..


https://i.vgy.me/ZH6S4G.png

Trump’s Push for Local Sheriffs to Enforce Immigration Laws:
A Game Changer in Mass Deportation Plans



Source:      FrontLineAmerica      
Quote:

President Trump is ramping up his immigration crackdown, pushing for a controversial move that would allow local sheriffs across America to take on more authority in enforcing immigration laws. The idea centers around expanding the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) 287(g) program, a collaboration between ICE and state or local law enforcement. This move could lead to massive deportation efforts starting from day one of Trump’s next term. The 287(g) program, which has been around since 1996, lets ICE partner with local law enforcement to identify and detain individuals suspected of being in the country illegally—particularly those who are already incarcerated for other crimes. Under Trump’s plan, local deputies would have the power to question and detain individuals suspected of being undocumented while performing their routine duties, but only after they’ve been arrested for other criminal charges. One of the loudest voices supporting this move is Butler County, Ohio, Sheriff Richard Jones, who’s eager to rejoin the program after losing access to it under President Biden’s administration. Jones told Fox News, “We could actually go to the workplace and enforce immigration laws… This President took it all away from all the sheriffs across the country.” Sheriff Jones is passionate about bringing back the powers granted under 287(g) to help crack down on illegal immigration, especially in workplaces where undocumented immigrants are often exploited. He explained, “We were trained, we had the certification, and President Biden’s administration took it all away from us. We’re gonna get that back. We’ve been in contact with ICE.” The sheriff’s proposal is not just about enforcement; it’s about efficiency. Jones argues that involving local law enforcement—over 3,300 sheriff’s departments across the country—could make deportation efforts more manageable than relying on thousands of local police departments. He continued, “It’s easier to deal with one local law enforcement in each county than it is with thousands and thousands of police departments.” Sheriff Jones also believes the 287(g) program can help alleviate some of the challenges ICE faces with deportation efforts. “When you start going out and enforcing and apprehending people that are here illegally, and enforcing the laws where people work in these factories illegally… we’ve got citizens coming to us with information,” he said. Jones highlighted how communities are eager for help, and by involving local law enforcement, deportation efforts can be more widespread and thorough. But what exactly is the 287(g) program, and why does it matter? The program was first introduced under President Bill Clinton and became part of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It allows ICE to work closely with local and state police to identify and remove noncitizens who are incarcerated for crimes. The goal is to ensure that criminal noncitizens are not only incarcerated but also deported once their sentence is served. For years, the program was a powerful tool in the fight against illegal immigration, but during the Biden administration, it was scaled back significantly. This left many local sheriffs, like Jones, frustrated with their inability to contribute to federal efforts. Trump’s push for a bigger role for local law enforcement in immigration enforcement represents a direct challenge to the current administration’s approach. If this new expansion of the 287(g) program is implemented, it could significantly alter the landscape of immigration enforcement in America. Local sheriffs would play a larger role in targeting suspected illegal immigrants, particularly in communities where they have more direct access...... Trump’s plan to empower local sheriffs through the 287(g) program is an ambitious step toward his larger goal of mass deportation. With figures like Sheriff Jones advocating for the return of these powers, it’s clear that many local law enforcement officials are ready to take a stronger stance on illegal immigration.........

https://imgur.com/hTXKL8Q.gif

https://imgur.com/3m8TicF.gif https://imgur.com/4F6nbS9.gif https://imgur.com/8HaR1LB.gif



Unleash the Bounty Hunters!
America is for Americans!

..




https://i.imgur.com/E1ryQOY.gif




..

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

..

Local sheriffs seen playing key role in mass deportation plan:
Homan warns sanctuary mayors


Source:      World Tribune    
Quote:

A large number of America’s sheriffs see President-elect Donald Trump’s victory as a mandate to get tough on illegal immigration. “Many conservative sheriffs across the U.S., from Texas to California to redder swaths of the northeast, now stand ready to be force multipliers for ICE and its 6,000 agents,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 28. Tom Homan / C-SPAN Chuck Jenkins, the longtime Republican sheriff in Maryland’s Frederick County, where voters went for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, said he is willing support Trump’s immigration policies “100%.” “I want to do more, within the law,” the Journal cited Jenkins as saying............

..

Democrats to deploy plan A: All sheriffs supporting Trump will now have sexual misconduct allegations alledgedly from 1986.

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img641/9394/yawnr.gif

https://youtu.be/UC8Zd7Fenzk?si=yh_hDtsTULqrMbpA

Then when no illegals are left lawns don’t get mowed, pools don’t get tested/adjusted, houses, offices etc don’t get cleaned etc etc etc. Inflation jumps a couple points.

Panther wrote on Dec 6^th, 2024 at 12:11pm:

.. Local sheriffs seen playing key role in mass deportation plan: Homan warns sanctuary mayors Source:      World Tribune     Quote: A large number of America’s sheriffs see President-elect Donald Trump’s victory as a mandate to get tough on illegal immigration. “Many conservative sheriffs across the U.S., from Texas to California to redder swaths of the northeast, now stand ready to be force multipliers for ICE and its 6,000 agents,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 28. Tom Homan / C-SPAN Chuck Jenkins, the longtime Republican sheriff in Maryland’s Frederick County, where voters went for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, said he is willing support Trump’s immigration policies “100%.” “I want to do more, within the law,” the Journal cited Jenkins as saying............ ..

