Skip to comments.DHS Sec: Donít Enforce Immigration Law In Courthouses
Posted on 05/29/2014 4:20:29 PM PDT by Nachum
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson thinks courthouses should be immigration enforcement-free zones, reports the Washington Times.
Courthouses are special, he said in testimony before Congress Thursday, meaning that the government ought not target illegal immigrants who may be therea status already granted to schools, hospitals, and places of worship. (RELATED: Immigration Enforcement Isnt Smart, Obama Says)
The issue came up during the House Judiciary Committees Homeland Security Department Oversight hearing when Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) asked Johnson whether he thought courthouses ought be added to this list of sensitive locations.
People have been apprehended by ICE when they went to the courthouse to pay a traffic ticket, to answer criminal charges, or to obtain a protective order. In one case a person was detained when he appeared in court to get married, Nadler said. The ability to appear at courthouses is essential for the protection of our constitutional rights, and the spate of courthouse enforcement actions in recent months will intimidate immigrants and prevent them conducting important civic duties, he argued.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Oh the irony!
Don’t enforce the law in the courthouse.
What’s happening to our Republic?
Who ARE these people?
I agree....enforce them at the BORDERS.....or port of entries.
How about that for a novel way of thinking. You do not belong here you do not pass GO. Turn your ass around and go BACK....
Now you overstay your welcome, ICE arrests you, puts you on the first available junket out of State and you are gone. End of discussion.
Courthouses are constructed to adjudicate the law —many times defendents are taken away to jail at exactly that place.
That places is HUGELY a-propos.
What he really means is let’s simply not enforce it ANYWHERE.
What TYPE Of name is Jeh, anyway?
How can they say things like this with a straight face?
My gosh, do they really think they’re normal?
More specifically, regardless of vote-winning, PC interpretations of the Constitution's "uniform Rule of Naturalization" clause, Clause 4 of Section 8 of Article I, interpretations which wrongly interpolate the power to regulate immigration from that clause, the states have never delegated to the feds, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration.
In fact, Thomas Jefferson had noted, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, that the states have never delegated the power to regulate immigration to Congress.
4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the day of July, 1798, intituled An Act concerning aliens, which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added]. Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.
In fact, the Supreme Court has historically clarified that powers not expressly delegated to the feds via the Constituiton, immigration the example here, are prohibited to the federal government.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
To enforce immigration laws, patriots need to elect state lawmakers who are willing to stand up to the corrupt, constitutionally limited power federal government and make state laws to do the work that the federal government is actually constitutionally prohibited from doing concerning this issue.
Alternatively, state lawmakers can quit sitting on their hands and amend the Constitution to grant the feds the power to regulate immigration.
I think we should treat them all the same way they treat our Marines when they ACCIDENTALLY make a wrong turn and end up in a stinking hell-hole messican jail getting chained and tortured.
Why not malls, beaches, McDonald’s or CracketBarrel, too? Matter of Fact, why not let anybody SOUTH of the border come in?
Ugh, he really is a dang freak.
Something has truly turned in the air, more weirdos than ever are yammering away with words from some far off land, I really do not recognize my country today.
Perfect liberal logic.
If we can’t ENFORCE laws at the SEAT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, just where in Sam Hill does this fool expect to enforce them.
(Yes, I know, it is a foolish, rhetorical question)
And those fools in NY keep sending that complete idiot Nadler back to insult THEM and us.
Complaining that people are being questioned while doing business that includes breaking OTHER laws, and getting married ...I wonder if that was between two illegals or an illegal trying to get himself/herself ‘unillegal’.
Of course the LIBS would agree with me in principle then tell me that is why they all should be granted full citizenship and immunity.
And I am not just picking on Nadler....I also shook my head at those that were ‘amazed’ that a 90+ YEAR OLD incumbent got ‘voted out’ in TX....
Of course the LIBS had to make REPUBLICAN part of the headline - I guess to try and convince their ‘educated’ readers that even the ‘Rs’ are turning back long term R’s.