Govs Abbott and DeSantis immigrant stunts appear to violate federal and state law (3 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
3,299
Reaction score
7,917
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
Abbott and DeSantis have been loading up undocumented immigrants and sending them on buses and planes to places like DC and even Martha's Vineyard. The immigrants have indicated that they did not know where they were going, and did not even know where they were when interviewed. Abbott and DeSantis seem to believe that it is unfair that their states have to deal with undocumented immigrants while lawmakers in DC refuse to make significant changes to the process or border security - so this entitles them to this kind of action involving the transportation of human beings.

But while their opinions about it may be understandable, their actions in trafficking human beings for purposes of a political stunt appear to be illegal under both federal and state law. These relocations are not pursuant to any legitimate federal or state immigration program. The governors are simply loading these people up and shipping them out - and they are doing it for exploitative purpose: a political stunt to drive support from the base. The fact that they send photographers along underscores that this purpose is exploitative.

Under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act Sec. 274(a)(1)(A)(ii), it is a crime to knowingly transport an illegal alien across state lines. http://www.lawandsoftware.com/ina/INA-274-sec1324.html.

Under Florida statutes, Title 46 Section 787.06, defines the criminal activity of human trafficking as "transporting, soliciting, recruiting, harboring, providing, enticing, maintaining, purchasing, patronizing, procuring, or obtaining another person for the purpose of exploitation of that person."

Texas's trafficking statute is more specific about the kind of exploitation that makes it illegal - and requires some kind of transportation for purposes of sexual exploitation or forced labor, so the Texas law probably does not apply to this conduct. Texas Penal Code Title 5, Section 20A.
 

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
933
Age
59
Location
Alabama
Offline

This occurred to me when I first heard about the transporting of the immigrants. The taker states' share of federal revenue should be reduced by the amount that will be used to support these immigrants.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
8,933
Reaction score
13,495
Location
Midwest
Offline
I love all the comments (in the tweets) about how this is illegal but these same people are 100% pro sanctuary cities.

Is it cruel what is happening, to you and me it probably is, but to others, maybe it isn’t. But I would rather be displaced in Martha’s Vinyard than El Paso, TX.
It’s a jackass move to lie to refugees who are NOT here illegally and send them somewhere where they aren’t expecting them and then just leave them. When they arrived they hadn’t eaten anything since 6 AM, and had to walk 3 miles to get to town. This included kids and people who needed medical attention.

If you don’t think this is a jackass move, it might be because you don’t think of these people as real people. Which is exactly how DeSantis and Abbott feel - they aren’t real people they’re just props in their political ambitions.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
8,933
Reaction score
13,495
Location
Midwest
Offline
I love all the comments (in the tweets) about how this is illegal but these same people are 100% pro sanctuary cities.

Is it cruel what is happening, to you and me it probably is, but to others, maybe it isn’t. But I would rather be displaced in Martha’s Vinyard than El Paso, TX.
What do you think it means to be a sanctuary city? It doesn’t mean that city welcomes undocumented immigrants, as I understand it. It means the city recognizes that fear of being reported to ICE for their documentation status adversely affects crime victims and allows criminals to commit crimes against them with impunity. Without fear of being reported. So it’s a crime reduction strategy. That’s it, from what I understand.

What is your idea?
 

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
933
Age
59
Location
Alabama
Offline
I love all the comments (in the tweets) about how this is illegal but these same people are 100% pro sanctuary cities.

Is it cruel what is happening, to you and me it probably is, but to others, maybe it isn’t. But I would rather be displaced in Martha’s Vinyard than El Paso, TX.

