Are "Sanctuary cities" constitutional?

[protectionist]

Sanctuary cities and states are obviously unconstitutional.

But in reality, the federal government cannot stop them.

Those sanctuary cities and states compare themselves to those places before the Civil War that refused to return runaway slaves, regardless of the law requiring them to do so.

President Trump has been trying to cut off federal funds to those sanctuary cities and states, but pro-sanctuary federal judges have stopped them.

And even if the Supreme Court rules them to be unconstitutional, they will refuse to obey the Supreme Court. They feel that they must obey their conscience.

Needless to say, when (not "if") the Dems get control of the executive branch again, this will become a sanctuary nation.

You can't fix stupid. There is no way to criminalize Liberty. That is your first problem.

Secondly, if you do an honest amount of research, you will find that who comes and goes within a state was left up to the states. The ONLY authority the federal government has relative to foreigners is naturalization. The Constitution says:

"The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Naturalization = citizenship.

Under your interpretation, the only way "in" for foreigners is to be on a pathway to citizenship. Liberty becomes a privilege instead of the unalienable Right the framers intended. Nonwhites, who have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to hate the whites and whites have been instilled with a false sense of guilt so they hate themselves are insuring that your prediction will be a self fulfilling prophecy.

The overwhelming majority of "legal" immigration (immigration = permanent residence, NOT guest workers) means more people to vote the posterity of the founders and framers out of existence.

Obviously, Trump has not changed that, so the Constitution obviously protects sanctuary cities. Ironically, the patriots and constitutionalists had this war won a couple of decades ago, before the left conned the right (Tom Sawyer style) and got dullards behind supporting laws that the Democrats passed.

What is your vested interest in illegal immigration ? No, we can't usually determine that, but when somebody is as cold obsessed with protecting illegals as you are, with or without all your Constitution yammering, there,s MONEY in it for them, somewhere, somehow.

With the lengthy list of vested interests who profits from illegal immigration, it's entirely easy to see you fitting right in.

Naturally, you'll deny any personal involvement, and laughably pretend to be all objective, but you can't prove that anymore than we can show where you fit in on the vested interest list (unless you slip up, and give it away).

As for "the ONLY authority that the federal government has relative to foreigners"...is as Constitution Article 6, Section 2, part 1 says - "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land."

And one of those "laws of the United States" is US Code 8, Section 1324, which criminalizes sanctuary cities.

My "vested interest" as you call it has nothing to do with nonexistent "illegals." I do have to commend you for finally asking a pertinent question. There are three things that you cannot get a handle on:

1) America was founded by white Christians with the prevailing attitude that America was the regathering spot for biblical Israelites. As such, our laws are built on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence. In the FIRST naturalization laws, only whites could be citizens of the United States:

http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1 stat 103.pdf

There is a sermon, first preached in 1630 by John Winthrop, and portions have been cited by U.S. statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. You need to read this as it pertains to our history and destiny:

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

2) Despite the fact that only whites were allowed to become citizens, people poured in from all over the world to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. According to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, referred to that document as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man."

You tend to conflate Liberty with the privileges of citizenship; hence, your bogus argument about "legal versus illegal aliens." The laws you continue to cite were put into place in order to restrict Liberty and force people to come here and seek citizenship. Such a strategy meant that people from every corner of the world got to come here equally, displacing the posterity of the founders. White people only number 1 in 13 of the world's population.

It is your "legal" immigrants that joined forces with Democrats to wage a subtle war of genocide against the posterity of the founders / framers. You cannot criminalize Liberty

3) Instead of returning to the laws of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, you demand more laws that make government bigger and more intrusive. You seem to be okay with giving America away provided we do so "legally" and, consequently, you demand strict adherence to unconstitutional laws, put into place to get rid of white people. You turn our future over to a Congress that is, has been and will be even more so controlled by Democrats. You demand more laws and more restrictions and even more control, thereby negating any possibility that the constitutionalists can resist tyranny in the future.

Those are the facts and bad strategies are costing us dearly. As pointed out to you, there are now pro-gun sanctuary cities popping up everywhere as the government begins to threaten us with Red Flag Gun Laws, confiscations, bans, registration, background checks, etc. on firearms. You are aiding and abetting criminals, Democrats, and traitors. I've leveled with you about my "vested interests" in this fight.

You can cite unconstitutional laws until Hell freezes over, but sheriffs had your little statute ruled unconstitutional and they could not be forced to enforce unconstitutional laws. The courts have ruled consistently for both sides. And, as someone who wants to retain his Rights, I support sanctuary cities. Scroll through this link to the section entitled Second Amendment Sanctuaries:

Virginia Citizens Defense League - Home

There, sir, you have my vested interest in protecting sanctuary cities. I'm wondering what your excuse is in defending Democrats and their legislation the way you do. I suspect it's because you do not understand the law, political strategies, political guerrilla warfare, or the psychology of warfare. I spent decades learning it and realize that most of your criticisms you make, aimed at me, are done so through abject ignorance.

At about the same point where I stopped reading your incoherent ravings, I noticed - US Code 8 Section 1324 is neither "little" nor is it mine. It is US law, belonging to the American people for protection from Loons like you .

