Porter Rockwell
Gold Member
- Dec 14, 2018
- 6,088
- 665
- 140
- Banned
- #221
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.I believe that does violate our laws.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?
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 MovementActually, 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 believe that does violate our laws.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?
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
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.
How am I fooling myself? The government of California allowed the sanctuary cities to be built. The people of the state of California voted for the politicians who allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.
The United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot force states and local governments to enforce federal laws. How am I fooling myself? What in the Hell makes you think the people get a vote on everything?
Are you so ignorant to suggest that it's my fault the United States Supreme Court makes a ruling and the people cannot outvote the high Court? Not even Jesus Christ himself has over-ruled the United States Supreme Court in my lifetime.
I only support sanctuary cities because they are not only about immigration. They have sanctuary cities for gun owners and now some states and local governments have vowed never to allow the federal government to come in infringe on our gun Rights. I'm not in favor of you being able to take that away. You keep babbling on about voting. The people of California DID vote. Your best option is to make sure Trump cuts off sending federal money into any state that helps undocumented foreigners. Giving the feds control over the state and local governments - not a good idea.