It isn't the same. Sanctuary cities are not violating the law, and they certainly are not mistreating people.​

Here is an excerpt from https://www.learningforjustice.org/classroom-resources/texts/what-is-a-sanctuary-city-anyway



"Do sanctuary cities violate federal law?​

No, sanctuary cities do not violate federal law. Federal law requires public entities to share and maintain information that has been gathered on an individual’s citizenship or immigration status. Federal law does not require compliance with federal requests to prolong detention. It does not impose an affirmative duty to gather information about place of birth or immigration status. It does not require localities to give local resources to assist federal immigration agents in carrying out their federal immigration enforcement responsibilities. So long as a local sanctuary policy does not limit communication or maintenance of information on a person’s immigration or citizenship status, it will not run afoul of federal law, and I know of no policies that restrict the sharing of such information."
 

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
933
Age
59
Location
Alabama
Offline
What do you think it means to be a sanctuary city? It doesn’t mean that city welcomes undocumented immigrants, as I understand it. It means the city recognizes that fear of being reported to ICE for their documentation status adversely affects crime victims and allows criminals to commit crimes against them with impunity. Without fear of being reported. So it’s a crime reduction strategy. That’s it, from what I understand.

What is your idea?
It's actually a place that doesn't use its resources to help ICE, which isn't required by law, because they are sympathetic to immigrants. A positive side affect is that it reduces crime.

"What is a sanctuary city?​

A sanctuary city is a place that has decided to keep local resources to solve local problems. Some people think “sanctuary” means the city is harboring fugitives. That’s a misunderstanding of the term. A better term than sanctuary might be local control or safe city. I’ll use the terms sanctuary city and safe city interchangeably. A sanctuary city has limited the extent to which it will volunteer resources in support of federal immigration enforcement agents’ responsibility to enforce federal immigration law. These limits can take many forms: saying no to federal requests (known as “detainers”) to conduct joint patrols, refusing to jail an individual who has posted bond and a judge has said can be released, or refusing to gather more information—such as immigration status—than is needed to determine if an individual is eligible to receive services.

Any public place can take this path. Cities are the best-known examples, but counties, states, universities and school districts have also asserted that it’s not their responsibility to enforce immigration law."
 
OP
OP
superchuck500

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
3,299
Reaction score
7,917
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
I love all the comments (in the tweets) about how this is illegal but these same people are 100% pro sanctuary cities.

I think you're confusing actively breaking applicable law with a dual sovereign's discretionary choice to not enforce the law of the other dual sovereign.

These two concepts are very, very different.
 

el caliente

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
439
Reaction score
264
Age
40
Location
Spring
Offline
This occurred to me when I first heard about the transporting of the immigrants. The taker states' share of federal revenue should be reduced by the amount that will be used to support these immigrants.
I don’t think the tweeter thought that tweet through when they tweeted it. Florida is a taker state in large part due to the amount of people who retire to Florida and take their social security and Medicare (two of the largest fed government programs out there). I haven’t researched the entire list of “taker” states, but in this case, I’ll allow Florida to be a taker state (ain’t nobody retiring to Massachusetts).
 

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
933
Age
59
Location
Alabama
Offline
I think you're confusing actively breaking applicable law with a dual sovereign's discretionary choice to not enforce the law of the other dual sovereign.

These two concepts are very, very different.
Are cities and states actually sovereign? I think they have pseudo sovereignty, because they must still obey federal law. I don't think sanctuary cities are required to use their resources to help ICE. Many jurisdictions choose to do that, but it doesn't break federal law to refuse to do that. Cities and states don't have to enforce federal laws, but they must not prevent them from being enforced. Sanctuary cities are simply not enforcing federal laws, but they are not preventing them from being enforced, so it is totally legal.

What DeSantis is doing is illegal based on Florida's human trafficking law, but since they aren't illegal, it probably doesn't violate the federal transporting across state lines law. What Abbott did doesn't seem illegal by Texas law, and he covered his butt further by getting them to sign waivers, but it is still immoral. DeSantis is the one that is being the most exploitive, and I hope they launch an investigation against his arse!
 

el caliente

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
439
Reaction score
264
Age
40
Location
Spring
Offline
It’s a jackass move to lie to refugees who are NOT here illegally and send them somewhere where they aren’t expecting them and then just leave them. When they arrived they hadn’t eaten anything since 6 AM, and had to walk 3 miles to get to town. This included kids and people who needed medical attention.

