It is one thing to harmfully advocate for the local enforcement of federal immigration laws. It is another to suggest that legislators who disagree with you should be prosecuted. This is the first time I have ever used the word fascist to describe someone's viewpoints but that is exactly what this is.
Fascism: A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing aggressive nationalism and often racism
It's not like Tancredo just flippantly said these New Hampshire legislators should be prosecuted. Ge put it out in an official press release and has defended his comments to the Associated Press.
If Presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo had his way, New Hampshire lawmakers behind an immigration bill would be thrown out of office and prosecuted for helping illegal immigrants.
“If they actually implemented it, you bet. It's aiding and abetting. I think that's a pretty clear violation of the federal law,” he said Wednesday of the bill, which would prohibit state and local authorities from enforcing federal immigration laws.
Tancredo, a Colorado congressman who has staked his long-shot campaign for president on his vehement opposition to illegal immigration, acknowledged some legal obstacles likely would prevent prosecuting state lawmakers over proposed legislation. Otherwise, “I'd be more than willing to pursue it,” he said. Mayors and city councilors who adopt sanctuary city policies also should face criminal charges, he said.
I won't dwell too much on sanctuary policies, but they are absolutely necessary for local and state police to protect local residents. If migrants can't go to local law enforcement officials, they can't report on crimes committed against them, or by other people. Fostering trust with migrant populations actually makes cities and towns safer and more lawful. Even the Association of Major Cities Police Chiefs agrees that local officials should not enforce federal immigration law. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them.
that tancredo was runningboth for the office of president, and also to single-handily replace the supreme court with his single righteous self. i will just suggest to him that he should also tack on joint chiefs of staff while he’s at it. it will be useful when he enacts marshal law.
You ever think of that. Tom Tancredo has been at the forefront of enforcing the laws as written on the books. What I understand he is suggesting is that if a legislator through their actions aids and abets illegal immigrants by helping them circumvent our laws, then that legislator should be prosecuted. This isn't police state, it's enforcing law.
Police state is Bill Clinton and Janet Reno attacking private property in Waco with the military in violation of the law that states the army shall not be used inside the United States as a police force. That's a police state.
How about this for a police state?
So let me get this straight EaBo, you think it's okay for Tancredo to suggest that people with differing viewpoints be prosecuted?
I don't want to have the same tired discussions about the law, and sanctuary cities, but if you believe it's okay for Tancredo to suggest that his opposition be jailed, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I appreciate you commenting, though.
When they report a crime. “Thank you very much. And by the way we've done you a favor Uncle Sam has bought you a plane ticket home.”
I'd rather not hash out the same debate points regarding sanctuary policies with you.
This isn't about Tancredo wanting to enforce law in a vacuum it is about Tancredo wanting to enforce law in regards to lawmakers enacting illegal sanctuary city legislation. You have to talk about sanctuary cities or you can't argue your point. It must be nice to be able to compartmentalize everything in your head.
You know my viewpoint. I know yours. If there is nothing new to add to the debate than it is a waste of time to hash it out.
I talked about sanctuary policies to frame this post, but the issue at hand is whether or not what Tancredo said is defensible. If you want to defend Tancredo's comments that the legislators be prosecuted please do.
If you want to talk about sanctuary policies write a new post or save it for another one when that is specifically the topic.
My ability to defend Tancredo is directly linked to the issue of Sanctuary cities since that is what he wants to prosecute the legislators for. It's nice when you can arbitrarily make up rules of the debate.
It's like saying do you think a motorist can be arrested for driving drunk, but not letting the act of drunk driving be part of the equation.
I know you'd like to believe that I'm taking the debate out from under you but it isn't true.
Other people have been able to stay on the topic of my post. They've brought up the fact that prosecuting a legislator would be unconstitutional.
Others have defended Tancredo by saying the legislators are aiding and abetting criminals.
I'm not saying you shouldn't bring up sanctuary policies. You can use them to defend your point about Tancredo's right to call for this. I'm just saying there is not point debating them specifically since those points have been manufactured by political machines and hashed out several times now.
Yes it is unconstitutional to arrest a Federal Legislator for things done in the execution of his duties. For example a Congressman can not be arrested or cited for speeding if he is on his way to a vote. However the constitution says nothing about what the federal government can do vis a vis federal law and state and or municipal legislator.
<
p>
So no it is not unconstitutional. In fact Tancredo wants to uphold the Constitution and our sovereignty by stopping illegal immigration. If we do not make an effort to stop illegal immigration we effectively lose our sovereignty. That is what he is trying to do in this instance.
<
p>
As far as being manufactured by political machines that is a load of crap. Sanctuary cities are manufactured by progressives who feel bad and guilty about themselves so they break the law to allow illegal immigrants to have sancturary. Contrary to popular belief, I don’t get memo’s from Karl Rove telling me to be against that. I just am.