Local law enforcement, is it? What does your beloved Constitution have to say about federal powers usurping state law, Panther?

I'm curious.

Round up the Usual Suspects ....

The world is over-populating - you can't just fill a country until it's standing room only... same as here...

https://p.potaufeu.asahi.com/9170-p/picture/27835253/b8551a849b826dcbcef773b88594eebb.jpg

FD wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 1:17am:

Panther wrote on Dec 6th, 2024 at 12:11pm: .. Local sheriffs seen playing key role in mass deportation plan: Homan warns sanctuary mayors Source:      World Tribune     Quote: A large number of America’s sheriffs see President-elect Donald Trump’s victory as a mandate to get tough on illegal immigration. “Many conservative sheriffs across the U.S., from Texas to California to redder swaths of the northeast, now stand ready to be force multipliers for ICE and its 6,000 agents,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 28. Tom Homan / C-SPAN Chuck Jenkins, the longtime Republican sheriff in Maryland’s Frederick County, where voters went for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, said he is willing support Trump’s immigration policies “100%.” “I want to do more, within the law,” the Journal cited Jenkins as saying............ .. Local law enforcement, is it? What does your beloved Constitution have to say about federal powers usurping state law, Panther? I'm curious.

Exact opposite, it’s the State supporting Federal law.
Nowhere does it say thar a State should not support Federal laws.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 2:50pm:

FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:17am: Panther wrote on Dec 6th, 2024 at 12:11pm: .. Local sheriffs seen playing key role in mass deportation plan: Homan warns sanctuary mayors Source:      World Tribune     Quote: A large number of America’s sheriffs see President-elect Donald Trump’s victory as a mandate to get tough on illegal immigration. “Many conservative sheriffs across the U.S., from Texas to California to redder swaths of the northeast, now stand ready to be force multipliers for ICE and its 6,000 agents,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 28. Tom Homan / C-SPAN Chuck Jenkins, the longtime Republican sheriff in Maryland’s Frederick County, where voters went for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, said he is willing support Trump’s immigration policies “100%.” “I want to do more, within the law,” the Journal cited Jenkins as saying............ .. Local law enforcement, is it? What does your beloved Constitution have to say about federal powers usurping state law, Panther? I'm curious. Exact opposite, it’s the State supporting Federal law. Nowhere does it say thar a State should not support Federal laws.

Yes Sir, but I'm asking Panther how the Feds can dictate the policies and procedures of local law enforcement. I'm wondering what the Constitution has to say about this.

I believe that Panther, as a staunch defender of state powers, will take issue with the expansion of federalism to such a degree. If I remember rightly, he was highly triggered when Sleepy Joe advised the governor of Texas to remove his man traps from federal land upon the border.

Never ever, Panther said. The state of Texas has every right in the world to defend its border from the invading illegals.

No, we said, we beg to differ. The federal Department of Homeland Security defends the US border, states can only say what goes on within their own jurisdictions.

No, Panther said, state rights, innit. Read your Constitution. The Feds have no right to trespass upon federal land and remove Texan booby traps.

Sorry, we said, did you say federal land?

Panther didn't answer that. Still, we distinctly remember his position towards the right of states to police their borders, administer their territory and command their own police forces.

A president may not make demands on local police, he said. No sir, never ever. Panther may even have made a reference to hell freezing over first.

The way Panther's been going, I'd say hell must be pretty cold by now.

You?

FD wrote on Dec 27^th, 2024 at 4:59pm:

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 2:50pm: FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:17am: Panther wrote on Dec 6th, 2024 at 12:11pm: .. Local sheriffs seen playing key role in mass deportation plan: Homan warns sanctuary mayors Source:      World Tribune     Quote: A large number of America’s sheriffs see President-elect Donald Trump’s victory as a mandate to get tough on illegal immigration. “Many conservative sheriffs across the U.S., from Texas to California to redder swaths of the northeast, now stand ready to be force multipliers for ICE and its 6,000 agents,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 28. Tom Homan / C-SPAN Chuck Jenkins, the longtime Republican sheriff in Maryland’s Frederick County, where voters went for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, said he is willing support Trump’s immigration policies “100%.” “I want to do more, within the law,” the Journal cited Jenkins as saying............ .. Local law enforcement, is it? What does your beloved Constitution have to say about federal powers usurping state law, Panther? I'm curious. Exact opposite, it’s the State supporting Federal law. Nowhere does it say thar a State should not support Federal laws. Yes Sir, but I'm asking Panther how the Feds can dictate the policies and procedures of local law enforcement. I'm wondering what the Constitution has to say about this. You?

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal laws and the Constitution are the "supreme Law of the Land" and take precedence over state laws. This means that state courts are bound by federal law, and state constitutions are subordinate to it.

