Convince me I am wrong

[Logical1]

Sanctuary cities are actually guilty of harboring criminals. That is against the law. If a private citizen did it they would be arrested.

 

[joko104]

Yes, it is criminally illegal already - only there are no prosecutions.

 

[srexob715]

Sanctuary cities are actually guilty of harboring criminals. That is against the law. If a private citizen did it they would be arrested.

So what are they doing that would get a private citizen arrested? And my second question...…..are you smart enough to understand you are wrong? We will see. LMAO!

 

[Logical1]

So what are they doing that would get a private citizen arrested? And my second question...…..are you smart enough to understand you are wrong? We will see. LMAO!

But I am not wrong. Harboring a criminal is a crime.

 

[srexob715]

But I am not wrong. Harboring a criminal is a crime.

So what's the crime? So you are not smart enough to understand. At least that's what you are proving and I believe you!

 

[Logical1]

The question is when is the US ATTY Generals office going to nail the cities and states that are breaking the law?

 

[TheParser]

Sanctuary cities and states feel that they are taking the moral high road.

They feel that they are following the example of Northern states before the Civil War that refused to return runaway slaves.

Like it or not, the federal government (under President Trump or a President Biden) will NOT try to stop those sanctuary cities and states. There are simply too many people who support those cities and states.

If I had my druthers, I would cut off all federal money to those cities and states, but that simply is never going to happen.

 

[srexob715]

The question is when is the US ATTY Generals office going to nail the cities and states that are breaking the law?

So no crimes committed then? Thanks for proving me right! LMAO!

 

[srexob715]

Sanctuary cities and states feel that they are taking the moral high road.

They feel that they are following the example of Northern states before the Civil War that refused to return runaway slaves.

Like it or not, the federal government (under President Trump or a President Biden) will NOT try to stop those sanctuary cities and states. There are simply too many people who support those cities and states.

If I had my druthers, I would cut off all federal money to those cities and states, but that simply is never going to happen.

But this only removes resources from tracking down murderers, rapists, thieves, etc.

 

[JackA]

Sanctuary cities are actually guilty of harboring criminals. That is against the law. If a private citizen did it they would be arrested.

Sanctuary cities are about local government minding its own affairs and telling the federal government to stay away, what conservatives believe is the way it should be.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Sanctuary cities are actually guilty of harboring criminals. That is against the law. If a private citizen did it they would be arrested.

But I am not wrong. Harboring a criminal is a crime.

If I had my druthers, I would cut off all federal money to those cities and states, but that simply is never going to happen.

Here's a well written explanation of why Logical 1 is wrong with some information on why TheParser is correct (but maybe not for the reasons he was thinking);
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...are-violating-the-law/?utm_term=.b7c1ed2649d1

 

[srexob715]

Here's a well written explanation of why Logical 1 is wrong with some information on why TheParser is correct:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...are-violating-the-law/?utm_term=.b7c1ed2649d1

What do we do when the White House is harboring criminals?

 

[ttwtt78640]

What do we do when the White House is harboring criminals?

Call it DACA/DAPA and have the courts prevent any changes.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

What do we do when the White House is harboring criminals?

I don’t engage in discussions regarding vague hypotheticals.

 

[notquiteright]

Sanctuary cities are actually guilty of harboring criminals. That is against the law. If a private citizen did it they would be arrested.

First there is no convincing you you are ever wrong.... :roll:

Second if it was in fact harboring then key officials would be charged, instead tRump got his panties in a wad and threatens funding.... :doh

Not the bold move tRump uses elsewhere, like banning Muslims from certain countries... so there is that... eace

 

[bongsaway]

Sanctuary cities are actually guilty of harboring criminals. That is against the law. If a private citizen did it they would be arrested.

We have a president who every day in office is breaking the law but I'm not hearing any complaints from the right about that. You guys long ago lost the right to claim you are the party of law and order.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Sanctuary cities are actually guilty of harboring criminals. That is against the law. If a private citizen did it they would be arrested.

