One of the more recent and pervasive forms of sanctuary policies are those that prevent or otherwise limit state and local officers’ ability to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests.
Detainers are used to request that state and local law enforcement either notify ICE that it is about to release a criminal alien, or to maintain custody of the alien for up to 48-hours for ICE pick-up. ICE detainers are a critical tool created by the federal government to address threats by criminal aliens picked up by state and local law enforcement.
Between January 1, 2014 and September 30, 2014, sanctuary jurisdictions released 9,295 aliens that ICE had sought to remove;
Of those 9,295 aliens, nearly 6,000 had significant prior criminal histories or other public safety concerns;
Of those with a prior history of concern, 58 percent had prior felony charges or convictions; and
2,320 of the total number of released offenders were re-arrested within that 10 month period, and ICE has not been able to re-apprehend those individuals.
According to the Department’s statistics, 952 criminal aliens were arrested on homicide charges between June 2011 and November 2015. 176,000 criminal aliens were booked into Texas jails in this time period were collectively responsible for the commission of 472,000 crimes. Many of these crimes could have been prevented had local law enforcement effectively transferred deportable criminal aliens to federal custody.
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that state laws and policies are preempted when they conflict with federal law, as well as when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.
In De Canas v. Bica the Supreme Court held that any state law or policy related to immigration will be per se preempted if it is a regulation of immigration because the “power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.”
A state law or policy is a “regulation of immigration” when it determines who should or should not be admitted into the country, and under what conditions they may remain. Sanctuary laws, ordinances, or policies regulate immigration because they essentially decide who may remain in the United States.
I was specifically asking about your claim that "state officials began to be tried in federal courts... " What would be interesting is if you could show a case where State officials were tried in federal courts for not preventing lynching in their states.
If you had a link for that, it would be a part of history of which I wasn't aware (I like learning new things). Do you have a link?
Appellees are three Mississippi law enforcement officials and 15 private individuals who are alleged to have conspired to deprive three individuals of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The alleged conspiracy involved releasing the victims from jail at night; intercepting, assaulting and killing them, and disposing of their bodies. Its purpose was to "punish" the victims summarily.
MR. JUSTICE FORTAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
These are federal, and not state, indictments. They do not charge as crimes the alleged assaults or murders. We have no doubt of "the power of Congress to enforce by appropriate criminal sanction every right guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
The First Count charges, on the basis of allegations substantially as set forth above, that all of the defendants conspired "to willfully subject" Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman "to the deprivation of their right, privilege and immunity secured and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States not to be summarily punished without due process of law by persons acting under color of the laws of the State of Mississippi
In the present case, according to the indictment, the brutal joint adventure was made possible by state detention and calculated release of the prisoners by an officer of the State. This action, clearly attributable to the State, was part of the monstrous design described by the indictment. State officers participated in every phase of the alleged venture: the release from jail, the interception, assault, and murder. It was a joint activity, from start to finish. Those who took advantage of participation by state officers in accomplishment of the foul purpose alleged must suffer the consequences of that participation. In effect, if the allegations are true, they were participants in official lawlessness, acting in willful concert with state officers and hence under color of law."
Have you read anything about this issue from outside your partisan bubble. The answer is pretty simple. But, let me explain (this is so basic that it really doesn't merit argument)
The issue in the Sanctuary State bills is whether the Federal Government can force local and state police departments to cooperate with Federal enforcement. These bills aren't suggesting that federal agents can't operate in the state. It is only saying that enforcing federal law is not the responsibility of the local police.
This is civics 101. It is ridiculous that we would even argue this.
Federal law at 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits policies that impede cooperation between federal, state, and local officials when it comes to the sending, requesting, maintaining, or exchanging of information regarding immigration status. Under that provision, any federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from the federal government, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
Congress enacted this law in 1996 with the intent to block state and local leaders form obstructing the INA’s carefully crafted scheme because of pressure from special interests and partisan politics. Thus, because sanctuary laws, ordinances, and policies inherently restrict such communication, they are in direct conflict with federal law and should be deemed invalid.
Max, I really don't care what you value, or if your values are like mine.
NAMBLA lobbies hard to lower the age of consent to 3, and that's their "value." But they have no chance of succeeding in that effort, so it doesn't really concern me.
What does concern me is that NAMBLA practices their "values" irrespective of the law. If they can't change the law, they'll just break it, that's all.
My concern with you and your ilk is the absolute disrespect for the law which you show, and your avowed determination to violate the law if it doesn't comport with your "values."
Do you have a response to that?
I suspect it will be something like--"yeah, if I value it, it must comply with the law." That about right?
Maybe I did miss the point of your post.
Are you trying to get me to say that I am in favor of State's rights when they support my political views? I have no problem admitting that. I think everyone invokes state's rights when they disagree with a policy being pushed by the party in charge. In the past several decades (since at least the Nixon administration) this has usually been the conservative side with civil rights, and same sex marriage.
I thought it was funny that this time I am invoking states rights, and I said so. I am still right that this will be decided in the courts.
Is there something else?
But in my defense, there are several other ways I depart from the left-wing orthodoxy; political correctness, religious freedom (which I am ambivalent about) and GMOs to name a few.
I am aware that the policies I favor will raise the cost of energy and have an negative impact on the economy.