Sanctuary city = Treason

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Your interpretation of code 2381 - Treason, is just a little off center. It does not state "time of war" as a delineated process stemming from a formal declaration of same. It clearly describes an enemy of the US who would commit an act of war, defined as an act harmful or injurious to the nation or its citizens.

a reply to: Wayfarer

You are missing the point and belaboring the semantics. Show me where I or anyone else in this thread said "we should harbor criminals'. I'll wait.

This is a perfect example of missing the point and belaboring the semantics.

In every post you have made in this thread your position is quite clear: illegal aliens should be allowed to stay here because they they came here looking for a better life. Well, some of them did. Others came here to commit acts of war against the US and its citizens. The problem is - you don't know which is which. As such, inviting them all to stay is weighing an unreasonable risk on the legal citizens of this nation.

Suggesting that we ignore the criminal act of entering the nation illegally IS harboring criminals. Code 2381 says it is Treason to provide aid or comfort... Chicago's mayor stated very clearly that city services would continue to be available to illegal aliens. That is providing aid and comfort.

Whether some illegal alien somewhere in the US came here because conditions and opportunity in their home land were lacking is irrelevant. Compassion does not justify criminality. Empathy does not justify Treason.

If my neighbors children are hungry, I care. It is in my nature to want to help them. However, if they break in to my house in the middle of the night to take what they want, I will stand my ground and most likely kill them on the spot. You see, I don't know what else they want besides food...and neither do you. But, if they knock on my door and ask for my help, I am willing to help - within reason.

I believe in taking care of home first. I am sorry his children are hungry. But so are mine. When my children have had all they need, not necessarily all they want, but at least all they need, whatever is left my neighbor can have. I will deliver it to him and feed his children myself if need be. That being said, I will NEVER make my own children go hungry to feed someone else's. No one would do that to their own children. If we would not do that family to family, why on earth would we do it nation to nation? It is exactly the same, only on a much larger scale. Its not that I don't care, its that I know I have limits on how much I can do. I do what I can but no more, or I will end up in need every bit as much as those I tried to help. That solves nothing. It only pushes it a little farther down the road. In other words, if we continue to take care of others before we take care of ourselves we will soon find ourselves in need of help too. And we are just about there now...

The question is, who will help us?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Article III, section 3, of the Constitution provides that “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

This is the precedence for Treason. Using logic, the only time one can aid or adhere to an enemy waging war against the States ; Is during a time of war.


If you were to try and apply this statute against a sanctuary city, it will be thrown out.

Again I whole heartedly and completely agree with reprimanding and punishing sanctuary cities for refusal to abide the law. But it is not Treason. Treason is a dangerous charge that should not be lightly banded about.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Re: Network Dude - Nobody is arguing in favor of harboring criminals (though that is a discussion for another thread). Once again its quite telling of your personal character that you associate criminality with immigrants (ie. a demonstration of your ingrained prejudices). Do you have numbers/metrics/statistics for how many immigrants are criminals or how many citizens fall prey to immigrant crime?

wow, deflect much?

So it seems you are unaware that the gang MS13 exists. Or that people of Mexican decent are capable of crimes. News flash, they are people, just like us, and have the same ability to be great people, or criminals. To be so ignorant and project your inequalities on me is weak. But that seems your style.

Trump wants to deport the criminals. The ones with police records. (just so you know, non-criminals don't usually have police records) So should you choose to grow a brain, we could have a discussion, but as of now, I'd say its unlikely.

a reply to: Vroomfondel
Also OP do you realize how many sanctuary cities there're?

This shows 32:
en.wikipedia.org - Sanctuary city...

One of them is Washington, DC--the capital of this country and essentially owned by the federal government:
www.nbcwashington.com - DC Mayor: Nation's Capital Will Remain a 'Sanctuary City'...

Are you saying then the capital of our country, the very seat of government and the location of the white house, is committing treason?

a reply to: network dude

Laffo. Nice metrics data there bucko. Let's see here, you've got: MS13 is bad people, hurr durr all Mexican's are therefore capable of crimes and should be treated as potential criminals.

News flash for ya. Trump wants to deport all illegals (criminal or not). So what other feckless retorts are you going to dredge up instead of finding some actual facts?

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Agreed, to a point. We are at war with ISIS. War is not only a formally declared nation against nation conflict. That is one traditional sense of the word, but that is not the limit of its extent. Religious war, jihad, the Crusades, etc, are all wars not fought between nations but ideologies. When one of those combatants turns its attention toward a specific nation with the intent to disrupt the daily function of that nation and injure or kill its people, as ISIS has done with the USA, then it is a war that is being waged against our nation and its citizens. It has been suggested more than once that American citizens who leave the US to join ISIS and fight against us have committed treason. Per US Code 2381, "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies..." has committed treason. I agree. Likewise, any mayor who openly declares that he is offering aid and comfort to illegal aliens which may include agents of war is also guilty of treason. Per US Code 2381 "...giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere..." has committed treason.

a reply to: Wayfarer

There is no such thing as an illegal who is legal... And you talk about other people's facts???

a reply to: jonnywhite

Yes. Their numbers do not nullify their actions.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I see where you're coming from... For example the joining ISIS example. To me that would indeed be a treasonous act, as ISIS is waging war against the U.S.