Frank wrote on Dec 28^th, 2024 at 9:47am:

FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 4:59pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 2:50pm: FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:17am: Panther wrote on Dec 6th, 2024 at 12:11pm: .. Local sheriffs seen playing key role in mass deportation plan: Homan warns sanctuary mayors Source:      World Tribune     Quote: A large number of America’s sheriffs see President-elect Donald Trump’s victory as a mandate to get tough on illegal immigration. “Many conservative sheriffs across the U.S., from Texas to California to redder swaths of the northeast, now stand ready to be force multipliers for ICE and its 6,000 agents,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 28. Tom Homan / C-SPAN Chuck Jenkins, the longtime Republican sheriff in Maryland’s Frederick County, where voters went for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, said he is willing support Trump’s immigration policies “100%.” “I want to do more, within the law,” the Journal cited Jenkins as saying............ .. Local law enforcement, is it? What does your beloved Constitution have to say about federal powers usurping state law, Panther? I'm curious. Exact opposite, it’s the State supporting Federal law. Nowhere does it say thar a State should not support Federal laws. Yes Sir, but I'm asking Panther how the Feds can dictate the policies and procedures of local law enforcement. I'm wondering what the Constitution has to say about this. You? The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal laws and the Constitution are the "supreme Law of the Land" and take precedence over state laws. This means that state courts are bound by federal law, and state constitutions are subordinate to it.

It would depend on which juristiction filed the charges....It makes sense for local law enforcement  to enforce laws against illegal immmigrants....Trump needs to allocate more funds and resources to ensure other crimes are not neglected!!!

:) :) :)

Frank wrote on Dec 28^th, 2024 at 9:47am:

FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 4:59pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 2:50pm: FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:17am: Panther wrote on Dec 6th, 2024 at 12:11pm: .. Local sheriffs seen playing key role in mass deportation plan: Homan warns sanctuary mayors Source:      World Tribune     Quote: A large number of America’s sheriffs see President-elect Donald Trump’s victory as a mandate to get tough on illegal immigration. “Many conservative sheriffs across the U.S., from Texas to California to redder swaths of the northeast, now stand ready to be force multipliers for ICE and its 6,000 agents,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 28. Tom Homan / C-SPAN Chuck Jenkins, the longtime Republican sheriff in Maryland’s Frederick County, where voters went for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, said he is willing support Trump’s immigration policies “100%.” “I want to do more, within the law,” the Journal cited Jenkins as saying............ .. Local law enforcement, is it? What does your beloved Constitution have to say about federal powers usurping state law, Panther? I'm curious. Exact opposite, it’s the State supporting Federal law. Nowhere does it say thar a State should not support Federal laws. Yes Sir, but I'm asking Panther how the Feds can dictate the policies and procedures of local law enforcement. I'm wondering what the Constitution has to say about this. You? The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal laws and the Constitution are the "supreme Law of the Land" and take precedence over state laws. This means that state courts are bound by federal law, and state constitutions are subordinate to it.

Panther, is this correct? Can the White House take over county and state police departments?

We'll need your advice on this one if you don't mind. Frank is of the opinion that Sleepy Joe can order Greg Abbott around. Supremacy Clause, innit.

What does your Constitution have to say on the matter?

Cheers.

philperth2010 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2024 at 12:38pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 9:47am: FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 4:59pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 2:50pm: FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:17am: Panther wrote on Dec 6th, 2024 at 12:11pm: .. Local sheriffs seen playing key role in mass deportation plan: Homan warns sanctuary mayors Source:      World Tribune     Quote: A large number of America’s sheriffs see President-elect Donald Trump’s victory as a mandate to get tough on illegal immigration. “Many conservative sheriffs across the U.S., from Texas to California to redder swaths of the northeast, now stand ready to be force multipliers for ICE and its 6,000 agents,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 28. Tom Homan / C-SPAN Chuck Jenkins, the longtime Republican sheriff in Maryland’s Frederick County, where voters went for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, said he is willing support Trump’s immigration policies “100%.” “I want to do more, within the law,” the Journal cited Jenkins as saying............ .. Local law enforcement, is it? What does your beloved Constitution have to say about federal powers usurping state law, Panther? I'm curious. Exact opposite, it’s the State supporting Federal law. Nowhere does it say thar a State should not support Federal laws. Yes Sir, but I'm asking Panther how the Feds can dictate the policies and procedures of local law enforcement. I'm wondering what the Constitution has to say about this. You? The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal laws and the Constitution are the "supreme Law of the Land" and take precedence over state laws. This means that state courts are bound by federal law, and state constitutions are subordinate to it. It would depend on which juristiction filed the charges....It makes sense for local law enforcement  to enforce laws against illegal immmigrants....Trump needs to allocate more funds and resources to ensure other crimes are not neglected!!! :) :) :)

Here you go, Panther, Phil has a supplementary.

Phil, can you advise on how Mr Trump can allocate law enforcement funds without Congressional say so?

Next, can you explain how he can overturn all state laws, policies and procedures according to Panther"s beloved Constitution?

Cheers.

Quote:

Local Sheriffs to Enforce Immigration Laws

Sounds like someone worded Trump up to what a disaster this would be. Looks like a silly plan that nobody would expect to work.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 28^th, 2024 at 7:50pm:

Quote: Local Sheriffs to Enforce Immigration Laws Sounds like someone worded Trump up to what a disaster this would be. Looks like a silly plan that nobody would expect to work.

I don't see why not, Dnarever. Why won't all those silly Sanctuary Cities just defer to Panther's DL and give into his cunning plan?

Come come. There's no need for Congressional funds or secret powers or any of that nonsense. The leftards can just redeploy their boys in blue from fighting crime to hunting down illegals.