…you seem to forget that the US Constitution has been amended since it was originally ratified in 1787. I’m referring specifically to two amendments, (i) the 5th amendment and its due process clause, and (ii) the 14th amendment and its due process and P&I clauses.
<
p>
Incorporation under the 14th amendment makes some of the rights secured to the people under the US constitution also limitations to the states.
<
p>
The DP clause of the 5th amendment as applied indicates that the federal government cannot infringe the rights held by the people that are otherwise specifically applied to the states. That has primarily been used in regards the equal protection provision of the 14th amendment, but it strains credulity that it could not be equally applied to the speech&debate clause of article I and it certainly applies to the “right of the people (in this case the legislators) to peaceably assemble.”
<
p>
Aside from those considerations, since you seem to be a textualist, please tell us what provision of the US Constitution gives the federal government to arrest and convict state legislators operating within their legislative capacity.
People can “peaceably assemble” actively circumventing federal law regarding sovereignty is another thing all together. Are you suggesting that immigration policy has devolved to the states. In Canada that is the case especially vis a vis Quebec but Canada is a loose federation not as strong of a Union.
<
p>
Article VI of the Constitution says that a State cannot contradict Federal Law or the Constitution.
<
p>
<
p>
Does this hold precedence? You made a very broad statement which is not factually correct. Yes a court may go that way but you stated it as fact which it is not.
<
p>
I’m not saying that what Tancredo is proposing is right on policy but I can see where he’s coming from.
Article VI of the Constitution says that a State cannot contradict Federal Law or the Constitution.
<
p>
…apparently you did not even bother reading the bill that had been submitted. You might have a point if the bill would require state and local law enforcement agencies to actively frustrate federal law enforcment.
<
p>
That’s not what the bill does. It would prohibit the state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal law enforcement in enforcement of federal law in regards immigration.
<
p>
I’m sure that that concept is known to you as a conservative. It’s called federalism. Tell me again, what provision of the US constitution requires a state or locality to enforce federal law or cooperate with federal law enforcement? As far as I can tell, there’s no provision of the US constitution preventing them from doing that, but there’s no provision requiring them to do that, either.
Take this quote:
Now, if this read “an act prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing _________ laws” and asked you if this was ok, would you agree? Would you honestly say “it depends on what laws?” Would you respond “since Federal Law trumps State and Local laws, this would be unconstitutional.”? What if the blank was filled with “drug” or “murder”? Prohibiting the enforcement of a law is obstruction of justice. You go to jail for that. You whine and cry about how oppressed the illegal immigrants are, but you never bring any feasable solutions to the table. You're just as useless as the pro-lifers who want to overturn roe v. wade without addressing the underlying causes of abortion.
How off-topic are we going to get here?
I've always provided the solutions I believe are correct. I think the only way to tackle the problems associated with migration is by getting at the root causes, and giving migrants a reason to stay. I speak all the time on how I believe that can be done.
Regarding your legal expertise I have made this argument several times.
Immigration Orange Lesson #3: 'Pro-Legal Immigrant' and Ignorant
… earned that '3'. The 'shoe on another foot' test is a time honord method of testing the validity of an assertion and inferring its underlying tennants.
If Presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo had his way, New Hampshire lawmakers behind an immigration bill would be thrown out of office and prosecuted for helping illegal immigrants.
<
p>
from the blockquote. It is constitutional for each house of Congress to eject members (it isn’t going to happen in this case). But it would be unconstitutional for them to be prosecuted for things that they did in performance of their official duties as members, such as filing a bill. I don’t have my copy of the constitution here, but it is essentially the “speech&debate” clause.
I knew what Tancredo was advocating was wrong but I didn't know it was unconstitutional. Thanks for stating that.
Thanks for bringing up one of the best elected officials to ever hold office in America: Tom Tancredo! I can only hope and pray that he becomes President.
He continues to make sure the rhino’s talk about Illegal Immigration. It’s classic, they all want to be Tom Tancredo when its comes to Illegal Immigration, even that Amnesty Sell Out McCain.
Anyway I agree with him 100% on those 2 NH Traitor Reps. They seem to forget that they took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Filing legislation to make a City in America a “Sanctuary City” for Illegal Aliens is just the opposite of their Constitutional duty to enforce the laws and protect the Citizens of America.
It’s aiding and abetting Illegal Aliens. Simple as that.
It is a Treasonous act. I have been throwing that word around a lot but there is no other way to describe it.
My Grandfathers did not fight in W.W.II to have these repulsive Reps in NH file legislation on behalf of Illegal Aliens. Or to have thousands of Illegal Aliens waving flags from other Countries in the streets of America on May 1st.
I will never get those pictures out of my head.
http://www.teamtancr…