Are "Sanctuary cities" constitutional?

[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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

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

The United States Constitution in Article 4 Section 4 states:

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government..."

The term "democratic republic" NOR ANY word related to democracy appears in the Constitution. Thank God that the federal government cannot let the people outside of California rule their internal politics. We are either a Democracy or a Republic. A Republic protects the weak against the strong and prohibits the majority from infringing on our Liberties.

 

[MaryL]

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

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.

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.

Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and persons involved...we would all like know that.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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

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.

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.

Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and persons involved...we would all like know that.

YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE. YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU. In the case of "immigration law," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.

WTF is this "nice try?" Are you illiterate? It wasn't a try (sic.) It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm. Civics 101 is non-partisan.

 

[MaryL]

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.

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.

Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and persons involved...we would all like know that.

YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE. YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU. In the case of "immigration law," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.

WTF is this "nice try?" Are you illiterate? It wasn't a try (sic.) It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm. Civics 101 is non-partisan.

'
I mean, nice try. This supposedly is STILL a Democratic republic. We, "the people" never actually proposed allowing illegal aliens sanctuary from federal immigration laws. it was imposed on us, we never asked for it...Did you? Remember when? The exact time? What exact time was it when you where asked when you wanted to give sanctuary to illegal aliens?

 

[MaryL]

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.

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.

Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and persons involved...we would all like know that.

YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE. YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU. In the case of "immigration law," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.

WTF is this "nice try?" Are you illiterate? It wasn't a try (sic.) It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm. Civics 101 is non-partisan.

I like that. I don't vote on every mill levy or minor issue...district judges...but we were NEVER EVER given a choice on sanctuary for illegals, kiddo. It was mandatory. That fine point you miss...And to who's befit, the larger question.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

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.

Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and persons involved...we would all like know that.

YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE. YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU. In the case of "immigration law," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.

WTF is this "nice try?" Are you illiterate? It wasn't a try (sic.) It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm. Civics 101 is non-partisan.

I like that. I don't vote on every mill levy or minor issue...district judges...but we were NEVER EVER given a choice on sanctuary for illegals, kiddo. It was mandatory. That fine point you miss...And to who's befit, the larger question.

Because it has to do with natural rights outside of abortion threads. Only the right wing, doesn't really really care about natural rights if Government can solve all of their problems.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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.

Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and persons involved...we would all like know that.

YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE. YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU. In the case of "immigration law," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.

WTF is this "nice try?" Are you illiterate? It wasn't a try (sic.) It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm. Civics 101 is non-partisan.

'
I mean, nice try. This supposedly is STILL a Democratic republic. We, "the people" never actually proposed allowing illegal aliens sanctuary from federal immigration laws. it was imposed on us, we never asked for it...Did you? Remember when? The exact time? What exact time was it when you where asked when you wanted to give sanctuary to illegal aliens?

Are you dense or just trolling? Show us the term democratic republic or democracy in the Constitution. If you can't do that, you're trolling me.

Furthermore, I wasn't asked anything about sanctuary cities in Georgia. As far as I know we don't have them and I don't get a vote in California politics.

You don't get a vote on every damn thing. This is a REPUBLIC.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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.

Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and persons involved...we would all like know that.

YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE. YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU. In the case of "immigration law," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.

WTF is this "nice try?" Are you illiterate? It wasn't a try (sic.) It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm. Civics 101 is non-partisan.

I like that. I don't vote on every mill levy or minor issue...district judges...but we were NEVER EVER given a choice on sanctuary for illegals, kiddo. It was mandatory. That fine point you miss...And to who's befit, the larger question.

Who is befit for what???

In what language do you have to be told that you don't get a vote on every damn thing? The United States Supreme Court decided women have a "right" to an abortion. Did you vote on that? The United States Supreme Court made Freedom of Association a privilege instead of a "right." Did you vote on that?

If you live in a sanctuary state and you oppose it, the feds cannot help you. If you think you were entitled a vote (and you were not) then the STATE is where your remedy is.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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.

Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and persons involved...we would all like know that.

YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE. YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU. In the case of "immigration law," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.

WTF is this "nice try?" Are you illiterate? It wasn't a try (sic.) It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm. Civics 101 is non-partisan.

I like that. I don't vote on every mill levy or minor issue...district judges...but we were NEVER EVER given a choice on sanctuary for illegals, kiddo. It was mandatory. That fine point you miss...And to who's befit, the larger question.

Because it has to do with natural rights outside of abortion threads. Only the right wing, doesn't really really care about natural rights if Government can solve all of their problems.

The left relies on a government God as well. Other than that, I can stipulate to the rest of your post.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and persons involved...we would all like know that.

YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE. YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU. In the case of "immigration law," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.

WTF is this "nice try?" Are you illiterate? It wasn't a try (sic.) It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm. Civics 101 is non-partisan.

I like that. I don't vote on every mill levy or minor issue...district judges...but we were NEVER EVER given a choice on sanctuary for illegals, kiddo. It was mandatory. That fine point you miss...And to who's befit, the larger question.

Because it has to do with natural rights outside of abortion threads. Only the right wing, doesn't really really care about natural rights if Government can solve all of their problems.

The left relies on a government God as well. Other than that, I can stipulate to the rest of your post.

The left is willing to learn how merely Use capitalism for All of its capital worth in modern economic times.

 

[MaryL]

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.

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.

Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and persons involved...we would all like know that.

YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE. YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU. In the case of "immigration law," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.

WTF is this "nice try?" Are you illiterate? It wasn't a try (sic.) It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm. Civics 101 is non-partisan.

I like that. I don't vote on every mill levy or minor issue...district judges...but we were NEVER EVER given a choice on sanctuary for illegals, kiddo. It was mandatory. That fine point you miss...And to who's befit, the larger question.

Who is befit for what???

In what language do you have to be told that you don't get a vote on every damn thing? The United States Supreme Court decided women have a "right" to an abortion. Did you vote on that? The United States Supreme Court made Freedom of Association a privilege instead of a "right." Did you vote on that?

If you live in a sanctuary state and you oppose it, the feds cannot help you. If you think you were entitled a vote (and you were not) then the STATE is where your remedy is.

Again missing the point. Giving aid to people violating (any) law is not within local or state leaders purview. Certainly such a thing shouldn't be done surreptitiously like thieves in the night. Agree? This ain't exactly a .01 percent increase on a mill levy we are talking about here. The shady nature of implementing such a profound measure is mind boggling. Lets say: transparency is lacking. Not to mention the ethics...
Ironically, you mention the supreme court, which is a branch of the federal government. The states are violating federal government law. The same government that enforces the right to free association or allows women the right to abortion, is now the "boogie man" when that same federal government wants "immigrants" to go through the legal process. Oh, and to whos benefit? That's speculative. Illegal aliens are the "untouchables", a new cheap exploitable class flooding the labor pool for business willing to cut corners, THAT is WHO.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and persons involved...we would all like know that.

YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE. YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU. In the case of "immigration law," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.

WTF is this "nice try?" Are you illiterate? It wasn't a try (sic.) It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm. Civics 101 is non-partisan.

I like that. I don't vote on every mill levy or minor issue...district judges...but we were NEVER EVER given a choice on sanctuary for illegals, kiddo. It was mandatory. That fine point you miss...And to who's befit, the larger question.

Who is befit for what???

In what language do you have to be told that you don't get a vote on every damn thing? The United States Supreme Court decided women have a "right" to an abortion. Did you vote on that? The United States Supreme Court made Freedom of Association a privilege instead of a "right." Did you vote on that?

If you live in a sanctuary state and you oppose it, the feds cannot help you. If you think you were entitled a vote (and you were not) then the STATE is where your remedy is.

Again missing the point. Giving aid to people violating (any) law is not within local or state leaders purview. Certainly such a thing shouldn't be done surreptitiously like thieves in the night. Agree? This ain't exactly a .01 percent increase on a mill levy we are talking about here. The shady nature of implementing such a profound measure is mind boggling. Lets say: transparency is lacking. Not to mention the ethics...
Ironically, you mention the supreme court, which is a branch of the federal government. The states are violating federal government law. The same government that enforces the right to free association or allows women the right to abortion, is now the "boogie man" when that same federal government wants "immigrants" to go through the legal process. Oh, and to whos benefit? That's speculative. Illegal aliens are the "untouchables", a new cheap exploitable class flooding the labor pool for business willing to cut corners, THAT is WHO.

No YOU ARE WRONG. The United States Supreme Court said so. If you are entitled to vote on revenue bills then cite the state statute.

You know damn well that the federal government has no de jure / constitutional / LEGAL jurisdiction over foreigners save of naturalization. You keep talking about the United States Supreme Court doing things that are illegal; however, IF IT BENEFITS YOU OR STROKES YOUR EGO, YOU ARE ALLOWING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO VIOLATE THE LAW.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Federal Magistrate And State Legislature Providences Over Local Jurisdiction "

* Federal Registrar Legal Process Defines A Migrant Subject *

No YOU ARE WRONG. The United States Supreme Court said so. If you are entitled to vote on revenue bills then cite the state statute.

You know damn well that the federal government has no de jure / constitutional / LEGAL jurisdiction over foreigners save of naturalization. You keep talking about the United States Supreme Court doing things that are illegal; however, IF IT BENEFITS YOU OR STROKES YOUR EGO, YOU ARE ALLOWING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO VIOLATE THE LAW.

States are entitled to deny residency to individuals without a state citizenship , which means that a state legislature maintains jurisdiction over local ordinance and a state could legislate that sanctuary cities be illegal .

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[5]

 

[Porter Rockwell]

" Federal Magistrate And State Legislature Providences Over Local Jurisdiction "

* Federal Registrar Legal Process Defines A Migrant Subject *

No YOU ARE WRONG. The United States Supreme Court said so. If you are entitled to vote on revenue bills then cite the state statute.

You know damn well that the federal government has no de jure / constitutional / LEGAL jurisdiction over foreigners save of naturalization. You keep talking about the United States Supreme Court doing things that are illegal; however, IF IT BENEFITS YOU OR STROKES YOUR EGO, YOU ARE ALLOWING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO VIOLATE THE LAW.

States are entitled to deny residency to individuals without a state citizenship , which means that a state legislature maintains jurisdiction over local ordinance and a state could legislate that sanctuary cities be illegal .

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[5]

I know you think you made a point, but you did not. You cancelled out your premise when you quoted the Tenth Amendment.

 

[eagle1462010]

This issue will be decided this year in the Supreme Court. Then there will be a new case showing the old decisions being overturned.

This is gonna happen.

 

[Unkotare]

This issue will be decided this year in the Supreme Court. Then there will be a new case showing the old decisions being overturned.

This is gonna happen.

When?

 

[eagle1462010]

This issue will be decided this year in the Supreme Court. Then there will be a new case showing the old decisions being overturned.

This is gonna happen.

When?

Early in this thread I posted the case going there...........That article said within the next nine months.

 

[Unkotare]

This issue will be decided this year in the Supreme Court. Then there will be a new case showing the old decisions being overturned.

This is gonna happen.

When?

Early in this thread I posted the case going there...........That article said within the next nine months.

So, if nothing has changed in 9 months, you’ll come back here and admit you were wrong?

 

[eagle1462010]

This issue will be decided this year in the Supreme Court. Then there will be a new case showing the old decisions being overturned.

This is gonna happen.

When?

Early in this thread I posted the case going there...........That article said within the next nine months.

So, if nothing has changed in 9 months, you’ll come back here and about you were wrong?

I stated that it is a pending case in the Supreme Court...............and that case is going to be within the next 9 months.........

I believe the 3 laws in question will be overturned and that Sanctuary Cities will be addressed............


It WILL BE ADDRESSED............and the left doesn't have the judges there......so we will see.