Posted on 01/03/2018 12:04:50 PM PST by Mariner
WASHINGTON - The head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants the Justice Department to prosecute mayors and other political leaders in so-called "sanctuary cities" that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
"We need to hold these politicians accountable for their actions," Thomas Homan told Fox News. "This isn't the America I grew up in. We got to take these sanctuary cities on. We got to take them to court. And we got to start charging some of these politicians with crimes."
Such a policy would dramatically raise the stakes for immigrant-friendly cities and states that have clashed with the administration. The ACLU said Wednesday that Homan's "outrageous threat" should disqualify him from leadership of the agency that enforces immigration law.
Homan insisted that President Donald Trump shares his view.
A number of Texas cities, including Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Austin -- all led by Democrats -- have resisted Trump's hardline approach to immigration, prompting a state law aimed at pressuring local jurisdictions.
Leaders in those cities would presumably be targeted under Homan's approach. Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo told the Houston Chronicle that the federal threat smacked of an incursion against "states' rights and local rights."
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
And STOP any and ALL federal funds going to the traitorous state, city, municipality, etc. They become no better than Pakistan by lying, cheating, subverting, etc., this country and it’s citizens.
ARREST GOV JERRY BROWN
perp walk this guy
tomorrow
Great point ...
Hope that angle is shoved in the MSN faces
Actually, they’d be doing those mayors a favor to arrest them and bring some consequences against them, because some of them are probably ready to back down but dare not, having brashly promised that they would “stand up to Trump.” If watching the crime rate and expenses rise has made them think twice, but they lack the courage to announce that they were wrong, legal action may allow them to stand down and explain that they were “forced” — to their great regret — into compliance.
Immigration is not a state’s rights issue - the power is a specifically designated duty of the government.
They absolutely are aiding and abetting illegal behavior, so why should they not be arrested?
With the exception of Amarillo and San Angelo, there are no conservative papers in Texas. The most flaming Leftist papers are in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and of course, Austin, so that just about covers the population centers.
The mayor would have to at least sign the bill and direct implementation.
True enough.
Public officials who aid and abet fraudulently documented foreigners should be held to account.
If George HW Bush had done this we would not have 30 million illegal aliens.
I agree. But I’m old enough to remember all the civil rights wars from the 1950s on. Many, many powers formerly reserved to the states got swept away back then.
The 17 Amendment (direct election of senators) was key in undermining state’s rights.
Obama/Holder did just that in Arizona.
Not really. An "outrageous threat" might apply to publically:
It would be outrageous NOT to arrest these mayors who are blatantly breaking laws.
Such politicians since they are acting extralegally to enact such laws should be prosecuted civilly and criminally and be responsible for paying for their own defense and not be allowed to have taxpayers fund their defense.
Get on with it already. Start with the Travis County, TX sheriff.
Ignorance may not be an excuse, but in a court of law, often the willful knowledge that an act is unlawful (vs unknowingly doing something unlawful) can make a difference. Sorry, but that’s a fact, and lawyers use it in the court room.
Does Article I section 8 invest cities with authority over immigration and naturalization?
There’s a legitimate argument to be made that state sovereignty would allow this (although I think Amendment XIV basically eliminated any state role in citizenship questions).
But cities? Mayors?
Lock ‘em up.
Does Article I section 8 invest cities with authority over immigration and naturalization?
There’s a legitimate argument to be made that state sovereignty would allow this (although I think Amendment XIV basically eliminated any state role in citizenship questions).
But cities? Mayors?
Lock ‘em up.
So just what does aiding and abetting mean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.