Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

broman
Posts: 3730
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by broman » Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:38 pm

More from the article...

The measure preventing law enforcement from providing release dates and personal information of jail inmates — information administration officials say they need to safely remove dangerous people who are in the country illegally — is not an obstacle to federal immigration enforcement efforts, Mendez said.

The judge said "refusing to help is not the same as impeding."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/0 ... wsuit.html

broman
Posts: 3730
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:52 am

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by broman » Fri Jul 06, 2018 8:41 pm

John Q. Public wrote:QR_BBPOST If Officer Muldoon wants to work for ICE, let him get a job with ICE. His not reporting an alien doesn't prevent ICE from doing its job any more than Piggly Wiggly not providing carry-out service prevents you from getting your groceries to your car.
Most cities and sheriff departments have determined that attempting to enforce immigration along with their other duties laws hurt public safety. We all remember the great liberal and progressive Darryl "chokehold" Gates?

User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 8257
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by Omar Bongo » Fri Jul 06, 2018 9:41 pm

Professor Fate wrote:I have no interest in arguing.
Then stop arguing and answer the question. You said it was "simple"...what federal law does the state law conflict with?

User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4687
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by Professor Fate » Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:41 pm

1941 Supreme Court decision Hines vs. Davidowitz:

[W]here the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field [of immi­gration], has enacted a complete scheme of regulation and has therein provided a standard for the registration of aliens, states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or comple­ment, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulation.

Just one of many decisions cementing the superiority clause.

If you need more detail, do your own research. I'll leave the details to Justices Gorsuch, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, and ______________________ (fill in the Gorsuch clone to be announced on Monday).

BTW, great decisions in the final week for the Supreme Court, eh? :-P
Make Them Cry Again In 2020

User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 8257
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by Omar Bongo » Fri Jul 06, 2018 10:59 pm

Can't find a federal law being conflicted with, can you? Here's a hint - it's because there isn't one.
"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."
George Will

"How stupid is our country?"
Donald Trump

User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4687
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by Professor Fate » Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:38 pm

Hint:
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.
Make Them Cry Again In 2020

User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 8257
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by Omar Bongo » Fri Jul 06, 2018 11:54 pm

What's next, all-CAPS?

As we both know, there's nothing about immigration enforcement in the Constitution

User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4687
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by Professor Fate » Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:10 am

The broad power of the federal government to regulate the admission, removal, and naturalization of non-citizens has its roots in the early history of the United States. Modern statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and federal agency regulations attest to the plenary nature of this power.

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html

Plenary - adjective
1.
unqualified; absolute.

synonyms: unconditional, unlimited, unrestricted, unqualified, absolute, sweeping, comprehensive; plenipotentiary
Make Them Cry Again In 2020

User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 8257
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by Omar Bongo » Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:31 am

Is this a sneak preview of the Justice Department's case in the SC? Lots of pictures, red fonts and repetition of irrelevant doubletalk?
"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."
George Will

"How stupid is our country?"
Donald Trump

User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4687
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by Professor Fate » Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:34 am

Omar Bongo wrote:QR_BBPOST ...there's nothing about immigration enforcement in the Constitution
With the Chinese Exclusion Case in 1889, the Court began issuing a series of decisions in which it treated con­gressional power over the regulation of immigration as a virtually unreview­able, plenary power. The Court upheld congressional immigration laws and executive enforcement of those laws against a series of challenges, in spite of their patently discriminatory nature and lack of due process guarantees for non­citizens. The Court repeatedly suggest­ed that this federal power flowed from the federal government’s prerogative to control foreign affairs.

https://www.americanbar.org/publication ... licy-.html

Good night Omar. Take the last word, okay?
Make Them Cry Again In 2020

User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 8257
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by Omar Bongo » Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:51 am

All that effort, and yet not one scrap of evidence that the California law conflicts with any federal laws, which was your original assertion. Don't blame you for throwing in the towel. Try again tomorrow?

By the way, I was just thinking..."lots of pictures, red fonts and repetition of irrelevant doubletalk"...kinda sounds like a glimpse inside the head of the president, doesn't it?
"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."
George Will

"How stupid is our country?"
Donald Trump

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 18983
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by John Q. Public » Sat Jul 07, 2018 1:28 am

Here's a situation that actually is similar.

A while back I think five asshats laughed and took videos of a guy drowning. They were arrested for one thing or another - I'm not sure what the charge was. The judge threw the case out because there's no law requiring people to try to save someone who's drowning. Impeding someone trying to save him would have been a crime but not helping him wasn't. Same situation with Officer Muldoon. A court might* call sneaking a Honduran murderer out the back door because you know ICE is waiting at the front door impeding a federal agency. Simply not telling them you're releasing him probably* isn't.

* Weasel words inserted because I'm not going to try to second-guess the judge.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 18983
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by John Q. Public » Sat Jul 07, 2018 1:31 am

Oh. Except the "sanctuary" law requires police to alert ICE if they're releasing a Honduran murderer, so they'd be breaking it, too. Let's just go with a drunk & disorderly gardener.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 18983
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by John Q. Public » Sat Jul 07, 2018 1:34 am

Professor Fate wrote:QR_BBPOST 1941 Supreme Court decision Hines vs. Davidowitz:

[W]here the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field [of immi­gration], has enacted a complete scheme of regulation and has therein provided a standard for the registration of aliens, states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or comple­ment, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulation.
Good argument against Arizona's law but I don't see how it applies here.


And all those pictures you posted give me the impression you're looking forward to some legislating from the bench. Can't wait, can ya?
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by Vilepagan » Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:21 am

John Q. Public wrote:QR_BBPOST And all those pictures you posted give me the impression you're looking forward to some legislating from the bench. Can't wait, can ya?
I'm sure that's not what the professor wants, after all we know how much conservatives look down on liberal "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench". Right professor?
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4687
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by Professor Fate » Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:08 pm

What I'm looking forward to is five (for now) justices who will interpret the US Constitution as it is written...not as they wish it was written.

Oh, and I'm also looking forward to Ginsburg leaving. How long can she hold out? She can't even stay awake as it is now.

The liberals should have gone for my idea of a package deal. Garland for Ginsburg, if they don't oppose Kennedy's replacement. Schumer is already trying to get Trump to go for Garland replacing Kennedy. Not gonna happen. That would make the conservatives the minority.
Make Them Cry Again In 2020

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 18983
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by John Q. Public » Sat Jul 07, 2018 2:35 pm

There was no single "correct" interpretation of the Constitution at the time it was signed. How could there possibly be one 240 years later?
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12485
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Anti-State Sanctuary Movement

Post by Vilepagan » Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:14 am

Professor Fate wrote:QR_BBPOST What I'm looking forward to is five (for now) justices who will interpret the US Constitution as it is written...not as they wish it was written.
Great...exactly what is written in the Constitution about abortion? Do you even know on what basis Roe v. Wade was decided?

What exactly does the Constitution say about telephones and your right to privacy while using them? Please be specific.

Incidentally, I look forward to your agreement when the SC bans the private ownership of firearms unless the owner is a member of a "well regulated militia"...after all you support the Constitution "as it was written"...don't you?
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

Post Reply