Posted on 01/18/2018 2:48:22 AM PST by SMGFan
Great minds think alike. I said the basically the same thing.
Looks like a violation of the oath San Francisco area Sheriff’s Deputies take:
“I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.
“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means. I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”
There have always been many jurisdictions in which, to notify local law enforcement, was guaranteed to assist the targeted individuals! The only thing new is, the public refusal of local law enforcement to assist!
Since cops are generally led by someone friendly to the Mayor, I would hazard that the actual politician in charge has a lot to do with how the cops are.....
“If the political leadership is fascist so too will be the police.”
Police are the street muscle for politicians who control them and do their bidding as ordered. They are also a revenue center. Collateral damage to innocent civilians/dogs is an acceptable price to pay. Actual crime suppression is merely incidental to the overall goal of complete control of the public and political agenda.And that is the big picture in a nutshell.
You’re right - that’s who democrats are...
Scratch a democrat and you find a criminal...
“Sanctuary state,” another euphemism.
Can alabama refuse to provide SSM and let federal agents come in and do it if they want to so badly?
_________________________________
The Constitution specifically places immigration jurisdiction with the Feds. Federalism concepts do not control this issue. That is how the Supremes will decide the cases. If your acronym refers to same sex marriage, that issue is a mixed and more complex state/federal issue.
“I don’t know but it sounds like they weren’t asked for assistance, “
Local LEO administrations are between a rock and a hard place on this one. Either they were asked the question about cooperation by a reporter, or they are sending a warning to ICE. But, if they want to collect their pensions, they have to obey the laws they are handed and they have been handed a law counter to federal law. So, who pays their check? The locals do.
My experience with local law enforcement here is, they aren’t interested in keeping people safe. They cruise around and write citations. They aren’t interested in what is “right” or what is legal. They are just tax people in uniforms with guns. I am sure that isn’t true of all of them, but most likely, the rank and file reflect whatever their leadership is interested in.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way. It looks like law enforcement officers in California have chosen the latter. I can understand their position as they do have to keep the peace in a state that is fraught with divisiveness.
As long as CALEO’s stay out of the way and allow ICE to exercise codified LE - all is well.
The shame of it all is that States and State politicians along with elected legislators of the U.S. Congress have neglected to do their duties in regards to ensuring that laws and legal processes are followed.
I would say cut all federal funding to the state but that may require congress to act - and since we now know both Democrats and Republicans want open borders they are not going to do anything to help the President.
Federal funding is just the obvious part.
The police in California - including the CHP - should be cut off from ALL Federal databases - NCIC, FBI, NICS, anything that the DoJ/DHS keeps.
They are NOT to be trusted with ANY information: you are giving it to an Attorney General in California who is loyal to Mexico, and multiple corrupt police agencies who will use the information to aid and abet foreign criminals.
California is now out of the Union and in complete rebellion. When the South did this after the War Between the States, the President sent in military officers to take control of the States. It was outrageous at the time, but this is worse.
A true civil war would be internal to the respective states, with anti-sanctuary (law-abiding) citizens fighting sanctuary (law breaking) citizens.
So true.
Arrest the non-law abiding LEOs. Non-law abiding is, by definition, criminal activity.
Not in California, apparently.
“Their loyalty is to Mexico first.”
That’s a fact.
If they don’t want to help, then they can stand down and let ICE do its thing.
Calling Mr. Sessions.............Calling Mr. Sessions
..............Crickets!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.