No, sanctuary cities do not hide criminals or harbor criminals. All sanctuary cities do is limit their involvement with federal immigration enforcement activity, however federal immigration enforcement are still capable of engaging in their activities in those sanctuary cities. Those here illegally can still be found, detained, processed, what have you by federal authorities.

All that is happening is local governments are saying federal enforcement is on their own with immigration activities.

Now I will admit that some sanctuary cities are going to the next step of providing defense via funds for those who are detained (San Francisco and Chicago come to mind.)

 

[Thoreau72]

Sanctuary cities are actually guilty of harboring criminals. That is against the law. If a private citizen did it they would be arrested.

I would say no 'sanctuary city' holds as many criminals within its borders as Washington DC does.

 

[WCH]

So no crimes committed then? Thanks for proving me right! LMAO!

What other laws do you consider not criminal to break?

 

[joko104]

So what are they doing that would get a private citizen arrested? And my second question...…..are you smart enough to understand you are wrong? We will see. LMAO!

LMAO at yourself instead.

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).

Alien Smuggling -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing that a person is an alien, to bring 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.

Domestic Transporting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for 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, 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.

Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for 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, including any building or any means of transportation.

Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- 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.

Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

Bringing Aliens to the United States -- Subsection 1324(a)(2) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, to bring 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.

Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years. The basic penalty for a violation of subsection 1324(a)(2) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(A). Enhanced penalties are provided for violations involving bringing in criminal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i), offenses done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), and violations where the alien is not presented to an immigration officer immediately upon arrival, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). A mandatory minimum three year term of imprisonment applies to first or second violations of § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i) or (B)(ii). Further enhanced punishment is provided for third or subsequent offenses.

https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1324a-offenses

 

[Mach]

Breaking a law does not mean you will be arrested immediately.
It doesn't even mean they would consider investigating it if they knew about it.

If you knew anything about realty, you'd know that there are many laws on the books that no one cares about, or enforces. Your idea that a person would be arrested the moment they "break a law", is absurd. It's up to law enforcement and its entire chain of management/jurisdictions, to decide what priorities to set for how we spend our limited law enforcement resources.

You break the law every day by going slightly over the legal speed limit, should we hook up a sensor that issues you a ticket every time?

 

[Deuce]

Sanctuary cities are actually guilty of harboring criminals. That is against the law. If a private citizen did it they would be arrested.

Sanctuary cities are just local law enforcement deciding not to expend limited resources doing the Feds' job for them. You like unfunded mandates now?

 

[Mycroft]

Sanctuary cities are actually guilty of harboring criminals. That is against the law. If a private citizen did it they would be arrested.

I'm all for sanctuary cities harboring criminals if we could build a wall around the city and only allow US citizens to leave the city.

It would look something like this:

 

[Fishking]

We have a president who every day in office is breaking the law but I'm not hearing any complaints from the right about that. You guys long ago lost the right to claim you are the party of law and order.

That's funny....you're super wrong, but funny. How many times do you have to be wrong before you stop making ridiculous comments like this? I wonder.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Sanctuary cities are actually guilty of harboring criminals. That is against the law. If a private citizen did it they would be arrested.

No, that not what they are doing. They are simply not holding suspected illegals for ICE.

This is for a number of reasons:

First, the monetary costs. When a local police department notifies ICE, ICE replies "thanks. We'll be be there soon." Then days or weeks go by before ICE arrives to take the individual into their custody. In the meantime the bill for housing, feeding, and providing medical care falls on the local jurisdiction. They are not reimbursed for their trouble. For some localities, this is a huge drain on financial and manpower resources.

Second, if local illegals know that if they are going to be detained any time they interact with the police, even if they are not otherwise a criminal, they will not cooperate in any way. They won't report criminal activity or give witness statements. This makes the police work far more difficult. The police need the cooperation of the residents of their communities, even if they are illegal.

No city is "hiding" illegals. Some cities are simply telling ICE, this is YOUR job, you do it.