'Ike' (Phone)'s Link
The DOJ can do that under the direction of the President...
Yes, we are for states rights but a state does not have the right to ignore federal law.
Then there are no states rights. Pretty sure the FF went out of their way to not have power centrally located.
I would love to see the 17th amendment repealed and have the senators appointed by the states to represent the state before the federal government. As the FF intended. Worked for the first 125 years, not sure what needed fixed.
Which federal law requires state agencies to enforce immigration law on behalf of the federal government?
Everyone is subject to fed law and hiding a known illegal immigrant (breaking fed law in the first place) is against fed law. States have to comply with notification of knowledge of illegal immigration, but they don't have to arrest and cannot impede a fed from carrying out their duties.
"I would love to see the 17th amendment repealed and have the senators appointed by the states to represent the state before the federal government. As the FF intended. Worked for the first 125 years, not sure what needed fixed."
Bowbender, I agree, the 17th was a mistake. What needed fixing was the House was getting all the graft and the Senate wanted in! Now they are both "fixed"!
So, it's not asking/expecting state resources to go out of their way to track down people for the sole purpose of enforcing fed laws as opponents (and your argument tries to lead) like to put forth.
So your leading question asking about "What federal law requires...?" is simply straw manning the issue BEG. The threat to withhold fed law enforcement funds, that so many liberal people pitch a false "unconstitutional" fit about, is an accurate approach because it's not about "law" it's a fed funding allocated to compensate a state for expenses/efforts expended to comply with federal laws.
If the state is not expending expenses related to feds enforcing a law then the state has no justification to those funds.
Annony Mouse's Link
Pat should move his servers to CA and let their censors deal with the many faces of Paul and cronies ;o)
From the link: "...California is now prosecuting him for posting these comments, on the theory that they violate Cal. Penal Code § 653m(b):
Every person who, with intent to annoy or harass, makes repeated telephone calls or makes repeated contact by means of an electronic communication device ... to another person is ... guilty of a misdemeanor. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to telephone calls or electronic contacts made in good faith or during the ordinary course and scope of business.
The posts, the California AG's office argues, were "were made with the specific intent to annoy and harass the members of the ICSC," because Feigin "was not trying to engage in any kind of political discussion but instead trying to vex members of the ICSC with his thoughts about their religion." The posts are criminal because they constitute "repeated harassment from those who wish to mock and disparage their religion," and, "[r]ather than attempt to engage in discussion or debate," are "cruel and pointedly aimed at dismissing an entire religion and those who practice it."
"...And the government's argument makes clear that it's going after Feigin for the content -- indeed the viewpoint -- of his speech: "The mere content and nature of the posts establish that they are not made in 'good faith' as Defendant would suggest but are meant to annoy and harass." "Defendant is not seeking uriderstanding or guidance, instead he is posting in order to annoy and harass those who have beliefs with which he vehemently abhors." The Facebook's page public accessibility "does not translate into requiring ICSC or its members to sustain repeated harassment from those who wish to mock and disparage their religion." "Rather than attempt to engage in discussion or debate, Defendant's posts are cruel and pointedly aimed at dismissing an entire religion and those who practice it." Nor is the government's argument limited to vulgar epithets ("Filthy muslim shit"), though even those epithets are constitutionally protected when said outside the context of face-to-face "fighting words"; it applies just as much to the nonvulgar criticisms.
Of course, there's nothing in the government's logic that limits it to comments posted on the Islamic Center's page, or for that matter on the Catholic Church's page or the Westboro Baptist Church's page or the Church of Scientology's page. If the government is right, and the statute applies to posts on organizations' pages, then it would apply to any repeated harshly critical posts
on an NRA page "intended to annoy" NRA employees, on a pro-Trump page "intended to annoy" its operators, or on any other ideological organization's page.
The "during the ordinary course and scope of business" exception might exclude consumer complaints, but the government's theory is that this exception doesn't apply to this sort of criticism that is "cruel and pointedly aimed at dismissing an entire religion and those who practice it" -- logic that would apply equally to criticism of political as well as religious ideologies. Nor can the courts constitutionally conclude that harsh insults of the NRA are "in good faith" and similar harsh insults of Islam are not..."
ICE To Crack Down On California Gov For Harboring Illegals
January 4, 2018 John Locke Government corruption 10 California’s Governor, Jerry Brown, could possibly be facing a federal conviction in response to his decision to harbor illegals.
The entire state of California has declared sanctuary, this means that illegals residing in the state need not worry about deportation from local law enforcement as police officers are forbidden from determining legal status upon questioning. That does NOT, however, stop ICE agents from doing what local law enforcement won’t and that is exactly what the director of ICE, Thomas Homan, had to say to Gov. Jerry Brown.
Furthermore, Homan is certain that Brown’s actions violate US law, and while illegals may be ‘safe’ from the law, Brown is not.
California’s Governor is about to get a knock on the door from Thomas Homan, the current Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director.
Homan straight up said that California “better hold on tight” the moment Brown allowed the sanctuary state law to happen. The point was made that the sanctuary city status might protect the criminals as they illegally creep around our beloved American cities looking for another victim, but ICE has plans to snatch them from their hideaways and send them packing.
“There’s no sanctuary from law enforcement,” he said. “California better hold on tight – they’re about to see a lot more deportation officers. If politicians don’t protect their communities then ICE will.”
Homan said illegal alien smuggling organizations will use the California law as a “selling point” and that Brown “bit off a lot more than he can chew.”
Homan said that Brown and other sanctuary-jurisdiction leaders may have violated 8 U.S. Code § 1324 – relating to “harboring certain aliens.”
He said he hopes the Justice Department will look into whether officials can be criminally charged under the statute.
If knowingly endangering citizens one is sworn to protect isn’t breaking the law, it certainly should be. The entire state of California is an abomination in the sense that it’s made up of a cultural mixing pot where criminals are allowed to thrive thanks to the ‘don’t ask,don’t tell’ policy implemented by the democratic officials attempting to poison the country.
Annony Mouse's Link