And despite your laughable attempt to justify your defense of sanctuary cities, your vested interest still remains a question.

Here's a multiple choice, any of which you might be :

1. Illegal alien

2. Illegal employer

3. Spanish media owner/employee

4. Churches needing parishoners$$$

5. Unions needing members$$$

6. Ethnocentrist groups

7. Terrorists looking to commit terrorism.

8. Mexicans seeking remittance$$

9. Democrat seeking votes

So, with your limited reading capabilities, you have proven you don't pack the gear to be in a real conversation. The communists had a term for people that were easily led: useful idiots. They have you right where they want you.

I'm sorry that you didn't make it very far in school. Others, however, will see that your question was fully answered and IF there were anything to the irrelevant statute you cited (see the court rulings), something would have been over the last three years... unless Trump is playing you.

My "question" ? What question is that ?

Pretending that US Code 8, Section 1324 to be irrelevant, reveals something about you. You're afraid of it. It is a threat to you.

You won't reveal which of the items on the list of vested interests correlated with you, but no matter. You're one of those things, and you can keep blabbering, but it won't save your criminal ass. They'll get you yet. lol

As for what has or hasn't happened with 1324, politics is complicated. Just when you have gotten relaxed about something, the feds will be at your door.

Poor soul PR thinks he can talk his way out of this.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You can't fix stupid. There is no way to criminalize Liberty. That is your first problem.

Secondly, if you do an honest amount of research, you will find that who comes and goes within a state was left up to the states. The ONLY authority the federal government has relative to foreigners is naturalization. The Constitution says:

"The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Naturalization = citizenship.

Under your interpretation, the only way "in" for foreigners is to be on a pathway to citizenship. Liberty becomes a privilege instead of the unalienable Right the framers intended. Nonwhites, who have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to hate the whites and whites have been instilled with a false sense of guilt so they hate themselves are insuring that your prediction will be a self fulfilling prophecy.

The overwhelming majority of "legal" immigration (immigration = permanent residence, NOT guest workers) means more people to vote the posterity of the founders and framers out of existence.

Obviously, Trump has not changed that, so the Constitution obviously protects sanctuary cities. Ironically, the patriots and constitutionalists had this war won a couple of decades ago, before the left conned the right (Tom Sawyer style) and got dullards behind supporting laws that the Democrats passed.

What is your vested interest in illegal immigration ? No, we can't usually determine that, but when somebody is as cold obsessed with protecting illegals as you are, with or without all your Constitution yammering, there,s MONEY in it for them, somewhere, somehow.

With the lengthy list of vested interests who profits from illegal immigration, it's entirely easy to see you fitting right in.

Naturally, you'll deny any personal involvement, and laughably pretend to be all objective, but you can't prove that anymore than we can show where you fit in on the vested interest list (unless you slip up, and give it away).

As for "the ONLY authority that the federal government has relative to foreigners"...is as Constitution Article 6, Section 2, part 1 says - "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land."

And one of those "laws of the United States" is US Code 8, Section 1324, which criminalizes sanctuary cities.

My "vested interest" as you call it has nothing to do with nonexistent "illegals." I do have to commend you for finally asking a pertinent question. There are three things that you cannot get a handle on:

1) America was founded by white Christians with the prevailing attitude that America was the regathering spot for biblical Israelites. As such, our laws are built on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence. In the FIRST naturalization laws, only whites could be citizens of the United States:

http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1 stat 103.pdf

There is a sermon, first preached in 1630 by John Winthrop, and portions have been cited by U.S. statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. You need to read this as it pertains to our history and destiny:

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

2) Despite the fact that only whites were allowed to become citizens, people poured in from all over the world to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. According to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, referred to that document as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man."

You tend to conflate Liberty with the privileges of citizenship; hence, your bogus argument about "legal versus illegal aliens." The laws you continue to cite were put into place in order to restrict Liberty and force people to come here and seek citizenship. Such a strategy meant that people from every corner of the world got to come here equally, displacing the posterity of the founders. White people only number 1 in 13 of the world's population.

It is your "legal" immigrants that joined forces with Democrats to wage a subtle war of genocide against the posterity of the founders / framers. You cannot criminalize Liberty

3) Instead of returning to the laws of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, you demand more laws that make government bigger and more intrusive. You seem to be okay with giving America away provided we do so "legally" and, consequently, you demand strict adherence to unconstitutional laws, put into place to get rid of white people. You turn our future over to a Congress that is, has been and will be even more so controlled by Democrats. You demand more laws and more restrictions and even more control, thereby negating any possibility that the constitutionalists can resist tyranny in the future.

Those are the facts and bad strategies are costing us dearly. As pointed out to you, there are now pro-gun sanctuary cities popping up everywhere as the government begins to threaten us with Red Flag Gun Laws, confiscations, bans, registration, background checks, etc. on firearms. You are aiding and abetting criminals, Democrats, and traitors. I've leveled with you about my "vested interests" in this fight.

You can cite unconstitutional laws until Hell freezes over, but sheriffs had your little statute ruled unconstitutional and they could not be forced to enforce unconstitutional laws. The courts have ruled consistently for both sides. And, as someone who wants to retain his Rights, I support sanctuary cities. Scroll through this link to the section entitled Second Amendment Sanctuaries:

Virginia Citizens Defense League - Home

There, sir, you have my vested interest in protecting sanctuary cities. I'm wondering what your excuse is in defending Democrats and their legislation the way you do. I suspect it's because you do not understand the law, political strategies, political guerrilla warfare, or the psychology of warfare. I spent decades learning it and realize that most of your criticisms you make, aimed at me, are done so through abject ignorance.

At about the same point where I stopped reading your incoherent ravings, I noticed - US Code 8 Section 1324 is neither "little" nor is it mine. It is US law, belonging to the American people for protection from Loons like you .

And despite your laughable attempt to justify your defense of sanctuary cities, your vested interest still remains a question.

Here's a multiple choice, any of which you might be :

1. Illegal alien

2. Illegal employer

3. Spanish media owner/employee

4. Churches needing parishoners$$$

5. Unions needing members$$$

6. Ethnocentrist groups

7. Terrorists looking to commit terrorism.

8. Mexicans seeking remittance$$

9. Democrat seeking votes

So, with your limited reading capabilities, you have proven you don't pack the gear to be in a real conversation. The communists had a term for people that were easily led: useful idiots. They have you right where they want you.

I'm sorry that you didn't make it very far in school. Others, however, will see that your question was fully answered and IF there were anything to the irrelevant statute you cited (see the court rulings), something would have been over the last three years... unless Trump is playing you.

My "question" ? What question is that ?

Pretending that US Code 8, Section 1324 to be irrelevant, reveals something about you. You're afraid of it. It is a threat to you.

You won't reveal which of the items on the list of vested interests correlated with you, but no matter. You're one of those things, and you can keep blabbering, but it won't save your criminal ass. They'll get you yet. lol

As for what has or hasn't happened with 1324, politics is complicated. Just when you have gotten relaxed about something, the feds will be at your door.

Poor soul PR thinks he can talk his way out of this.

Are you that poor of a troll OR are you really that stupid?

Let us recap:

You've made false allegations that were proven to be false according to an attorney who works in the very area of law in dispute. Of the 1.35 million lawyers in America, you could not find one, single, solitary lawyer to agree with your position.

I'm not "pretending" a damn thing. The United States Supreme Court ruled that it is irrelevant for the purposes you stated. The feds are not screwing with the state and local governments on this issue. Trump has taken the matter to court and is expected to lose.

The section of law was irrelevant to the original disagreement you had with me. To continue to argue that point is fruitless for you. I almost feel sorry for you that you are unable to bullshit your way out of the hole you dug for yourself.

In post # 196, you opened with a question. In post # 198 you said you didn't read the answer. Now, you're asking me which of the points I have a vested interest.Now the answer is, read post # 197. That is still my answer.

It's pitiful watching you scramble around, trying to make yourself look good when the ONLY REPLIES between you and I are from a poster agreeing with my assessment. The rest is bickering between you and I because you made a challenge that once made, has been accepted and now you don't pack the gear to back up your end with.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

To all of you who want the straight skinny on this:

Many years ago there was a book called Tom Sawyer. In the book, Tom is painting a fence and all the other boys in his neighborhood were having a good old time. So, Tom pretends that he is having the time of his life, painting that fence. Before long, Tom is able to con other guys into doing his work.

Mark Twain was a master at using fiction to teach younger people a lesson. In the instant case, Tom Sawyer provides an example of how the the left conned the right into taking up their cause, but simply rephrased. protectionist has NOT denied that he agrees with Bill Clinton and I want to repeat Bill Clinton in his own words:



The powers that be on the left wing / liberal / Socialist / Communist / Democrat side of the fence conned the right into taking up the left's battle cry on the immigration (sic) debacle. The problem for the right is that the proposed solutions they settled for don't work. But, bless their hearts, the right keeps digging their own grave.

Those proposed solutions cost more than they promise to save; the proposed solutions take away individual Rights and empower the government; those proposed solutions make government so powerful that we cannot mount any defense against tyranny in government. Post # 197 illustrates the problem and I defer to it.

 

[protectionist]

What is your vested interest in illegal immigration ? No, we can't usually determine that, but when somebody is as cold obsessed with protecting illegals as you are, with or without all your Constitution yammering, there,s MONEY in it for them, somewhere, somehow.

With the lengthy list of vested interests who profits from illegal immigration, it's entirely easy to see you fitting right in.

Naturally, you'll deny any personal involvement, and laughably pretend to be all objective, but you can't prove that anymore than we can show where you fit in on the vested interest list (unless you slip up, and give it away).

As for "the ONLY authority that the federal government has relative to foreigners"...is as Constitution Article 6, Section 2, part 1 says - "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land."

And one of those "laws of the United States" is US Code 8, Section 1324, which criminalizes sanctuary cities.

My "vested interest" as you call it has nothing to do with nonexistent "illegals." I do have to commend you for finally asking a pertinent question. There are three things that you cannot get a handle on:

1) America was founded by white Christians with the prevailing attitude that America was the regathering spot for biblical Israelites. As such, our laws are built on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence. In the FIRST naturalization laws, only whites could be citizens of the United States:

http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1 stat 103.pdf

There is a sermon, first preached in 1630 by John Winthrop, and portions have been cited by U.S. statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. You need to read this as it pertains to our history and destiny:

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

2) Despite the fact that only whites were allowed to become citizens, people poured in from all over the world to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. According to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, referred to that document as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man."