Great Replacement theory, innit. It may not happen overnight, Dnarever, but it will happen, no?

SEND THEM BACK !!!

Round 'em up .... and head 'em out!!

https://media.tenor.com/TrAT4cAT-ZQAAAAM/herding-the-cowboy-way.gif

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Dec 28^th, 2024 at 8:09pm:

Round 'em up .... and head 'em out!! https://media.tenor.com/TrAT4cAT-ZQAAAAM/herding-the-cowboy-way.gif

Kill them.

FD wrote on Dec 28^th, 2024 at 8:01pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 7:50pm: Quote: Local Sheriffs to Enforce Immigration Laws Sounds like someone worded Trump up to what a disaster this would be. Looks like a silly plan that nobody would expect to work. I don't see why not, Dnarever. Why won't all those silly Sanctuary Cities just defer to Panther's DL and give into his cunning plan? Come come. There's no need for Congressional funds or secret powers or any of that nonsense. The leftards can just redeploy their boys in blue from fighting crime to hunting down illegals. Great Replacement theory, innit. It may not happen overnight, Dnarever, but it will happen, no? SEND THEM BACK !!!

No the issue is those red states where an understaffed underpaid struggling Sheriff and his deputy will be expected to deport 1.2 million Illegals in their spare time. Realistically if they try to cut back on their road piracy their city will go broke.

The concept is flawed by design and it needs to fail in order to save the economy. It is likely flawed by design deliberately. These Sheriff's will deport 15 people and Trump will claim success the illegals will keep working the farms and factories and the economy is saved. Everyone wins. Except for Honesty the truth and integrity. All key Republican anti-values.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2024 at 2:12pm:

FD wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 8:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 7:50pm: Quote: Local Sheriffs to Enforce Immigration Laws Sounds like someone worded Trump up to what a disaster this would be. Looks like a silly plan that nobody would expect to work. I don't see why not, Dnarever. Why won't all those silly Sanctuary Cities just defer to Panther's DL and give into his cunning plan? Come come. There's no need for Congressional funds or secret powers or any of that nonsense. The leftards can just redeploy their boys in blue from fighting crime to hunting down illegals. Great Replacement theory, innit. It may not happen overnight, Dnarever, but it will happen, no? SEND THEM BACK !!! No the issue is those red states where an understaffed underpaid struggling Sheriff and his deputy will be expected to deport 1.2 million Illegals in his spare time. Realistically if they try to cut back on their road piracy their city will go broke. The concept is flawed by design and it needs to fail in order to save the economy. It is likely a flawed by design policy deliberately. These Sheriff's will deport 15 people and Trump will claim success the illegals will keep working the farms and factories and the economy is saved. Everyone wins. Except for Honest the truth and integrity. All key Republican anti-values.

Oh, I know. The Republicans aren't big fans.

Each to his own, no?

FD wrote on Dec 29^th, 2024 at 3:41pm:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 2:12pm: FD wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 8:01pm: Dnarever wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 7:50pm: Quote: Local Sheriffs to Enforce Immigration Laws Sounds like someone worded Trump up to what a disaster this would be. Looks like a silly plan that nobody would expect to work. I don't see why not, Dnarever. Why won't all those silly Sanctuary Cities just defer to Panther's DL and give into his cunning plan? Come come. There's no need for Congressional funds or secret powers or any of that nonsense. The leftards can just redeploy their boys in blue from fighting crime to hunting down illegals. Great Replacement theory, innit. It may not happen overnight, Dnarever, but it will happen, no? SEND THEM BACK !!! No the issue is those red states where an understaffed underpaid struggling Sheriff and his deputy will be expected to deport 1.2 million Illegals in his spare time. Realistically if they try to cut back on their road piracy their city will go broke. The concept is flawed by design and it needs to fail in order to save the economy. It is likely a flawed by design policy deliberately. These Sheriff's will deport 15 people and Trump will claim success the illegals will keep working the farms and factories and the economy is saved. Everyone wins. Except for Honesty the truth and integrity. All key Republican anti-values. Oh, I know. The Republicans aren't big fans. Each to his own, no?

Added Elmo's letter for the day - 'Y'.

FD wrote on Dec 28^th, 2024 at 6:56pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 9:47am: FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 4:59pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 2:50pm: FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:17am: Panther wrote on Dec 6th, 2024 at 12:11pm: .. Local sheriffs seen playing key role in mass deportation plan: Homan warns sanctuary mayors Source:      World Tribune     Quote: A large number of America’s sheriffs see President-elect Donald Trump’s victory as a mandate to get tough on illegal immigration. “Many conservative sheriffs across the U.S., from Texas to California to redder swaths of the northeast, now stand ready to be force multipliers for ICE and its 6,000 agents,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 28. Tom Homan / C-SPAN Chuck Jenkins, the longtime Republican sheriff in Maryland’s Frederick County, where voters went for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, said he is willing support Trump’s immigration policies “100%.” “I want to do more, within the law,” the Journal cited Jenkins as saying............ .. Local law enforcement, is it? What does your beloved Constitution have to say about federal powers usurping state law, Panther? I'm curious. Exact opposite, it’s the State supporting Federal law. Nowhere does it say thar a State should not support Federal laws. Yes Sir, but I'm asking Panther how the Feds can dictate the policies and procedures of local law enforcement. I'm wondering what the Constitution has to say about this. You? The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal laws and the Constitution are the "supreme Law of the Land" and take precedence over state laws. This means that state courts are bound by federal law, and state constitutions are subordinate to it. Panther, is this correct? Can the White House take over county and state police departments? We'll need your advice on this one if you don't mind. Frank is of the opinion that Sleepy Joe can order Greg Abbott around. Supremacy Clause, innit. What does your Constitution have to say on the matter? Cheers.

