Thread: DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks.

See: DOJ Considering Arresting Sanctuary City Politicians

January, 2018

”The Department of Justice is considering subjecting state and local officials to criminal charges if they implement or enforce so-called sanctuary policies that bar jurisdictions from cooperating with immigration authorities. Immigration advocates argue such a move would be illegal.”

The irrefutable fact is, federal law, 8 U.S.C. § 1373, prohibits any person, even elected political hacks such as New York City’s communist Mayor Bill de Blasio, California’s socialist Governor Jerry Brown, and even progressive Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago, from prohibiting law enforcement officers from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement officers.

To confirm this fact see Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s WRITTEN OPINION

“The constitutionality of Section 1373 has been challenged before. The Second Circuit in City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999), addressed a facial challenge to Section 1373 in similar circumstances. By executive order, New York City prohibited its employees from voluntarily providing federal immigration authorities with information concerning the immigration status of any alien. Id. at 31-32. The city sued the United States, challenging the constitutionality of Section 1373 under the Tenth Amendment.

Id. at 32.

The Second Circuit found that Section 1373 did not compel state or local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program or conscript local employees into its service, and therefore did not run afoul of the rules gleaned from the Supreme Court’s Printz and New York decisions. City of New York, 179 F.3d at 35. Rather, the court held that Section 1373 prohibits local governmental entities and officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. Ibid. The Court found that the Tenth Amendment, normally a shield from federal power, could not be turned into “a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs.”


The irrefutable fact is, harboring illegal entrants is a criminal offense, which is exactly what elected political hacks in sanctuary cities/states are doing, and the law against harboring applies to “any person”! SEE: UNITED STATES v. ZHENG, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2002:


“In considering this appeal, we first examine the language of the statute at issue. “As with any question of statutory interpretation, we begin by examining the text of the statute to determine whether its meaning is clear.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 285 F.3d 1329, 1331 (11th Cir.2002); see also Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1185 (11th Cir.1997) (“In construing a statute we must begin, and often should end as well, with the language of the statute itself.”). The Appellees assert that the language of § 1324 restricts its application to individuals who are in the business of smuggling illegal aliens into the United States for employment or those who employ illegal aliens in “sweatshops.” We disagree. Section 1324 applies to “[a]ny person” who knowingly harbors an illegal alien. Although § 1324 and § 1324a appear to cover some of the same conduct, “the fact that Congress has enacted two sections encompassing similar conduct but prescribing different penalties does not compel a conclusion that one statute was meant to limit, repeal, or affect enforcement of the other.” United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 573 (2d Cir.1999). The Supreme Court has noted that statutes may “overlap” or enjoy a “partial redundancy,” United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 118, 99 S.Ct. 2198, 2201, 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979), and yet be “fully capable of coexisting.” Id. at 122, 99 S.Ct. at 2203. We agree with the Second Circuit’s analysis of §§ 1324 and 1324a that “nothing in the language of these two sections ․ preclude[s] their coexistence.” Kim, 193 F.3d at 573. The plain language of § 1324 does not limit its reach to certain specific individuals, and thus, the Government properly charged the Appellees with violating this statute.”


The irrefutable fact is, any public servant who has taken an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, who “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” can be prosecuted under 8 U.S. § 1324 (a)

It’s about time our Federal Department of Justice goes after public servants who flaunt the law and shield from detection illegal entrants who have turned American Citizens into tax slaves to pay for the economic needs of these law breakers.

JWK


American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of **** hole countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

Part of their sentence is the LOSE their pension and benefits!

HIT THEM IN THEIR POCKET BOOKS!

We have had our local officials openly declaring that they were going to defy orders from the administration that they disagreed with. For a hill to die on, they sure picked the wrong one. Officials---you've got your oath of office, you've got federal law and the Constitution. Wrong hill, partners.

See

ACLU Comment on ICE Acting Director Remarks on Sanctuary Cities

“Homan’s statement ratchets up the intimidation tactics, but there’s no valid basis to prosecute any state or local official under federal criminal law for carrying out a sanctuary policy. And if the federal government targets state and local officials who have spoken out against the Trump administration’s extremist policies, there would be serious First Amendment problems as well.”




Speaking out against a law, and actually violating the law are two entirely different matters.

The fact is, sanctuary city leaders are in violation of the law if they prohibit local law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement officers. Additionally, any person, and this would include elected local leaders, who engages in harboring illegal entrants, are also in violation of criminal law.

The ACLU needs to stop giving out fake information which may very well land local political leaders in jail!


JWK

.

See:‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says

1/18/2018

”The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.

“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.”

What this nitwit fails to understand is our court has already indicated state officials cannot require interested parties to not cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.


To confirm this fact see Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s WRITTEN OPINION

“The constitutionality of Section 1373 has been challenged before. The Second Circuit in City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999), addressed a facial challenge to Section 1373 in similar circumstances. By executive order, New York City prohibited its employees from voluntarily providing federal immigration authorities with information concerning the immigration status of any alien. Id. at 31-32. The city sued the United States, challenging the constitutionality of Section 1373 under the Tenth Amendment.

Id. at 32.

The Second Circuit found that Section 1373 did not compel state or local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program or conscript local employees into its service, and therefore did not run afoul of the rules gleaned from the Supreme Court’s Printz and New York decisions. City of New York, 179 F.3d at 35. Rather, the court held that Section 1373 prohibits local governmental entities and officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. Ibid. The Court found that the Tenth Amendment, normally a shield from federal power, could not be turned into “a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs.”

Attorney General Xavier Becerra can rub his unenforceable law on his chest as that is about all its good for.


JWK