Having been grilled by Democratic lawmakers over her recollections of a White House meeting in which President Trump described some poor nations sending immigrants to the United States as “shithole countries,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen dropped a potentially even bigger tape-bomb.
According to The Washington Times, Nielsen confirmed Tuesday that her department has asked federal prosecutors to see if they can lodge criminal charges against sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts.
I won’t believe it until there’s a conviction. Not a charge, not an indictment, a conviction. After the circus that was the investigation of Hillary I don’t believe anything will happen.
Plus a lot of saber rattling about it in a number of other states and cities.
It is a hard issue. States rights vs Federal Government, etc. But in the end both sides really do seem to come down to “I support it when it is an issue I agree with”
These guys are HOPING that they are the ones that get collared. It would make them national figures and move them to the top of the Senate candidate list.
It is interesting, but there are few issues. IF this were to happen, and I don’t think it would there is a major difference between protecting an illegal resident and a citizen. Citizenship is a lot more important. I’d rather fix problems that ignore them and be passive aggressive about it. The other issue is the asymmetry of an illegal here- which in the worst case they get sent home, and a citizen risking say 10 years and a felony conviction. Illegals risk far less, have less to risk and the reward for staying outweighs the risk.
Someone turns their own suppressor, hacks a barrel- they get a gun to use- and they risk everything including their freedom. If breaking the NFA got me some free meals and a ride home, I think we’d all be taking the ‘risk’.
As satisfying as it might be to see some of these sanctuary city leaders prosecuted, I don’t think it will happen. Nor do I think it is a good idea or a good precedent to set. As kwelz points out what if the issue were a 2nd Amendment issue where your local Sheriff wouldn’t play ball with a gun confiscation program? How would you feel then?
I think the best bet would be to cut federal funding for localities and states that don’t want to play ball. Then use that money to hire a metric shit ton of new ICE agents, and whatever other personnel are needed to process deportations. Send these extra bodies to these sanctuary cities and states. Then pay them bonuses to be as productive as possible. Build them their own holding facilities.
Hell have them wait outside local jails to start, plenty of inmates are illegally in the country nab them right as they hit the street. Put the new ICE facilities right across the street from the jail. Make it easy to get an agent there quickly. Use imminent domain to get the land to build the new ICE jails just to piss off the local governments and rub it in.
Hard to argue with most of this. Hell it would solve 99% of the issues I have with immigration. I don’t care about DACA people or the guy who was brought here at 10 and is now 40 and is living a good life. I care about the scum who came here illegally and are committing crimes and harming our country.
Yep the goal should be to identify and get rid of the scumbags first.
If ICE can’t get a local agency to hold an illegal who is on the list of baddies, then it comes down to a staffing issue at ICE and a logistics issue. So to start, hire more agents. Make sure they have the ability to get to where the scumbags are quickly, and make sure they have somewhere to stuff them once they’re in hand.
Also make it very clear to these states and cities that non compliance is a lot more trouble than compliance. Have ICE turning local businesses upside down and seizing shit every day when illegals are found. Have ICE trolling the parking lot of Home Depot and follow people home with illegals they just hired to do concrete work on their back yard pool.
Get local residents and businesses furious about ICE, while making it very plain that the increase in their activities are a direct result of refusal to help enforce those laws by the local or state government.
I’m a huge fan of the 10th Amendment and state’s rights, so I’m of two minds on this one. If the so-called sanctuary cities are simply not cooperating with federal agencies, then no. If they’re actively obstructing federal law enforcement and DHS has evidence of such, then they need to be indicted and I’m fine with a perp walk in cuffs to a federal detention facility.
I’m also fine with the Trump Administration withholding federal funding earmarked specifically for state and local safety and law enforcement, and redirecting that funding to beefed up the federal LE presence and detention capabilities in sanctuary cities. Doing so would fall under suggestive rather than coercive activity by the Trump Administration. I would not be OK with the Trump Administration withholding larger state funding intended for other areas. That would be coercive IMO.
So while I’d love to see places like Cali and Austin, TX get the hammer, it needs to be proportional to the issue. You can’t say you support states rights if you apply double standards depending on what the issue is.