What IS wrong with you, pantaloon sniffer?

Federal law takes precedent over state law in every federation. In the US, Oz, Germany, Canada.

Immigration is a federal responsibility in each case.

What the bloody hell are you grimacingabout idiotically this time?

Do some expressive tapdancing and Pakistani ululation for us.

Frank wrote on Dec 29^th, 2024 at 6:03pm:

FD wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 6:56pm: Frank wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 9:47am: FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 4:59pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 2:50pm: FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:17am: Panther wrote on Dec 6th, 2024 at 12:11pm: .. Local sheriffs seen playing key role in mass deportation plan: Homan warns sanctuary mayors Source:      World Tribune     Quote: A large number of America’s sheriffs see President-elect Donald Trump’s victory as a mandate to get tough on illegal immigration. “Many conservative sheriffs across the U.S., from Texas to California to redder swaths of the northeast, now stand ready to be force multipliers for ICE and its 6,000 agents,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 28. Tom Homan / C-SPAN Chuck Jenkins, the longtime Republican sheriff in Maryland’s Frederick County, where voters went for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, said he is willing support Trump’s immigration policies “100%.” “I want to do more, within the law,” the Journal cited Jenkins as saying............ .. Local law enforcement, is it? What does your beloved Constitution have to say about federal powers usurping state law, Panther? I'm curious. Exact opposite, it’s the State supporting Federal law. Nowhere does it say thar a State should not support Federal laws. Yes Sir, but I'm asking Panther how the Feds can dictate the policies and procedures of local law enforcement. I'm wondering what the Constitution has to say about this. You? The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal laws and the Constitution are the "supreme Law of the Land" and take precedence over state laws. This means that state courts are bound by federal law, and state constitutions are subordinate to it. Panther, is this correct? Can the White House take over county and state police departments? We'll need your advice on this one if you don't mind. Frank is of the opinion that Sleepy Joe can order Greg Abbott around. Supremacy Clause, innit. What does your Constitution have to say on the matter? Cheers. What IS wrong with you, pantaloon sniffer?

I see. Don't want to say, eh?

Panther? The old boy appears to have gone all shy.

You?

Frank wrote on Dec 29^th, 2024 at 6:03pm:

FD wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 6:56pm: Frank wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 9:47am: FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 4:59pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 2:50pm: FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:17am: Panther wrote on Dec 6th, 2024 at 12:11pm: .. Local sheriffs seen playing key role in mass deportation plan: Homan warns sanctuary mayors Source:      World Tribune     Quote: A large number of America’s sheriffs see President-elect Donald Trump’s victory as a mandate to get tough on illegal immigration. “Many conservative sheriffs across the U.S., from Texas to California to redder swaths of the northeast, now stand ready to be force multipliers for ICE and its 6,000 agents,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 28. Tom Homan / C-SPAN Chuck Jenkins, the longtime Republican sheriff in Maryland’s Frederick County, where voters went for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, said he is willing support Trump’s immigration policies “100%.” “I want to do more, within the law,” the Journal cited Jenkins as saying............ .. Local law enforcement, is it? What does your beloved Constitution have to say about federal powers usurping state law, Panther? I'm curious. Exact opposite, it’s the State supporting Federal law. Nowhere does it say thar a State should not support Federal laws. Yes Sir, but I'm asking Panther how the Feds can dictate the policies and procedures of local law enforcement. I'm wondering what the Constitution has to say about this. You? The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal laws and the Constitution are the "supreme Law of the Land" and take precedence over state laws. This means that state courts are bound by federal law, and state constitutions are subordinate to it. Panther, is this correct? Can the White House take over county and state police departments? We'll need your advice on this one if you don't mind. Frank is of the opinion that Sleepy Joe can order Greg Abbott around. Supremacy Clause, innit. What does your Constitution have to say on the matter? Cheers. What IS wrong with you, pantaloon sniffer? Federal law takes precedent over state law in every federation. In the US, Oz, Germany, Canada. Immigration is a federal responsibility in each case. What the bloody hell are you grimacingabout idiotically this time? Do some expressive tapdancing and Pakistani ululation for us.

Quote:

take precedence over state laws.

Didn't the supreme court take Abortion away from federal and put it in staste. There are many laws that belong to the states.

