[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Candace Owens: : I Know What Happened at the Hamptons (Ackman confronted Charlie Kirk) Illegal Alien Drunk Driver Mows Down, Kills 16-Year-Old Girl Who Rejected His Lewd Advances STOP Drinking These 5 Coffees – They’re Quietly DESTROYING Your Gut & Hormones This Works Better Than Ozempic for Belly Fat Cinnamon reduces fat How long do health influencers live? Episode 1 of 3. 'Armed Queers' Marxist Revolutionaries Under Investigation For Possible Foreknowledge Of Kirk's Assassination Plot Who Killed Charlie Kirk? the Case Against Israel Sen. Grassley announces a whistleblower has exposed the FBI program “Arctic Frost” for targeting 92 Republican groups Keto, Ivermectin, & Fenbendazole: New Cancer Treatment Protocol Gains Momentum Bill Ackman 'Hammered' Charlie Kirk in August 'Intervention' for Platforming Israel Critics "I've Never Experienced Crime Of This Magnitude Before": 20-Year Veteran Austrian Police Spox The UK is F*CKED, and the people have had enough No place for hate apeech America and Israel both told Qatar to allow Hamas to stay in their country Video | Robert Kennedy brings down the house. Owner releases video of Trump banner ripping, shooting in WNC Cash Jordan: Looters ‘Forcibly Evict’ Millionaires… as California’s “NO ARRESTS” Policy BACKFIRES Dallas Motel Horror: Immigrant Machete Killer Caught America has been infiltrated and occupied Netanyahu 1980 Senior Trump Official Declares War On Far-Left NGOs Sowing Chaos Nationwide White House Plans Security Boost On Civil Terrorism Fears Visualizing The Number Of Farms In Each US State Let her cry The Secret Version of the Bible You’re Never Taught - Secret History Rocker defames Charlie Kirk threatens free speech Paramount Has a $1.5 Billion South Park Problem European Warmongers Angry That Trump Did Not Buy Into the ‘Drone Attack in Poland’ Grassley Unveils Declassified Documents From FBI's Alleged 'Political Hit Job' On Trump 2 In 5 Young Adults Are Taking On Debt For Social Image, To Impress Peers, Study Finds

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Washington Gov. Signs Executive Order Barring State Officials From Complying With ICE
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/24/w ... plying-with-ice/#ixzz4ZkkUDycu
Published: Feb 25, 2017
Author: AA
Post Date: 2017-02-25 21:19:45 by HAPPY2BME-4UM
Keywords: None
Views: 172
Comments: 8

Washington Gov. Signs Executive Order Barring State Officials From Complying With ICE 

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed an executive order Thursday that would bar state and local law enforcement officials from arresting illegal immigrants at the request of federal officials.

The order comes after Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly signed an executive order Monday calling for an expansion of the 287(g) program in which state and local law enforcement officials enforce federal immigration law.

“The Washington State Patrol or Department of Corrections, or other executive or small cabinet agency with arrest powers, will act consistently with current federal law and shall not arrest solely for violation of federal civil immigration laws, except as otherwise required by federal or state law or authorized by the governor,” the order signed by Gov. Inslee states. “Specifically, no agency may enter into any agreements with the federal government authorizing such authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §1357).”

Inslee wrote in a blog post: “This executive order makes clear that Washington will not be a willing participant in promoting or carrying out mean-spirited policies that break up families and compromise our national security and community safety.”

 http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/24/washington-gov-signs-executive-order-barring-state-officials-from-complying-with-ice/#ixzz4ZkkUDycu

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 5.

#1. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0) (Edited)

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee signed an executive order Thursday that would bar state and local law enforcement officials from arresting illegal immigrants at the request of federal officials.

The order comes after Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly signed an executive order Monday calling for an expansion of the 287(g) program in which state and local law enforcement officials enforce federal immigration law.