You tend to conflate Liberty with the privileges of citizenship; hence, your bogus argument about "legal versus illegal aliens." The laws you continue to cite were put into place in order to restrict Liberty and force people to come here and seek citizenship. Such a strategy meant that people from every corner of the world got to come here equally, displacing the posterity of the founders. White people only number 1 in 13 of the world's population.

It is your "legal" immigrants that joined forces with Democrats to wage a subtle war of genocide against the posterity of the founders / framers. You cannot criminalize Liberty

3) Instead of returning to the laws of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, you demand more laws that make government bigger and more intrusive. You seem to be okay with giving America away provided we do so "legally" and, consequently, you demand strict adherence to unconstitutional laws, put into place to get rid of white people. You turn our future over to a Congress that is, has been and will be even more so controlled by Democrats. You demand more laws and more restrictions and even more control, thereby negating any possibility that the constitutionalists can resist tyranny in the future.

Those are the facts and bad strategies are costing us dearly. As pointed out to you, there are now pro-gun sanctuary cities popping up everywhere as the government begins to threaten us with Red Flag Gun Laws, confiscations, bans, registration, background checks, etc. on firearms. You are aiding and abetting criminals, Democrats, and traitors. I've leveled with you about my "vested interests" in this fight.

You can cite unconstitutional laws until Hell freezes over, but sheriffs had your little statute ruled unconstitutional and they could not be forced to enforce unconstitutional laws. The courts have ruled consistently for both sides. And, as someone who wants to retain his Rights, I support sanctuary cities. Scroll through this link to the section entitled Second Amendment Sanctuaries:

Virginia Citizens Defense League - Home

There, sir, you have my vested interest in protecting sanctuary cities. I'm wondering what your excuse is in defending Democrats and their legislation the way you do. I suspect it's because you do not understand the law, political strategies, political guerrilla warfare, or the psychology of warfare. I spent decades learning it and realize that most of your criticisms you make, aimed at me, are done so through abject ignorance.

At about the same point where I stopped reading your incoherent ravings, I noticed - US Code 8 Section 1324 is neither "little" nor is it mine. It is US law, belonging to the American people for protection from Loons like you .

And despite your laughable attempt to justify your defense of sanctuary cities, your vested interest still remains a question.

Here's a multiple choice, any of which you might be :

1. Illegal alien

2. Illegal employer

3. Spanish media owner/employee

4. Churches needing parishoners$$$

5. Unions needing members$$$

6. Ethnocentrist groups

7. Terrorists looking to commit terrorism.

8. Mexicans seeking remittance$$

9. Democrat seeking votes

So, with your limited reading capabilities, you have proven you don't pack the gear to be in a real conversation. The communists had a term for people that were easily led: useful idiots. They have you right where they want you.

I'm sorry that you didn't make it very far in school. Others, however, will see that your question was fully answered and IF there were anything to the irrelevant statute you cited (see the court rulings), something would have been over the last three years... unless Trump is playing you.

My "question" ? What question is that ?

Pretending that US Code 8, Section 1324 to be irrelevant, reveals something about you. You're afraid of it. It is a threat to you.

You won't reveal which of the items on the list of vested interests correlated with you, but no matter. You're one of those things, and you can keep blabbering, but it won't save your criminal ass. They'll get you yet. lol

As for what has or hasn't happened with 1324, politics is complicated. Just when you have gotten relaxed about something, the feds will be at your door.

Poor soul PR thinks he can talk his way out of this.

Are you that poor of a troll OR are you really that stupid?

Let us recap:

You've made false allegations that were proven to be false according to an attorney who works in the very area of law in dispute. Of the 1.35 million lawyers in America, you could not find one, single, solitary lawyer to agree with your position.

I'm not "pretending" a damn thing. The United States Supreme Court ruled that it is irrelevant for the purposes you stated. The feds are not screwing with the state and local governments on this issue. Trump has taken the matter to court and is expected to lose.

The section of law was irrelevant to the original disagreement you had with me. To continue to argue that point is fruitless for you. I almost feel sorry for you that you are unable to bullshit your way out of the hole you dug for yourself.

In post # 196, you opened with a question. In post # 198 you said you didn't read the answer. Now, you're asking me which of the points I have a vested interest.Now the answer is, read post # 197. That is still my answer.

It's pitiful watching you scramble around, trying to make yourself look good when the ONLY REPLIES between you and I are from a poster agreeing with my assessment. The rest is bickering between you and I because you made a challenge that once made, has been accepted and now you don't pack the gear to back up your end with.

No, there is no need for you to recap anything, because all you could recap is a pathetic display of your massive, mental derangement, and frankly nobody here cares an iota about some loose screw, relative rookie in this forum.

I rarely pull rank, but in your case, I might have to make an exception. I've been in this forum 6 times as long as you have. Over the course of those years, I've authored hundreds of OPs, and about 30,000 posts.

Those members of this forum are very familiar with my work, and have
responded with a very large number of positive ratings (Winner, Agree, etc). Nobody needs or cares one bit about your wild rants or silly character darts.

