Half of Americans oppose Obama's immigration lawsuit

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Do any of you have any legal precedent that shows that sanctuary cities are in violation of any Federal Laws? Feel free to cite a reliable source that indicates so. Keep in mind, sanctuary cities have been around for a long time.

In order to prevent law enforcement from ascertaining the immigration status of a detained person, the official preventing such action must violate this federal statute:

8 USC 1373 - Sec. 1373. Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service

(a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, 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, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. (b) Additional authority of government entities Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity. © Obligation to respond to inquiries The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

Source: http://vlex.com/vid/communication-immigration-naturalization-19271814

Edited July 10, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Do any of you have any legal precedent that shows that sanctuary cities are in violation of any Federal Laws? Feel free to cite a reliable source that indicates so. Keep in mind, sanctuary cities have been around for a long time.

Phoenix Reversal of Sanctuary City Status

Mayor Gordon announced in early December that he would no longer back a policy barring police officers from asking immigration status. Phoenix Police Operations Order 1.4, which was enacted in 1997, prevented police officers from contacting the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when they ticketed or arrested an illegal alien. IRLI believes this action puts Phoenix in line with federal law because it is unlawful to prevent a government official from contacting federal immigration authorities pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1373.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Do any of you have any legal precedent that shows that sanctuary cities are in violation of any Federal Laws? Feel free to cite a reliable source that indicates so. Keep in mind, sanctuary cities have been around for a long time.

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VIII > § 1324

§ 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

(a) Criminal penalties

(1)

(A) Any person who—

(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

(ii) 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, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

(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;

(iv) 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

(v)

(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—

(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;

(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;

(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and

(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.

© It is not a violation of clauses [1] (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A), or of clause (iv) of subparagraph (A) except where a person encourages or induces an alien to come to or enter the United States, for a religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit, religious organization in the United States, or the agents or officers of such denomination or organization, to encourage, invite, call, allow, or enable an alien who is present in the United States to perform the vocation of a minister or missionary for the denomination or organization in the United States as a volunteer who is not compensated as an employee, notwithstanding the provision of room, board, travel, medical assistance, and other basic living expenses, provided the minister or missionary has been a member of the denomination for at least one year. (2) Any person who, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien shall, for each alien in respect to whom a violation of this paragraph occurs—

(A) be fined in accordance with title 18 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; or

(B) in the case of—

(i) an offense committed with the intent or with reason to believe that the alien unlawfully brought into the United States will commit an offense against the United States or any State punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year,

(ii) an offense done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

(iii) an offense in which the alien is not upon arrival immediately brought and presented to an appropriate immigration officer at a designated port of entry,

be fined under title 18 and shall be imprisoned, in the case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(iii), not more than 10 years, in the case of a first or second violation of subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii), not less than 3 nor more than 10 years, and for any other violation, not less than 5 nor more than 15 years.

(3)

(A) Any person who, during any 12-month period, knowingly hires for employment at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that the individuals are aliens described in subparagraph (B) shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

(B) An alien described in this subparagraph is an alien who—

(i) is an unauthorized alien (as defined in section 1324a (h)(3) of this title), and

(ii) has been brought into the United States in violation of this subsection.

(4) In the case of a person who has brought aliens into the United States in violation of this subsection, the sentence otherwise provided for may be increased by up to 10 years if—

(A) the offense was part of an ongoing commercial organization or enterprise;

(B) aliens were transported in groups of 10 or more; and

©

(i) aliens were transported in a manner that endangered their lives; or

(ii) the aliens presented a life-threatening health risk to people in the United States.

(b) Seizure and forfeiture

(1) In general

Any conveyance, including any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft, that has been or is being used in the commission of a violation of subsection (a) of this section, the gross proceeds of such violation, and any property traceable to such conveyance or proceeds, shall be seized and subject to forfeiture.

(2) Applicable procedures

Seizures and forfeitures under this subsection shall be governed by the provisions of chapter 46 of title 18 relating to civil forfeitures, including section 981(d) of such title, except that such duties as are imposed upon the Secretary of the Treasury under the customs laws described in that section shall be performed by such officers, agents, and other persons as may be designated for that purpose by the Attorney General.

(3) Prima facie evidence in determinations of violations

In determining whether a violation of subsection (a) of this section has occurred, any of the following shall be prima facie evidence that an alien involved in the alleged violation had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law:

(A) Records of any judicial or administrative proceeding in which that alien’s status was an issue and in which it was determined that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.

(B) Official records of the Service or of the Department of State showing that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.

© Testimony, by an immigration officer having personal knowledge of the facts concerning that alien’s status, that the alien had not received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States or that such alien had come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.

© Authority to arrest

No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

(d) Admissibility of videotaped witness testimony

Notwithstanding any provision of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the videotaped (or otherwise audiovisually preserved) deposition of a witness to a violation of subsection (a) of this section who has been deported or otherwise expelled from the United States, or is otherwise unable to testify, may be admitted into evidence in an action brought for that violation if the witness was available for cross examination and the deposition otherwise complies with the Federal Rules of Evidence.

(e) Outreach program

The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall develop and implement an outreach program to educate the public in the United States and abroad about the penalties for bringing in and harboring aliens in violation of this section.

[Pooky 3,348]

Is that enough?

[evli1966 88]

Is that enough?

There wont be a response because he knows he is wrong just like most of the immigration issues he tries to defend.

And it is known that the federal government should have went after the sanctuary cities/states long ago. These are the real communities that are breaking federal laws no AZ.

