Are "Sanctuary cities" constitutional?

[Vandalshandle]

Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.

I agree with you. Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here. 1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.

So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............

I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL

That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.

Call it insane, if you like, but the citizens of California seem to like it, because if they did not, they would vote for somebody else, and they do have the right to elect their own state lawgivers.

They have the right to elect whomever they please............but they do not have the right to OBSTRUCT Federal Law Enforcement Agencies...........Which these laws do............Not only that........Employers under the laws passed by Reagan require them to be Legal to work here. If they are illegal and it is known........those employers can be FINED under that law for doing so............

Ordering Employers to notify illegals with Detainer orders from ICE is a violation of Federal Law passed under Reagan...............and the employer under that law is subject to FINES for even hiring them.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when weave a web of deceit......

It is going to the Supreme Court.

I disagree with your interpretation of the definition of the word, "obstruction".

 

[MaryL]

What is the legal and factual term when refering to the fac

I despise partisanship. Anyway...

Detainers

These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. the community.

In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.

Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.

I agree with you. Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here. 1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.

So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............

I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL

That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.

Thank you, but I can forgive illegal undocumented immigrant aliens to certain degree. But its our so called "elected officials" that create artificial refuges for criminals without consent of the electorate and to our collective detriment that I can't forgive. They have betrayed us, and betrayed American principles.

Personally, I would protest if my city used my city tax money to enforce federal law. I already pay federal taxes. I see no reason for my city to collect taxes from me to pay for expenses not related to my city.

Um, ok. Do you equally protest when states help the federal government enforce...say, pharmaceutical standards and practices? Or say, auto-theft laws? No? SHH, don't tell anybody: our local government is supposed actually reflect OUR parochial wishes and do what WE want. Not dictate to us. You agree?

 

[gipper]

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?

First, we are not a nation of laws. This is clearly erroneous. Our government doesn’t follow the Constitution and hasn’t for a long time. It is a lawless enterprise.

Secondly, many are above the law. If you think you and I get the same level of justice a billionaire or a Clinton or Obama gets, you are not paying attention.

Thirdly, we have much bigger problems than sanctuary cities.

 

[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?

First, we are not a nation of laws. This is clearly erroneous. Our government doesn’t follow the Constitution and hasn’t for a long time. It is a lawless enterprise.

Secondly, many are above the law. If you think you and I get the same level of justice a billionaire or a Clinton or Obama gets, you are not paying attention.

Thirdly, we have much bigger problems than sanctuary cities.

Well judging by how I nearly got killed this morning by some random zoomer that cant follow speed limits I can't think of anything else. Speed limits, immigration laws cheating on your spouse or tax laws. What would YOU think is a larger issue? Just wondering. Lying and cheating and being deceitful, why do you people bother with Trump when you seem to enable criminals and revel in violating laws and dishonesty? I am confused here.

 

[Vandalshandle]

What is the legal and factual term when refering to the fac

I despise partisanship. Anyway...

Detainers

These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. the community.

In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.

Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.

I agree with you. Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here. 1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.

So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............

I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL

That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.

Thank you, but I can forgive illegal undocumented immigrant aliens to certain degree. But its our so called "elected officials" that create artificial refuges for criminals without consent of the electorate and to our collective detriment that I can't forgive. They have betrayed us, and betrayed American principles.

Personally, I would protest if my city used my city tax money to enforce federal law. I already pay federal taxes. I see no reason for my city to collect taxes from me to pay for expenses not related to my city.

Um, ok. Do you equally protest when states help the federal government enforce...say, pharmaceutical standards and practices? Or say, auto-theft laws? No? SHH, don't tell anybody: our local government is supposed actually reflect OUR parochial wishes and do what WE want. Not dictate to us. You agree?

