DOJ Suing NY Gov. Hochul, AG James Over Immigration Policies
“This is a new DOJ and we are taking steps to protect Americans…”
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the DOJ filed charges against New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James for not complying with federal immigration laws.
Bondi declared
We’re here today because we have filed charges against the state of New York. We have filed charges against Kathy Hochul. We have filed charges against Leticia James and Mark Schroeder, who is with DMV.
This is a new DOJ and we are taking steps to protect Americans, American citizens, and Angel Moms like the mom standing right behind me who you’re going to hear from in a moment.
New York has chosen to prioritize illegal aliens over American citizens.
It stops today.
“If you are a state not complying with federal law, you’re next,” added Bondi. “Get ready.”
BREAKING: @AGPamBondi announces the DOJ has filed charges against the State of New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul, AG Letitia James, and DMV Commissioner Mark Schroeder.
"New York has chosen to prioritize illegal aliens over American citizens. It stops — it stops TODAY." pic.twitter.com/YkKAPTdtyX
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) February 12, 2025
"President Trump has directed this to STOP," says @AGPamBondi after announcing action to hold New York and its officials accountable for violating federal immigration law.
"If you are a state not complying with federal law, you're next. Get ready." pic.twitter.com/t0CO9tHrxN
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) February 12, 2025
The DOJ filed the lawsuit against Illinois and Chicago last Thursday, citing the Illinois’ Trust Act, The Way Forward Act, and Chicago’s Welcoming City ordinance.
The DOJ claimed officials constructed those acts and ordinances to skirt around federal immigration laws:
“By refusing to honor civil detainers and warrants expressly authorized by Congress, Defendants have unlawfully eliminated these means for federal immigrations officials to carry out their statutory functions,” the complaint states.
The lawsuit specifically notes President Donald Trump’s recent signing of the Laken Riley Act, which requires the detention of unauthorized immigrants accused of theft and violent crimes.
Bondi stopped DOJ funding for 60 days to sanctuary places like New York and California.
The Center for Immigration Services discovered that New York City received over $1.56 billion in law enforcement grants in 2023.
New York City would have received $8 billion from the DOJ for “funding to city agencies” in 2025.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Just another civil suit? Or criminal “charges”? Civil suits just consume vast quantities of taxpayer dollars on both sides, politicians don’t pay personally and are never held accountable. Time for arrests, perp walks, mug shots and criminal trials.
Exactly. A timid action. This what we get with Republicans because they are afraid to act. When they get power they tend do little or nothing. Not so with the Democrats. Look at what they did to Trump at the state and federal levels. Look at what they did to the J6 protesters. Long sentences for mere trespass. How about bringing criminal charges against mayors and governors, not mere civil suits? I was always disappointed in Pam Bondi based on her helping frame George Zimmerman. I think we getting actions that are more symbolic than substantive. The judges will block Trump at every turn. He says he won’t defy the courts. Be prepared for some big disappointments.
What criminal charges? There are no criminal charges to be laid. Even the civil lawsuit is invalid and should be thrown out, but criminal charges?! What possible charges do you imagine could be laid, and against whom? What crime have any of these defendants committed?
Are you *insane* Mr. Milhouse?
Federal law says *Criminals get detainers*. If they local authorities aren’t doing that, they are in violation of the law*.
The Supremacy act does not care if it is a state actor or a federal actor. You *do* it.
Even if federal law could compel states to detain people, which it can’t, failure to do so would still not be a crime. Do you have any idea what the word “crime” means?
I’m guessing you mean the supremacy clause, not the “Supremacy Act”. All it means is that valid federal laws override state laws. But congress can’t make laws compelling states to do things, and it also can’t make failure to detain someone a crime.
An ICE detainer is a request, not an order. States that care about the immigration crisis are happy to fulfill the request; states that care more about looking good to the woke crowd exercise their constitutional right to decline the request.
Hey Milhouse, there is a criminal charge that could be placed upon every Governor, Mayor or City Council Member that plays the sanctuary game! 8USC s1342. which makes it a Federal Crime to harbor an illegal alien, and if you delve into the punishment section if the actions of harboring result in death of any person, the punishment can and should be the death penalty…8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(iv) “in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.”
Oh I dunno, accessory to murder? Their policies of shielding and releasing violent criminal illigal aliens IS leading directly to the killing of Americans. So it is time these politicians whos policies lead to the deaths of their citizens accountable:
It’s very well established that the government has no duty to prevent any specific crime, and is not liable for crimes committed due to lax policies.
Certainly no individual officer can be liable, even civilly, let alone criminally, for the outcome of that officer properly obeying state law or policy.
But,…..the government does have a duty to prosecute crimes
It’s truly one of life’s mysteries that a Google Lawyer, who has never filed a Court Brief, knows more about Law than the Attorney General of the United States. A woman who is a 30 plus year career Prosecutor and former State Attorney General. A woman who has real litigation experience. A woman who has dealt with questions of Federalism. A woman who has tons of subject matter experts in the Department of Justice to rely upon.
Go Figure. Perhaps this Google Lawyer is one of those Doge wonder kids??? What worries me is that the constant hyper-posting on a thread leaves the Google Lawyer open to charges of being a thin skinned Didactic Dilettante .
If past history is a guide, the Google Lawyer will no doubt post an ad-holmium screed below, because the legal dabbler can’t resist.
I’m not claiming she doesn’t know the law. I’m claiming she knows the law and is deliberately spitting on it because she doesn’t care. That makes her just as bad as the illegal aliens. And just as bad as 0bama or Biden.
The citizens of New York State should have sued long ago.
No. NY voters are not victims. They ELECTED the politicians who promised to bring about the current state of affairs in NY. The NY voters should have been heavily TAXED by their legislators to pay the costs of their virtue signaling.
Like Hell they aren’t victims. Those who voted for the liberals and Leftists who have made the state a “sanctuary” are certainly to blame in part, but all the citizens are victims.
They should be pursuing multiple tracks to pressure and eventually halt the blue jurisdictions ‘sanctuary’ nonsense. Legal challenges are one. In March when the current budget runs out then funding across the board for sanctuary jurisdictions can be revised. The current funding can’t be cancelled but the Feds are under no obligation to continue it indefinitely nor prohibited from attaching conditions but will need Congressional cooperation.
I would suggest using the pressure point of joint Federal LEO TF. Current practice is often to deputize State/local LEO as US Marshall. Instead DoJ should require them to deputize as ICE instead. That would require these LEO to work more cooperatively with deportation efforts as a duty. The Jurisdiction could always refuse to allow their LEO to do so but that would eliminate funding and the other benefits of gaining a Federal LEO cloak for their actions.
They will need Congress, because the executive branch alone cannot impose any conditions whatsoever on federal funding to the states. But even Congress can’t impose conditions on funding that the states can’t afford to refuse. So yes, they are required to continue funding indefinitely, unless they cut it to all states regardless of whether they cooperate with ICE. If they make the funding available to any state that cooperates with ICE, and the amount is so big that states have no choice but to fall in line, then it is unconstitutional.
Respectfully, that’s not the case. Congress can attach conditions on spending that are not onerous and that don’t commandeer the State. Cooperation with Federal Law Enforcement is none of those.
The federal highway trust fund precedent is really not on point. It has limited application IMO b/c the funds in question were taxes collected within the State specifically for transportation, sent to DC, then returned to the State for transportation. In that instance the CT recognized that the Feds were, in essence, holding that State’s own funds hostage. Big difference between that and attaching conditions to purely federal funding. Finally the Congress can absolutely cut funding as they see fit. To argue otherwise is to invalidate Art 1 appropriation power rendering the US Congress subordinate to a single State and effectively bringing the taxpayers of the other 49 States into a degree of perpetual, compulsory servitude of that single State.
Enforced cooperation with federal law enforcement is commandeering. So the courts have ruled for over two centuries.
No, they were not the state’s funds. They were federal taxes, and thus belonged entirely to the federal government, to do whatever it liked with them. The reason the cut would have been struck down had it been so large as to compel the state, had nothing to do with the funds’ origin. It was entirely because when Congress attaches conditions to funding that a state depends on, and the state has no option but to comply with the condition, that violates the tenth amendment.
As for Congress’s Article 1 appropriation power, it is subject to the tenth amendment. Like all amendments, it overrides anything that was in the constitution before it was ratified, and that contradicts it.
Congress can still end a program entirely, and deal with the blowback. What it can’t do is use its appropriation power to compel states to do its bidding. It can persuade, but not compel. That’s the essence of S Dakota v Dole.
But also see Section 3 of the first 0bamacare decision, some organization v Sibelius. Congress provided that states that didn’t establish exchanges would lose their Medicare funding; the Court said no, Congress can’t do that. States have a right to refuse to establish exchanges, and while Congress can use its funding power to persuade them, it can’t use it to compel them.
They ain’t trying to get NY to send ordinary beat cops to round up illegal aliens. THAT would be commandeering and I agree not permissible….absent something like my proposal to deputize local LEO as ICE agents instead of as US Marshall for Joint Federal/Local Joint law Enforcement Task Force.
Part of what the Feds want is access to DMV records, arrest records and other data. Those two are things ain’t onerous or commandeering. The.State/Local govt collect, store, use and share data with Federal agencies on all sorts of things. The State can’t simply declare they won’t grant access to database, that’s the same as blocking ICE access to a jail.
The Feds also want an end to the ‘tip off’ provisions where if ICE makes inquiry about X the State of NY contacts X to inform that illegal alien about ICE inquiry. That’s a violation on the part of NY State. It seems at face value in conflict with Federal statutes at minimum and the Supremacy Clause would seem to control.
The Medicare case is also not on point here. Just as with the Highway funding case these are both:
1. Special Trust Fund Monies
2. Raised from specific additional taxes
3. Authorized for a specific purpose
4.. Collected largely within a State and returned to States by Federal govt based on a Congressionally mandated formula based in part on the population of the State
Neither of these cases were about purely discretionary programs nor General Revenue funds authorized, collected and spent for General purposes.
That’s nonsense.
Congress has authorized trillions to executive branch agencies to dole out pretty much however they pleased, so long as they were within the very broad parameters set by Congress.
Those agencies then set requirements for the States and local authorities that they must meet in order to qualify for the grant $$.
“No Child Left Behind” was a good example of this. Dept of Ed would only dole out the $$ to jurisdictions that could demonstrate they were adopting the federal standards.
Ditto for federal grant $$ to police departments. The conditions for getting it are set by the executive branch agencies.
Congress hardly ever gets specific about any of this.
The discretion rests entirely with the federal executive agencies.
Oh, and the Courts have consistently deferred to the agencies.
1. That was new funding, so obviously no state can claim that it can’t afford to turn it down. It’s been doing fine without that funding till now; now Congress is offering new money if you do as it asks, so states are obviously completely free to choose whether to accept the money and fulfill the conditions Congress made, or turn it down and not do so.
With existing funding, as in the highway funding in S Dakota v Dole, or the Medicare funding in NFIB v Sibelius, the state has become dependent on it, and has built it in to its budgeting, so Congress is not allowed to use it to compel states to do its bidding. It can only threaten noncompliant states with cuts small enough that they’re left with a real choice whether to comply or to absorb the cut.
2. Congress must make the conditions. The executive cannot do so. And Congress must do so explicitly. In the case of NCLB Congress said the money would be given to states that adhered to the standards that the executive would define. The executive can define the standards, but only Congress can condition the funding on adherence to them.
Oh, and no, the courts have not deferred to agencies imposing conditions on state funding. On the contrary, they have ruled that only Congress can do that. Again, see the two cases I mentioned. Both make a point of noting that the conditions they discuss were made by Congress, and that otherwise they would not be valid. In one case the condition was upheld because the state could afford to decline; in the other case it was struck down because the states couldn’t afford to give up the money, so they would be unconstitutionally compelled to do as Congress wanted.
This lawsuit is blatantly unconstitutional and frivolous.
Congress has no authority to require the states to honor such detainers and warrants. The states have an absolute right, protected by the tenth amendment, to refuse to lift a finger to assist the federal government, or to do as Congress wishes them to. Any law purporting to require this of them is automatically invalid.
States, like everyone else, must comply with valid laws that Congress has made pursuant to its constitutional powers. But the tenth amendment prevents Congress from making a law compelling a state to do anything it doesn’t want to do. Specifically including demands to surrender persons.
They may not interfere with federal officials who have come to arrest someone, but they may not be compelled to cooperate. That means if ICE comes with a warrant for someone in custody, the police must allow ICE to enter the jail and arrest the person, just as you and I would be required to do that. But they do not have to assist the police in any way, but merely to stand aside and let them do their job.
This has been firmly established law for over two centuries, and it’s been reaffirmed regularly by court decisions, including the Supreme Court.
This is unconstitutional too, unless (1) Congress specifically authorized the cut in advance; AND (2) the cut is small enough that the state can afford to continue to refuse cooperation. If the cut is so big that the state has no choice but to comply with Congress’s wishes, then it is unconstitutional, and the feds must continue the funding even if Congress explicitly said not to.
See South Dakota v Dole on that specific point. Congress passed a law saying that any state that refused to raise the drinking age to 21 would have its highway funding cut by 5%. The Supreme Court upheld that law only because the amount S Dakota would lose was so small that it was left with a choice; it could raise the age and get the extra money, or it could refuse and accept the slightly lower funding. But the court explicitly said that had the cut been larger it would have been unconstitutional.
Now I challenge anyone to distinguish that case from this one. Where is the statute explicitly saying that sanctuary cities lose funding, and even if you can find one (which I don’t think you can), how can cutting all law enforcement funding possibly be affordable?
Remember that the statute must be explicit. It cannot be an indirect reference from one place to another, such as the funding law saying “subject to the state obeying all laws”, and then there’s another law saying it must honor detainers. That doesn’t work, not only because the law requiring it to honor detainers is invalid, but also because it’s not explicitly referenced in the funding law.
Lots and lots of words. Are you an attorney specializing in Federal and/or Constitutional law? I would consider Attorney General Bondi to be more familiar with the law and its intricacies than a keyboard warrior on a blog. Let’s see what happens before we tell the world it can’t be done.
.
The law is the law, and Bondi seems to be violating it. If she knows the law then she seems to be deliberately violating. it.
Yes, well, maybe – just maybe – she knows things that we don’t know.
.
The Supremacy act says *otherwise*.
That’s the second time you’ve referred to a “Supremacy Act”. The first time I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Doing it a second time shows you have no idea what you’re talking about.
There is of course no such thing as a “Supremacy Act”, and there couldn’t be, since no statute can override the constitution. There is a supremacy clause in the constitution, but obviously it doesn’t give Congress any extra powers, and in any case doesn’t override the tenth amendment.
No, she is not. You sure spend a lot of words saying nothing. I’m beginning to believe you just like to read yourself on the screen while talking down to everyone.
Have you not met Justice Millhouse before? He knows everything about everything worth know and has a brain the size of a large planet so incomprehensibly big that mere mortals like you cannot hope to comprehend the size of that brain
Then explain how this is different from all the dozens of cases over two centuries in which the courts have consistently rejected any right by Congress to compel the states.
Explain how ICE is different from the slave catchers the federal government authorized to enforce the Fugitive Slave laws, and yet could not compel the states to cooperate with them. Explain how it’s different from Prohibition, which many states refused to enforce and could not be compelled to. Explain how it’s different from the Brady Act’s attempt to require states to run background checks on gun buyers until the NICS could be set up, an attempt that was struck down on exactly the same grounds the sanctuary states are relying on. Explain how it’s different from the 0bamacare exchanges that Congress tried to compel the states to establish.
He’s not an attorney at all. He just pretends to be one for e-cred.
Milhouse is a demotivational agent.
He is here to defend the actions of the left by showing us how wrong defying the left is.
He does this in such a way that we are always, sadly of course, poor deluded people wrongly fighting against the regretably leftward march of history.
Really, he exhorts, there’s nothing we can do, let’s just try to make the best of it in defeat.
He has gotten particularly weasely since the Democrats failed to steal another election in November.
Most of the money that the congress has set aside for the DOJ to provide funding for local law enforcement comes in the form of discretionary grants. The majority of them are not guaranteed money for state agencies. They almost always come with a list of conditions.
Have you read the lawsuit? It seems that it’s been filed already. I generally wait for one of the court monitoring bots to publish it online for free.
>”blatantly unconstitutional and frivolous”
If I had a dollar every-time I’ve heard an asst. DA argue to the bench using the words “blatant” and “frivolous”. Why I’d be richer than a USAID grant recipient!
I think that the litigation will ultimately turn on the impediments and obstacles that the State of NY has put in the path of DHS and ICE trying to do their jobs.
History seldom exactly repeats itself, otherwise it would be directly-on-point precedent, the judge would issue a ruling, and we’d go directly to the places where local legal professionals are known to congregate for intellectual stimulation before going home.
It’s conceivable that The Rhenquist “not overly coercive” test of SoDak v. Dole might even be a historically rhyming footnote in the DOJ’s argument. We shall see.
I look forward to reading it tomorrow.
The trouble is, New York State did not merely refuse to enforce immigration laws. The state facilitated the presence of illegal aliens.
1. No, it didn’t. On the contrary, it’s Texas that did that.
2. In any case, there is no law against that.
So, providing food and housing to illegals didn’t facilitate their presence within the state? Aiding and abetting criminal behavior is not against the law? What are you smoking???
My understanding is that these progressive jurisdictions are doing catch-and-release with illegal immigrant felons precisely because so they won’t have to deny ICE entry to prisons or anything similar. They interfere by keeping the sought-after individuals away from ICE. I would think that if the DOJ found that they were taking deliberate action to play keep-away, that would be the same as refusing to respect a warrant.
No, it would not. The state is under no obligation to detain someone if it doesn’t want to. That is not interference with ICE. ICE remains completely free to arrest any illegal alien, when and where it finds them.
The only way it would be interference is if a state official knew that ICE was looking for someone and deliberately helped that person evade ICE, e.g. by hiding in an office, or by letting the person out of a side exit that ICE didn’t know about. But no official in any sanctuary city or state has ever done that. Not even once. In all the 40+ years that sanctuary cities/states have been in operation, there has not been even one case. That proves that it’s simply not happening. Sanctuary jurisdictions are training their officers correctly, not to help ICE but not to interfere.
Milhouse,
I am not necessarily going to argue with you here because I am not as familiar with the cases you are using to justify your position.
However, the nation’s borders are not a state responsibility are they? Further, do people become citizens of individual states, or do they have to become American citizens to live here?
The case is IMO the facts are that the Federal government is trying to collect people who not legally allowed in the country so they can be deported. Some of them are criminals with convictions for crimes in this country. Since states cannot make people American citizens, the states do have a responsibility not to interfere in Federal responsibilities.
In these cases, your position is (in essence) that states can house and protect illegal aliens from the Federal Government, making them in essence US Citizens. The states of Illinois and New York have said that they will treat illegal aliens with no rights to be in the country as citizens of the US.
This is madness. In issues of Federal law jurisdiction, you are in essence saying states can give a double middle finger at the Federal government because money for certain purposes (i.e law enforcement) has to be given to states by statute. Really?
It seems quite clear to me that money can be impounded for a length of time, and then if a state does not comply in a certain time, a future budget can zero out the line item, or limit the funds to states that comply with Federal law. As I understand the 10th Amendment it doesn’t say that a state can act like a foreign country when they do not like what the Federal government is doing. .
