Isn’t our government breaking immigration laws on a daily basis by allowing those who have no legal right to be here to continue their stay? Isn’t every single sanctuary city breaking federal law every day? Why is this particular ‘breaking of the law’ by the government worse than the others?
Probably not, but most likely decrying the selective enforcement of laws based on a ‘feel good’ policy.
"Isn’t our government breaking immigration laws on a daily basis by allowing those who have no legal right to be here to continue their stay? "
Even kindergartners understand that one wrong doesn’t justify another, right? And I do differentiate between an individual breaking a law and our government/law enforcement doing so. I hold the latter to a much higher standard. We all should.
And even kindergartners understand that selectively enforcing the rules of the classroom will lead to misbehavior. After all, If Johnny gets away with hitting Jimmy because Johnny as an acceptable excuse (pick your favorite SJW reason) then how can you tell Johnny hitting is not okay. How will Susie and Sally know which way the teacher (LE) is going to rule if they start hitting each other. Could go either way - depending on whom the teacher ‘likes’ better.
Yup, we really DID learn it all Kindergarten
And, if one supports the continued selective enforcement of laws - instead of actually working to make changes in those laws - just prepare yourselves for the day when WHICH laws are ignored may no longer fit into the category which you consider ‘okay to ignore’.
Ah, the joy of precedents.
What makes me so proud of our country is the protections afforded by our constitution. I hate to see law enforcement
slapping that in the face like those goons did in the video in post #1. That’s far worse than “any other crime”. There is a judicial process to go through and lies, trickery, and outright law breaking should play no part in that.
This thread isn’t about enforcing immigration law. It is about an attempt to enforce it in inappropriate ways, not following laws and procedures. It started wth a post about this: “without getting permission to enter and without a warrant.” @dietz199 You are attempting to excuse it by trying to force an argument that isn’t applicable to this discussion.
I’m pretty sure that’s what this thread is about.
I didn’t support any behavior. I am simply pointing out that by selectively not following our laws and procedures we have stepped on the slippery slope. Who gets to choose which laws to enforce? City, county, state? What if a locality doesn’t want to enforce the warrant laws? We’ve set the stage for them saying ‘hey we don’t want to because we don’t think it’s a fair law’. And we won’t enforce warrant laws…sue us…And given the activist positions many judicial districts have taken just about anyone could find a certain jurisdiction which will rule in a particular way.
I can sure think of some States where non-enforcement of warrant law based on suspicion of illegal residency could be ruled ‘okay’ by the local judge.
It’s just surprising that anyone is surprised that the path of selective enforcement is leading us down this path.
Local LE shouldn’t have to do ICE’s job. They have other priorities and responsibilities.
“It’s just surprising that anyone is surprised that the path of selective enforcement is leading us down this path.”
That sounds like excuse making and justifying to me. I expect ICE to follow laws and procedures and to operate within the bounds of constitutional rights. No excuses.
And I expect the same of my local LEO. I expect them to follow both local and federal law.
Pointing out the end result of selective law enforcement is not excusing anything. It is however pointing out that the end result, to those who leave their own excuse making and justifications out of the reasoning process, is quite predictable
“And I expect the same of my local LEO. I expect them to follow both local and federal law.”
There are two issues at play here, “following” the law and “enforcing” the law. Some argue that it isn’t the job of any law enforcement officer to “enforce” any law outside of their jurisdiction, but it’s quite another thing to argue that they needn’t “follow” the law as the enforce the law.
Not at all. Your arguments are fraught with logical fallacies and false assumptions. When the police are hunting for a criminal, they are not breaking the law by failing to capture the suspect. Claiming that to be true is just plain silly.
Also immigration law is civil federal law. Undocumented immigrants are not breaking criminal laws, i.e. they are not equivalent to murderers. They are breaking civil law, so more akin to a tenant who refuses to vacate the premises when the lease is up (which is metaphorically what they’re doing).
To your point about sanctuary cities breaking federal law, it is not the job of local law enforcement to enforce federal civil laws. They are not legally required to, and that is simply not their job. That is the job of ICE and the federal government. Cooperation with federal officials is simply that - voluntary cooperation, not required by law. So the answer to both of your rhetorical questions is actually “No”.
I think perhaps you are confused by local authorities refusing to hold suspected undocumented immigrants when requested by ICE. If ICE presents a valid warrant, then local authorities should perform the hold and I believe they do. But what has ICE upset is that local authorities are declining to detain suspects without a warrant. Which brings us neatly back to the OP about ICE arresting someone without a warrant.
To be clear, I’m not an apologist or supporter of illegal immigration. However if you want local authorities to be legally required to hold suspects without a warrant based on suspected violations of federal civil law, then at the very least I suspect you will need to agitate for changes in federal law; but more likely you would need more than one constitutional amendment.
And just to be clear, undocumented people are not breaking any criminal laws. So I for one think my local police department has better things to do than the work of federal agencies who oversee various sets of civil procedures that are certainly out of the purview of law enforcement officers.
Additionally, there is a long standing, SC-authorized standard of allowing undocumented people to remain. It’s not just some arbitrary cowboys making their own laws.
[quote]
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and three other justices, stated: “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.” The court also ruled that it was not a crime to seek or engage in unauthorized employment.
As Kennedy explained, removal of an unauthorized migrant is a civil matter where even if the person is out of status, federal officials have wide discretion to determine whether deportation makes sense. For example, if an unauthorized person is trying to support his family by working or has “children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service,” officials may let him stay. Also, if individuals or their families might be politically persecuted or harmed upon return to their country of origin, they may also remain in the United States.
[quote]
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/opinion/garcia-illegal-immigrants/index.html
You can apply the same quote to the “sanctuary cities”.
Your point being, what, then? I don’t get the logic of the sanctuary cities excuse. Again, it’s justifying poor and illegal behavior by ICE. You apologists should be appalled that ICE doesn’t follow proper, legal procedures. Are you really arguing the ends justify the means?
By bringing sanctuary cities repeatedly into the discussion here, you are just presenting a distraction to the discussion. It’s a red herring and a logical fallacy.
Bottom line, there is repeated evidence that ICE isn’t following law and procedures. That is the issue and is a problem.
No you can’t, as sanctuary cities are breaking no laws. If you know for a fact that they are, you should apply for a job with the Justice Dept as they so far have been unable to prove it in court.
Undocumented people may be committing no criminal act while they are just standing on a sidewalk, but as soon as they perform any work, accept any wages, stay in an apartment as a resident (they could stay as a guest if the leaseholder has that right to invite them to do so), take any services they aren’t entitled to, then the question of criminal activity has to be revisited.
How would the person arrested in Oregon sue the government? You need an ID to get into a federal building, including a federal courthouse. The person couldn’t even testify in his own case. He couldn’t have the complaint notarized if he has no ID to prove identity.
Um, what?? These cities are willingly harboring illegal aliens, so yes, they are breaking federal law…
https://fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/law-against-hiring-or-harboring-illegal-aliens
I wish people would stop twisting these issues around to justify some “feel good” cause.
“How would the person arrested in Oregon sue the government?”
Orgs like the ACLU will sue you to protect ALL our constitutional rights.
“I wish people would stop twisting these issues around to justify some “feel good” cause.”
I wish others would stop twisting things around to justify an overreach of power by a branch of government that infringes on people’s civil liberties.
You do realize that some of the people who have been targeted aren’t even illegal but American citizens, correct?
The ACLU needs a plaintiff. The ACLU wasn’t arrested and can’t file a complaint that says someone was arrested. They have to have facts and witnesses. They need an actual plaintiff.
Note that most US citizens do not routinely carry anything proving that they are in the US legally. So if ICE mistakenly believes that you are in the US without authorization, how would you convince them otherwise?