Frank wrote on Dec 29^th, 2024 at 6:03pm:

FD wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 6:56pm: Frank wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 9:47am: FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 4:59pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 2:50pm: FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:17am: Panther wrote on Dec 6th, 2024 at 12:11pm: .. Local sheriffs seen playing key role in mass deportation plan: Homan warns sanctuary mayors Source:      World Tribune     Quote: A large number of America’s sheriffs see President-elect Donald Trump’s victory as a mandate to get tough on illegal immigration. “Many conservative sheriffs across the U.S., from Texas to California to redder swaths of the northeast, now stand ready to be force multipliers for ICE and its 6,000 agents,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 28. Tom Homan / C-SPAN Chuck Jenkins, the longtime Republican sheriff in Maryland’s Frederick County, where voters went for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, said he is willing support Trump’s immigration policies “100%.” “I want to do more, within the law,” the Journal cited Jenkins as saying............ .. Local law enforcement, is it? What does your beloved Constitution have to say about federal powers usurping state law, Panther? I'm curious. Exact opposite, it’s the State supporting Federal law. Nowhere does it say thar a State should not support Federal laws. Yes Sir, but I'm asking Panther how the Feds can dictate the policies and procedures of local law enforcement. I'm wondering what the Constitution has to say about this. You? The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal laws and the Constitution are the "supreme Law of the Land" and take precedence over state laws. This means that state courts are bound by federal law, and state constitutions are subordinate to it. Panther, is this correct? Can the White House take over county and state police departments? We'll need your advice on this one if you don't mind. Frank is of the opinion that Sleepy Joe can order Greg Abbott around. Supremacy Clause, innit. What does your Constitution have to say on the matter? Cheers. What IS wrong with you, pantaloon sniffer? Federal law takes precedent over state law in every federation. In the US, Oz, Germany, Canada. Immigration is a federal responsibility in each case. What the bloody hell are you grimacingabout idiotically this time? Do some expressive tapdancing and Pakistani ululation for us.

Quote:

Immigration is a federal responsibility

So it's not for local sheriffs to enforce?

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2024 at 10:55pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 6:03pm: FD wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 6:56pm: Frank wrote on Dec 28th, 2024 at 9:47am: FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 4:59pm: Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 2:50pm: FD wrote on Dec 27th, 2024 at 1:17am: Panther wrote on Dec 6th, 2024 at 12:11pm: .. Local sheriffs seen playing key role in mass deportation plan: Homan warns sanctuary mayors Source:      World Tribune     Quote: A large number of America’s sheriffs see President-elect Donald Trump’s victory as a mandate to get tough on illegal immigration. “Many conservative sheriffs across the U.S., from Texas to California to redder swaths of the northeast, now stand ready to be force multipliers for ICE and its 6,000 agents,” the Wall Street Journal reported on Nov. 28. Tom Homan / C-SPAN Chuck Jenkins, the longtime Republican sheriff in Maryland’s Frederick County, where voters went for Democrats in the last two presidential elections, said he is willing support Trump’s immigration policies “100%.” “I want to do more, within the law,” the Journal cited Jenkins as saying............ .. Local law enforcement, is it? What does your beloved Constitution have to say about federal powers usurping state law, Panther? I'm curious. Exact opposite, it’s the State supporting Federal law. Nowhere does it say thar a State should not support Federal laws. Yes Sir, but I'm asking Panther how the Feds can dictate the policies and procedures of local law enforcement. I'm wondering what the Constitution has to say about this. You? The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution establishes that federal laws and the Constitution are the "supreme Law of the Land" and take precedence over state laws. This means that state courts are bound by federal law, and state constitutions are subordinate to it. Panther, is this correct? Can the White House take over county and state police departments? We'll need your advice on this one if you don't mind. Frank is of the opinion that Sleepy Joe can order Greg Abbott around. Supremacy Clause, innit. What does your Constitution have to say on the matter? Cheers. What IS wrong with you, pantaloon sniffer? Federal law takes precedent over state law in every federation. In the US, Oz, Germany, Canada. Immigration is a federal responsibility in each case. What the bloody hell are you grimacingabout idiotically this time? Do some expressive tapdancing and Pakistani ululation for us. [quote]Immigration is a federal responsibility

So it's not for local sheriffs to enforce?[/quote]

We'd better seek legal advice. We'll ask our resident constitutional expert.

Panther, does your proud constitution task local sheriffs with locking up the invading hoards?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

FD wrote on Dec 29^th, 2024 at 11:23pm:

We'd better seek legal advice. We'll ask our resident constitutional expert. Panther, does your proud constitution task local sheriffs with locking up the invading hoards? A simple yes or no will suffice.

I'm not a legal expert or even close but I would think the local sheriffs would receive a request from the federal agency to apprehend subjects and then the feds collect them up from the lock up.

Leroy wrote on Dec 29^th, 2024 at 11:32pm:

FD wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 11:23pm: We'd better seek legal advice. We'll ask our resident constitutional expert. Panther, does your proud constitution task local sheriffs with locking up the invading hoards? A simple yes or no will suffice. I'm not a legal expert or even close but I would think the local sheriffs would receive a request from the federal agency to apprehend subjects and then the feds collect them up from the lock up.

I see. How would this request apply in Sanctuary Cities, Leroy?

Upon which grounds would local sheriffs detain them? They would be breaching their own state laws by LOCKING THEM UP.

Also, if we are to believe your DL, we're talking over 20 million women, children and men of military age (and that's a conservative estimate, believe me, I mean everybody's saying that). Where will local sheriffs LOCK THEM UP?

