1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Victims of sanctuary cities

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by 600 dbl are, Mar 23, 2017.

  1. deepsxepa

    deepsxepa Hazardous

    i havnt said a word.. ive just begun breaking the spells. most have no clue the situation they are in, but the worst part is, they dont even know their own names! (spell bound)
     
  2. wmhjr

    wmhjr Well-Known Member

  3. deepsxepa

    deepsxepa Hazardous

    you know the deal..

    DO NOT STOP DO NOT DETAIN


    ;-)
     
  4. sheepofblue

    sheepofblue Well-Known Member

    RICO would be a stretch but they are enabled the ongoing criminal act of illegal entry. Judge shop it like the liberals do and maybe add a couple of fifths for the right judge.....

    Or try it in Guam before it flips over.
     
  5. blkduc

    blkduc no time for jibba jabba

    Guam is the 58th state.
     
  6. wmhjr

    wmhjr Well-Known Member

    Again, my understanding is that you can't even bring a RICO case against those elected officials because of the 11th Amendment. You would first have to sue for standing, and to get a waiver on the 11th. Then if you got both of those through you could try and indict on RICO if appropriate.
     
  7. deepsxepa

    deepsxepa Hazardous

    overstand and overcome instead.
     
  8. sheepofblue

    sheepofblue Well-Known Member

    I was actually implying the feds would be the ones doing the RICO charge which I think negates the issue with the 11th though your point is good and my clarity was sheeplike
     
  9. wmhjr

    wmhjr Well-Known Member

    Nope. The feds actually are restricted the most as a result. The 11th is really intended for federal charges, but has been used as precedent for cases involving "State" for lower government bodies as well. So there is actually more (not meaning likely, or even very possible) chance of local non-federal suits being filed than there is of Feds filing a federal suit or charge.
     
  10. Mongo

    Mongo Administrator

    Yeah, I wouldn't ever expect a suit to fly against an individual, it'd have to be against the entity of the city as a whole.
     
  11. In Your Corner

    In Your Corner Dungeonesque Crab AI Version

    If it flipped over, would it be Maug?
     
    badmoon692008 and sheepofblue like this.
  12. sheepofblue

    sheepofblue Well-Known Member

  13. In Your Corner

    In Your Corner Dungeonesque Crab AI Version

  14. Hooper

    Hooper Well-Known Member

  15. auminer

    auminer Renaissance Redneck

  16. XFBO

    XFBO Well-Known Member

    I'd argue it most certainly is....but shit, we have a government NOW who is terrified to execute the law on certain persons already.

    Just in the last week or two, a female State politician was (allegedly) caught tipping off illegals on potential ICE raids.....HTF, she's not in bracelets, charged and waiting for her bail hearing is beyond my comprehension. Hard to argue against the 'only the little people get arrested and charged with crimes' rhetoric.
     
  17. Mongo

    Mongo Administrator

    Free speech trumps obstruction for the most part.
     
  18. XFBO

    XFBO Well-Known Member

    That doesn't apply when linked to a governmental function/LE plan.....OR it didn't used to.
     
  19. Pittenger5

    Pittenger5 Well-Known Member

    This one pissed me off to no end. I get people in the community alerting people, and the apps and all that. But youre a fucking politician? What have you done to change the laws, rather than try to work around them? If all these sanctuary cities started a grass roots campaign to change the laws on the books, so immigration was easier to get, or whatever the end game is, then do it. Otherwise, stfu and enforce the laws.
     
    XFBO likes this.
  20. Mongo

    Mongo Administrator

    I was thinking more about people telling other people. Of course there is also the issue of non-citizens and any amendment applying to them :D

    Even if official types tell others I think they're covered under the first but that won't help them keep their jobs and such.
     

Share This Page