Richard Fowler lies by misdirection on Foxnews over sanctuary cities

.



This evening, 1/24/2018, Richard Fowler appeared on The Story (fox News Channel) with Martha MacCallum. The subject being sanctuary cities and their elected leaders who violate the law. Fowler went on and on about court rulings in which the court agrees the federal government cannot force local state leaders to enforce federal immigration law. Of course, this argument repeatedly used by Mr. Fowler is a clever misdirection, and is not the issue at hand. The Trump Administration is not attempting to compel elected leaders in sanctuary cites to enforce federal law. In fact, the Trump Administration is asking these leaders to abide by federal law, and in particularly, abide by 8 U.S. Code § 1324 which makes it a crime for any person to harbor illegal entrants!

Now just what did our court say with respect to this very issue?


In UNITED STATES v. ZHENG, United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit, 2002 the court stated:



“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)


Now, with regard to Fowler’s intentional misdirection, that the Trump Administration may not force local elected leaders to enforce federal law, he is absolutely correct. But this is not what the argument is about. The argument is about local elected leaders in sanctuary cities, instructing their law enforcement officers to not cooperate with federal immigration officers. And what has the court stated about local elected leaders restricting their law enforcement officers from cooperating with our federal government?

For the answer to this question let us read Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s recent WRITTEN OPINION dealing with 8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service

“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 when they instruct local law enforcement officers to not cooperate with ICE Agents.



So, next time Richard Fowler trots out his misdirection about the Trump Administration wrongfully attempting to force local political hacks to enforce federal law, do not hesitate to pimp slap him in his fat face by instructing him there is a vast difference in trying to compel local politicians to enforce federal law and our federal government cautioning local political hacks against the criminal act of harboring.


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.

.
Here is the LINK where Fowler intentionally misdirects by suggesting the Trump Administration is trying to “take over” local police forces. As previously documented, the Court has confirmed local politicians cannot direct local police officers to not cooperate with federal law enforcement officers, and, the Court has also confirmed that “any person”, which would include local politicians, can be arrested for harboring. The only question here is, do “sanctuary city” politicians [mayors and governors] violate the harboring statute when they direct their law enforcement officers to not cooperate with federal ICE Agents. In this respect the law seems crystal clear.

And what is the test for harboring? CLICK HERE for the Courts’ own words:

”In a later decision, the Second Circuit announced the following test for determining what constitutes shielding, concealing, and harboring under 8 U.S.C. § 1324:  “harboring, within the meaning of § 1324, encompasses conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien's remaining in the United States illegally and to prevent government authorities from detecting his unlawful presence.”  United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 574 (2d Cir.1999) (emphasis added);  see also United States v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 1173, 1180 (5th Cir.1977) (stating that proper test is whether charged conduct tended “substantially to facilitate an alien's remaining in the United States illegally”) (quoting Lopez, 521 F.2d at 441).”

So, as it turns out, when sanctuary city politicians direct their law enforcement officers to not cooperate with federal ICE Agents, they have crossed the line and are engaging in the act of harboring.


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.