No sanctuary state or city is protecting illegal aliens from ICE. They are merely refusing to help ICE. ICE is free to search for them and to detain them where it finds them, but it must do so without any help from these states or cities.
In 40+ years that these sanctuaries have been around, there has never been a case of an official of one of them breaking the law by assisting an illegal alien to evade arrest. If it were happening there’d be cases, and we’d all have heard of them. When a Massachusetts judge did so it made the headlines and we all knew about it. But MA is not a sanctuary state. So if sanctuary state/city officials were doing it we’d know about them too. We don’t, so they’re not doing it.
You claim: ” If it were happening there’d be cases, and we’d all have heard of them.” This is incorrect. It’s much like voter fraud, the system is set up to make it exceedingly difficult to prove.
Who is the heavy girl to Pam’s right, wearing the sweater? Secret Service?
I’d love to help her take that sweater off and play with her “arms” and other stuff, too.
Put the drink down.
.
Didn’t Pam say she was an Angel Mom?
Coincidentally, when I saw that photo, my first thought was that it was the Republican version of the traditional Democrat “all chicks” shot (like Michelle Wu’s or Maura Healy’s). The Republican Charlie’s Angels.
One last point, If I want to go to England this summer, and I do not have a passport, visa, or even legit identification, then its perfectly fine to go to England and mooch off the population, correct? In fact, that is happening over there too.
So, let’s posit that UK Reform kicks out the Labor Party (please God, make it so), and decides that all these illegals, including me, are going to be deported. Even in a place like England no smaller governmental unit has the ability to say ‘no, this person and the other illegals here are perfectly able to stay no matter what the King’s government demands.’
Really?
In the USA, states are not “smaller governmental units”. They are the constituent sovereigns whose union makes up the “united states”. “The united states of America” is a plural, not a singular.
The constitution protects the states’ rights against the union, and one of the rights it protects is that the union cannot tell states what to do. It can ask, it can persuade, but it cannot compel. It can forbid states from doing things, but cannot require them to do things.
And especially it cannot require them to cooperate with its own officials, or to enforce its laws. All it can do is forbid them from interfering with federal law enforcement. They retain the right to stand aside, neither interfering nor assisting.
Bondi needs to slap some form of Consent Decree from the state and the city
Did you notice that word, “consent”? What does it mean?
“All it can do is forbid them from interfering with federal law enforcement. They retain the right to stand aside, neither interfering nor assisting.”
Are not some of these state laws impediments to federal duties? Interfering with federal law enforcement? What if the state alerts illegal immigrants to move to prevent detainment?
A state, like anyone else, is free to broadcast publicly available information. That cannot be illegal.
So you must mean a case where an officer of the state has specific information, e.g. about a raid, and tips the targets off to escape. That would be a crime, but no officer of any sanctuary jurisdiction has ever done that. Someone in the FBI apparently did that just recently, but the FBI is of course not a sanctuary jurisdiction!
I have observed the law is whatever a judge and/or a jury says it to be, not what a lawmaker says they meant it to be. Therefore anyone can be in violation of any law regardless of the facts.
What lawmakers say they meant is irrelevant. The law does not depend on anyone’s intentions. It can only mean what its text says, regardless of what the legislators thought they were doing, let alone what the drafters thought.
When a person reads a law he has to be on notice of what it requires of him. If the meaning depends on someone’s secret thoughts, to be revealed at some later stage, then he has no notice of what it requires.
Please do RI next.
Legal Insurrection is on the cusp of becoming a go to conservative blog. Good moderation is essential to the goal of becoming world class. I ask the moderators and blog owner to keep its comments pithy and informative while still providing contrasting views.
I appeal to the moderators to not permit “hyper-posting” by any one commenter. Posting that hijacks the comment section subvert the mission of a world class blog.
Please adopt a rule that limits the comments of any one poster to three or four posts. A look at the comments should not show it completely dominated by one poster. Courts often have rules that govern the number and length of briefs. So to should this blog. A poster should be able to make his or her point in three to four comments.
If, per chance, you are referring to Millhouse, I like reading his posts. I think he’s treated very poorly and unfairly considering what he contributes here, but that’s just my personal opinion.
It’s my opinion, too. Milhouse’s comments are generally thoughtful and well-reasoned, even when he’s saying things some readers don’t want to hear. I actively look for the little windmill, because I know it’s probably going to have something worthwhile, even if it may be something /I/ don’t want to hear. This whole debate over Bondi’s actions is a case in point. My first-pass instinct is along the lines of ‘Yes! Make them pay!’ but I’m also a very strong believer in states’ rights vis-a-vis fedgov and Milhouse has done a good job of explaining how that’s exactly what this is. goddamnit.
Agreed!
Such a rule would be absurd. Quotas of any sort are toxic and detrimental to everything they touch. If you don’t want to read more than X many posts by any given commenter, go for it, but please don’t expect the hosts of this (or any other well-run blog) to inflict your preferences on all their readers.
Every post that is responded to should be able to be answered by the person making the original post. If a series of posts are then made between the original person posting and one or more persons responding in a good faith, back and forth discussion that’s a GOOD thing. It illuminates the topic, brings out nuances or alternate ways of viewing the issues and increases understanding, even if only to better understand an opposing view.
NoNonsense, I respectfully disagree. We don’t need censorship on this site, at least not yet, and of course, excepting censorship of vile, gross, puerile or obscene language. There may be a time when one or two posters take up all (or too much of) our space but we are nowhere near that now.
I suspect that the object of your suggestion is Milhouse, who is often wrong but never in doubt. Please give him a break. He writes well and is occasionally educational, in an arrogant sort of way.
I’m in Massachusetts, which I am surprised to learn from Millhouse is not a sanctuary state, as the state appears to do much of what I would expect a sanctuary state does. We do have a law that appears to allow just about anyone to get state paid shelter, and therefore have experienced a great influx of migrants, a great number of which have entered the country illegally. And there was a billion dollars (or more) spent last year to support these people by the state government. And we have had notable crimes committed by some of these people.
For information about the Massachusetts judge, see the Nov. 17, 2022 Boston News 25 on line story. She (Judge Shelley Joseph) had a sidebar with the illegal immigrant’s defense lawyer and the D.A. with the court’s recording system turned off. The ICE officer was told he could not come in the courtroom, though the courtroom is open to the public under most circumstance, other than those not applicable here. It was arranged that the defense lawyer would meet the illegal alien who was before the court on a criminal charge downstairs. His criminal charges were dropped, and he went out a back door into the street while the ICE officer waited upstairs, unaware that the person he sought under the ICE detainer was leaving the courthouse through a back exit. The judge was indicted federally, but charges were dropped when she admitted to sufficient facts. She was then reinstated to active duty. She had been suspended during the pendency of the federal indictment.
I am a regular reader of this site. I don’t mind most comments by most people, including Millhouse. I find many of his comments interesting and helpful. I am a lawyer, but he seems more versed in federal law than I am. Without saying he is 100% right about today’s disagreements, I find his comments helpful but I think Pam Bondi may have some information indicating that some New York officials have done some things like the Massachusetts judge did, which I think, if true, could support action against New York for interference with Federal enforcement. I would be disappointed if Bondi is doing what she is doing just for show, as there are many things not just for show that need to be done. This is my first comment, so I will try to be less lengthy next time.
Please … what are the “charges”? I have yet to find clarification on Fox News or in this column. Criminal “charges” or some kind of civil “charge”?? I’m all in for making the likes of NY guv, NY so-called “attorney” general, IL guv and Chicago mayor defend their prioritization of aliens who illegally entered the USAS and/or illegally remain in the USA. But … what are the charges against the state of NY and 2 of its disgraceful elected officials??
If it’s not a crime to interfere with Feds who are carrying out lawful detainers it ought to be.
Also if you think of every illegal’s presence as an ongoing crime, it should also be a crime to aid and abet their continuing crime spree. Any help at all — food, cell phones, hotel rooms, assisting in evading law enforcement and on and on.
It’s just common sense. Prove me wrong.