Regarding my challenge to you, NO, you have NOT accepted it. You have not admitted what your vested interest in illegal immigration and sanctuary cities is, and instead, you foolishly try to buffalo the members of this forum with a lot of goofy talk about the law, including the assinine comment that the law, US Code 8 Section 1324, is not a law at all.

I think that your vested interest in sanctuary cities, has pushed you over the edge, and you would be wise to seek professional help for your mental abberation. But then, that's your problem, not mine.

You are almost old enough to be called a senior citizen, and shouldn't be acting like a silly little boy with ego trouble. And since you are so interested in law (immigration lawyer perhaps), try looking up Florida statute 825.102, so you can ascertain the 3rd degree Felony that you have been committing, in front of thousands of witnesses, the entire time that you have been throwing your psychological injury, insult darts at me, in this thread.
.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

My "vested interest" as you call it has nothing to do with nonexistent "illegals." I do have to commend you for finally asking a pertinent question. There are three things that you cannot get a handle on:

1) America was founded by white Christians with the prevailing attitude that America was the regathering spot for biblical Israelites. As such, our laws are built on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence. In the FIRST naturalization laws, only whites could be citizens of the United States:

http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1 stat 103.pdf

There is a sermon, first preached in 1630 by John Winthrop, and portions have been cited by U.S. statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. You need to read this as it pertains to our history and destiny:

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

2) Despite the fact that only whites were allowed to become citizens, people poured in from all over the world to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. According to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, referred to that document as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man."

You tend to conflate Liberty with the privileges of citizenship; hence, your bogus argument about "legal versus illegal aliens." The laws you continue to cite were put into place in order to restrict Liberty and force people to come here and seek citizenship. Such a strategy meant that people from every corner of the world got to come here equally, displacing the posterity of the founders. White people only number 1 in 13 of the world's population.

It is your "legal" immigrants that joined forces with Democrats to wage a subtle war of genocide against the posterity of the founders / framers. You cannot criminalize Liberty

3) Instead of returning to the laws of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, you demand more laws that make government bigger and more intrusive. You seem to be okay with giving America away provided we do so "legally" and, consequently, you demand strict adherence to unconstitutional laws, put into place to get rid of white people. You turn our future over to a Congress that is, has been and will be even more so controlled by Democrats. You demand more laws and more restrictions and even more control, thereby negating any possibility that the constitutionalists can resist tyranny in the future.

Those are the facts and bad strategies are costing us dearly. As pointed out to you, there are now pro-gun sanctuary cities popping up everywhere as the government begins to threaten us with Red Flag Gun Laws, confiscations, bans, registration, background checks, etc. on firearms. You are aiding and abetting criminals, Democrats, and traitors. I've leveled with you about my "vested interests" in this fight.

You can cite unconstitutional laws until Hell freezes over, but sheriffs had your little statute ruled unconstitutional and they could not be forced to enforce unconstitutional laws. The courts have ruled consistently for both sides. And, as someone who wants to retain his Rights, I support sanctuary cities. Scroll through this link to the section entitled Second Amendment Sanctuaries:

Virginia Citizens Defense League - Home

There, sir, you have my vested interest in protecting sanctuary cities. I'm wondering what your excuse is in defending Democrats and their legislation the way you do. I suspect it's because you do not understand the law, political strategies, political guerrilla warfare, or the psychology of warfare. I spent decades learning it and realize that most of your criticisms you make, aimed at me, are done so through abject ignorance.

At about the same point where I stopped reading your incoherent ravings, I noticed - US Code 8 Section 1324 is neither "little" nor is it mine. It is US law, belonging to the American people for protection from Loons like you .

And despite your laughable attempt to justify your defense of sanctuary cities, your vested interest still remains a question.

Here's a multiple choice, any of which you might be :

1. Illegal alien

2. Illegal employer

3. Spanish media owner/employee

4. Churches needing parishoners$$$

5. Unions needing members$$$

6. Ethnocentrist groups

7. Terrorists looking to commit terrorism.

8. Mexicans seeking remittance$$

9. Democrat seeking votes

So, with your limited reading capabilities, you have proven you don't pack the gear to be in a real conversation. The communists had a term for people that were easily led: useful idiots. They have you right where they want you.

I'm sorry that you didn't make it very far in school. Others, however, will see that your question was fully answered and IF there were anything to the irrelevant statute you cited (see the court rulings), something would have been over the last three years... unless Trump is playing you.

My "question" ? What question is that ?

Pretending that US Code 8, Section 1324 to be irrelevant, reveals something about you. You're afraid of it. It is a threat to you.

You won't reveal which of the items on the list of vested interests correlated with you, but no matter. You're one of those things, and you can keep blabbering, but it won't save your criminal ass. They'll get you yet. lol

As for what has or hasn't happened with 1324, politics is complicated. Just when you have gotten relaxed about something, the feds will be at your door.

Poor soul PR thinks he can talk his way out of this.

Are you that poor of a troll OR are you really that stupid?

Let us recap:

You've made false allegations that were proven to be false according to an attorney who works in the very area of law in dispute. Of the 1.35 million lawyers in America, you could not find one, single, solitary lawyer to agree with your position.