“The Washington State Patrol or Department of Corrections, or other executive or small cabinet agency with arrest powers, will act consistently with current federal law and shall not arrest solely for violation of federal civil immigration laws, except as otherwise required by federal or state law or authorized by the governor,” the order signed by Gov. Inslee states. “Specifically, no agency may enter into any agreements with the federal government authorizing such authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. §1357).”

Inslee wrote in a blog post: “This executive order makes clear that Washington will not be a willing participant in promoting or carrying out mean-spirited policies that break up families and compromise our national security and community safety.”

Guv. Inslee's executive order makes clear that he is either misrepresenting Federal immigration law because he is clueless about the wrongfulness of his statements or he is willfully misrepresenting the law to mislead others into violating those laws, as he is doing on multiple counts: harboring, aiding and abetting illegal aliens, etc. There is no Federal law against arresting illegal aliens soley for violation of immigration law. In fact, it is even a violation of Federal law if employers don't discriminate against illegal aliens by refusing to hire them.

Nor is there any such construence within the law codes cited prohibiting State officials from agreements with the federal government authorizing them to act as enforcers of Federal law. In short, if they'd like to qualify (in various capacities) as fully functionary equals with Federal immigration officers, an agreement that their training meets Federal standards is required (to limit Federal liability if they are sued for some reason, I suppose). However, no agreement is required for them to act as their State's enforcers of State and Federal immigration laws. Furthermore, there is no Federal law that permits them to act as nullifiers of Federal immigration laws because their misinformed governor wants them to do that as if invalid when he says so, I'm sure. References to be appended here when collected.

GreyLmist  posted on  2017-03-02   17:43:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Guv. Inslee's executive order makes clear that he is either misrepresenting Federal immigration law because he is clueless about the wrongfulness of his statements or he is willfully misrepresenting the law to mislead others into violating those laws, as he is doing on multiple counts: harboring, aiding and abetting illegal aliens, etc.

[4um Ref.] Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3). [8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens - law.cornell.edu]

GreyLmist  posted on  2017-03-02   18:06:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

...encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts.

This alone could nail most all the US congress, and more.

Lod  posted on  2017-03-02   19:23:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#7. To: Lod (#5)

...encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts.

This alone could nail most all the US congress, and more.

Yesiree, indeed it could get them charged (for example) with Sedition and Subversive Activities and possibly Treason too -- the lower range of penalties for that being: and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. [4um Ref.]

This site has good information on these matters but is very long and has a scrunched, letterbox page-format for reading that is an inconvenience, imo. So, am archiving these excerpts from it here:

Tackling Sanctuaries - Right Side News

What is a “Sanctuary”?

Different people and groups may have different definitions of a sanctuary, and there is a spectrum of such policies across the nation. For our purposes, a sanctuary is a jurisdiction that has a law, ordinance, policy, practice, or rule that deliberately obstructs immigration enforcement, restricts interaction with federal immigration agencies, or shields illegal aliens from detection. In addition, federal law includes two key provisions that forbid certain practices: one that forbids policies restricting communication and information sharing (8 U.S.C. Section 1373) and one that forbids harboring illegal aliens or shielding them from detection (8 U.S.C. Section 1324).

Information exchanges. 8 U.S.C. 1373 states:

“a 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, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

A recent report from the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General (DOJ OIG)11, requested by Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), who chairs the appropriations committee in charge of the DOJ budget, determined that sanctuary policies which prohibit local officers from communicating or exchanging information with ICE are “inconsistent” with federal law. Sanctuary jurisdictions do this by ignoring immigration detainers, which are filed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to signal their intent to take custody of aliens for purposes of removal, once state or local justice system proceedings are concluded. Some jurisdictions go further by prohibiting communication to advise or even acknowledge to ICE agents that the alien has been arrested. They also sometimes prevent ICE agents from access to the alien to conduct interviews.

The OIG report investigated the policies of 10 jurisdictions and found that they did indeed limit cooperation with ICE in an improper way:

“[E]ach of the 10 jurisdictions had laws or policies directly related to how those jurisdictions could respond to ICE detainers, and each limited in some way the authority of the jurisdiction to take action with regard to ICE detainers…We also found that the laws and policies in several of the 10 jurisdictions go beyond regulating responses to ICE detainers and also address, in some way, the sharing of information with federal immigration authorities.”