If you don’t think this is a jackass move, it might be because you don’t think of these people as real people. Which is exactly how DeSantis and Abbott feel - they aren’t real people they’re just props in their political ambitions.
I think they are real people, I also think it’s a messed up way to troll people. Were all of the people refugees? These types of moves in the past have included immigrants that had no business being in the country.

What do you think it means to be a sanctuary city? It doesn’t mean that city welcomes undocumented immigrants, as I understand it. It means the city recognizes that fear of being reported to ICE for their documentation status adversely affects crime victims and allows criminals to commit crimes against them with impunity. Without fear of being reported. So it’s a crime reduction strategy. That’s it, from what I understand.

What is your idea?
My understanding is that a sanctuary city/state won’t cooperate with the federal government in reporting immigrants. That’s fine, but not everyone shares that sentiment.

When you play political football by saying you won’t cooperate with the federal government in reporting immigrants, don’t be surprised when the other side plays political football and drops off a bunch of immigrants on your door.

It isn't the same. Sanctuary cities are not violating the law, and they certainly are not mistreating people.​

Here is an excerpt from https://www.learningforjustice.org/classroom-resources/texts/what-is-a-sanctuary-city-anyway



"Do sanctuary cities violate federal law?​

No, sanctuary cities do not violate federal law. Federal law requires public entities to share and maintain information that has been gathered on an individual’s citizenship or immigration status. Federal law does not require compliance with federal requests to prolong detention. It does not impose an affirmative duty to gather information about place of birth or immigration status. It does not require localities to give local resources to assist federal immigration agents in carrying out their federal immigration enforcement responsibilities. So long as a local sanctuary policy does not limit communication or maintenance of information on a person’s immigration or citizenship status, it will not run afoul of federal law, and I know of no policies that restrict the sharing of such information."
I didn’t say anything about cities or states violating the law.
 

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
933
Age
59
Location
Alabama
Offline
I don’t think the tweeter thought that tweet through when they tweeted it. Florida is a taker state in large part due to the amount of people who retire to Florida and take their social security and Medicare (two of the largest fed government programs out there). I haven’t researched the entire list of “taker” states, but in this case, I’ll allow Florida to be a taker state (ain’t nobody retiring to Massachusetts).
I think you thought less about it than the tweeter. Retirees don't matter, because social security and medicare are not counted. What is counted is taxes paid by each state versus aid received by the state.


Florida and Texas are not the worst, but they definitely benefit much more than Massachusetts and New York, and this stunt should cut into those benefits.
 

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
933
Age
59
Location
Alabama
Offline
I didn’t say anything about cities or states violating the law.
You implied that the commenters were hypocrites for saying transporting immigrants is illegal while supporting another action. Your comment was "I love all the comments (in the tweets) about how this is illegal but these same people are 100% pro sanctuary cities". That comment is obviously implying that sanctuary cities are also illegal. Do you acknowledge that sanctuary cities are not violating laws, while DeSantis is violating the law?
 

el caliente

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
439
Reaction score
264
Age
40
Location
Spring
Offline
You implied that the commenters were hypocrites for saying transporting immigrants is illegal while supporting another action. Your comment was "I love all the comments (in the tweets) about how this is illegal but these same people are 100% pro sanctuary cities". That comment is obviously implying that sanctuary cities are also illegal. Do you acknowledge that sanctuary cities are not violating laws, while DeSantis is violating the law?
I have no problem with “Sanctuary Cities” not assisting the federal government. Have at it. States rights and all that good stuff. But don’t say that you are a sanctuary state/city, and not expect someone in this political environment to see if you are bout that life.
I think you thought less about it than the tweeter. Retirees don't matter, because social security and medicare are not counted. What is counted is taxes paid by each state versus aid received by the state.


