The President Trump Immigration Thread

[SheepDog4Life]

And other quotes from other federal officials.



That's pretty far afield from what you're saying they're saying.

And, for myopic zeal, check out:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ing-arresting-sanctuary-city-politicians.html


Can you provide an example of what you mean? I'm not trying to be dense, I just can't think of a "Dem" trick that hasn't also been used by Republicans.


You're artificially narrowing the scope, which is at least deceptive.

Sanctuary cities, as I understand them, are for any illegal immigrants. Yes, criminal illegal immigrants are a subset, but not the whole.

The rhetoric is to go after sanctuary cities, and the politicians who support them, for the policy as to the entire group. Not the subset.


I'm ok with that.

I'm not familiar with the Cali law, and not interested enough at this point to do my own research. Probably is unconstitutional/unenforceable. But not criminal. I don't know off the top of my head what Arpaio was taken to court for. Again, not that interested.

I'm not sure what we're arguing about with this one.

Except, the requested DHS/DOJ assessment does not appear limited to that. They say "for not cooperating."

You quoted one specific "wrap-up" soundbite at the end of the Cavuto segment... and skipped the whole rest of the interview including the part where he calls out specific US Criminal Code that he thinks they are violating

What I'm also doing is working with the Department of Justice. For these sanctuary cities that knowingly shield and harbor an illegal alien in their jail and don't allow us access, that is, in my opinion, a violation of 8-USC-1324. That's an alien smuggling statute.

I have asked the Department of Justice to look at this. Are these sanctuary cities, can we hold them accountable? Are they violating federal law? So, there's more to come on that. And that's certainly an angle we're looking at.


CAVUTO: But what if they do just that? What do you do?


HOMAN: Pardon me?


CAVUTO: What if they do just that? What do you do?


HOMAN: I think we charge some of these sanctuary cities with violating federal law.


I think if they knowingly harbor and shield a known illegal alien, a public safety threat, in a jail and won't give us access to that alien...

And, what does 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - "Bringing in and harboring certain aliens" say about this? Here's the part I think he's talking about:

(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;

Are some or any of the sanctuary cities' officials "concealing, harboring, or shielding from detection" such aliens? If they are, it's a five year federal prison sentence (10 years if done for commercial reasons).

sanc·tu·ar·y
noun
1.
a place of refuge or safety. "people automatically sought a sanctuary in time of trouble"
synonyms: refuge, haven, harbor, port in a storm, oasis, shelter, retreat, hideaway, hideout

safety, protection, shelter, immunity, asylum
"he was given sanctuary in the embassy"

Well, at least there, the Logan Act would provide the legal justification. As bad as that may be from a policy perspective, at least it is something.

The Clinton (Bill) investigation was for perjury... yet went into SO much more.

Logan Act? ::eyeroll::

 

[T.Lex]

You quoted one specific "wrap-up" soundbite at the end of the Cavuto segment... and skipped the whole rest of the interview including the part where he calls out specific US Criminal Code that he thinks they are violating

And, what does 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - "Bringing in and harboring certain aliens" say about this? Here's the part I think he's talking about:

Are some or any of the sanctuary cities' officials "concealing, harboring, or shielding from detection" such aliens? If they are, it's a five year federal prison sentence (10 years if done for commercial reasons).

Then why do they need to run an assessment to see if they can investigate an actual criminal law?

Do you REALLY think that's the limited scope of any such investigation? If so, why aren't they just ENFORCING it without going on talk-TV about it?

How about this: let's say there's a mayor who tells his police chief not to hold people who could be illegal immigrants. Holds a news conference and announces it. Is that probable cause to investigate him for 8 USC 1324? If you're the AG, do you pursue it?

Logan Act? ::eyeroll::

Ah, so no actual rebuttal?

It is a law. It has been tested. It has been enforced.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Then why do they need to run an assessment to see if they can investigate an actual criminal law?

Do you REALLY think that's the limited scope of any such investigation? If so, why aren't they just ENFORCING it without going on talk-TV about it?

How about this: let's say there's a mayor who tells his police chief not to hold people who could be illegal immigrants. Holds a news conference and announces it. Is that probable cause to investigate him for 8 USC 1324? If you're the AG, do you pursue it?

Me, no, because there is no "harboring" or "concealing from detection". Take that same police chief who now stops reporting the arrests of illegals for crimes committed whom he has in detention in order to conceal them from federal detection and you've got a felony predicate, possibly two, concealing AND harboring.

