Charles Krauthammer identified the issue of sanctuary cities as a scandal, even before Donald Trump took issue with them, and he said that Democrats would be foolish to defy federal authority to defend them:
“Sanctuary cities were a scandal before Trump. It’s in defiance of federal authority. Federal authority is legitimate. The people who did this in the past were the racists in the south who defied federal authority on civil rights, so now it’s in the name of something that appears to be humanitarian.
It’s something that should not be allowed. The Democrats have tolerated it, and I think Trump would be within his rights to withhold funds, and he should. And the Democrats are making a big bet, and a mistaken one, if they decide they’re going to defy the federal government and what seems to be common sense: Control your borders.”
Boycott these sanctacry cities hit them where it hurts
Some of these Dem mayors SAY they will ”defy” President Trump’s defunding of their cities for staying Sanctuary Cities.
But, what do they mean when they say that?
They mean they will REDEFINE what they mean by Sanctuary City so that they could still get funded BUT they would ”help” illegals up to the point of losing funding from the feds.
There’s no way these places can survive without federal funds.
Just like gays were thrown under the bus when Dems picked Muslims over them.
And just like blacks were thrown under the bus when Dems picked foreign workers over them.
So, too, illegals will find themselves thrown under the bus when Dems pick their own pocketbooks over them.
This is America. No defiance of an order is involved. A president does not have the authority to command the elected mayor of a city.
During the civil rights movement, the federal government was protecting the constitutional rights of individual citizens from discriminatory state laws. The states had no legal authority to deprive citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed rights based on race.
In the case of sanctuary cities, the federal government has no authority to compel a city government to comply with a president’s orders. If Trump wants to send out law enforcement personnel who are properly under his presidential authority to arrest and deport people, he can do that.
@Greg: Does a President have the right to threaten cities and states if they do not allow sexual predators in women’s restrooms? You didn’t mind that.
No matter where an illegal immigrant is, they are still illegally here.
No worries, though. Sanctuary cities are all liberal enclaves of waste and debt. They are dependent upon federal taxpayer funds. Cut the funds.
So send out your deportation force and arrest them. Don’t expect the police forces of sanctuary cities to do it for you. They’re more concerned with catching real criminals. If one turns out to be an undocumented alien, you can probably expect cooperation on that one—since they were already doing that to begin with.
Somebody mentioned boycotts. An unpopular president with 500 businesses should probably be careful about using that word. People he pisses off might get ideas. The Trump brand could be made about as popular as leprosy. People have power.
@Greg: So all of the illegals who are involved in criminal activities will flock to sanctuary cities. That is a good thing for the honest people who live there. They are already setting records for shooting people. The point is that liberals do not care. Wonder why Trump got more Hispanic and black votes than Romney? (Those votes made the difference.) Voters are tired of the crime in big cities.
@Greg: It doesn’t matter how you want to define it, Greg, the purpose of a police officer is to enforce the laws of the country, state, county, city and local municipalities. They don’t have the option of choosing which laws they enforce, if it’s a violation of a law, they are sworn to uphold all laws. Sounds as if you think a city can create a ‘tax dodger’ zone or a ‘heroin’ user zone. Next you’ll be wanting a ‘rapist sanctuary’. Any law officer that does not enforce the laws he’s sworn to enforce should be fired. Here is the oath of office that a local police officer in the state of Utah swears to ” “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this State, and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.”
Do you see anything there that allows him, or requires him, to not enforce immigration laws?
Every one of those dirty demacrat mayors need to be tried for Harboring the enemy and given life in prison every darn one of these members of the Dirty Jackass Party THEIR HEADS SHOULD ROLL
In point of fact, the focus of local police department manpower is most often directed by municipal government to best deal with the problems it deems to represent the most serious threats to local civil order and public safety. All laws must be enforced with equal effort might be fine in theory, but in reality that simply isn’t how things work.
