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, but it does not protect them from actively working against federal laws, which these cities who purposefully mandate such orders are commanding of their officers. They are as a matter of ACTIVE intent telling their officers to obstruct federal law.
This is different than a failure to apply federal law.
Respectfully disagree. States are free to actively force their own agents not to enforce federal law. Again, the Supreme Court was clear about this principle in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States A state telling its agents not to enforce federal law is far different from a state passing a law that directly contravenes said law. Put differently and generally, states are free to say that they will not enforce federal law, but they are not free to pass laws legalizing something that federal law forbids or criminalizing something that federal law expressly legalizes. That's where the difference lies.
The mayor of a sanctuary city tells the police NOT to inquire about a person's immigration status. But President Trump tells the police, yes you need to find the illegal aliens and turn in the ones that have committed a crime.
What are the police supposed to do? Discuss.
I believe local police are answerable to the justice system and their oath of office. Yes, they have a chain of command BUT, just like our military are held to a higher standard and cannot fall back on, "I was just following orders" and the Nazis were held to a higher standard and could fall back on, "I was just following orders."
A time will come when an illegal commits a horrific crime and records will show that officer X had the person in custody and even though circumstances left the officer with RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion) and warranted a quick background check, this was not done and the officer did not inform ICE.
When that happens you can bet ALL involved, the Mayor, the city or county council, the state legislators AND the officer who had the person in custody will ALL be held accountable to the victim's family.
This issue shouldn't come down to the differing political views of the people involved. The laws exist. If the law was violated, go through the process dictated by the law. I can assure you that any officer who is fired for disobeying an illegal order to NOT check background status or contact ICE, an official order that clearly violates federal law... that officer will not lose their job AND that officer will be guaranteed a job at many different Police and Sheriff Departments across the nation.
People all across the nation are furious about the illegal immigration status thing. Many are angry with their politicians, their senators and representatives who put special interests over their wishes for immigration laws to be enforced.
This WILL blow up in politicians faces all across the nation.
The border patrol is thrilled with Trump... they feel like they can finally do their job. They especially like the cancelling of catch and release and are ok with the wall.
Chief Beck is so far resisting Trump regarding sanctuary cities and saying "I've been in law enforcement for 40 years so I think I know what's better for LA then President Trump" The mayor hates Trump with every fiber of his being and putting LA in danger because of it.
My personal opinion is Chief Beck is backing the mayor because he doesn't want any more protests and rioting but he doesn't look very liberal to me so think he'll back down if Trump starts swinging the big hammer.
1. Gun laws (federal government has no purview as per the 2nd, period)
2. Pot (federal government has no authority over such within the state, period)
3. ACA (federal government has no authority to dictate individuals or states provide health care)
Immigration is however absolutely within the bounds of federal government, clearly and unarguably.
Progressives AGAIN show how they do not know their head from their arse concerning the Constitution.
The Feds DO have authority over pot in the states. The only thing Congress said is that they can't raid MEDICAL MJ places. Says nothing about recreational. The Feds also DO dictate gun laws, a state can't enact a law that is more lenient then federal law. For instance, a state can't make fully auto's legal for sale like every other gun. They also can't pass a law that by passes the federal background check system.
Respectfully disagree. States are free to actively force their own agents not to enforce federal law. Again, the Supreme Court was clear about this principle in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States A state telling its agents not to enforce federal law is far different from a state passing a law that directly contravenes said law. Put differently and generally, states are free to say that they will not enforce federal law, but they are not free to pass laws legalizing something that federal law forbids or criminalizing something that federal law expressly legalizes. That's where the difference lies.
What about failure to report a federal felony? That is a crime in and of itself right? Also, if a city official or council administers a "policy" order to its departments, is this also not on the same line as a law?
Part of the problem the ICE has not been picking up illegals with detainers from jails in a timely manner. The local jurisdictions cannot afford to house these illegals indefinitely. Even cities that are conservative have landed on the sanctuary list because of this. Has not picking them up been based on Obama's view of immigration? Probably. The Feds will have to step up their part of the bargain and not make local jurisdictions house them for long periods of time without proper reimbursement. But cities and states have the duty to inform ICE on every illegal they arrest. Period.
Get ready to lose your access to Federal FBI databases if you don't want to play ball.
Which would be the federal government's right. Having written that, its the states that make the FBI databases work (most crimes committed are state crimes and states agreeing to share information with the FBI on crimes their criminals commit enables the databases to stand/be effective in the first place). If the FBI/DOJ was foolish enough to take this route, states would be free to create their own database separate from the FBI.
The Feds DO have authority over pot in the states. The only thing Congress said is that they can't raid MEDICAL MJ places. Says nothing about recreational. The Feds also DO dictate gun laws, a state can't enact a law that is more lenient then federal law. For instance, a state can't make fully auto's legal for sale like every other gun. They also can't pass a law that by passes the federal background check system.
Yes, they do according to their own claims of authority. My point is if we are going to get really down and dirty Constitutionally, none of those I listed do they actually have authority over. They are among many, authorities that the federal government has granted itself without constitutional grounds.
When a local, state or federal official is scorn into office he sites an allegiance to uphold the laws of the federal government as well as local.
Which law are they not upholding?
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.
