Tom Homan says he may prosecute NJ Governor Phil Murphy for harboring an illegal alien in his home

maxresdefault.jpg
 
FastLane said:
Holman needs to make an example of Murphy.
Click to expand...
The legality of sanctuary cities in the United States is a complex and contentious issue, primarily due to the lack of a precise legal definition for "sanctuary city" and the interplay between federal and local laws. Here's an analysis based on available information:
Federal vs. Local Authority:
  • Federal Law: There's no specific federal law that explicitly defines or bans sanctuary cities. However, 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits local governments from restricting communication with federal immigration authorities regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status. This law does not mandate local enforcement of immigration laws but prevents local policies from blocking such communication.
  • Local Policies: Sanctuary cities or jurisdictions typically adopt policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, often through not honoring ICE detainer requests unless accompanied by a judicial warrant or focusing enforcement only on serious crimes. These policies stem from local control over law enforcement, aiming to foster community trust and public safety.
Constitutional Considerations:
  • Supremacy Clause: Critics argue that sanctuary policies might conflict with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states federal law supersedes state or local law when there's a conflict. However, the exact application here is debated since sanctuary policies do not necessarily "enforce" federal immigration law but rather choose not to assist with certain aspects of it.
  • 10th Amendment: This amendment reserves powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution to the states or to the people. Sanctuary policies are often justified under this amendment as local governance over local policing practices.
Court Rulings:
  • Several court cases have addressed aspects of sanctuary policies:
    • Courts have found that complying with ICE detainers without a judicial warrant can violate the Fourth Amendment, protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.
    • An executive order by former President Trump aiming to defund sanctuary cities was temporarily blocked, suggesting judicial skepticism about the constitutionality of such actions.
Public Safety and Policy Goals:
  • Proponents argue that sanctuary policies increase public safety by encouraging undocumented immigrants to interact with law enforcement without fear of deportation, thus reporting crimes or seeking help when needed.
  • Critics contend these policies could harbor criminals, though data on crime rates in sanctuary cities varies, with some studies suggesting no significant increase in crime.
Current Status:
  • As of now, sanctuary policies exist in various forms across the U.S., with no definitive legal resolution on their overall legality. The debate continues, with legal challenges and legislative efforts at both state and federal levels to either support or curtail these policies.
Conclusion:
  • Sanctuary cities operate in a legal grey area where the exact boundaries of local versus federal authority are contested. While there's no clear legal prohibition, the policies are under scrutiny, with ongoing legal battles and policy changes at both local and federal levels. Therefore, the legal status of sanctuary cities remains a subject of debate and can vary by jurisdiction and specific policy in question.
Given this complexity, sanctuary cities can be seen as legally permissible under certain interpretations of current law, but they are also legally challenged, suggesting their legality is not universally accepted or settled.

@Grok
 
El Salvador's President @nayibbukele has offered the US the opportunity to send criminals to their mega-prison in exchange for a low fee.

If the fee is actually reasonable, then this sounds like a great plan to me - for at least a portion of our prison population.

It would help ease our prison system, and we can be assured that criminals would be sent to a great prison system, based on what I've seen.

Could Democrat Phil Murphy be the first one to try out the plan?

 
christiefan915 said:
The legality of sanctuary cities in the United States is a complex and contentious issue, primarily due to the lack of a precise legal definition for "sanctuary city" and the interplay between federal and local laws. Here's an analysis based on available information:
Federal vs. Local Authority:
  • Federal Law: There's no specific federal law that explicitly defines or bans sanctuary cities. However, 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits local governments from restricting communication with federal immigration authorities regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status. This law does not mandate local enforcement of immigration laws but prevents local policies from blocking such communication.
  • Local Policies: Sanctuary cities or jurisdictions typically adopt policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, often through not honoring ICE detainer requests unless accompanied by a judicial warrant or focusing enforcement only on serious crimes. These policies stem from local control over law enforcement, aiming to foster community trust and public safety.
Constitutional Considerations:
  • Supremacy Clause: Critics argue that sanctuary policies might conflict with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states federal law supersedes state or local law when there's a conflict. However, the exact application here is debated since sanctuary policies do not necessarily "enforce" federal immigration law but rather choose not to assist with certain aspects of it.
  • 10th Amendment: This amendment reserves powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution to the states or to the people. Sanctuary policies are often justified under this amendment as local governance over local policing practices.
Court Rulings:
  • Several court cases have addressed aspects of sanctuary policies:
    • Courts have found that complying with ICE detainers without a judicial warrant can violate the Fourth Amendment, protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.
    • An executive order by former President Trump aiming to defund sanctuary cities was temporarily blocked, suggesting judicial skepticism about the constitutionality of such actions.
Public Safety and Policy Goals:
  • Proponents argue that sanctuary policies increase public safety by encouraging undocumented immigrants to interact with law enforcement without fear of deportation, thus reporting crimes or seeking help when needed.
  • Critics contend these policies could harbor criminals, though data on crime rates in sanctuary cities varies, with some studies suggesting no significant increase in crime.
Current Status:
  • As of now, sanctuary policies exist in various forms across the U.S., with no definitive legal resolution on their overall legality. The debate continues, with legal challenges and legislative efforts at both state and federal levels to either support or curtail these policies.
Conclusion:
  • Sanctuary cities operate in a legal grey area where the exact boundaries of local versus federal authority are contested. While there's no clear legal prohibition, the policies are under scrutiny, with ongoing legal battles and policy changes at both local and federal levels. Therefore, the legal status of sanctuary cities remains a subject of debate and can vary by jurisdiction and specific policy in question.
Given this complexity, sanctuary cities can be seen as legally permissible under certain interpretations of current law, but they are also legally challenged, suggesting their legality is not universally accepted or settled.

@Grok
Click to expand...
Harboring an illegal aliens is a felony. Murphy is harboring one in his home. Nothing to do with sanctuary city.
 
FastLane said:
Harboring an illegal aliens is a felony. Murphy is harboring one in his home. Nothing to do with sanctuary city.
Click to expand...
He talked about sanctuary cities and how trump is supposedly going to crack down on them.

And Murphy said the woman didn't have all her full documentation yet, that she's still going through the process. That doesn't make her illegal.
 
christiefan915 said:
The legality of sanctuary cities in the United States is a complex and contentious issue, primarily due to the lack of a precise legal definition for "sanctuary city" and the interplay between federal and local laws.
Click to expand...
That's hilarious, sanctuary cities are fine, but when Texas wants to put barriers in the Rio Grande, oh no, immigration law falls solely under federal authority. Get the fuck out of here with your bullshit. The American people are finished with this nonsense, get over it. You lost.
 
countryboy said:
That's hilarious, sanctuary cities are fine, but when Texas wants to put barriers in the Rio Grande, oh no, immigration law falls solely under federal authority. Get the fuck out of here with your bullshit. The American people are finished with this nonsense, get over it. You lost.
Click to expand...
Tell it to grok, loser. World issues aren't black and white the way you magats want them. Sounds like you can't stand having your Messiah's rulings questioned.
 
christiefan915 said:
The legality of sanctuary cities in the United States is a complex and contentious issue, primarily due to the lack of a precise legal definition for "sanctuary city" and the interplay between federal and local laws. Here's an analysis based on available information:
Federal vs. Local Authority:
  • Federal Law: There's no specific federal law that explicitly defines or bans sanctuary cities. However, 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits local governments from restricting communication with federal immigration authorities regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status. This law does not mandate local enforcement of immigration laws but prevents local policies from blocking such communication.
  • Local Policies: Sanctuary cities or jurisdictions typically adopt policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, often through not honoring ICE detainer requests unless accompanied by a judicial warrant or focusing enforcement only on serious crimes. These policies stem from local control over law enforcement, aiming to foster community trust and public safety.
Constitutional Considerations:
  • Supremacy Clause: Critics argue that sanctuary policies might conflict with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states federal law supersedes state or local law when there's a conflict. However, the exact application here is debated since sanctuary policies do not necessarily "enforce" federal immigration law but rather choose not to assist with certain aspects of it.
  • 10th Amendment: This amendment reserves powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution to the states or to the people. Sanctuary policies are often justified under this amendment as local governance over local policing practices.
Court Rulings:
  • Several court cases have addressed aspects of sanctuary policies:
    • Courts have found that complying with ICE detainers without a judicial warrant can violate the Fourth Amendment, protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.
    • An executive order by former President Trump aiming to defund sanctuary cities was temporarily blocked, suggesting judicial skepticism about the constitutionality of such actions.
Public Safety and Policy Goals:
  • Proponents argue that sanctuary policies increase public safety by encouraging undocumented immigrants to interact with law enforcement without fear of deportation, thus reporting crimes or seeking help when needed.
  • Critics contend these policies could harbor criminals, though data on crime rates in sanctuary cities varies, with some studies suggesting no significant increase in crime.
Current Status:
  • As of now, sanctuary policies exist in various forms across the U.S., with no definitive legal resolution on their overall legality. The debate continues, with legal challenges and legislative efforts at both state and federal levels to either support or curtail these policies.
Conclusion:
  • Sanctuary cities operate in a legal grey area where the exact boundaries of local versus federal authority are contested. While there's no clear legal prohibition, the policies are under scrutiny, with ongoing legal battles and policy changes at both local and federal levels. Therefore, the legal status of sanctuary cities remains a subject of debate and can vary by jurisdiction and specific policy in question.
Given this complexity, sanctuary cities can be seen as legally permissible under certain interpretations of current law, but they are also legally challenged, suggesting their legality is not universally accepted or settled.

@Grok
Click to expand...
Actually, it's much simpler, and it isn't a grey area at all:

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and Harboring Certain Aliens​


www.law.cornell.edu

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

Giving sanctuary is identical to harboring an illegal alien. There's no complexity to it whatsoever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top