Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The United City States of ....

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The United City States of ....

    When does the mandate of one's electors override the wider body politic? Some British Labour MPs are facing similar issues.
    T
    he mayors of New York City and Chicago say they will protect their citizens in the face of President Trump's latest executive order on immigration.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38753233
    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
    Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

  • #2
    That's just empty talk. If the Federal Gov't should withhold so much as one slim dime from either city, both mayors will fold faster than a Chinaman on laundry day. They may try to be sneaky, but they'll cave in the end.
    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

    Comment


    • #3
      Yea, sure... Rahm Emmanuel can't even protect his citizens from being murdered by the hundreds in gun battles... Good luck with this...

      Comment


      • #4
        It is a complex issue, legally.

        By law a city, county, parish, or state cannot refuse to enforce Federal statutes.

        However, enforcement in most cases is done by civil process. This really doesn't impact often because most states duplicate many Federal laws (for instance all 50 states ban full-auto weapons without a Federal Firearms license), and the Feds enforce nearly all their unique laws (the Feds will come after you for not paying your income tax, they don't need state help).

        Immigration is one of the areas where the Feds need help, especially in temporary housing. Local police cannot arrest illegal immigrants, because we do not enforce Federal law; however, we can detain them and contact ICE, who then authorizes us to jail them pending transfer to a Federal facility.

        That is how it works in 90% of the county. However, a few cities have declined to house illegals for ICE.

        Not, the Feds could go to court and the cities would surely loose, but it could take years to sort out because the first time is always lengthy.

        The simpler method is to pull Federal funding. Federal grants and programs have pages of conditions, so the POTUS can pull the funding without much trouble. This can range from moderately harm to devastating, depending upon the city's economy.

        In Texas we only have a couple sanctuary cities, but the governor is threatening to match a termination of Federal funds with a termination of state funds as well. The Texas economy is strong so the cities could probably weather the storm for an extended period providing the voters don't mind the extra burden. Except for Dallas, whose police department is leaving en masse and who relies upon State Troopers to make up the difference.

        Elsewhere, as Slick notes, the margin may not be so fat.

        There are a hundred ways the Feds can screw with local governments with impunity.
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #5
          I say let them have their sanctuary cities. An if states like California want to be a socialist utopia, let 'em. The Federal government has way too much power.
          “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
          --Salmon P. Chase

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
            That's just empty talk. If the Federal Gov't should withhold so much as one slim dime from either city, both mayors will fold faster than a Chinaman on laundry day. They may try to be sneaky, but they'll cave in the end.
            +1!
            Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

            Comment


            • #7
              Cities do not and can not set immigration laws, that is a function of the Feds. Now seeing that they're defying federal law they should be held accountable.

              (a) Criminal penalties (1) (A) Any person who— (i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

              (ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

              (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

              (iv) 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; or

              (v) (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

              (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,


              shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

              (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs— (i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;

              (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;

              (iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and

              (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.


              (C) It is not a violation of clauses [1] (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A), or of clause (iv) of subparagraph (A) except where a person encourages or induces an alien to come to or enter the United States, for a religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious organization in the United States, or the agents or officers of such denomination or organization, to encourage, invite, call, allow, or enable an alien who is present in the United States to perform the vocation of a minister or missionary for the denomination or organization in the United States as a volunteer who is not compensated as an employee, notwithstanding the provision of room, board, travel, medical assistance, and other basic living expenses, provided the minister or missionary has been a member of the denomination for at least one year.


              (2) Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien shall, for each alien in respect to whom a violation of this paragraph occurs— (A) be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; or

              (B) in the case of— (i) an offense committed with the intent or with reason to believe that the alien unlawfully brought into the United States will commit an offense against the United States or any State punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year,

              (ii) an offense done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

              (iii) an offense in which the alien is not upon arrival immediately brought and presented to an appropriate immigration officer at a designated port of entry,

              be fined under title 18 and shall be imprisoned, in the case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(iii), not more than 10 years, in the case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii), not less than 3 nor more than 10 years, and for any other violation, not less than 5 nor more than 15 years.


              (3) (A) Any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in subparagraph (B) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

              (B) An alien described in this subparagraph is an alien who— (i) is an unauthorized alien (as defined in section 1324a(h)(3) of this title), and

              (ii) has been brought into the United States in violation of this subsection.



              (4) In the case of a person who has brought aliens into the United States in violation of this subsection, the sentence otherwise provided for may be increased by up to 10 years if— (A) the offense was part of an ongoing commercial organization or enterprise;

              (B) aliens were transported in groups of 10 or more; and

              (C) (i) aliens were transported in a manner that endangered their lives; or

              (ii) the aliens presented a life-threatening health risk to people in the United States.



              (b) Seizure and forfeiture (1) In general Any conveyance, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft, that has been or is being used in the commission of a violation of subsection (a), the gross proceeds of such violation, and any property traceable to such conveyance or proceeds, shall be seized and subject to forfeiture.


              (2) Applicable procedures Seizures and forfeitures under this subsection shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 46 of title 18 relating to civil forfeitures, including section 981(d) of such title, except that such duties as are imposed upon the Secretary of the Treasury under the customs laws described in that section shall be performed by such officers, agents, and other persons as may be designated for that purpose by the Attorney General.


              (3) Prima facie evidence in determinations of violationsIn determining whether a violation of subsection (a) has occurred, any of the following shall be prima facie evidence that an alien involved in the alleged violation had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law: (A) Records of any judicial or administrative proceeding in which that alien’s status was an issue and in which it was determined that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.

              (B) Official records of the Service or of the Department of State showing that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.

              (C) Testimony, by an immigration officer having personal knowledge of the facts concerning that alien’s status, that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.



              (c) Authority to arrest No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.


              (d) Admissibility of videotaped witness testimony Notwithstanding any provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the videotaped (or otherwise audiovisually preserved) deposition of a witness to a violation of subsection (a) who has been deported or otherwise expelled from the United States, or is otherwise unable to testify, may be admitted into evidence in an action brought for that violation if the witness was available for cross examination and the deposition otherwise complies with the Federal Rules of Evidence.


              (e) Outreach program The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall develop and implement an outreach program to educate the public in the United States and abroad about the penalties for bringing in and harboring aliens in violation of this section.



              https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
              Credo quia absurdum.


              Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                It is a complex issue, legally.

                By law a city, county, parish, or state cannot refuse to enforce Federal statutes.

                However, enforcement in most cases is done by civil process. This really doesn't impact often because most states duplicate many Federal laws (for instance all 50 states ban full-auto weapons without a Federal Firearms license), and the Feds enforce nearly all their unique laws (the Feds will come after you for not paying your income tax, they don't need state help).

                Immigration is one of the areas where the Feds need help, especially in temporary housing. Local police cannot arrest illegal immigrants, because we do not enforce Federal law; however, we can detain them and contact ICE, who then authorizes us to jail them pending transfer to a Federal facility.

                That is how it works in 90% of the county. However, a few cities have declined to house illegals for ICE.

                Not, the Feds could go to court and the cities would surely loose, but it could take years to sort out because the first time is always lengthy.

                The simpler method is to pull Federal funding. Federal grants and programs have pages of conditions, so the POTUS can pull the funding without much trouble. This can range from moderately harm to devastating, depending upon the city's economy.

                In Texas we only have a couple sanctuary cities, but the governor is threatening to match a termination of Federal funds with a termination of state funds as well. The Texas economy is strong so the cities could probably weather the storm for an extended period providing the voters don't mind the extra burden. Except for Dallas, whose police department is leaving en masse and who relies upon State Troopers to make up the difference.

                Elsewhere, as Slick notes, the margin may not be so fat.

                There are a hundred ways the Feds can screw with local governments with impunity.
                I'm surprised that you openly admit to refusing to enforce Federal laws. That does not speak well for your state, since nothing in the Constitution, law or anything else authorizes a state to act in such a fashion.

                No LEO has any right whatsoever to decide what laws will and will not be enforced. The moment you do, take off your uniform and get out of town. You have just placed yourself completely out of bounds and no citizen has to listen to anything you say any longer.

                If you don't obey the laws, no one else has to either.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Here is a thought...for fun: Instead of a city voting to secede from a state....what if the sate became so fed up with the city and votes to kick the city out?

                  Example - I have several friends who live in Illinois. They despise what Chicago has become. All of their friends feel the same way. So instead of city making threats to leave, wouldn't it be funny to wake up and read that the rest of the state kicked them out?

                  It appears to me that many of these mega metropolis's are acting very much like semi-autonomous principalities anyway...why not simply go the remaining 10-20% and cut the cord once and for all?
                  You'll live, only the best get killed.

                  -General Charles de Gaulle

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by asterix View Post
                    Here is a thought...for fun: Instead of a city voting to secede from a state....what if the sate became so fed up with the city and votes to kick the city out?

                    Example - I have several friends who live in Illinois. They despise what Chicago has become. All of their friends feel the same way. So instead of city making threats to leave, wouldn't it be funny to wake up and read that the rest of the state kicked them out?

                    It appears to me that many of these mega metropolis's are acting very much like semi-autonomous principalities anyway...why not simply go the remaining 10-20% and cut the cord once and for all?
                    I like that idea!
                    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Have I missed the discussion on the "National 55mph Speed Limit" during the Iranian Oil Crisis? Of course Congress can block federal funds. Been there done that.
                      My Avatar: Ivan W. Henderson Gunner/navigator B-25-26. 117 combat missions. Both Theaters. 11 confirmed kills. DSC.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by asterix View Post
                        Here is a thought...for fun: Instead of a city voting to secede from a state....what if the sate became so fed up with the city and votes to kick the city out?

                        Example - I have several friends who live in Illinois. They despise what Chicago has become. All of their friends feel the same way. So instead of city making threats to leave, wouldn't it be funny to wake up and read that the rest of the state kicked them out?

                        It appears to me that many of these mega metropolis's are acting very much like semi-autonomous principalities anyway...why not simply go the remaining 10-20% and cut the cord once and for all?
                        lol

                        This reminds me of how ninety percent of the of the anti Trump people would starve if the deplorables decided not to go to work.
                        We hunt the hunters

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post
                          That's just empty talk. If the Federal Gov't should withhold so much as one slim dime from either city, both mayors will fold faster than a Chinaman on laundry day. They may try to be sneaky, but they'll cave in the end.
                          Money talks. And the Federal purse strings is how the Feds ensure the states and their cities toe the line.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by asterix View Post
                            Here is a thought...for fun: Instead of a city voting to secede from a state....what if the sate became so fed up with the city and votes to kick the city out?

                            Example - I have several friends who live in Illinois. They despise what Chicago has become. All of their friends feel the same way. So instead of city making threats to leave, wouldn't it be funny to wake up and read that the rest of the state kicked them out?

                            It appears to me that many of these mega metropolis's are acting very much like semi-autonomous principalities anyway...why not simply go the remaining 10-20% and cut the cord once and for all?
                            Probably because the rest of the states depend on the big cities. Rural America is the "bronze medal" when it comes to importance - and even the suburbs are dependent on their large-city partners.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Just enforce the laws as they stand. That'll end the games they play right from the git go. Don't like them? Then change them.

                              Every president since Reagan ignored the immigration laws. Start enforcing them and you'll see that the cities fall in line...
                              Credo quia absurdum.


                              Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              • Karri
                                Prawn heads
                                by Karri
                                How do you cook them? How do you eat them?

                                So far I've always just twisted them off, and discarded it along with the shells and such, only...
                                Yesterday, 11:40
                              • Jose50
                                Thoughts on the US abandoning NATO
                                by Jose50
                                Now may be a good time for the NATO countries to start beefing up their materiel, personnel and alliances. There is a decided wave here in the US that...
                                Yesterday, 08:41
                              • Von Richter
                                Sagittarius Rising...
                                by Von Richter
                                Just having a re-read of this book after it's stood for donkey's years on the bookshelf. Once again, within the first couple of pages, I'm transported...
                                Yesterday, 01:19
                              Working...
                              X