I keep pointing out how you guys claim to be smart when you aren’t. And here you go proving my point. I don’t have a lot of time but let me tackle the first one.
The law you quote is a Civil Code. In other words it isn’t a Criminal Violation.
No one claimed that this was part of the criminal code.
And it has not been enforced because the people who wrote it and quote it are pretty dumb too.
Are you implying that federal civil code can simply be chosen to be ignored by states, counties, and municipalities at will?
The loophole is so large you can drive a truck through it. Let me paint it for you since you don’t understand.
If I don’t know, I can’t be blamed for not telling you. So Sanctuary States and Cities prohibit the authorities from asking about the Immigration Status. If you try to require the various Governments to investigate that is called an Unfunded Mandate.
Claiming that statutes simply don't apply if ignorance is claimed is a foolish position to take in an argument. Especially If that 'ignorance' is willful.
In law, ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for 'ignorance of the law excuses not'),[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ('ignorance of law excuses no one'),[2] is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.
European-law countries with a tradition of Roman law may also use an expression from Aristotle translated into Latin: nemo censetur ignorare legem ('nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law')[3] or ignorantia iuris nocet ('not knowing the law is harmful').[4]
en.wikipedia.org
Do please tell me that this
isn't the foundation of your argumentative position.
If it is, it is a terrible weak one on which to base a position.
The Courts have pretty regularly said that you can’t do that.
Oh do please cite the court precedent here.
As for the States that prohibit such things like say, Florida? They are getting sued for doing it. You might not have heard about the American Citizen who was detained by the Florida Cops on suspicion of being an illegal.
Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez is being held even though a county judge found his birth certificate “authentic” and said there wasn’t reason to consider him an “illegal alien.”
www.nbcnews.com
The case appears to be different than what you are claiming it is.
Sanctuary status isn't an issue in this case, so '
Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated.'
The Judge claimed he couldn’t order the release for the man as ICE was investigating.
The settlement on that lawsuit will be seven digits.
This is nothing more than your guess or / or your wish.
The Florida Cops were ordered by a Federal Judge not to enforce the State Law that violated the Constitution. They did anyway. The Judge had a Constitutional Duty to insure the Civil Rights of the “defendant” were upheld. He didn’t. If it goes to trial, and we can hope, the finding for the plaintiff will be huge. Or Yuge if you prefer.
The only court judgements in your cited article are:
- After inspecting his birth certificate, Leon County Judge LaShawn Riggans said during the hearing that “this is indeed an authentic document,”
- she did not have jurisdiction beyond finding no probable cause for the charge.
Nothing about the constitution, nothing about previous federal judicial orders to 'not to enforce the State Law'. You are only 1/2 supporting your argument here.
By now a reasonably intelligent man would have learned that Fox News is going to tell you what you want to hear, and it isn’t going to be truthful.
Total fail. Nothing which I have cited in the post you responded to came from Fox News.
apnews.com
nypost.com
www.kpbs.org