For my local government to insist that Federal laws be enforced by federal employees, using federal money, is exactly what I want my local government to do. My state does not enforce federal pharmaceutical laws, or anything else that you mentioned. My state has their own pharmaceutical laws. In fact, in my state, marijuana is legal with a prescription, in spite of the fact that it is illegal under obsolete federal law, and my state does not cooperate with the feds who want it to turn over all marijuana buyers' names.

 

[MaryL]

The liberals are using the tired old "states rights" rationale the same way 1850's American south used to justify slavery. Isn't that ironic as hell? And the kicker here is: We locals where never asked nor is this OUR collective will to allow it. It wasn't on any local state or city ballot for our approval. Nope. And the larger point is: it is to our DETRIMENT. We have people displaced and living in the streets starving and it coincides with the unilateral creation of "sanctuary cities'.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The liberals are using the tired old "states rights" rationale the same way 1850's American south used to justify slavery. Isn't that ironic as hell? And the kicker here is: We locals where never asked nor is this OUR collective will to allow it. It wasn't on any local state or city ballot for our approval. Nope. And the larger point is: it is to our DETRIMENT. We have people displaced and living in the streets starving and it coincides with the unilateral creation of "sanctuary cities'.

You are going in circles, and I have been to this place of the discussion before. You have a right to vote the local rascals out of office, or even to impeach them, so that is your legal remedy. "Sanctuary cities" have been ruled constitutional by the Supreme court. nobody in law enforcement is violating any laws. End of discussion.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The liberals are using the tired old "states rights" rationale the same way 1850's American south used to justify slavery. Isn't that ironic as hell? And the kicker here is: We locals where never asked nor is this OUR collective will to allow it. It wasn't on any local state or city ballot for our approval. Nope. And the larger point is: it is to our DETRIMENT. We have people displaced and living in the streets starving and it coincides with the unilateral creation of "sanctuary cities'.

In your opinion, can you explain the meaning of this?

"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."

 

[gipper]

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?

First, we are not a nation of laws. This is clearly erroneous. Our government doesn’t follow the Constitution and hasn’t for a long time. It is a lawless enterprise.

Secondly, many are above the law. If you think you and I get the same level of justice a billionaire or a Clinton or Obama gets, you are not paying attention.

Thirdly, we have much bigger problems than sanctuary cities.

Well judging by how I nearly got killed this morning by some random zoomer that cant follow speed limits I can't think of anything else. Speed limits, immigration laws cheating on your spouse or tax laws. What would YOU think is a larger issue? Just wondering. Lying and cheating and being deceitful, why do you people bother with Trump when you seem to enable criminals and revel in violating laws and dishonesty? I am confused here.

I will say it is part and parcel of a bigger problem. A lawless government that considers the people the enemy.

 

[sparky]

our local government is supposed actually reflect OUR parochial wishes and do what WE want. Not dictate to us. You agree?

Agree, but the reality is far different Mary

Secondly, many are above the law. If you think you and I get the same level of justice a billionaire or a Clinton or Obama gets, you are not paying attention.

One would have to be fairly dense to miss this Gip....

why do you people bother with Trump when you seem to enable criminals and revel in violating laws and dishonesty? I am confused here.

Trump , like most modern potus' simply provide a diversion for a failed system

The liberals are using the tired old "states rights" rationale the same way 1850's American south used to justify slavery. Isn't that ironic as hell?

10ther's have always been around , one could....if one wished....even paint our FF's 10ther's....

We have people displaced and living in the streets starving and it coincides with the unilateral creation of "sanctuary cities'.

Yes, google tent cites .....

In your opinion, can you explain the meaning of this?

It has none anymore

~S~

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Not Just Federal But State Authority To Deport Illegal Migrants "

* Hold State Officials Accountable For Ignoring Sanctuary Cities *

It is absurd to assert that states do not have at least equal authority with the federal government to deport illegal migrants , and to arrest those protecting them , because individuals are not just citizens of the united states but citizens of the state wherein they reside that gives states authority to deport and arrest individuals for cause .