But that's just you and me agreeing.

The burden of the statute, legally requires a recognized and declared enemy of war.

However....

This burden is significantly lessened if the charge of treason is produced by a State, not a federal Statute. For example the charge of treason against John Brown by the State of Virginia in 1859. The State Government of Virginia charged him with Treason after attacking a Virginia state militia armory.


Anyways, the base line point is this : It won't stick, it will be thrown out. It will not be prosecuted at a federal level under the charge of Treason, because it simply doesn't fit.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Seems like legalese is not your first language.

Not all infringement of laws are criminal.

Congress nor the President has any so whatsoever as how Chicago deals with illegal aliens. Truth be known, those people (illegals) also have no standing in any court within the country, so they are very venerable. You don't want to be a stranger in a strange land. But, since our F'd up country feeds off unlawful fiat money, congress will just shut off the funding spigot and that will be the end of that.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: network dude

Laffo. Nice metrics data there bucko. Let's see here, you've got: MS13 is bad people, hurr durr all Mexican's are therefore capable of crimes and should be treated as potential criminals.

News flash for ya. Trump wants to deport all illegals (criminal or not). So what other feckless retorts are you going to dredge up instead of finding some actual facts?

How about you put your money where your mouth is. Show me the quote where Trump wants to send ALL Mexicans back.
You are blinded by stupidity here.

I'll even help you out here since you seem to be focused on hyperbole at the moment.

Trump also told 60 Minutes that he's going to build his $25 billion border wall, and before that happens, he plans to"get the people that have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably 2 million — it could be even 3 million — we are getting them out of the country or we are going to incarcerate." It's a good idea to prioritize the bad guys, which is existing policy. The Department of Homeland Security targets, in order, national security threats, aggravated felonies, and "serious" misdemeanors such as domestic violence or drug trafficking. President Obama deported more undocumented immigrants than any predecessor. Last year, 59 percent of the 235,000 he removed had criminal records and 41 percent were deported for immigration violations, and even Trump approved: "What people don't know is that Obama got tremendous numbers of people out of the country," he said.

www.nj.com...

wait, what? existing policy? So you are pissing your pants over a law that already exists and Trump just wants to enforce it?

As I said, when you can focus on the facts, you will be much better off.

a reply to: network dude

The 60 Minute interview is Trump waffling on what was posted at donaldjtrump.com.

2. End catch-and-release. Under a Trump administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

My only problem with your OP is the following:

Could it work? Sure. But it would be the equivalent of a homeowner trying to kill a housefly with a 12 gauge shotgun. Sure, the fly is dead, but you probably destroy some other things in your home in the process.

Why use a shotgun when a flyswatter will work just fine.

It's about using the right tool for the right job.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Seems like legalese is not your first language.

Not all infringement of laws are criminal.

Very true. But we are talking about the law regarding being an illegal immigrant in this country.

Are you saying that is not a criminal infringement?

a reply to: Riffrafter

I agree, it seems to be a bit over the top. But in a sense, that is my point. The Mayor's actions are beyond simply caring for people and wanting to help. Offering illegal aliens, who most likely have terrorists among them, sanctuary and the benefit of city services is far beyond simply caring and wanting to help. There is no way in hell the people of Chicago would let him send their tax dollars to another country to ease the suffering of its people. Why in the hell would we look the other way when he invites them here and does it?

Vetting is imperfect. The Tsarnaev brothers of Boston Marathon bombing fame, the San Bernardino shooters, and others, were vetted immigrants. If the best of our vetting processes can not guarantee that we are not letting terrorists in to this country, how can anyone openly invite illegal aliens to this city with no idea of who they are or where they came from and think its ok? If they snuck in against his will when he wasn't looking, oh well. Not his fault. If just one of them is a terrorist here at his invitation, he is guilty of Treason.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Excellent points - all.

We as a nation really have to start to take this issue seriously. We've allowed it to be swept under the rug and to fester there like a boil for *far* too long.

All boils eventually burst. And it usually involves a lot of pain along the way.

I know, I know - gross analogy.

But fitting nonetheless ...

originally posted by: Riffrafter
Are you saying that is not a criminal infringement?

It is my understanding that it is a civil offense which is judged in a civil court and not a criminal court. Re-entry by someone deported is considered a criminal offense.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Riffrafter
Are you saying that is not a criminal infringement?

It is my understanding that it is a civil offense which is judged in a civil court and not a criminal court. Re-entry by someone deported is considered a criminal offense.

Illegal entry is a crime (Misdemeanor) punishable by no more than six months of incarceration and up to $250 in civil penalties for each illegal entry. These acts of improper entry -- including the mythic "border jumping" -- are criminal acts associated with illegally immigrating to the United States.

Illegal presence is a civil offense and would apply to those that have entered legally, but then overstayed their visas.

This article may help:

Cornell Law - Legal Information Institute