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.
(in North America) a city whose municipal laws tend to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation or prosecution, despite federal immigration law."
What don’t you get about that?
Looks like you want to cheery pick what laws to follow and not.
I THINK Trump should start bringing charges against those who have created the sanctuary places.
This is exactly what they are doing. Lori Lightfoot is doing this in Chicago.
This is obstruction of Federal Law. If they don't agree with catching and/or deporting ILLEGAL ALIENS (there is no such thing as undocumented immigrant as immigration is a legal process that requires, guess what? DOCUMENTS) then they should work to change Federal Law, not obstruct the law. Then we become a society of anarchists.
This is going on in liberal areas and in NJ. Our AG told county sheriffs and local law enforcement not to work with ICE. Is this treason? Obstruction of justice? Or is it acceptable?
Where’s the option for perfectly legal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby
That would seem to apply as would Sedition, which is also rarely prosecuted.
Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent towards, or resistance against established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.
The real question is “should any government official be allowed to hold office after taking an Oath to support and Defend the Laws and Constitution” after they advocate and support braking the LAW?”
I say NO, they should resign. We can prosecute them for braking their Oath of Office, but we should be able to remove them from that office. They work for us and we deserve better.
You’re 100% wrong. On everything.
The states don’t have to enforce federal laws. They don’t have to work with ICE. State law enforcements only concern is state law.
The sheriff is the highest ranking law enforcement official in their counties. They outrank Feds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
This is obstruction of Federal Law. If they don't agree with catching and/or deporting ILLEGAL ALIENS (there is no such thing as undocumented immigrant as immigration is a legal process that requires, guess what? DOCUMENTS) then they should work to change Federal Law, not obstruct the law. Then we become a society of anarchists.
No, we’re a society without a central government. The whole small government... states rights... that moron “conservatives” carry on about unless it’s serves their purpose... then they’re all for it...
No, we’re a society without a central government. The whole small government... states rights... that moron “conservatives” carry on about unless it’s serves their purpose... then they’re all for it...
Derka durr.
The States all agreed to abide by Federal Law when they became states. So, work to change the law, not obstruct it. Should the states also ignore Federal Environmental Law? Should they be able to ignore the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and all the others?
The States all agreed to abide by Federal Law when they became states. So, work to change the law, not obstruct it. Should the states also ignore Federal Environmental Law? Should they be able to ignore the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and all the others?
Now, who is the MORON?
Working with ICE isn’t covered by any amendment.
They can’t work against the Feds, but they also don’t have to help them. That’s plain as day.
This is going on in liberal areas and in NJ. Our AG told county sheriffs and local law enforcement not to work with ICE. Is this treason? Obstruction of justice? Or is it acceptable?
He's not doing his job, and he is instructing them not to do their job, but to "aid and abet" criminals.
If I aid & abet, as well as advise a fugitive on how to avoid capture, am I committing a crime? If yes, then liberal dems who have zero regard for our immigration laws should be prosecuted the same way I would be.
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.