That’s why federal drug laws regarding marijuana are not being diligently enforced by local police departments in states that have legalized medical marijuana. You can run around waving your arms in the air and ranting about marijuana being a Schedule I drug the same as heroin if you wish. A number of states have formally recognized such scheduling as completely nuts, and are not going to waste local time and money enforcing a law that their own voters and legislatures have formally rejected.
Sanctuary cities don’t view every undocumented alien as a likely drug pusher, rapist, thief, or murderer—because they’re not. Any that truly are can be dealt with accordingly. Any that truly are can be dealt with both as criminals and persons who have no business being here. That’s been the Obama administration’s approach. Limited resources have been acknowledged, and the people they are applied to have been prioritized. An undocumented college student with no criminal record isn’t treated the same way as an undocumented repeat offender, and shouldn’t be.
Federal Law in the case of immigration, Trumps state and local law. Civics much there ol greg….
@Greg: You don’t get it. These sanctuary cities let criminals go free solely because they are illegal immigrants. If ICE asks them to hold someone ALREADY IN CUSTODY so they can be picked up, the sanctuary cities release them; then citizens die.
Now I see why you so adamantly supported a criminal candidate; ideology IS law.
Anyone remember the ideology practiced by the commander of the POWs in the movie “Bridge over the River Kwai”? He realized almost too late that his ideology was wrong. How long are liberals going to wait until they see the error of their ways? How many innocent people are they willing to sacrifice to murders, drunk driving, rapists for their ideology? Likely they will cling to their ideology until something happens to their family, then they will finally see.
@Bill- Deplorable Me:
Gee, has the left forgotten that the state of Arizona wanted to assist in the enforcement of immigration law? It went all the way to the Supreme Court where the state of Arizona was told immigration law was under Federal Authority. The left uses the Constitution when it benefits them and forgets it when it opposes them.
chucky hates Trump and is a giant asshole. FBI to investigate but the fool stopped the investigation.
@July 4th American, #10:
That’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not state, county, and municipal police are legally bound to enforce laws that are strictly federal. No, they are not so required. In fact, there has been debate about whether this is even permissible.
Congress can delegate the authority to enforce federal law to local law enforcement personnel not under federal jurisdiction, but they cannot compel that they do so by legal requirement. Local law enforcement is concerned with state, county, and municipal law. In the course of their official duties they are legally bound to enforce only those laws, and are commanded only by state, county, and municipal authorities.
This isn’t a question of somebody using the Constitution. It’s how the the people that created the Constitution purposefully set things up. They didn’t want to create a single, supreme source of authority over all things in the nation’s capital. That hasn’t changed just because Donald Trump is being elevated from reality TV host to Commander in Chief.
States are and have always been bound to recognize federal law. Because you have been mis educated, you fail to understand that law enforcement at a state and local level is duty bound to apprehend a criminal known to have violated any federal law. In the case of immigration, law enforcement at a local level reports to ICE who then take control of the situation.
That fact that the current lame duck president chose to not enforce federal law and knowingly told the department of Justice to look the other way does not make a case for not following the law when we get a President who takes his oath seriously.
You continue to embarrass yourself defending the ignorance that you think is intelligence.
@July 4th American:
There’s a single word that describes your position on this point of Constitutional law: Wrong.
State, local, and municipal law enforcement personnel may be delegated the authority to enforce federal laws by a president or Congress, including immigration law, but they are under absolutely no legal compulsion to do so. In their official capacities as law enforcement personnel, they do not operate under federal authority. They are not legally bound to enforce a law that exists in federal statute but does not exist on the state level. They are not instruments of Congress, or subject to presidential commands. That’s not their job. That’s not the Constitution.
Why do you imagine local authorities aren’t busily closing down medical marijuana dispensaries or arresting cancer patients who are relying on prescribed cannabis products for control of pain and nausea? The DEA claims it’s a Schedule 1 drug, with high potential for addiction and absolutely no legitimate uses in medicine. Federal law classifies it as being essentially the same as heroin. More states have now rejected this absurd view than accept it, and have changed their state laws to reflect that conclusion.
State and local law enforcement officers don’t close them down because they enforce state law, not federal law. They’ve got more useful things to do with their time.
Does a sanctuary city or state violate federal immigration law?
I don’t really see how it does. It isn’t the city, its government, its churches, or its lawful residents who are in violation of federal immigration laws. Federal authorities can still enforce federal immigration laws there. They just can’t compel the city or its officials or residents to do so for them.
What should a law enforcement officer do if in the course of doing his/her job, there is contact with an illegal alien who has committed a crime?
Laws. Please obey them as you find them convenient.
There’s no legal requirement that requires local authorities to enforce federal statutes that don’t also exist as state laws. That’s not their job. They’re ignoring nothing when they refrain from doing so. You wouldn’t expect the local or state police to arrest people for federal income tax violations.
@Spurwing Plover: pull their federal funding; even better.
@Greg: It’s against the law. Even liberals don’t get to violate laws (despite what you have learned over the past 8 years).
@Greg: Greg, most or all police officers swear to an oath to uphold the laws of the constitution, state, county and local. It doesn’t provide for them to opt out of laws that they don’t like.
is that undocumented college student also allowed to ignore the fact that they have to pay for tuition or room and board? If you are being held up at gunpoint by a criminal and there is a policeman standing there with an illegal alien that he knows is illegal and he’s just allowing him to disobey the law, would you trust that policeman to do anything about that guy robbing you? Maybe he(the policeman) thinks that guy is entitled to take your property because you have something he needs. ie, the guy gets to choose which laws he wants to uphold. Sure manpower has to be allocated according to the pattern of law violations. If there are 100 speeders for every illegal alien, then more cars should be dedicated to traffic control, but that doesn’t mean that a bank robber should be ignored (incidentally, robbing a bank is a ‘federal crime’ not a local one). Paying federal income taxes are federal laws. My belief is that ALL laws should be enforced, otherwise, repeal the law.
@Bill… Deplorable Me, #24:
I guess then you’d better start arresting and locking up Catholic priests and members of the Catholic Church, since they’re the originators of and a key component in the sanctuary movement in virtually every city where it’s an issue.
The following, by the way, would be the part having a bearing on the discussion about the legal obligations of state, county, and municipal law enforcement officers:
State, county, and municipal law enforcement officers have no legal duty to enforce this federal statute, and the Attorney General has no Constitutional authority to order them to do so.
I suppose Trump can reconfigure ICE along the guidelines of the gestapo, conduct raids of kindergartens and Catholic day care facilities, confiscate their property without due process, and send teachers and day care workers off to prison for concealing the status of the undocumented children in their care. Have at it. See what happens.
You are one sad sack. Americans want laws enforced, those that are already established and have been ignored by presidents of both parties. Americans want a sovereign nation, not a nation who borders are open to whomever feels they have a right to be here.
Your lack of acceptance of the election results paints you as an irrational typist, typing bilge and claptrap at every typing event. Slink away into obscurity like the failed candidate who lost….
ANYONE that breaks the law should be held responsible. This includes former Secretaries of State that abuses her office or priests. Anyone.
It is against the law to enter this country illegally. It is against the law to harbor illegal immigrants. I guess it even has to be pointed out, to a liberal, that it is against the law for an illegal immigrant to commit felonies. It is against the law for authorities in sanctuary cities to release criminals because they are illegal immigrants and ICE has notified the city that they want to come and pick them up.
No one is asking city cops to act as immigration officials, but they MUST cooperate with the law. I suppose if a city or state wishes to ignore background checks on gun purchases, that’s OK? No, because FEDERAL LAW has to be obeyed.
Ah. You mean like Clinton did with Elian Gonzalez. No, there are other ways to get people to comply with the laws. The primary one is money. These liberal enclaves NEED money because they waste so much of it on stupid things like paying illegal immigrants to be here illegally. We’ll see how firmly they stand by their “principles” when the money begins to dry up and those who HAVE he right to vote begin losing THEIR services.
@Bill… Deplorable Me:
A functioning department of justice can force mayors or any elected official who with intent, attempts to nullify a law can be held to account. It simply requires enforcement of existing law.
8 U.S. Code § 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
@Greg: what a stupid ass argument. All policemen are sworn to uphold the laws of the US, the state, the county and city and all unincorported areas of the United States. All policemen can make ‘decisions’. Does he write a ticket if you’re going 56 in a 55 zone. No. Could he technically be right to do so? absolutely. No policeman has the job to go out and observe people to see if they can identify illegal aliens by their appearance. But if in the course of their normal duties, they discover that a person is illegal, then they have an obligation to ‘do the right thing’. If they are chasing a bank robber (which is a federal crime) should they stop to check if one of the bank’s customers was in the US illegally? No. But, using the left’s idiotic arguments, local policemen should ignore a call for a bank robbery or a kidnapping because those are ‘Federal crimes’. Policemen are authorized to arrest people for violating laws. They should do so, when appropriate.
Very interesting. So lets say there are 3 policemen in a bank when it is robbed. two local officers and an FBI agent. one local officer wants to apprehend the robbers, one local officer does not and the FBI guy decides he should since he is a Federal agent, but is he ‘obligated’ to do so? Can his boss order him to do so? Suppose the bank robber reveals that he is an illegal alien and all the police officers decide they can’t arrest him because he is not under their jurisdiction? Can the local officer arrest the guy regardless of what the other two officers want to do?. Can the two local policemen arrest the bank robber under any circumstances since it is a federal crime and not a local crime? Suppose one local officer arrested the robber, could he be sued by the robber for interfering with his civil rights?
I think if you consider the bedlam that would ensue if each policeman in the country decided which laws are to be enforced and when to enforce them. Should the FBI guy arrest the local policeman if the local policeman interferes with the right of the bank robber to rob the bank? Suppose the bank robber had parked illegally outside, should the right of the local policeman to arrest the guy take precedent over the FBI for him robbing the bank.
Clearly, I think the answer is that all police officers have a duty to enforce laws, and the ability to use common sense in doing so.
@Greg: How about aiding and abetting fugitives? Illegals in the US are fugitives IAW federal law. Any one who assists them to remain fugitives are aiding and abetting them. That is a federal crime . That includes local law enforcement, mayors and anyone who aids and abets.
It appears greg, you are completely wrong…….
Take it easy on Greg. They had to up the dosage of his meds after the elections.
@Randy: As Ronald Reagan is quoted: It’s not that Greg is ignorant, it’s just that he knows so many things that aren’t true.
But that seems to fit most Dims these days.
Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
“Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
Penalties upon conviction include criminal fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of vehicles and real property used to commit the crime. Anyone employing or contracting with an illegal alien without verifying his or her work authorization status is guilty of a misdemeanor. Aliens and employers violating immigration laws are subject to arrest, detention, and seizure of their vehicles or property. In addition, individuals or entities who engage in racketeering enterprises that commit (or conspire to commit) immigration-related felonies are subject to private civil suits for treble damages and injunctive relief.
They are coconspirators in whatever injury or damage befalls anyone in their city and if one of they foreigners who broke into this country, injures someone, they have shown reckless disregard for the people of that city and are guilty of same.
The United States is either a nation of people ruled by laws and Constitution, or we are a nation ruled by ideological tyrants. One example of this is the illegal protecting by “Sanctuary cities” of convicted criminals.
“It is time to start locking up local officials like Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel for interfering with the enforcement of federal immigration law,” Matthew Vadum of Canada Free Press recently wrote.
The FEDs only need to arrest a few Chiefs of police for these cities or better yet, a mayor or two to reverse this trend. Let them stay in jail for several days and introduce them to the perb walk.
It is like those western when a lynch mob tries to free a suspect from jail and hang him. The sheriff defending the suspect against 2 or more people does not threaten the whole mob. He threatens the leaders with a shotgun blast. When the leaders back down, the mob dissipates.