Or, more to the point, that police chief has a wanted alien in custody and refuses to turn him over to the feds. THAT is very likely harboring. Especially if the whole point is to "protect" the alien from being taken into custody.

Ah, so no actual rebuttal?

It is a law. It has been tested. It has been enforced.

Yes it is, no it hasn't and no it hasn't, in that order. There have been TWO indictments under the law since 1799 and NO CONVICTIONS, ever, so it's never been tested nor "enforced".

There hasn't been an indictment under the Logan act since 1852... 168 years! Lol! ::eyeroll:: Lol!

 

[T.Lex]

Me, no, because there is no "harboring" or "concealing from detection". Take that same police chief who now stops reporting the arrests of illegals for crimes committed whom he has in detention in order to conceal them from federal detection and you've got a felony predicate, possibly two, concealing AND harboring.

Or, more to the point, that police chief has a wanted alien in custody and refuses to turn him over to the feds. THAT is very likely harboring. Especially if the whole point is to "protect" the alien from being taken into custody.

I do not think there is much room between us, then.

I am not familiar with any local LEO having an illegal alien in custody and not turning them over. The FAR more common scenario is a local LEO has the person and the feds aren't interested.

Yes it is, no it hasn't and no it hasn't, in that order. There have been TWO indictments under the law since 1799 and NO CONVICTIONS, ever, so it's never been tested nor "enforced".

There hasn't been an indictment under the Logan act since 1852... 168 years! Lol! ::eyeroll:: Lol!

It certainly has been investigated more recently.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

He’s not making a value judgement. He’s making an observation.

I read it that he agrees they should have western values...

You guys are saying he's saying rank the countries from which would-be immigrants would come and then allow them in accordingly? I can see that now that you mention it. Like BF I read it like an accusation the first time I read it.

 

[Libertarian01]

The idea of rank-ordering countries is reasonable on its surface, but deeply flawed and would be extremely counterproductive in many ways.

First, let us ponder the question, "Who would first determine what "Western values" are? Me? Sen Bernie Sanders? Judge Roy Moore? Who would decide the values by which the greatest number of immigrants would be permitted? Second, which "western value" do we value? Abortion is allowed in every single western country, ergo we support admitting people from countries that are likely to vote pro choice. Is that the desired outcome? Because whether we like it or not abortion is considered a woman's right in every western country, ergo in western culture. Hmmm... Interesting prospect. So tell me again who decides what western values we are supporting?

Next, let us consider "countries" that are anti-western. Wouldn't it be reasonable to presume that people wanting to leave those countries are the very ones we want? For obviously the majority of the people seeking to come here are anti-anti-western, ergo they will have our values the most. So by banning people from the countries that hate us most we would be banning people that desire our western values the most, right? Maybe? Probably.

Finally, what are our values? Are part of them not to help our fellow man? If we are Christian and read the words of Christ then perhaps we are to help our fellow man even to our own detriment. Or, ignoring Christ, we believe in everyone having the opportunity to live in peace, and if they cannot do it there why not here, so long as no harm is caused? For then it does not matter from where they come, but how much we can help without harming ourselves significantly. Perhaps...

No, the good professor means well but his proposed system is flawed and counter to the very western values we hold dear.

Regards,

Doug

 

[ghitch75]

Northern California police refuse to cooperate in upcoming ICE raids: report | Fox News

 

[jamil]

You guys are saying he's saying rank the countries from which would-be immigrants would come and then allow them in accordingly? I can see that now that you mention it. Like BF I read it like an accusation the first time I read it.

He’s saying that if you rank order countries by how completely they adhere to western values you will find that they tend to accept immigrants in proportion to their ranking. So, one might conclude that acceptance of immigration is also a western value.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

He’s saying that if you rank order countries by how completely they adhere to western values you will find that they tend to accept immigrants in proportion to their ranking. So, one might conclude that acceptance of immigration is also a western value.

Then he needs some more adjectives, adverbs, participles, etc....because only by using some sort of weird hermenutics can I get that by reading those two sentences at face value.

 

[T.Lex]

I'll agree with Libertarian that his assertion is superficially appealing, but unworkable. Proportionately, people in "Western" countries like where they live. Sure, there will always be some portion of them that want to come to the US because America. But, mostly, they like things where they are.

So, even if we allowed a larger portion of people from those countries to come... chances are that number would never be filled. If we call the "demand" the high number that we would accept from those countries, the "supply" wouldn't be there.

The higher "supply" of people are from non-"Western" countries partly because those countries are non-"Western."

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I do not think there is much room between us, then.

I am not familiar with any local LEO having an illegal alien in custody and not turning them over.

Just to be clear, I don't think that "mere" non-cooperation could in any way trigger a violation of criminal code. If it did, I'd most likely be with you in opposing it.

However, several CA local officials (a few mayors, police chiefs and a small handful of sheriffs) have been very vocal that they will do any and everything to "protect" their local illegal immigrant populations in eluding federal immigration officials. At some point, and I think we have it roughly bracketed, is crosses from "non-cooperation" to criminally prosecutable "harboring" or "concealing from protection" under 8 USC 1324 . At the very least, having the DoJ clearly state what types of actions constitute crimes would be a good thing.

Also, some subset of the illegal aliens that they have in custody are also federal fugitives. Harboring, concealing and aiding and abetting these fugitives in eluding federal officials violates other portions of the federal code and are separately chargeable, if local officials do commit that crime. Again, simple "non-cooperation" does not trigger this, IMO.

So, things like "stalling" the feds at the front desk while releasing the individual out the "backdoor" of the jail, would, IMO, cross over into the criminal. Ditto lying or misleading feds about an individual's release time/date, letting him go "early" before the feds arrive at the appointed time, or keeping him in custody until the feds give up and leave.

IMO, these are where they cross the line from "non-cooperation" into actively harboring, aiding and abetting and should face the consequences, just like any other criminal.

The FAR more common scenario is a local LEO has the person and the feds aren't interested.

I suspect this scenario has become less and less common since, just to pick a random date, say, January 20, 2017.

tl;dr: Simple non-cooperation is NOT criminal. Actively aiding and abetting illegal aliens and/or federal fugitives is criminal. If locals cross that line, they can and, IMO, should be charged.

 

[T.Lex]

However, several CA local officials (a few mayors, police chiefs and a small handful of sheriffs) have been very vocal that they will do any and everything to "protect" their local illegal immigrant populations in eluding federal immigration officials. At some point, and I think we have it roughly bracketed, is crosses from "non-cooperation" to criminally prosecutable "harboring" or "concealing from protection" under 8 USC 1324 . At the very least, having the DoJ clearly state what types of actions constitute crimes would be a good thing.

I thought politicians nowadays couldn't get in trouble for what they said.

Also, some subset of the illegal aliens that they have in custody are also federal fugitives. Harboring, concealing and aiding and abetting these fugitives in eluding federal officials violates other portions of the federal code and are separately chargeable, if local officials do commit that crime. Again, simple "non-cooperation" does not trigger this, IMO.

I posted in a different thread about the San Antonio police department that arrested a guy trafficking people in a semi. The people in the trailer were undocumented. The police let them go. (Depending on who you believe, they may or may not have alerted the feds before releasing them.)

Would something like that cross over for you?

I suspect this scenario has become less and less common since, just to pick a random date, say, January 20, 2017.

I think you'd be surprised.

Despite the reports in MSM and "conservative" talk-news, the people I've had casual conversation with about this suggest nothing has changed up here. In places closer to our southern border, that might be different.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Graphs of US Immigration Trends

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/immigration-waves/?utm_term=.4e8f19daa3ae

This WaPo article, while full of opinion, also offers some interesting insights.

 

[T.Lex]

This is an alarmist take, and I'm not particularly thrilled about sharing the concern with this group, but here you go.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrant...laws/dhs-threat-prosecute-officials-sanctuary

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I thought politicians nowadays couldn't get in trouble for what they said.

Nothing is unlimited.

When they say they are going to do something specific that is criminal, and then do EXACTLY that thing... crosses a line. The "saying stuff" only provides insight into, though doesn't "prove" intent... you still have to prove that they DID something illegal.

I was in a previous debate where some local politician on the campaign trail said he was going to continue, vaguely, "doing the same thing", but arguably did NOT, that him merely saying non-specific "stuff" proved he was a criminal. Poppycock.

I posted in a different thread about the San Antonio police department that arrested a guy trafficking people in a semi. The people in the trailer were undocumented. The police let them go. (Depending on who you believe, they may or may not have alerted the feds before releasing them.)

Would something like that cross over for you?

