PDA

View Full Version : Texas Governor Declares War On Sanctuary Cities -



MMC
02-02-2017, 05:43 PM
Well now, Abbott is talking about creating a law that will not only cut off grants to sanctuary cities. But one that will remove Sherriffs from Office. What say ye?




Might Remove Sheriffs Who Refuse To Comply......



Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced that he’s declaring war on sanctuary cities in the state. He made his intentions clear in his State of the State address Tuesday. The first city to refuse to comply with the new directive both from Gov. Abbott and the executive order signed by President Donald Trump is Austin. As a result, Abbott has blocked $1.5 million in grant money to the city since current Sheriff Sally Hernandez said that they would only cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement for illegals caught committing murder, human trafficking, and sexual assault (via AP (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/texas-governor-blocks-sheriff-funds-sanctuary-cities-45195653)):


A Travis County judge said that Hernandez’s actions were within the law, but Abbott might go as far as to remove sheriffs who refuse to comply—a threat he made at the end of January (http://www.kvue.com/news/local/abbott-to-seek-laws-to-remove-sheriff-after-ice-detainer-policy-announcement/392425254):


We are going to crack down on this and ban sanctuary cities in Texas," Abbott told Fox News. "These sheriff's offices receive grants from the governor's office in the state of Texas, we are cutting off those grants to any sanctuary city. But however, we are in a Legislative session -- we are working on laws that will, one, ban sanctuary cities, remove from office any office holder who promotes sanctuary cities and impose criminal penalties as well as financial penalties." ....snip~


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/02/02/texas-governor-declares-war-on-sanctuary-cities-threatens-to-remove-sheriffs-who-refuse-to-comply-n2280169

valley ranch
02-02-2017, 05:47 PM
Well, that's a start!

Standing Wolf
02-02-2017, 05:51 PM
...we are working on laws that will, one, ban sanctuary cities, remove from office any office holder who promotes sanctuary cities and impose criminal penalties as well as financial penalties.

Ridiculous. Executive/legislative overreach on steroids.

Bo-4
02-02-2017, 05:55 PM
Abbott is the same assclown who called out his Guard to make sure Op Jade 5 didn't round up Republicans and send them to deprogramming centers in abandoned Walmarts connected by underground tunnels.

Greg - On the lookout to protect and serve conspiracy theorists 24/7!! :grin:

MisterVeritis
02-02-2017, 06:16 PM
It is time to start fucking these guys up. If you run a sanctuary city you need some prison time.

Peter1469
02-02-2017, 06:19 PM
In Virginia there is a bill to make sanctuary cities liable for harm caused by illegals.

FindersKeepers
02-02-2017, 06:21 PM
Might Remove Sheriffs Who Refuse To Comply......



Isn't an elected sheriff the highest law in a specific county?

If so, how can Abbott remove one from office? Don't the people who voted the sheriff in have to do that?

I hate to say it but that doesn't sound quite right.

Tahuyaman
02-02-2017, 06:21 PM
Texas Governor Declares War On Sanctuary Cities -
I guess now the left wing loons will be complaining that he's violating the concept of city rights, or county rights.

Tahuyaman
02-02-2017, 06:23 PM
Isn't an elected sheriff the highest law in a specific county?

If so, how can Abbott remove one from office? Don't the people who voted the sheriff in have to do that?

I hate to say it but that doesn't sound quite right.


A Sheriff can be removed from office for unlawful conduct or for failure to uphold the law.

Bo-4
02-02-2017, 06:28 PM
It is time to start fucking these guys up. If you run a sanctuary city you need some prison time.

GOD how i love your humor! ^

Bo-4
02-02-2017, 06:29 PM
Isn't an elected sheriff the highest law in a specific county?

If so, how can Abbott remove one from office? Don't the people who voted the sheriff in have to do that?

I hate to say it but that doesn't sound quite right.

Abbott is delusional - this baby goes nowhere fast. ;-)

MisterVeritis
02-02-2017, 06:53 PM
GOD how i love your humor! ^
Thanks. We need to start breaking legs and heads.

Cletus
02-02-2017, 06:58 PM
Ridiculous. Executive/legislative overreach on steroids.

Okay. Are you suggesting the legislature cannot pass a law that makes aiding and abetting criminal behavior by public officials an actionable offense?

Standing Wolf
02-02-2017, 07:41 PM
Okay. Are you suggesting the legislature cannot pass a law that makes aiding and abetting criminal behavior by public officials an actionable offense?

I would never suggest that any legislature, at any moment, could not pass any number of silly, vague, contradictory and/or un-Constitutional laws; it's what legislatures do. Educating those legislators - or attempting to do so - and cleaning up their messes is what judges do.

In the context of answering your question, I'm suggesting that "aiding and abetting" have legal definitions. The Governor is advocating the removal of local officials for merely expressing support for the concept of sanctuary cities, and sending them to jail for failing to prioritize their law enforcement duties and protocols to suit him. That isn't "aiding and abetting" by a long shot.

resister
02-02-2017, 07:46 PM
If I have knowledge of criminal activity and fail to report, I am culpable, why should public officials choose what law to ignore? What a very, slippery slope!

Peter1469
02-02-2017, 09:11 PM
Sanctuary cities go far beyond not going out of their way to arrest illegals and turn them over to the feds.


I would never suggest that any legislature, at any moment, could not pass any number of silly, vague, contradictory and/or un-Constitutional laws; it's what legislatures do. Educating those legislators - or attempting to do so - and cleaning up their messes is what judges do.

In the context of answering your question, I'm suggesting that "aiding and abetting" have legal definitions. The Governor is advocating the removal of local officials for merely expressing support for the concept of sanctuary cities, and sending them to jail for failing to prioritize their law enforcement duties and protocols to suit him. That isn't "aiding and abetting" by a long shot.

Crepitus
02-02-2017, 09:20 PM
If I have knowledge of criminal activity and fail to report, I am culpable, why should public officials choose what law to ignore? What a very, slippery slope!

Says the guy who doesn't turn in the drug dealers next door.

Standing Wolf
02-03-2017, 04:45 AM
Sanctuary cities go far beyond not going out of their way to arrest illegals and turn them over to the feds.

There is no standard, universally accepted definition of what a "sanctuary city" is, nor is there any widespread agreement with regard to what they can or will do and not do. Outlawing "sanctuary cities", at this point, is like trying to criminalize "bad behavior". Some laws are simply too vague to be enforceable.

patrickt
02-03-2017, 05:56 AM
If I have knowledge of criminal activity and fail to report, I am culpable, why should public officials choose what law to ignore? What a very, slippery slope!

Nonsense. Our state legislature passed a law against eavesdropping. Not wiretapping, we had that. No recording phone conversations without consent, we had that, too. No, overhearing a conversation and taking some action on that was a felony.

I never once enforced the eavesdropping law. In fact, on one occasion, I refused to arrest two people for eavesdropping when so directed by the District Attorney. The law was in effect for less than a year and the legislature rescinded the law.

A few years ago, it was illegal for a police officer to asked someone for papers showing they were legally in the U.S. Now, some want it to be illegal to not ask.

MMC
02-03-2017, 06:26 AM
Isn't an elected sheriff the highest law in a specific county?

If so, how can Abbott remove one from office? Don't the people who voted the sheriff in have to do that?

I hate to say it but that doesn't sound quite right.

Tahuyaman points out how they can be removed. Moreover a Governor could send a directive to all county sheriffs ordering them to follow the law. Refusal would be to suffer the consequences.

MMC
02-03-2017, 06:33 AM
I would never suggest that any legislature, at any moment, could not pass any number of silly, vague, contradictory and/or un-Constitutional laws; it's what legislatures do. Educating those legislators - or attempting to do so - and cleaning up their messes is what judges do.

In the context of answering your question, I'm suggesting that "aiding and abetting" have legal definitions. The Governor is advocating the removal of local officials for merely expressing support for the concept of sanctuary cities, and sending them to jail for failing to prioritize their law enforcement duties and protocols to suit him. That isn't "aiding and abetting" by a long shot.

Not quite......its not merely expressing support for sanctuary cities. Its for not following the law, and only holding illegals that have committed serious offenses. If they broke the law with minor offenses. They should still be turned over to the Fed. The sheriff cannot decide which laws not to follow. He was sworn to uphold the law. Serious offense or non serious offense.

stjames1_53
02-03-2017, 06:40 AM
Not quite......its not merely expressing support for sanctuary cities. Its for not following the law, and only holding illegals that have committed serious offenses. If they broke the law with minor offenses. They should still be turned over to the Fed. The sheriff cannot decide which laws not to follow. He was sworn to uphold the law. Serious offense or non serious offense.

especially the sheriff.............he is a duly elected constitutional official

stjames1_53
02-03-2017, 06:43 AM
Isn't an elected sheriff the highest law in a specific county?

If so, how can Abbott remove one from office? Don't the people who voted the sheriff in have to do that?

I hate to say it but that doesn't sound quite right.

not sure about Texas, but in Indiana, a sheriff can be removed from office under charges of malfeasance........the state national guard will take him in if necessary

FindersKeepers
02-03-2017, 07:21 AM
Tahuyaman points out how they can be removed. Moreover a Governor could send a directive to all county sheriffs ordering them to follow the law. Refusal would be to suffer the consequences.

I'm not totally comfortable with that. If a Governor can supersede an elected sheriff by simply changing laws, it could set a dangerous precedent.

FindersKeepers
02-03-2017, 07:22 AM
not sure about Texas, but in Indiana, a sheriff can be removed from office under charges of malfeasance........the state national guard will take him in if necessary

Sure, I understand that by breaking a law, an elected sheriff can be removed, but changing laws to bring one into compliance? That seems like a dangerous overreach.

MMC
02-03-2017, 07:27 AM
I'm not totally comfortable with that. If a Governor can supersede an elected sheriff by simply changing laws, it could set a dangerous precedent.
Myself, I don't think they need to change the law. More like redefine what is already law, for a County Sheriff that fails to uphold the law. Close any loopholes.

Abbott already cut their State Funding. Then Trump can cut their Fed funding. Either way, they will be hurting for money.

Standing Wolf
02-03-2017, 07:37 AM
Not quite......its not merely expressing support for sanctuary cities. Its for not following the law, and only holding illegals that have committed serious offenses. If they broke the law with minor offenses. They should still be turned over to the Fed.


"..we are working on laws that will, one, ban sanctuary cities, remove from office any office holder who promotes sanctuary cities and impose criminal penalties as well as financial penalties."


The sheriff cannot decide which laws not to follow. He was sworn to uphold the law. Serious offense or non serious offense.

Sheriffs, like all other LEOs, make such practical policy decisions every day. According to federal law, every marijuana dispensary owner, operator and customer is in violation of the law and should be arrested today. Does anyone expect that to happen any time soon?

MMC
02-03-2017, 07:50 AM
Sheriffs, like all other LEOs, make such practical policy decisions every day. According to federal law, every marijuana dispensary owner, operator and customer is in violation of the law and should be arrested today. Does anyone expect that to happen any time soon?

Then there is Domestic Law, not such a serious offense. Yet can lead to a serious offence. Does this mean, when removing one from their home and away from the people, taking them in. They should not be turned over to the Fed? That they should be released, wherein Cops will have to make another appearance at their home with another domestic call?

Yes according to Federal Law......but now there are States Laws. Did you think all get a pass over that Federal Law?

FindersKeepers
02-03-2017, 08:18 AM
Myself, I don't think they need to change the law. More like redefine what is already law, for a County Sheriff that fails to uphold the law. Close any loopholes.

