own business. We're talking about someone who was already in the custody of law enforcement - probably for a damned good reason - and is WANTED by a federal law enforcement agency.
If it we were talking about a citizen and the FBI wanted to take custody of them, this wouldn't even be a conversation. It would just happen. But by golly we gots to protect them illegal aliens! That's super important!
I have to bang my head on a tree now. I can't believe I'm reading this nonsense.
Says the guy talking about hearings. Like WTF!
Not when we're talking about people already in trouble with the law.
Because it is infinitely easier to debate when you frame both sides they way you want. Why bother to debate honestly when you can claim someone says something and then argue it?
Absolutely correct. Anyone not wanting illegal aliens deported aren't honestly for law enforcement. Denials to the contrary.
Sounds like simple common sense to me. Perhaps that is why some can't see it?
This:
Implies that Dulay wants illegal aliens roaming about the country. You implied that this was Dulay's position. You see that, right?
So now you and Dulay should be square. You know that this is not Dulay's position, right?
Thank you, but I really don't need you to explain her posts to me.
Or mine.
No offense.
I agree. I am (and was) convinced you knew exactly what Dulay meant.
When people constantly claim I state things I haven't, and I call them out on it, I am extra careful to be precise in what they have actually written--especially when they pride themselves on their written eloquence. I wouldn't wish to be accused of assuming something or putting words in their mouth.
I think that is a good practice.
It's EXTREMELY simple. You either stay on topic, [deleted] and stop replying to my comments with made up, off topic, crap.
Barr is asking for more than that. He wants a total usurpation of local and state authority.
If the administration somehow manages to win these cases, it would s et a dangerous precedent that goes far beyond immigration policy , creating a road map for federal coercion of states and local governments that can be used on many issues. Those on the right who now cheer Trump's efforts to coerce sanctuary cities may not be so happy when future Democratic presidents use similar tactics on issues such as gun control, education, or the "Green New Deal." Particularly in our highly polarized era , Americans with a wide range of ideological commitments have good reason to support strong judicial enforcement of constitutional limits on federal power over state and local governments.
It is best to think long term, not just about the immediate want.
There is so much disinformation in that article. I'll just start here, the Detainer REQUEST is just that, a request. Refusing a request is NOT a violation of ANYTHING. PERIOD full stop.
Secondly, the article tries to pretend that the NJ law is somehow nefarious because it requires notification of the detainer. The REALITY is that ICE detainers INCLUDE a requirement, right on the fucking document, to notify the person detained, in writing, in their own language. So trying to dump that on NJ is utter bullshit.
Finally, to all who are claiming that ICE detainers somehow prove that the person is a criminal, I ask you WTF happened to innocent until proven guilty?
If you're brown, poor or a Deep State Democrat you're automatically guilty of something to Alt-Righties.
Who claimed that? More dulay dreamed up shit?
I wasn't aware ICE threw out detainers at random, you got something to support your posit?
At least 8 members on this seed.
Posting personal comments from the get go I see.
What are you imagining my posit to be kd? I sure as hell didn't make up innocent until proven guilty out of whole clothe.
Imaginary ones?
Not personal when you make shit up.
Show me who said that a ice detainer proves they are a criminal, I can man up and admit I'm wrong unlike some that will just start to spin and sputter.
Well, at the very least----unnamed ones.
Looks like you have had quite a wait there. How long do you think it will end up being---if ever, of course?
It's a CoC violation to call out members Tex.
BTFW, the SEED alone alleges it at least 5 times.
Flag it then.
BTFW, which member did I call out?
Can you quote me on that?
Wow, talk about a kneejerk reply.
What did you say Tex?
You said they were 'unnamed' right?
Do you get WHY they are UNNAMED now Tex?
Sheesh...
They are unnamed by you because they are imaginary. Once again, you claimed members stated something, (which they did not, of course) and then started to try and argue it.
Don't you remember writing this little gem?
No one here did that. That is WHY you were called on your bullshit. And someone asked you to name the people you claim to have said it. And, you refused or were simply (and obviously) unable to do so.
Once again, arguing exactly what NO ONE states.
Lazy AND dishonest tactics.
Tissue?
[deleted]
So you went from 8 people posting that ice detainers proved that they were criminal to the seed alleges. LMAO
What you actually have some left?
Cheers
Supply the names of the people who claimed that so they can respond.
More than likely just the usual tactic of claiming someone said something, and then arguing it, rather than actual facts.
Review your own comments.
I invite you to do a search of 'criminal' in this seed and READ how many people have claimed that ALLEGED that UNCONVICTED 'illegal aliens' are criminals. How about you post the names...
I have read every single post here. I don't see where anyone has suggested deporting people without due process. You are simply confused as to what they actually stated. If I am wrong, then simply prove it as you have been asked to do multiple times without success.
HOW ABOUT YOU POST THE NAMES SINCE YOU CLAIMED THEY SAID IT???
Never mind, I know and you know you can't or you would have done it by now. Yet once again, claiming people state stuff when they didn't and then arguing THAT instead of what WAS written.
SMMFH
Sanctuary Cities? Yeah, sure. The city is The White House and it's suburbs are the GOP House and Senate.
The right wing's survival always depends on the demonization of something and somebody.
As far as Barr and Trump? Yeah well, they respect Putin's Russia.
Roy Cohen Barr also called into disdain "progressive Prosecutors" who gave out lenient sentences. Of course he then approved a no sentence approach to tRumps friends who were convicted by a jury to up to nine years in jail What a hypocrite.
In the real world (where most of us reside) Barr did NOT call for NO sentence.
Can you quote him on that, or did you just make it up?
"Forever Ubiquitous."
Likewise, I'm sure.
Barr could not sweep a porch with a broom without fucking it up.