I think this one calls for a multiple, don't you?

a) In the Paddy Wagon with the tweakers and shoplifters
b) In the local jailhouse with the creeps and perps
c) In the local football stadium, razor-wired and electrified to prevent escape
d) In the house used to film the top-rating series, Celebrity Apprentice
e) In specially constructed maximum security detention centres contracted out to Elon's friends

When you're done with that, you'll need to answer this: which laws should local sheriffs break to LOCK THEM UP?

a) Local Sanctuary City ordinances
b) Habeas Corpus, wrongful arrest and kidnapping laws
c) The old boy's Supremacy Clause
d) Various treaties and international human rights agreements
e) The Constitution

We're still awaiting Panther's advice on E, dear, but do feel free to share your response.

FD wrote on Dec 30^th, 2024 at 11:13am:

Leroy wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 11:32pm: FD wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 11:23pm: We'd better seek legal advice. We'll ask our resident constitutional expert. Panther, does your proud constitution task local sheriffs with locking up the invading hoards? A simple yes or no will suffice. I'm not a legal expert or even close but I would think the local sheriffs would receive a request from the federal agency to apprehend subjects and then the feds collect them up from the lock up. I see. How would this request apply in Sanctuary Cities, Leroy? Upon which grounds would local sheriffs detain them? They would be breaching their own state laws by LOCKING THEM UP. Also, if we are to believe your DL, we're talking over 20 million women, children and men of military age (and that's a conservative estimate, believe me, I mean everybody's saying that). Where will local sheriffs LOCK THEM UP? I think this one calls for a multiple, don't you? a) In the Paddy Wagon with the tweakers and shoplifters b) In the local jailhouse with the creeps and perps c) In the local football stadium, razor-wired and electrified to prevent escape d) In the house used to film the top-rating series, Celebrity Apprentice e) In specially constructed maximum security detention centres contracted out to Elon's friends When you're done with that, you'll need to answer this: which laws should local sheriffs break to LOCK THEM UP? a) Local Sanctuary City ordinances b) Habeas Corpus, wrongful arrest and kidnapping laws c) The old boy's Supremacy Clause d) Various treaties and international human rights agreements e) The Constitution We're still awaiting Panther's advice on E, dear, but do feel free to share your response.

The incoming Trump official noted that the president-elect has put him in charge of the largest deportation effort ever planned and he intends to run some of that campaign right through Chicago.


“We’re going to start right here in Chicago, Illinois. If your Chicago mayor doesn’t want to help, he can step aside,” Homan warned. “But if he impedes us — if he knowingly harbors or conceals an illegal alien — I will prosecute him.”



Not complicated, paki.

Frank wrote on Dec 30^th, 2024 at 11:30am:

FD wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 11:13am: Leroy wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 11:32pm: FD wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 11:23pm: We'd better seek legal advice. We'll ask our resident constitutional expert. Panther, does your proud constitution task local sheriffs with locking up the invading hoards? A simple yes or no will suffice. I'm not a legal expert or even close but I would think the local sheriffs would receive a request from the federal agency to apprehend subjects and then the feds collect them up from the lock up. I see. How would this request apply in Sanctuary Cities, Leroy? Upon which grounds would local sheriffs detain them? They would be breaching their own state laws by LOCKING THEM UP. Also, if we are to believe your DL, we're talking over 20 million women, children and men of military age (and that's a conservative estimate, believe me, I mean everybody's saying that). Where will local sheriffs LOCK THEM UP? I think this one calls for a multiple, don't you? a) In the Paddy Wagon with the tweakers and shoplifters b) In the local jailhouse with the creeps and perps c) In the local football stadium, razor-wired and electrified to prevent escape d) In the house used to film the top-rating series, Celebrity Apprentice e) In specially constructed maximum security detention centres contracted out to Elon's friends When you're done with that, you'll need to answer this: which laws should local sheriffs break to LOCK THEM UP? a) Local Sanctuary City ordinances b) Habeas Corpus, wrongful arrest and kidnapping laws c) The old boy's Supremacy Clause d) Various treaties and international human rights agreements e) The Constitution We're still awaiting Panther's advice on E, dear, but do feel free to share your response. The incoming Trump official noted that the president-elect has put him in charge of the largest deportation effort ever planned and he intends to run some of that campaign right through Chicago. “We’re going to start right here in Chicago, Illinois. If your Chicago mayor doesn’t want to help, he can step aside,” Homan warned. “But if he impedes us — if he knowingly harbors or conceals an illegal alien — I will prosecute him.” Not complicated, paki.

Don't want to answer, eh?

Cunning. When you answer my question, wog, I might deign to answer yours.

Or I might just give you a yawn.

Either/or, no?

Frank wrote on Dec 30^th, 2024 at 11:30am:

The incoming Trump official noted that the president-elect has put him in charge of the largest deportation effort ever planned and he intends to run some of that campaign right through Chicago.