Harboring Aliens in Violation of Law. 8 U.S.C. 1324 states:

“Any person who…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, …; encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, shall be….fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both…”12

Much of the sanctuary movement seems to be centered on shielding from federal action deportable aliens who have been arrested and charged with various crimes. But other jurisdictions have more expansive policies aimed at shielding some or all illegal aliens, including the so-called Dreamers and their families, from enforcement action.

Refusal to act as immigration agents. Much of the controversy surrounding sanctuary policies has to do with state and local law enforcement agencies refusing to honor immigration detainers filed by ICE agents against aliens arrested for criminal offenses, aliens whom the agents have determined to be deportable and intend to take custody of, once state or local criminal justice proceedings are done. The detainer is a notification to the arresting/holding agency of ICE’s intention to assume custody.27

Many state and local agencies complain that by being asked to honor the detainer, they are being forced to act as surrogate immigration officials. This belies the fact that when ICE agents file detainers against an individual in police custody, they have already made determinations about his alienage and deportability. They are not asking the police either to render that judgment on their own, or to second-guess their decision-making. For this reason, state and local agencies are not being asked to act as immigration agents; they are simply expected to tender to the federal authorities the individual identified in the detainer.

What is more, the reality of sanctuaries is that there are many variations on the theme: a number of jurisdictions make decisions about whether to honor a detainer based on the crimes for which an alien has been charged or convicted. When they do this, they are effectively substituting their judgment for federal statutes which make clear the offenses that render an alien to be deportable, and so it is dishonest and deceptive for such jurisdictions to complain about acting as surrogates. They have already done so—and done it in a way that is contrary to law.

Reimbursement for incarceration costs. Many jurisdictions complain that it costs them hundreds of thousands (sometimes millions) of dollars each year arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating deportable aliens, or holding them for additional time (up to 48 hours) on an ICE detainer. They charge that, in turn, they get reimbursed for only a portion of those costs, usually via the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). They ask, then, why they should honor immigration detainers. It is worth observing, though, that the amounts being disbursed are significant. In 2015 more than $165,342 million was disbursed to state, county, and city law enforcement entities—including to sanctuary cities that thumb their nose at federal immigration agents and provide no cooperation whatever, or actively impede enforcement efforts.28

But putting aside the millions of dollars being disbursed, there are at least three additional, obvious, flaws in this train of logic.

First, although control of immigration is in fact a federal responsibility—and one which the Obama administration has been notoriously reluctant to embrace—it does not follow that the federal taxpayer should be on the hook for the entire cost of locking up aliens who are arrested and charged with state crimes, especially if state or local policies encourage or tolerate illegal settlement.

Second, if the complaint of non-cooperating jurisdictions is that the federal government has substantially failed in its job of keeping aliens from illegally crossing the border and in preventing aliens from overstaying their visas, thus resulting in increased numbers of alien criminals and heavier burdens for state and local law enforcement, then how does it follow that the solution is to release these aliens onto the street and back into the community rather than give custody of them over to federal agents to remove them, once the state criminal justice proceedings have concluded? Where is the logic in that?

Third, many state and local law enforcement agencies report that cooperating in the removal of criminal aliens actually saves the community significant sums of money. As is the case with other offenders, criminal aliens are prone to re-offend (at rates comparable to native-born criminals). When criminal aliens are removed instead of returned to the community, the community is spared the cost of their future crimes and the associated costs of incarceration and supervision, not to mention the pain and trauma of future victims.

[...] many of the sanctuary policies specify that no funds may be expended to assist the federal government in immigration enforcement. Yet in some cases, notably Cook County, Illinois, when ICE has offered to repay the cost of any additional time in custody for the criminal alien, the county did not accept the offer, which makes clear that cost was not the real reason for the sanctuary policy.

GreyLmist  posted on  2017-03-02 23:05:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]