Edited July 10, 2010 by evli1966

[Sofiyya 1,687]

What the Obama administration, the DOJ, Homeland Security, the ACLU, La Raza and their ethnic politics sychophants fail to discern in their suit against Arizona is that their attempt to prevent Arizona from enforcing immigration law actually goes against current standing federal statutes, such as the ones cited above. That's because the entire bunch is as dumb as a box of rocks and each of them couldnt find their azzes in the dark with both hands.

But, I digress . . .

[Pooky 3,348]

What the Obama administration, the DOJ, Homeland Security, the ACLU, La Raza and their ethnic politics sychophants fail to discern in their suit against Arizona is that their attempt to prevent Arizona from enforcing immigration law actually goes against current standing federal statutes, such as the ones cited above. That's because the entire bunch is as dumb as a box of rocks and each of them couldnt find their azzes in the dark with both hands.

But, I digress . . .

No you don't

[one...two...tree 2,762]

None of you could find one single instance where the Federal Gov't. has specifically stated that cities who designate themselves as sanctuary cities are in violation of federal laws. In cities like San Francisco, the designation has been going on for more than 20 years. There are many cities throughout the U.S. who have designated themselves as sanctuary cities.

But really, this is a silly argument to begin with - to suggest that the Federal Gov't should be going after sanctuary cities instead of challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's SB1070. And really, going back to the OP's argument - that because the law is popular it shouldn't be questioned over it's constitutionality is beyond absurd.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just so some of you pumping the sanctuary city angle over this legal challenge in the courts know, FAIR is behind this stupid argument making its rounds among RWN's. For anyone not knowing who FAIR is or who funds them, google search them sometime.

[evli1966 88]

None of you could find one single instance where the Federal Gov't. has specifically stated that cities who designate themselves as sanctuary cities are in violation of federal laws. In cities like San Francisco, the designation has been going on for more than 20 years. There are many cities throughout the U.S. who have designated themselves as sanctuary cities.

But really, this is a silly argument to begin with - to suggest that the Federal Gov't should be going after sanctuary cities instead of challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's SB1070. And really, going back to the OP's argument - that because the law is popular it shouldn't be questioned over it's constitutionality is beyond absurd.

Excuse you

What makes you think an administration that has the agenda that is against the wishes of the American people would point out laws that are actually being broken which they are constitutionally liable to enforce unless it was in their best interests.

We showed you what you asked for the admiinistration is negligent in that matter of not moving on these law breaking community governments. This goes for any prior administration as well.

The fact is the SB 1070 does not break any federal law or statute. The administration is grasping at straws because they know that the law will stand and will lead to stronger laws through the country.

They are challenging the whether it is constitutional on claims that do not exist yet will not challenge the community laws that do go against the fedral laws and the enforcement of those laws.

Why do you think Racial Profiling was not mentioned in the supreme court challenge.

Only closed minded fool would state or think otherwise.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What makes you think an administration that has the agenda that is against the wishes of the American people would point out laws that are actually being broken which they are constitutionally liable to enforce unless it was in their best interests.

Do you know what a sanctuary city means? Do you know how long they've been around? Do you know which cities are 'sanctuary cities'?

More Obama bashing. Sanctuary cities have been around longer than you've been on your Obama hatefest.

[evli1966 88]

Do you know what a sanctuary city means? Do you know how long they've been around? Do you know which cities are 'sanctuary cities'?

More Obama bashing. Sanctuary cities have been around longer than you've been on your Obama hatefest.

Are you tired?

As I mentioned it is the responsibility of Obama's Adminstration as it was any previous administration.

sorry forgot this....But Obama has admitted he has an agenda that conflicts with what AZ and most of the populace think should Happen. just because he is president doesn't mean he can change the constituion or the laws with out an act of congress. No bashing just the truth.

Now as for your questions yes I do and I know that they are dropping those local statutes as the immigration heats up only the most liberal communities will try to keep them..

Stop trying to twist the issue and admit your wrong in the respect that they Sanctuary Cities and btw some states are breakin gthe federal laws which should be addressed as if not more than the challenge (mind you only a challenge because it does not break laws) of the SB1070.

I can understand you will not admit your wrong on the SB1070 until it wins in the Supreme Court.

Edited July 10, 2010 by evli1966

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

And.........

3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population! So combined with the fact that HALF of the 75% PLUS at LEAST half of the remaining 25% are in agreement....that settles it!

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Today on Maths Made Easy, Gary teaches us about percentages.

[Pooky 3,348]

None of you could find one single instance where the Federal Gov't. has specifically stated that cities who designate themselves as sanctuary cities are in violation of federal laws. In cities like San Francisco, the designation has been going on for more than 20 years. There are many cities throughout the U.S. who have designated themselves as sanctuary cities.

But really, this is a silly argument to begin with - to suggest that the Federal Gov't should be going after sanctuary cities instead of challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's SB1070. And really, going back to the OP's argument - that because the law is popular it shouldn't be questioned over it's constitutionality is beyond absurd.

Just because the Federal government of whatever colour is appropriate at the time hasn't gone after sanctuary cities does not make them legal. Precedent is irrelevant here. Enough actual law has been quoted here to clearly demonstrate that sanctuary cities are illegal.

But what you're really saying is that you prefer the Federal government to pursue a legal challenge against a state that is trying to mirror Federal law and enforce the same policy that the Federal government themselves should be enforcing, but are abjectly failing to do so, rather than pursue cities which are expressly in contravention of Federal law. Now that is cherrypicking what you want challenged on Constitution grounds.