Abbott already cut their State Funding. Then Trump can cut their Fed funding. Either way, they will be hurting for money.

Cutting funding, where permissible, sounds like the best way to approach this.

Another thing I read recently is that some cities that are lax on detaining and deporting ICE holds is that they lack funds to do so. Perhaps helping them with that funding will make it a smoother process. Perhaps we can divert the funds from the non compliant cities to those that are trying to adhere to the law.

stjames1_53
02-03-2017, 08:35 AM
Sure, I understand that by breaking a law, an elected sheriff can be removed, but changing laws to bring one into compliance? That seems like a dangerous overreach.

in IN, practice of malfeasance is already on the books, Failure to follow the law, and that sometimes include federal law, is malfeasance, similar of dereliction of duty......

stjames1_53
02-03-2017, 08:38 AM
Sheriffs, like all other LEOs, make such practical policy decisions every day. According to federal law, every marijuana dispensary owner, operator and customer is in violation of the law and should be arrested today. Does anyone expect that to happen any time soon?

we're not talking about growing pot in states where it has been legalized. We're talking about illegal immigration....... big difference

MMC
02-03-2017, 09:20 AM
Cutting funding, where permissible, sounds like the best way to approach this.

Another thing I read recently is that some cities that are lax on detaining and deporting ICE holds is that they lack funds to do so. Perhaps helping them with that funding will make it a smoother process. Perhaps we can divert the funds from the non compliant cities to those that are trying to adhere to the law.

You think that will happen with Demos keeping the books, huh? :grin:

rcfieldz
02-03-2017, 09:53 AM
Get 'em gone...
17117


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/01/us/texas-transgender-mayor.html?_r=0

MisterVeritis
02-03-2017, 10:42 AM
I'm not totally comfortable with that. If a Governor can supersede an elected sheriff by simply changing laws, it could set a dangerous precedent.
I suppose they could meet in the middle of the street at high noon.

The laws can be changed to deal with problems at any time. The Texas governor is going about this the right way. He has taken all of the actions he can lawfully take. And he is going to the Texas state legislature to write laws to compel sheriffs to comply with the law.

MisterVeritis
02-03-2017, 10:43 AM
Sure, I understand that by breaking a law, an elected sheriff can be removed, but changing laws to bring one into compliance? That seems like a dangerous overreach.
This sentiment is absolutely nuts. Where are you holding FindersKeepers?

MMC
02-04-2017, 06:57 AM
Wait–Sanctuary Cities Get How Much In Federal Funds Every Year? (Hint: It's In The Billions).....


President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order putting sanctuary cities in the crosshairs. In Texas, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is also putting sanctuary cities in his state on notice (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/02/02/texas-governor-declares-war-on-sanctuary-cities-threatens-to-remove-sheriffs-who-refuse-to-comply-n2280169), threating to cut off funding. He also said he would remove officeholders, mostly likely local sheriffs, who refuse to comply. Now, the Left argues that the policy is not meant to shield illegal immigrants, but to provide them with an avenue to report crimes without fear of deportations. So, it’s a law and order initiative, you see? Try telling that to family members who have lost loved ones to illegal immigrants.


Yet, as we debate this policy, let’s also discuss that $27 billion goes to cities that offer sanctuary status. Liz Harrington of The Washington Free Beacon has more (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/report-sanctuary-cities-received-27-billion-feds-year/):


[Sanctuary cities receive over $27 billion each year from the federal government, giving President Donald Trump significant leverage over cities such as New York and San Francisco to enforce immigration law, according to a new report.OpenTheBooks.com identified 106 sanctuary cities in the United States in their oversight report, released Friday. In all, cities that ignore federal law by harboring illegal immigrants are receiving $27.741 billion in grants and direct payments in fiscal year 2016.
Twenty-two percent of the roughly 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States live in just 12 American cities, according to the report. Those cities, which include New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, received $15.983 billion in federal funds.
"On average, the cost of lost federal funding for a family of four residing in one of the 106 sanctuary cities is $1,810—or $454 per person," OpenTheBooks.com said. "A total population of 46.2 million residents live in the 106 sanctuary cities according to census data."].....snip~


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/02/03/waitsanctuary-cities-get-how-much-in-federal-funds-every-year-n2281270



Trump needs to make examples out of NY, Chicago, L.A., San Francisco, and Philly. Let them know they are targeted and always, that's always, put them on display as the bad apples out of the bunch.

