Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Oakland Mayor Warns Illegals Of ICE Raids...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Oakland Mayor Warns Illegals Of ICE Raids...

    Why can't the Feds arrest this idiot?

    Warning of ICE action, Oakland mayor takes Trump resistance to new level

    The relationship between U.S. immigration officials and California’s liberal leaders soured long ago, but Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s decision to warn potential targets of federal arrest that an immigration sweep could be imminent was an extraordinary escalation.

    Schaaf said she issued the alert Saturday night after receiving confidential tips from “credible sources” who revealed that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, was planning arrests across the Bay Area as soon as Sunday.
    https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/artic...p-12707444.php
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    I don't know why we haven't already arrested every mayor and police chief who refuses to enforce the law.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      I don't know why we haven't already arrested every mayor and police chief who refuses to enforce the law.
      I don't think state and local are legally obligated to enforce federal laws. Am I wrong?

      Also, the federal government has no authority to legislate on immigration. So one might argue that a police chief, and mayor of Oakland, who take an oath to uphold the Constitution have an obligation to resist such unconstitutional statutes.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Joel View Post

        Also, the federal government has no authority to legislate on immigration.
        Then why do we have federal immigration laws?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Joel View Post
          I don't think state and local are legally obligated to enforce federal laws. Am I wrong?

          Also, the federal government has no authority to legislate on immigration. So one might argue that a police chief, and mayor of Oakland, who take an oath to uphold the Constitution have an obligation to resist such unconstitutional statutes.
          Does the state or local government have authority to legislate on immigration? If so, why? It is purely a federal issue.
          Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Joel View Post
            I don't think state and local are legally obligated to enforce federal laws. Am I wrong?

            Also, the federal government has no authority to legislate on immigration. So one might argue that a police chief, and mayor of Oakland, who take an oath to uphold the Constitution have an obligation to resist such unconstitutional statutes.
            States are required to uphold the law of the land. See what happens if a state violates your right to a fair trial, for example. And I don't know where you get the idea that the federal government can't legislate immigration policy, or that such laws are unconstitutional.

            Unless your were being sarcastic?
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Joel View Post
              Also, the federal government has no authority to legislate on immigration.
              Wrong.

              http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...on-caps-as-the

              As I point out in my book, The Original Constitution, both sides are missing something. They are missing the clause in the Constitution giving Congress “Power … To define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations.”

              “The law of nations” was the usual 18th-century term for international law. It included standards of conduct among nations. But it also encompassed some rules within national boundaries. A power to “define and punish” an “offense against the law of nations” included protecting foreign ambassadors against interference, protecting safe-conduct passes — and restricting immigration.

              Why have so many writers — including some constitutional law professors — missed this? One reason is that 18th-century legal terms and categories were different from those we use today. For example, a modern law book might feature a heading for “immigration law.” But in William Blackstone’s "Commentaries," the English book that served as America’s most popular legal treatise, there was no such heading.

              Instead, Blackstone addressed the topic in his chapter on the British king’s prerogative powers. When discussing safe-conduct passes, Blackstone observed that without them “by the law of nations no member of one society has a right to intrude into another ... [I]t is left in the power of all states, to take such measures about the admission of strangers, as they deem convenient.”
              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

              Comment


              • #8
                If you flash your lights to warn oncoming drivers of a speed trap, you can get a ticket. Warning people of impending police action is illegal.
                That's what
                - She

                Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                Stephen R. Donaldson

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  If you flash your lights to warn oncoming drivers of a speed trap, you can get a ticket. Warning people of impending police action is illegal.
                  I don't think that is true in the case of flashing your lights. If that were the case then Wayz would be illegal since people report locations of police there all the time. Police usually like people to know they are there because it tends to slow down traffic long before they actually see the police. In fact some places will just park an empty police car by the side of the road to get traffic to slow down.

                  now warning people of a police raid or something, yeah that could get you arrested for obstruction.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    I don't think that is true in the case of flashing your lights.
                    I think it depends on the state you are in, though recent court cases seem to be favoring the drivers:

                    https://www.findcarmeets.com/is-flas...d-traps-legal/

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headli...#United_States
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Then why do we have federal immigration laws?
                      Most of federal legislation today is unconstitutional. Why do we have those laws?

                      Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post
                      Does the state or local government have authority to legislate on immigration? If so, why? It is purely a federal issue.
                      Immigration was a state matter for over 100 years, until the federal government seized control of immigration in 1890.

                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      States are required to uphold the law of the land. See what happens if a state violates your right to a fair trial, for example.
                      The Constitution does impose certain requirements on the States, e.g. "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury". So surely the Constitution requires States to obey requirements the Constitution imposes on the States. But I'm not aware of any requirement to help enforce federal statutes in general.

                      Even when the statute in question is constitutional. For example, the Constitution enumerates the power to pass laws against Piracy on the high seas. Presumably the states may leave it in the federal government's hands to stop and punish pirates. For another example, the Constitution enumerates the power of punishment of counterfeiting federal securities (bonds). Again, I don't see why the states can't leave it in the federal government's hands to investigate and punish counterfeiting of U.S. treasuries.

                      And I don't know where you get the idea that the federal government can't legislate immigration policy, or that such laws are unconstitutional.
                      My reasoning was that it isn't among the enumerated powers. (And supporting evidence that it was understood to be a state matter up until 1890.)

                      However, Darth here gives an argument I hadn't heard before, that it is included in the power regarding the Law of Nations. I will have to investigate that further.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Joel View Post
                        Most of federal legislation today is unconstitutional. Why do we have those laws?
                        It is still the law even if you think it is unconstitutional.

                        My reasoning was that it isn't among the enumerated powers. (And supporting evidence that it was understood to be a state matter up until 1890.)
                        Where does the Constitution say that Federal laws are restricted to enumerated powers?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                          I looked up the Blackstone reference.
                          http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_cent...one_bk1ch7.asp

                          This quote is in the context of the discussion of a state of war. (And Blackstone here requires a formal declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.) Immediately following the quote he explains more fully what is meant. First he says, "Puffendorf very juftly refolves, that it is left in the power of all ftates, to take fuch meafures about the admiffions of ftrangers, as they think convenient; thofe being ever excepted who are driven on the coafts by neceffity, or by any caufe that deferves pity or compaffion...." But that isn't the reference to the "law of nations", but just "left in the power of all states", which in the U.S., by default, is the States. Rather the "law of nations" being discussed here is: "But no fubject of a nation at war with us can, by the law of nations, come into the realm, nor can travel himfelf upon the high feas, or fend his goods and merchandize from one place to another, without danger of being feized by our fubject, unlefs he had letters of fafe-conduct"


                          I also looked up the Emer de Vattel quote. http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/va...-nations-lf-ed

                          "It appears from several passages in history, particularly the history of Switzerland and the neighbouring countries, that the law of nations, established there by custom some ages back, did not permit a state to receive the subjects of another state into the number of its citizens. This vicious custom had no other [107] foundation than the slavery to which the people were then reduced. A prince, a lord, ranked his subjects under [225] the head of his private property: he calculated their number, as he did that of his flocks; and, to the disgrace of human nature, this strange abuse is not yet every where eradicated."

                          There's no suggestion that this is a necessary part of the law of nations. Rather, he seems to be using "law of nations" to mean international law, and in particular to refer to a specific international "custom" that once existed between Switzerland and the neighbouring countries. And the commentary is that it was a particularly bad one.

                          Similarly, Blackstone may have also meant "international law", saying that that was the current state of international law between England and its neighbors at the time, as opposed to saying that it is an eternal universal international law. And the clause in the U.S. Constitution may just mean "and Offences against international law", whatever the state of international law might be.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            It is still the law even if you think it is unconstitutional.
                            That is a related, but different question. My point was just that if a statute conflicts with the Constitution, then anyone with a duty to uphold the Constitution has a duty to side with the Constitution against that statute. Otherwise they are siding with the statute, against the Constitution, in violation of the Constitution and their oath to uphold it. Or they take no side, and are therefore negligent in their oath to uphold the Constitution.

                            Whether an unconstitutional statute can/should be properly thought of as law is a different question. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the States of Kentucky and Virginia thought not. E.g., "that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force". And one particular example, "therefore the act of Congress...which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force." The same ("not law") is repeated for other examples.
                            https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kentu...utions_of_1798

                            The Constitution is held to be higher law than Congressional statutes, so any statute in violation of the Constitution is, therefore, illegal--not law but a violation of the law. Enforcing it would also be illegal, a violation of the law.

                            Where does the Constitution say that Federal laws are restricted to enumerated powers?
                            The 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

                            The people who argued for ratification of the Constitution at the time insisted that the 10th Amendment was not even required: that it is obvious that the federal government has only those powers delegated by the Constitution. Constitutional scholars even today argue that the 10th Amendment was unnecessary because it is obviously, tautologically true.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              it is also tautologically true that a state that exercises no control over its borders isn't really a state.
                              "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                              There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by LiconaFan97, Today, 04:56 PM
                              1 response
                              6 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seanD
                              by seanD
                               
                              Started by Juvenal, Today, 11:08 AM
                              6 responses
                              27 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post EvoUK
                              by EvoUK
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 08:52 AM
                              6 responses
                              52 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Ronson, Yesterday, 10:59 PM
                              11 responses
                              197 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by seer, Yesterday, 02:50 PM
                              24 responses
                              144 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Working...
                              X