Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. Deliberate and intentional Encouraging/Inducing. There's no mystery to it.
Quote:
I can see this admin is disgusted by States having the right to create their own laws. They want FULL control.
State Law cannot supersede Federal Law: US Constitution Supremacy Clause, Article VI.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Yes. Deliberate and intentional Encouraging/Inducing. There's no mystery to it.
Yes, it seems pretty straight forward thinking. Arrest, arrest, arrest. In case of Colorado, and many other States, every citizen who voted "YES" to legalize pot, must be arrested for "encouragement" to violate federal drug laws.
Yes, it seems pretty straight forward thinking. Arrest, arrest, arrest. In case of Colorado, and many other States, every citizen who voted "YES" to legalize pot, must be arrested for "encouragement" to violate federal drug laws.
Is there a Federal Law specifically regarding such as there in fact IS regarding unauthorized aliens?
Marijuana? Yes, it is illegal at federal level, so be careful to not encourage anyone to use it with your votes.
Cite the Federal Law which specifically states that it is illegal for any person to encourage/induce another person to possess or use marijuana.
Meanwhile, this very specific Federal Law and the corresponding prison sentence penalties actually exist regarding encouraging/Inducing illegal aliens:
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.
...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.
Its an issue, because local LE works for the cities, counties and State, and if you disobey their guidelines, you'll lose your job. Its a choice between losing your job, and going to prison (possibly for life, as some posters insist would be the case). The best choice is probably to just walk away from the job, and let the Feds enforce the laws. You can't win with these fools in the WH.
I guess I am blessed I did NOT choose to become an LE officer.
Somehow I doubt the feds are going to target beat cops for refusal to cooperate.
It's the city/state officials that are setting policy who should be worried.
They do if ICE presents a warrant signed by a judge but their 'requests for detainer' do no meet the standard set out in the 4th amendment. In case you don't believe me:
2017 - City of El Cenizo v. Texas10 the Western District Court of Texas blocked several sections of of SB4 law that would force state and local entities to cooperate with federal immigration officers in the detention
and removal of immigrants. This case is currently under appeal in the Fifth Circuit.
• The Court held that state and local officers cannot be forced to detain persons based solely on an ICE detainer because such a mandate would prohibit local officers from undertaking any particularized assessment that the person committed a crime.
• In coming to this conclusion, the Court found that the probable cause assessments required by ICE and local officers are different in that local officers are required to find probable cause that a person has engaged in criminal activity and ICE only requires probable cause that the person is removable.
2017 -Santoyo v. United States a man whose charges had been dismissed sued for being held on an ICE detainer for six weeks.
• The Western District Court of Texas held that Bexar County, TX, could be liable for unlawful detention, because the Fourth Amendment requires police to have probable cause of a crime to detain someone, and the ICE detainer was merely based on allegations of civil immigration violations. For that reason, the court rejected Bexar County’s argument that they were entitled to rely on ICE’s determination of probable cause.
• The court pointed out that ICE’s issuance of detainers with allegations of previous criminal convictions does not provide probable cause of any new offense as a basis to arrest in the present.
2017 - Lunn v. Commonwealth Lunn was detained based solely on an ICE detainer after his criminal charges were dismissed.
• The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that neither federal law or Massachusetts law granted MA officers the authority to arrest individuals based solely on ICE detainers alleging civil immigration violations.
• In reaching its decision, the SJC rejected the Government’s argument that State and local officers have an inherent authority outside of Massachusetts’ state law to make federal civil immigration arrests.
2016 - Jimenez-Moreno v. Napolitano,6 ICE placed detainers on individuals without probable cause or adequate investigation. Plaintiffs brought a class action and claimed that ICE detainers exceeded ICE’s own statutory authority and violate the Fourth Amendment.
• The Northern District of Illinois held that nearly all ICE detainers issued by the Chicago Field Office were invalid.
• The court found that ICE has limited authority to arrest without a warrant, and that detainers on individuals in local custody generally exceed this authority. ICE needs to get a warrant to seek the arrest of an individual already in local custody, or else make an individualized finding of risk of escape prior to issuing the detainer
And those are just from 2016 and 2017, if you are interested it's easy to find other cases including several in which US citizens were held on ICE detainers:
ICE needs to get their own house in order before they start threatening local law enforcement agencies
When did I say anything about a detainer?
You brought that up not me.
My post specifically said federal warrant.
You are arguing a position that I am not stating.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