Florida and Texas are not the worst, but they definitely benefit much more than Massachusetts and New York, and this stunt should cut into those benefits.
So aid…like after a natural disaster when the federal government comes in and helps get things back on track? Yeah, that’s probably going to require a couple of dollars from the federal government, however I don’t think Texas and Florida have have been moochers even without disaster relief.

Their numbers in 2020 weren’t that far off from far left leaning states either.


I do agree with you though that this is a waste of money and a troll move.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,751
Reaction score
3,322
Age
44
Location
Earth
Offline
Are cities and states actually sovereign? I think they have pseudo sovereignty, because they must still obey federal law. I don't think sanctuary cities are required to use their resources to help ICE. Many jurisdictions choose to do that, but it doesn't break federal law to refuse to do that. Cities and states don't have to enforce federal laws, but they must not prevent them from being enforced. Sanctuary cities are simply not enforcing federal laws, but they are not preventing them from being enforced, so it is totally legal.

What DeSantis is doing is illegal based on Florida's human trafficking law, but since they aren't illegal, it probably doesn't violate the federal transporting across state lines law. What Abbott did doesn't seem illegal by Texas law, and he covered his butt further by getting them to sign waivers, but it is still immoral. DeSantis is the one that is being the most exploitive, and I hope they launch an investigation against his arse!


I do not believe that there is any federal law that requires anyone to report someone here illegally.

It wouldn't meet the definition of harboring illegal aliens for sure.
 

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
933
Age
59
Location
Alabama
Offline
I have no problem with “Sanctuary Cities” not assisting the federal government. Have at it. States rights and all that good stuff. But don’t say that you are a sanctuary state/city, and not expect someone in this political environment to see if you are bout that life.

So aid…like after a natural disaster when the federal government comes in and helps get things back on track? Yeah, that’s probably going to require a couple of dollars from the federal government, however I don’t think Texas and Florida have have been moochers even without disaster relief.

Their numbers in 2020 weren’t that far off from far left leaning states either.


I do agree with you though that this is a waste of money and a troll move.
I don't know if natural disasters are rolled into the measurements of which states get the most return on their revenues to the federal government, but regardless of that, Massachusetts and New York are already paying more than their fair share, so if Texas and Florida want to cost them more money, then they should pay more. Creating an emergency for those states by sending people unannounced, forcing them to mobilize suddenly, also costs more. Texas and Florida should pay for their actions.
 

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
933
Age
59
Location
Alabama
Offline
I do not believe that there is any federal law that requires anyone to report someone here illegally.

It wouldn't meet the definition of harboring illegal aliens for sure.
I'm not sure why you quoted me, because I've said Sanctuary Cities are not breaking laws.
 

coldseat

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,848
Reaction score
3,025
Age
46
Location
San Antonio
Online


Republicans are very aggressive in wasting tax payer money on political stunts meant bolster their MAGA cred for national elections. Whether it's meritless election audits and hand recounts or flying migrants to Democratic led cities, it's a waste of millions of dollars. You'd would think it would that would be illegal, but they are never held accountable for their actions.

I'm honestly curious if DeSantis ran afoul of the very state law that created that sham fun by having to falsely recruit the migrants for San Antonio for his political stunt. Not that he's going to be held accountable in Florida, but I'm still curious.
 

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
933
Age
59
Location
Alabama
Offline

Wow, $615k and $12.3k/immigrant to fly them from Texas to Massachusetts for Vertol Sytems! That is an extraordinarily high number! A large jet can be chartered for under $11k/flying hour! https://www.evojets.com/charter-flight-costs-pricing-basics/

All in with crew and fees, it should be less than $40k, and that's being generous. An investigation is warranted just to justify the exorbitant cost! Is DeSantis enriching himself somehow? He seems to be following Trump's criminal path, which seems to be popular now among Republicans.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom