Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

More California Cities Seek to Defy ‘Sanctuary State’ as Revolt Spreads

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by US Conservative, Mar 21, 2018.

Page 3 of 10
  1. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    154,817
    Likes Received:
    39,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This isn't about a federal regulatory program this is about federal law enforcement. See the law I already cited.
     
    Bluesguy, Mar 21, 2018
    #51
  2. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, because that's the way you'll retain the uber-safe white lifestyle you are so dependent upon.
     
    crank, Mar 21, 2018
    #52
  3. GoogleMurrayBookchin

    GoogleMurrayBookchin Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2017
    Messages:
    6,654
    Likes Received:
    2,239
    Trophy Points:
    113
    do you have anything to say that's worth the effort to type or just this
     
    GoogleMurrayBookchin, Mar 21, 2018
    #53
  4. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    77,525
    Likes Received:
    52,092
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Zorro, Mar 21, 2018
    #54
    ButterBalls likes this.
  5. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I haven't gone thru the California laws, but I would be surprised if they violate your law.


    1. What is 8 USC § 1373? 8 USC § 1373(a) is a federal statute that prohibits local and state governments and agencies from enacting laws or policies that limit communication with DHS about “information regarding the immigration or citizenship status” of individuals. The statute prohibits such policies, but does not contain any requirement for anyone to take any action. The full text of 8 USC § 1373 is attached at the end of this FAQ. 2. What does 8 USC § 1373 require? • 8 USC § 1373 does not require any action from local or state agencies, officers, or governments. It does not require asking about immigration status. • 8 USC § 1373 does not prohibit policies against asking about immigration status. It only prohibits the enactment of certain policies limiting sharing immigration status information. • 8 USC § 1373 does not compel compliance with ICE detainers. Such a statute would be unconstitutional. 2 • 8 USC § 1373 does not address policies limiting other information sharing with ICE. Nothing in the statute mentions or includes criminal case information, contact information, custody status, or release dates of individuals from custody.3 • 8 USC § 1373 does not impose any affirmative obligation to collect information. Nor does it require sharing information in any particular instance. 3. Do Sanctuary Policies violate 8 USC § 1373? No, sanctuary policies are entirely consistent with federal laws.4 There are many varieties of local policies that might be considered “sanctuary policies.” 8 USC § 1373 only governs restrictions on communication with DHS about individuals’ citizenship or immigration status, not other policies limiting the expenditure of state and local resources on immigration enforcement or detention. Cities and counties around the country have policies against local officials questioning individuals about their immigration status; such rules do not conflict with 8 USC § 1373 because they do not address communication with DHS. Many jurisdictions have policies against holding people on immigration detainers or notifying ICE of the date when someone will be released from custody; these policies do not conflict with 8 USC § 1373

    1. What is 8 USC § 1373? 8 USC § 1373(a) is a federal statute that prohibits local and state governments and agencies from enacting laws or policies that limit communication with DHS about “information regarding the immigration or citizenship status” of individuals. The statute prohibits such policies, but does not contain any requirement for anyone to take any action. The full text of 8 USC § 1373 is attached at the end of this FAQ. 2. What does 8 USC § 1373 require? • 8 USC § 1373 does not require any action from local or state agencies, officers, or governments. It does not require asking about immigration status. • 8 USC § 1373 does not prohibit policies against asking about immigration status. It only prohibits the enactment of certain policies limiting sharing immigration status information. • 8 USC § 1373 does not compel compliance with ICE detainers. Such a statute would be unconstitutional. 2 • 8 USC § 1373 does not address policies limiting other information sharing with ICE. Nothing in the statute mentions or includes criminal case information, contact information, custody status, or release dates of individuals from custody.3 • 8 USC § 1373 does not impose any affirmative obligation to collect information. Nor does it require sharing information in any particular instance. 3. Do Sanctuary Policies violate 8 USC § 1373? No, sanctuary policies are entirely consistent with federal laws.4 There are many varieties of local policies that might be considered “sanctuary policies.” 8 USC § 1373 only governs restrictions on communication with DHS about individuals’ citizenship or immigration status, not other policies limiting the expenditure of state and local resources on immigration enforcement or detention. Cities and counties around the country have policies against local officials questioning individuals about their immigration status; such rules do not conflict with 8 USC § 1373 because they do not address communication with DHS. Many jurisdictions have policies against holding people on immigration detainers or notifying ICE of the date when someone will be released from custody; these policies do not conflict with 8 USC § 1373
    https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/...deral_funding_threats_to_sanctuary_cities.pdf
     
    ronv, Mar 21, 2018
    #55
  6. Fenton Lum

    Fenton Lum Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Well we are the world's incarceration leader, no one comes close. And it for profit and corporate now, so hey, fweedumb!
     
    Fenton Lum, Mar 21, 2018
    #56
  7. Fenton Lum

    Fenton Lum Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2017
    Messages:
    6,127
    Likes Received:
    1,398
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fenton Lum, Mar 21, 2018
    #57
  8. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't be giving her anymore dumb ideas. 8)
     
    ronv, Mar 21, 2018
    #58
  9. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,483
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I always have time to nip at your heels, MurrayFan.
     
    crank, Mar 21, 2018
    #59
  10. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,099
    Likes Received:
    68,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    True. And maybe I'd love to see it prosecuted against certain leftist state politicians in California.

    Get a writ and get it in front of SCOTUS.
     
    US Conservative, Mar 21, 2018
    #60
  11. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,099
    Likes Received:
    68,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So true. And there is nothing virtuous about forcing others to do as you see fit (or even have that desire).
     
    US Conservative, Mar 21, 2018
    #61
    ButterBalls and Zorro like this.
  12. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Says the party that wants to ban abortion, prevent gay marriage etc..
    I call them Republican'ts.
     
    ronv, Mar 21, 2018
    #62
  13. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    154,817
    Likes Received:
    39,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I wouldn't it seems pretty clear and your cite needs to be formatted. It's not "my" law it is US Statute specifically addressing this situation and prohibiting it. That has supremacy to California law.
     
    Bluesguy, Mar 21, 2018
    #63
  14. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I guess it doesn't matter if California's laws don't violate it. Does it?
     
    ronv, Mar 21, 2018
    #64
  15. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    154,817
    Likes Received:
    39,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes we have VERY good police forces and we tend to catch more criminals and therefore prosecute more criminals and therefore incarcerate more criminals than most places. You are suggesting we do less?
     
    Bluesguy, Mar 21, 2018
    #65
  16. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    154,817
    Likes Received:
    39,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Supremacy Clause.
     
    Bluesguy, Mar 21, 2018
    #66
  17. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Got data?
     
    ronv, Mar 21, 2018
    #67
  18. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If it doesn't violate it, the supremacy law never enters into it.
     
    ronv, Mar 21, 2018
    #68
  19. navigator2

    navigator2 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    9,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BS. They are blatantly obstructing justice. Turning loose known criminals (including crimes not related to immigration) that have outstanding AND including federal warrants.
     
    navigator2, Mar 21, 2018
    #69
    ButterBalls likes this.
  20. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]
     
    APACHERAT, Mar 21, 2018
    #70
    ButterBalls, US Conservative and Zorro like this.
  21. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ronv, Mar 21, 2018
    #71
  22. navigator2

    navigator2 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    9,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    navigator2, Mar 21, 2018
    #72
    ButterBalls likes this.
  23. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    154,817
    Likes Received:
    39,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes it does. The cities will plead it is federal law which has supremacy here.
     
    Bluesguy, Mar 21, 2018
    #73
  24. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    154,817
    Likes Received:
    39,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ROFL well you were the one noting it not me. We put LOTS of criminals in jail.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2018
    Bluesguy, Mar 21, 2018
    #74
  25. ronv

    ronv Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2018
    Messages:
    20,312
    Likes Received:
    8,774
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you have an example of someone release with an outstanding warrant?
    Actually the law part of that paper is pretty short.
     
    ronv, Mar 21, 2018
    #75
Page 3 of 10

Share This Page