(CALIFRUTOPIA)Border patrol agents are refusing to hand over illegal immigrants with felony warrants to police in California because they can’t be sure local authorities will return the criminal aliens to federal custody, according to a top border security official in San Diego.
Rodney Scott, the chief patrol agent in the Border Patrol’s San Diego Sector, said earlier this month that California’s statewide sanctuary law was undermining normal cooperation between his agency and local law enforcement.
Immigration authorities are chickenshitting this:
Turn the illegals on warrants over.
When local authorities don't return the favor, swear out warrants in federal court, and start arresting everyone from the chief of the agency down to the lowest-ranking turnkey for aiding and abetting, and charge and prosecute them in federal court for those felonies.
It will end their careers, and cancel their pensions, and after about...TWO, who get dragged off to the federal pen for five year pound-you-in-the-ass-prison sentences in general population, you won't have any problem getting 100% co-operation forever in CA, or any other state, forever.
The first two arrests should be the guy who opened the gate, and the head of the agency, and then work to the middle until you get everybody who touched them or had a hand in the decision process.
And if you manage to sweep up a few judges in the state Superior Court, so much the handier for the rule of law. Those judges should have ruled that the sanctuary law was unconstitutional in about 0.2 seconds, and nullified it the same day it went into effect. If they've now made themselves felons, we need them to serve time in federal prison too, to drive the point well home.
We have too many judges with sub-70 IQs anyways; it's time to thin that herd.
"Just following orders" as a legal defense, ran out of gas in Nuremberg in 1946.
That happy horseshit would cease in the span of lightning striking, and the two to twenty examples in federal prison would finally serve their communities in a most fitting way.
7 comments:
I think we are missing the point. When a lot of states tell the FedGov to piss off on marijuana, and now immigration, don't you think this is a really good trend? The power of the feds being eroded is a positive thing. I know you aren't necessarily rooting for the feds, but shouldn't we be celebrating a return to states rights? Yes, it's too bad it is Cali who fired the opening shots, on the wrong issue, but if it is the foot in the door...
Oh, and by the way, what the hell is up with the new "I'm not a robot" test? I feel like I suffer Test Anxiety every time I try to make out details on those low res or low light photos. I'll still gladly play, but it is irritating.
News to me, James. I didn't add anything. Must be something Google added.
As for the original question: the states have rights only in those areas reserved to the states.
They do NOT get to make treaties, undo federal legislation, or set their own immigration policy.
This isn't states' rights, it's anarchy vs. rule of law.
If states don't like federal drug policy, they should band together and abolish the DEA and the FDA.
Not agree to ignore them.
And the feds, if there is to be any central government worth the ink (which question I was under the impression we had decided once and for all long about 1787), should be arresting people wholesale every time they try this. It's simply anarchy, with a daisy in its buttonhole.
It's a lot less funny at the rockpile in federal prison than it is at the marijuana dispensary.
Otherwise, we could just let Alabama and Mississippi bring back slavery, because reasons, right?
This is why federal law is called "law", and not buffet-style pick-and-choose Pirate's Code guidelines.
As with too many problems in this country, the people elected to govern it for the people don't have the balls to do what is necessary to keep asshats like those elected officials in California to enforce and follow the laws.
Like the anecdote about cleaning up the country by taking 100 people out in the street and shooting them, California (and other defiant states) could be handled by taking a few elected officials who are violating federal laws and locking them up. Find a friendly federal judge who will order them to enforce the law, and then toss them in lockup for contempt when they refuse.
I'm fed up with the elected sphincters of both parties who refuse to enforce the laws they passed.
It's all there in 8 US Code 1324, too.
I like the way you think on this Aesop.
You have a point on anarchy vs. states rights. Yet, perhaps that is exactly what we need to start breaking up the Union. Will we enjoy the process? No. But it is inevitable. Energy growth equates to centralization, energy contraction brings decentralization. The long term trend is there. Centralization lead to empire which is all of our standard of living. Or was-we're living off stripping the wires out of the homes walls now. Identifying the trend doesn't mean I like it. As for the robot test, yeh, Blogger is getting less and less "normal". Weird changes all the time and I doubt the diversity hire in IT knows what is going on.
Post a Comment