Did he clear that with Musk first? :D

FD wrote on Dec 30^th, 2024 at 4:48pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 11:30am: FD wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 11:13am: Leroy wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 11:32pm: FD wrote on Dec 29th, 2024 at 11:23pm: We'd better seek legal advice. We'll ask our resident constitutional expert. Panther, does your proud constitution task local sheriffs with locking up the invading hoards? A simple yes or no will suffice. I'm not a legal expert or even close but I would think the local sheriffs would receive a request from the federal agency to apprehend subjects and then the feds collect them up from the lock up. I see. How would this request apply in Sanctuary Cities, Leroy? Upon which grounds would local sheriffs detain them? They would be breaching their own state laws by LOCKING THEM UP. Also, if we are to believe your DL, we're talking over 20 million women, children and men of military age (and that's a conservative estimate, believe me, I mean everybody's saying that). Where will local sheriffs LOCK THEM UP? I think this one calls for a multiple, don't you? a) In the Paddy Wagon with the tweakers and shoplifters b) In the local jailhouse with the creeps and perps c) In the local football stadium, razor-wired and electrified to prevent escape d) In the house used to film the top-rating series, Celebrity Apprentice e) In specially constructed maximum security detention centres contracted out to Elon's friends When you're done with that, you'll need to answer this: which laws should local sheriffs break to LOCK THEM UP? a) Local Sanctuary City ordinances b) Habeas Corpus, wrongful arrest and kidnapping laws c) The old boy's Supremacy Clause d) Various treaties and international human rights agreements e) The Constitution We're still awaiting Panther's advice on E, dear, but do feel free to share your response. The incoming Trump official noted that the president-elect has put him in charge of the largest deportation effort ever planned and he intends to run some of that campaign right through Chicago. “We’re going to start right here in Chicago, Illinois. If your Chicago mayor doesn’t want to help, he can step aside,” Homan warned. “But if he impedes us — if he knowingly harbors or conceals an illegal alien — I will prosecute him.” Not complicated, paki. Don't want to answer, eh? Cunning. When you answer my question, wog, I might deign to answer yours. Or I might just give you a yawn. Either/or, no?

Oh? You had a question, paki?
Missed it among all that moronic grimacing and gibberish.

John Smith wrote on Dec 30^th, 2024 at 5:05pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 11:30am: The incoming Trump official noted that the president-elect has put him in charge of the largest deportation effort ever planned and he intends to run some of that campaign right through Chicago. Did he clear that with Musk first? :D

Hard to say, JS. Fwank, you see, disagrees with the very pwemise.

Rule of law, innit.

FD wrote on Dec 30^th, 2024 at 5:42pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 5:05pm: Frank wrote on Dec 30th, 2024 at 11:30am: The incoming Trump official noted that the president-elect has put him in charge of the largest deportation effort ever planned and he intends to run some of that campaign right through Chicago. Did he clear that with Musk first? :D Hard to say, JS. Fwank, you see, disagrees with the very pwemise. Rule of law, innit.

Ten rupee give him...


https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExaGt1NGNsdDdpODJicjYxdGoyeWZsb3FoZTJ0ZGxpZGJqNGl4MjNsNCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/3ohfFqNgHB0qOisfdu/giphy.gif

“Mass deportation” is a propaganda term that does not describe the detention and removal plans of the new administration, and it is not used by Trump or his representatives.


In contrast, the Trump administration’s plans are targeted. The focus, as Trump and his representatives continue to stress, will be on persons who already have an order of removal against them and on illegal aliens who have committed crimes. At Trump’s October 2024 rally at Madison Square Garden, which the Left condemned for its allegedly racist and fascistic themes, he promised to “launch the largest deportation program in American history to get the criminals out.”

More than 1 million people presently residing in the United States are subject to a final order of removal. These individuals include legal immigrants convicted of a crime who have lost their legal right to live here, others who violated their visa conditions, and illegal immigrants who were caught and brought before immigration courts. They have already gone through a process of review and appeal, and judges have ordered their deportation. The government knows who they are, and, as Homan explained, where they live. Arresting and removing this population is a matter of catching up on deferred adjudication. Its scale may be massive, but that doesn’t make it a “mass deportation.”

Activists and politicians may not want their constituencies to be deported. But the fact that illegal immigrants awaiting removal are here in large numbers is not a compelling argument not to deport them. Nor is deporting them a “mass” action in violation of due process. “Mass” is a term of art that the Left employs to deprecate legal action against favored groups. Proponents of public order shouldn’t use it.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-mass-deportation-illegal-immigration

Donald Trump’s promised crackdown on illegal migration is already biting across Asia, with India agreeing to take back potentially tens of thousands of citizens living unlawfully in the US, and authorities across the region on notice that refugee resettlements to America will be temporarily halted within days.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has reportedly agreed to the return of at least 18,000 illegal Indian migrants, and potentially many more yet to be identified, in the interests of avoiding a trade war and to maintain access to the H1B skilled migration visa program – of which Indian citizens account for close to 75 per cent.

Unemployment is on the rise in India; the jobless rate peaked at 9.2 per cent in June 2024 while youth joblessness was as high as 40 per cent. The Modi government has sought to address the issue through migration agreements with Japan, Saudi Arabia and Israel but can ill-afford to lose the lucrative skilled migration channel to the US – which in recent years has taken more than 200,000 Indians annually – should Mr Trump choose to target it as part of his migration crackdown.

Indians last year accounted for just 3 per cent of all unlawful crossings over US borders, though almost a quarter of all illegal crossings into the US from Canada were Indian citizens.

A 2024 Department of Homeland Security report cited by Bloomberg estimated 220,000 unauthorised Indian immigrants were living in the US as of 2022.