Nope! They are under no obligation to enforce, nor help the feds enforce any federal law, unless it's a perquisite for a federal grant, which solely puts the grant funding at risk. This includes immigration laws.

Under that same scenario, if they had taken the illegals into custody and then concealed their presence and/or release from the feds, especially if they did so in ways that differ from any other individuals in their custody, then they've crossed the line. I.e. they aren't required to report immigration status... at all. BUT, if they "hide" the presence of the illegal individual from the feds because of the individual's immigration status, then I think it's pretty obvious that they violate the letter, the spirit and the intent of the federal criminal law... they are actively harboring and actively concealing the presence of an illegal alien. That's criminal. When they say they are going to do it, and then do exactly that, IMO, that's an airtight case.

I think you'd be surprised.

Despite the reports in MSM and "conservative" talk-news, the people I've had casual conversation with about this suggest nothing has changed up here. In places closer to our southern border, that might be different.

Surprised that a government bureaucracy takes time to change directions?

 

[SheepDog4Life]

This is an alarmist take, and I'm not particularly thrilled about sharing the concern with this group, but here you go.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrant...laws/dhs-threat-prosecute-officials-sanctuary

If this administration seeks to prosecute any state/local official for merely, passively, not cooperating, then I would join you and the ACLU in protest.

But, this is not that as we've discussed ad nauseum. There is a difference between passive non-cooperation and active obstruction. IF the lawyers at the ACLU don't know that, then I question the efficacy of the bar exam. Lol!

 

[T.Lex]

If this administration seeks to prosecute any state/local official for merely, passively, not cooperating, then I would join you and the ACLU in protest.

But, this is not that as we've discussed ad nauseum. There is a difference between passive non-cooperation and active obstruction. IF the lawyers at the ACLU don't know that, then I question the efficacy of the bar exam. Lol!

I'll politely decline to comment on the overall quality of the ACLU's lawyers. I've known several over the years. Some were REALLY good. Some were better at politics than law.

I will say that when I read the ACLU's statement that I linked to, I reassessed my own view of the topic.

 

[jamil]

Then he needs some more adjectives, adverbs, participles, etc....because only by using some sort of weird hermenutics can I get that by reading those two sentences at face value.

It's a meme. HE probably gave all the adjectives, adverbs, participles needed in the lecture where he presented the sentiment captured in the meme. If the meme doesn't contain enough information to come to the conclusion I have, it's the fault of the meme-creator. I've drawn my conclusions from hearing the language before, in broader contexts.

I've heard him lecture on immigration and he is not anti-immigration. And he's not an open borders advocate. In one of his biblical lectures series, he talked about that. In it he said it's perfectly reasonable for nations to have borders--not everyone has the same values and interests. If you have open borders then the values of the nation changes too quickly, which leads to conflict, and chaos. So it's reasonable for a nation with borders to have criteria for people to immigrate who will enhance the society and be able to assimilate properly, and become a functioning member of that nation. So I see that meme, and having heard lectures where he's talked about the topic I can easily infer what it doesn't mean, and what it probably means.

So, in my opinion, he's not prescribing anything. He's making an observation about the way groups behave. Again. I think your biggest beef is the meme author for being too concise.

EDIT: Actually the meme quote is from a tweet by Peterson. The conversation with Gad Saad that follows tends to support what I think it is. They're talking about how things are. Tendencies. Gad Saad said it this way, birds of a feather flock together. It's not a prescription. It's a description. They're talking about human nature.

 

[jamil]

I'll agree with Libertarian that his assertion is superficially appealing, but unworkable. Proportionately, people in "Western" countries like where they live. Sure, there will always be some portion of them that want to come to the US because America. But, mostly, they like things where they are.

So, even if we allowed a larger portion of people from those countries to come... chances are that number would never be filled. If we call the "demand" the high number that we would accept from those countries, the "supply" wouldn't be there.

The higher "supply" of people are from non-"Western" countries partly because those countries are non-"Western."

I think you and L1 both misunderstood what he's saying. Read my post above. Not prescriptive. Descriptive.

 

[T.Lex]

I think you and L1 both misunderstood what he's saying. Read my post above. Not prescriptive. Descriptive.

You are probably right. But if that's true, I'm not sure it makes sense at a deeper level. People living in the various flavors of the "West" generally like the flavor they have. There isn't a whole lot of emigration among them (retirees might be the biggest demographic doing that).

If it is descriptive, what is he describing? How things are, or how things should be?