I'm not "pretending" a damn thing. The United States Supreme Court ruled that it is irrelevant for the purposes you stated. The feds are not screwing with the state and local governments on this issue. Trump has taken the matter to court and is expected to lose.

The section of law was irrelevant to the original disagreement you had with me. To continue to argue that point is fruitless for you. I almost feel sorry for you that you are unable to bullshit your way out of the hole you dug for yourself.

In post # 196, you opened with a question. In post # 198 you said you didn't read the answer. Now, you're asking me which of the points I have a vested interest.Now the answer is, read post # 197. That is still my answer.

It's pitiful watching you scramble around, trying to make yourself look good when the ONLY REPLIES between you and I are from a poster agreeing with my assessment. The rest is bickering between you and I because you made a challenge that once made, has been accepted and now you don't pack the gear to back up your end with.

No, there is no need for you to recap anything, because all you could recap is a pathetic display of your massive, mental derangement, and frankly nobody here cares an iota about some loose screw, relative rookie in this forum.

I rarely pull rank, but in your case, I might have to make an exception. I've been in this forum 6 times as long as you have. Over the course of those years, I've authored hundreds of OPs, and about 30,000 posts.

Those members of this forum are very familiar with my work, and have
responded with a very large number of positive ratings (Winner, Agree, etc). Nobody needs or cares one bit about your wild rants or silly character darts.

Regarding my challenge to you, NO, you have NOT accepted it. You have not admitted what your vested interest in illegal immigration and sanctuary cities is, and instead, you foolishly try to buffalo the members of this forum with a lot of goofy talk about the law, including the assinine comment that the law, US Code 8 Section 1324, is not a law at all.

I think that your vested interest in sanctuary cities, has pushed you over the edge, and you would be wise to seek professional help for your mental abberation. But then, that's your problem, not mine.

You are almost old enough to be called a senior citizen, and shouldn't be acting like a silly little boy with ego trouble. And since you are so interested in law (immigration lawyer perhaps), try looking up Florida statute 825.102, so you can ascertain the 3rd degree Felony that you have been committing, in front of thousands of witnesses, the entire time that you have been throwing your psychological injury, insult darts at me, in this thread.
.

You made a challenge and I gave you an answer. You called me out and I accepted it. It's as simple as that. I've committed no felonies here and if I had, I'm sure you would have reported it. No sir, you called me a coward and I stood up to you.

NOBODY is defending you nor your tactics on this thread. And you are a poster. Your tenure on this board does not give you any rank. Your bullshit has proven to be lies and you're trying to put as much space between your allegations and what I said so as to obscure the truth. You have been proven to LIE and if there is a coward between us, it is you. You are a legend in your own mind, unable to respond to the answers you were given. That is okay; I'm going to repeat them over and over until you leave me alone or get back on topic. I'm not even going to ask you a second time if you deny supporting the statements that Bill Clinton made again.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Way back in post # 196, protectionist asked me what my "vested interest in illegal (sic) immigration" was. Here is my response, of which he is unable to do anything except rant and call me names over.

My "vested interest" as you call it has nothing to do with nonexistent "illegals." I do have to commend you for finally asking a pertinent question. There are three things that you cannot get a handle on:

1) America was founded by white Christians with the prevailing attitude that America was the regathering spot for biblical Israelites. As such, our laws are built on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence. In the FIRST naturalization laws, only whites could be citizens of the United States:

http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1 stat 103.pdf

There is a sermon, first preached in 1630 by John Winthrop, and portions have been cited by U.S. statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. You need to read this as it pertains to our history and destiny:

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

2) Despite the fact that only whites were allowed to become citizens, people poured in from all over the world to take advantage of opportunities willingly offered. According to the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, referred to that document as the "Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man."

You tend to conflate Liberty with the privileges of citizenship; hence, your bogus argument about "legal versus illegal aliens." The laws you continue to cite were put into place in order to restrict Liberty and force people to come here and seek citizenship. Such a strategy meant that people from every corner of the world got to come here equally, displacing the posterity of the founders. White people only number 1 in 13 of the world's population.

It is your "legal" immigrants that joined forces with Democrats to wage a subtle war of genocide against the posterity of the founders / framers. You cannot criminalize Liberty

3) Instead of returning to the laws of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, you demand more laws that make government bigger and more intrusive. You seem to be okay with giving America away provided we do so "legally" and, consequently, you demand strict adherence to unconstitutional laws, put into place to get rid of white people. You turn our future over to a Congress that is, has been and will be even more so controlled by Democrats. You demand more laws and more restrictions and even more control, thereby negating any possibility that the constitutionalists can resist tyranny in the future.

Those are the facts and bad strategies are costing us dearly. As pointed out to you, there are now pro-gun sanctuary cities popping up everywhere as the government begins to threaten us with Red Flag Gun Laws, confiscations, bans, registration, background checks, etc. on firearms. You are aiding and abetting criminals, Democrats, and traitors. I've leveled with you about my "vested interests" in this fight.

You can cite unconstitutional laws until Hell freezes over, but sheriffs had your little statute ruled unconstitutional and they could not be forced to enforce unconstitutional laws. The courts have ruled consistently for both sides. And, as someone who wants to retain his Rights, I support sanctuary cities. Scroll through this link to the section entitled Second Amendment Sanctuaries:

Virginia Citizens Defense League - Home

There, sir, you have my vested interest in protecting sanctuary cities. I'm wondering what your excuse is in defending Democrats and their legislation the way you do. I suspect it's because you do not understand the law, political strategies, political guerrilla warfare, or the psychology of warfare. I spent decades learning it and realize that most of your criticisms you make, aimed at me, are done so through abject ignorance

- And there you have it. protectionist is now running around like a scared mouse, afraid of others reading some of his most outrageous comments. He thought he could troll me and stalk me, but this time it isn't going as he planned. protectionist is an uneducated bully and I have worked my ass on behalf of the Constitution, not to mention having volunteered to serve it. So, I know a fake, phony and a poseur when I come across one. protectionist is an example of what is wrong on these boards and WHY America is becoming a third world cesspool.

 

[protectionist]

I did not read one word of this latest post of yours. Everything you write is a lie, and as liars go, you're a stupid one. Your posts are worthless sillieness, and I have no need to bother with you. Shoo fly.

From this point on, I have you on ignore.
I won't see any of your moronic posts, and I would advise other posters to do the same.

You can now do your mindless babbling at the moon, boy.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I did not read one word of this latest post of yours. Everything you write is a lie, and as liars go, you're a stupid one. Your posts are worthless sillieness, and I have no need to bother with you. Shoo fly.

From this point on, I have you on ignore.
I won't see any of your moronic posts, and I would advise other posters to do the same.

You can now do your mindless babbling at the moon, boy.

I feel blessed that an individual that would call me a liar has put me on ignore. There IS a God in Heaven and this is an example of how poseurs run when faced with the truth. protectionist made a hasty retreat rather than to answer the obvious questions. He falsely accused me and after calling me out, he high tails it out of here.

Sanctuary cities are legal. Because they are legal, their use is not limited to immigration. I posted this link and will do so again:

Virginia Citizens Defense League - Home

Currently (if reading this before 20 Jan 2020) you can scroll through that section until you see the heading SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARIES. Please donate to vcdl and if you live in Virginia, support this effort or if you want to make an impact on gun Rights.

 

[protectionist]

As the ROCK of WWE Fame would say, IT DOESN'T MATTER if sanctuary cities are constitutional or not. Things can be constitutional, but be violations of law. Example: many things are constitutional free speech, yet are illegal (slander, libel, perjury, threats, verbal abuse of elderly, inciting riot, obscenity laws, sedition.)

Sanctuary cities are illegal under US Code 8 Section 1324, and many illegal aliens themselves are subject to arrest under US Code 8 Section 1325.

 

[protectionist]

A glimpse into the future one year from now, January 22, 2021.​

A complete Roundup of sanctuary City polititian criminals, followed by Operation Wetback II. Wetbacks will be dumped into the Vera Cruz shallow water shores, just as occurred in Operation Wetback I, in 1954.

The Mexicans protested furiously. Eisenhower paid no attention to them.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

As the ROCK of WWE Fame would say, IT DOESN'T MATTER if sanctuary cities are constitutional or not. Things can be constitutional, but be violations of law. Example: many things are constitutional free speech, yet are illegal (slander, libel, perjury, threats, verbal abuse of elderly, inciting riot, obscenity laws, sedition.)

Sanctuary cities are illegal under US Code 8 Section 1324, and many illegal aliens themselves are subject to arrest under US Code 8 Section 1325.

Such dumbassery!

This point was litigated in the case of Printz v. U.S. protectionist needs a quick civics lesson. If the feds went to the state of California and tried to force the state government into enforcing 8 USC 1324, the matter would end up in federal court. Which prevails? The statute OR the rulings of the courts?:

I'd like to quote something from you and invite all of you to look at the link:

"...If a federal court in a particular circuit has not ruled on a legal issue, it may be persuaded by a decision from a different federal circuit.

United States Supreme Court decisions are mandatory on issues of federal law for all state and federal courts."

LibGuides: Circuit Riders: Weight of Authority

What the courts say the law IS must be followed by the courts. The courts have ruled that sanctuary cities ARE legal.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

A glimpse into the future one year from now, January 22, 2021.​

A complete Roundup of sanctuary City polititian criminals, followed by Operation Wetback II. Wetbacks will be dumped into the Vera Cruz shallow water shores, just as occurred in Operation Wetback I, in 1954.

The Mexicans protested furiously. Eisenhower paid no attention to them.

Eisenhower was not hampered by the United States Supreme Court decision of Printz v U.S. that was issued in 1997.


"In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement

 

[Jackson]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

I believe that does violate our laws.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

I believe that does violate our laws.

There are 213 posts here on this already. It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities. Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?

"In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement

 

[danielpalos]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

Try as I might, I cannot seem to find any social Power over the whole and entire concept of Immigration, delegated to our federal Congress.

 

[MaryL]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

I believe that does violate our laws.

There are 213 posts here on this already. It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities. Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?

"In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

I believe that does violate our laws.

There are 213 posts here on this already. It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities. Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?

"In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement

Actually, you missed the basis of my enquiry. So let me clarify: Local or state officials created "sanctuary" for illegals even though it wasn't asked for, without our consent, approval or knowledge. ("our" being local constituency, of course). THAT is the issue here. They (local or state governments) seemed to have overstepped their authority. The constitutionality of THAT is the question. That hasn't been addressed. Can local leaders enact policies that are so far reaching and detrimental WITHOUT consent or accountability? That's Constitutional? That is all I am asking.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

I believe that does violate our laws.

There are 213 posts here on this already. It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities. Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?

"In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

I believe that does violate our laws.

There are 213 posts here on this already. It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities. Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?

"In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement

Actually, you missed the basis of my enquiry. So let me clarify: Local or state officials created "sanctuary" for illegals even though it wasn't asked for, without our consent, approval or knowledge. ("our" being local constituency, of course). THAT is the issue here. They (local or state governments) seemed to have overstepped their authority. The constitutionality of THAT is the question. That hasn't been addressed. Can local leaders enact policies that are so far reaching and detrimental WITHOUT consent or accountability? That's Constitutional? That is all I am asking.

I have answered you. Let me put it to you in four easy concepts:

1) The ONLY legal, constitutional, lawful, de jure AUTHORITY the federal government has over foreigners is naturalization. Naturalization = citizenship. (See Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

2) Under the Constitution, it is the states who determine who can come and go within a state. So, how did all this become a "federal" matter? That is answered next

3) In 1875, the United States Supreme Court gave "plenary powers" to Congress over all things to do with foreigners. The California state immigration commissioner did not mount a defense to the case and the court ruled against the state immigration commissioner

4) The United States Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any AUTHORITY to grant to any other branch of government any POWERS. The United States Supreme Court broke the law and nobody wants to hold them accountable on this issue

If you live in a state with sanctuary cities and you don't like it, your beef is with the state NOT the federal government. America is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.

 

[MaryL]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

I believe that does violate our laws.

There are 213 posts here on this already. It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities. Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?

"In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

I believe that does violate our laws.

There are 213 posts here on this already. It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities. Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?

"In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement

Actually, you missed the basis of my enquiry. So let me clarify: Local or state officials created "sanctuary" for illegals even though it wasn't asked for, without our consent, approval or knowledge. ("our" being local constituency, of course). THAT is the issue here. They (local or state governments) seemed to have overstepped their authority. The constitutionality of THAT is the question. That hasn't been addressed. Can local leaders enact policies that are so far reaching and detrimental WITHOUT consent or accountability? That's Constitutional? That is all I am asking.

I have answered you. Let me put it to you in four easy concepts:

1) The ONLY legal, constitutional, lawful, de jure AUTHORITY the federal government has over foreigners is naturalization. Naturalization = citizenship. (See Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

2) Under the Constitution, it is the states who determine who can come and go within a state. So, how did all this become a "federal" matter? That is answered next

3) In 1875, the United States Supreme Court gave "plenary powers" to Congress over all things to do with foreigners. The California state immigration commissioner did not mount a defense to the case and the court ruled against the state immigration commissioner

4) The United States Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any AUTHORITY to grant to any other branch of government any POWERS. The United States Supreme Court broke the law and nobody wants to hold them accountable on this issue

If you live in a state with sanctuary cities and you don't like it, your beef is with the state NOT the federal government. America is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.

And? you are only fooling yourself. Nobody wanted or asked for sanctuary cities. Funny this was never on a ballot initiative to give illegals aliens sanctuary nor did we the PEOPLE ask for IT. So from where did that come from? Hmmm. There is the deeper question.

 

[MaryL]

It stretches credibility that American leadership would give sanctuary to illegal aliens...and then let our own poor and needy languish in the streets... and supersede our will, but that IS exactly what's happening right now.

 

[MaryL]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

I believe that does violate our laws.

There are 213 posts here on this already. It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities. Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?

"In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

I believe that does violate our laws.

There are 213 posts here on this already. It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities. Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?

"In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement

Actually, you missed the basis of my enquiry. So let me clarify: Local or state officials created "sanctuary" for illegals even though it wasn't asked for, without our consent, approval or knowledge. ("our" being local constituency, of course). THAT is the issue here. They (local or state governments) seemed to have overstepped their authority. The constitutionality of THAT is the question. That hasn't been addressed. Can local leaders enact policies that are so far reaching and detrimental WITHOUT consent or accountability? That's Constitutional? That is all I am asking.

I have answered you. Let me put it to you in four easy concepts:

1) The ONLY legal, constitutional, lawful, de jure AUTHORITY the federal government has over foreigners is naturalization. Naturalization = citizenship. (See Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution

2) Under the Constitution, it is the states who determine who can come and go within a state. So, how did all this become a "federal" matter? That is answered next

3) In 1875, the United States Supreme Court gave "plenary powers" to Congress over all things to do with foreigners. The California state immigration commissioner did not mount a defense to the case and the court ruled against the state immigration commissioner

4) The United States Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any AUTHORITY to grant to any other branch of government any POWERS. The United States Supreme Court broke the law and nobody wants to hold them accountable on this issue

If you live in a state with sanctuary cities and you don't like it, your beef is with the state NOT the federal government. America is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.

So this isn't a democratic republic? What is it then?