MMC
02-09-2017, 08:20 AM
Update: Looks like the Texas governor is keeping his pledge. 3 Sanctuary cities in Texas Under a Ban. Dallas, Houston, and Austin.



Texas Senate Votes To Ban Sanctuary Cities......


The Texas Senate has voted 20-11 to ban "sanctuary cities" within the Lone Star State. Currently, the cities of Houston, Austin, and Dallas are identified as "sanctuary cities" and do not cooperate with immigration officials or prosecute people for violating immigration laws.


Last month, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott pledged (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2017/01/18/greg-abbott-pledges-to-rid-texas-of-sanctuary-cities-n2273149) to eliminate sanctuary cities within the state......snip~


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2017/02/08/texas-senate-votes-to-ban-sanctuary-cities-n2283222

MisterVeritis
02-09-2017, 08:26 AM
Ridiculous. Executive/legislative overreach on steroids.
Are you claiming the legislature cannot create a law making obstructing justice a crime? And are you further claiming a governor cannot enforce a law created by the legislature?

Exo, is that you? Which one of you is the sock?

Standing Wolf
02-09-2017, 08:33 AM
Every federal and state law enforcement agency in the affected cities should be evicted from their offices by local authorities, and a zero cooperation policy adopted by local government agencies across the board. When the President, Governor, or other administration officials travel to those or other cities, let the Secret Service or Governor's detail deal with all security concerns, traffic, etc., and if they exceed their jurisdiction or authority in doing so, arrest and detain them. If anyone seriously believes that a state or federal authority can win a war with the locals, he or she simply has no imagination.

MisterVeritis
02-09-2017, 08:37 AM
Every federal and state law enforcement agency in the affected cities should be evicted from their offices by local authorities, and a zero cooperation policy adopted by local government agencies across the board. When the President, Governor, or other administration officials travel to those or other cities, let the Secret Service or Governor's detail deal with all security concerns, traffic, etc., and if they exceed their jurisdiction or authority in doing so, arrest and detain them. If anyone seriously believes that a state or federal authority can win a war with the locals, he or she simply has no imagination.
I wondered how long it would take for you to go nuts. Let's have this war.

MMC
02-09-2017, 08:39 AM
Every federal and state law enforcement agency in the affected cities should be evicted from their offices by local authorities, and a zero cooperation policy adopted by local government agencies across the board. When the President, Governor, or other administration officials travel to those or other cities, let the Secret Service or Governor's detail deal with all security concerns, traffic, etc., and if they exceed their jurisdiction or authority in doing so, arrest and detain them. If anyone seriously believes that a state or federal authority can win a war with the locals, he or she simply has no imagination.

So now what do you do when you learn that the majority of locals who aren't just in the city proper.....are the majority and all those Left leaning politicians are thrown to the side?

Yes lets evict all those Democrats. I'm with you on that one. :laugh:

Standing Wolf
02-09-2017, 12:44 PM
I wondered how long it would take for you to go nuts.

So who won the pool?

MisterVeritis
02-09-2017, 12:51 PM
So who won the pool?
Me. Of course. I believed you would go nuts. And you did. A soft-spoken radical leftist is still a radical leftist.

The good news is that your team is on the ropes and in decline. Americans are no longer going to be second class members of the USA. If lawmakers won't faithfully enforce the laws they need to find another job.

Standing Wolf
02-09-2017, 01:07 PM
https://youtu.be/q8oQo02lYTM