Why has Jeff Sessions not charged Kate Steinle’s killer with criminal reentry?
See Feds File New Charges Against Undocumented Immigrant In Kate Steinle Case
”The new charges appear to signal that federal authorities hope to try, convict and incarcerate the five-time deportee before he is ultimately expelled from the U.S.”
Why is Jeff Sessions not also charging this murderer under 8 U.S. Code § 1326 - Reentry of removed aliens which carries a ten year prison sentence for the offense. And considering he has repeated offenses, this murderer, if charged correctly, could possibly be put in prison for the rest of his life!
Why is Jeff Sessions not throwing the book at this murderer and sending a message to the rest of these thugs?
JWK
American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.
Why Sessions did not charge Kate Steinle's killer with criminal reentry
I think I found the reason why Kate’s killer has not been charged with criminal reentry.
In June 2009 Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez was caught, I believe for the fifth time, entering the United States illegally, and he plead guilty to felony criminal reentry, and was sentenced. It appears he was not deported after this time period, and this may be why our Justice Department has not charged him, again, with felony criminal reentry ___ he was already charged, sentenced and did time for this illegal entry.
JWK
Can sanctuary city officials be prosecuted under 8 U.S. Code § 1324?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beezer
If he can't withhold the money can he arrest the Governor's, Mayor's, Sheriffs and Judges that are aiding, abetting and harboring illegal aliens...GO AFTER THEM and lock them up.
All it takes is for our Justice Department to convene a grand jury, present evidence these officials are harboring illegal entrants, get a true bill, and then send federal marshals to take these law breakers into custody
SEE:
8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
(A)Any person who—
(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;
(II)aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
And just what does “any person” mean within the law? For that 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."
Also see Judge Harry Leinenweber’s
OPINION which confirms that State political elected hacks are forbidden to compel city law enforcement officers from the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS!
Judge Harry Leinenweber wrote:
”At its core, this case boils down to whether state and local governments can restrict their officials from voluntarily cooperating with a federal scheme. The Court has not been presented with, nor could it uncover, any case holding that the scope of state sovereignty includes the power to forbid state or local employees from voluntarily complying with a federal program. “
and…
”The Court denies the City’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction with respect to the compliance condition, because the City has failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits.“
It’s time for our Justice Department to grow a spine, and work to have arrest warrants issued and then send forth federal Marshals to sanctuary cities and arrest elected politicians and their accomplices for using their office of public trust to actively engage in a conspiracy to promote the harboring of illegal entrants.
JWK
Without our Fifth Column Media and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary
