Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: ICE Is On The Move
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2025 19:54:53 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <vn63ud$191p$3@dont-email.me>
References: <vmvf9d$244ts$1@dont-email.me> <vn3pr8$34e75$1@dont-email.me> <vn3ujv$35o7m$1@dont-email.me> <vn61vn$1fm3$5@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2025 20:54:53 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5766877df063f851075b8f2f8833192e";
	logging-data="42041"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/n8XZuSu0GOauNoKOy7gcWnV1DMf1MIDw="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qG+PrKDIRxGZHF270Jw4pKGZUWg=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 4020

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>Jan 25, 2025 at 4:11:43 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>On Jan 25, 2025 at 2:12:57 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>Jan 25, 2025 at 12:24:36 PM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>Jan 25, 2025 at 10:32:33 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>Since we currently have control of Congress, they should pass
>>>>>>>>>a federal law either requiring state and local cops to honor
>>>>>>>>>ICE detainers or defining it as obstruction not to. No more of
>>>>>>>>>these local cities deciding whether they will or will not honor
>>>>>>>>>valid detainers. Make it a federal crime to refuse to do it,
>>>>>>>>>then lock up a few blue mayors or police chiefs and see how they
>>>>>>>>>like the inside of the jailhouse.

>>>>>>>>Congress doesn't have the power to criminalize this per federalism.

>>>>>>>(1) That ship sailed long ago. Of all the intrusions on federalism
>>>>>>>we've had to endure (and continue to have to endure) this would be
>>>>>>>extremely minor.

>>>>>>I don't know about you, but I'd like to regain federalism.

>>>>>>>(2) That's why making it an obstruction offense would be the way to go.

>>>>>>What are you going to do, charge the legislature with the crime? Some
>>>>>>states have laws against this.

>>>>>No, the mayor or the police chief who orders their cops to defy the
>>>>>detainer requiring them to hand over the criminal illegal alien they
>>>>>have in their jail.

>>>>Without first finding these state and local laws unconstitutional?

>>>They don't have to be found unconstitutional. Federal law can merely define
>>>defying a detainer as an obstruction of federal immigration law.

>>You want the poor desk sergeant or chief bailliff at a courthourse or
>>warden at the county jail to be between a rock and a hard place,
>>violating state or federal law?

>Federal law is supreme in matters of federal jurisdiction. Any state law that
>conflicts with a federal law is void on its face. One can't (validly) be
>prosecuted for obeying the law.

I understand the interplay between the supremacy clause and federalism
generally. But I don't agree that federal supremacy prevents these cops,
guards, and bailiffs any rights not to be prosecuted under state law.

Trump doesn't have the integrity to defend them and state and local
politicians will make sure they are made examples of.

>>C'mon, it's not going to be your Commie mayor facing those obstruction
>>charges.

>It ought to be. And if it can be shown the commie mayor issued the order to
>the police or jail guards, it would be if I was in charge.

But you're not. The world isn't the way you wish it to be, and you know
I'm right that the guy who is going to get fucked over is not going to
be able to afford that high-priced defense attorney to keep him out of
prison, let alone keep his job.