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.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

our local government is supposed actually reflect OUR parochial wishes and do what WE want. Not dictate to us. You agree?

Agree, but the reality is far different Mary

Secondly, many are above the law. If you think you and I get the same level of justice a billionaire or a Clinton or Obama gets, you are not paying attention.

One would have to be fairly dense to miss this Gip....

why do you people bother with Trump when you seem to enable criminals and revel in violating laws and dishonesty? I am confused here.

Trump , like most modern potus' simply provide a diversion for a failed system

The liberals are using the tired old "states rights" rationale the same way 1850's American south used to justify slavery. Isn't that ironic as hell?

10ther's have always been around , one could....if one wished....even paint our FF's 10ther's....

We have people displaced and living in the streets starving and it coincides with the unilateral creation of "sanctuary cities'.

Yes, google tent cites .....

In your opinion, can you explain the meaning of this?

It has none anymore

~S~

sparky, I would be almost inclined to believe that what I quoted has no meaning any longer, but that is a decision the posterity of the founders will ultimately make.

I have a series of questions I'd like someone like Mary to answer so that we could get on a level playing field and the answers to immigration woes are not what she thinks they are.

If that quote ever had any meaning, what does it mean?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

" Not Just Federal But State Authority To Deport Illegal Migrants "

* Hold State Officials Accountable For Ignoring Sanctuary Cities *

It is more absurd to assert that states do not have at least equal authority with the federal government to deport illegal migrants , and to arrest those protecting them , because individuals are not just citizens of the united states but citizens of the state wherein they reside .

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.

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. If not for the 14th Amendment, people could not bitch about so - called "anchor babies." They would not exist.

The 14th Amendment, being illegally ratified, was used to strip the states of their constitutional authority to determine who could and could not be in a state. So, in 1875, the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all things dealing with foreigners. It's funny. I've read the Constitution so many times I know most of it verbatim and yet I keep missing that section that gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant any powers to any other branch of government.

 

[Gdjjr]

It's funny. I've read the Constitution so many times I know most of it verbatim and yet I keep missing that section that gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant any powers to any other branch of government.

It is sadly funny- reading is not a strong suit of the allegedly astute- they seem to deem it an esoteric venture.

 

[Andylusion]

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 can't imagine who it could be. Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it. That seems like it is impossible.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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 can't imagine who it could be. Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it. That seems like it is impossible.

What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?

 

[eagle1462010]

Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.

I agree with you. Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here. 1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.

So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............

I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL

That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.

Call it insane, if you like, but the citizens of California seem to like it, because if they did not, they would vote for somebody else, and they do have the right to elect their own state lawgivers.

They have the right to elect whomever they please............but they do not have the right to OBSTRUCT Federal Law Enforcement Agencies...........Which these laws do............Not only that........Employers under the laws passed by Reagan require them to be Legal to work here. If they are illegal and it is known........those employers can be FINED under that law for doing so............

Ordering Employers to notify illegals with Detainer orders from ICE is a violation of Federal Law passed under Reagan...............and the employer under that law is subject to FINES for even hiring them.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when weave a web of deceit......

It is going to the Supreme Court.

I disagree with your interpretation of the definition of the word, "obstruction".

Then we will disagree then. Federal Laws are still laws of this land........and illegals are breaking the law. So in fact, LEA's are releasing those who have committed a crime in this country.......and this country is SUPPORSED TO BE THE PEOPLE.

I do not agree with the montage being presented here that the Federal Gov't is it's own entity. The Local Gov't is supposed to be a part of the Federal Gov't itself.........

Refusal to honor detainer orders is a CLEAR OBSTRUCTION of ICE and the Federal Gov't doing their jobs.

 

[Monk-Eye]

* Wasting Time Until Some Won Gets Up And Does Some Thing A Bout It *

* Subject To Contract Clause *

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified. If not for the 14th Amendment, people could not bitch about so - called "anchor babies." They would not exist.

As for " anchor babies " , there has not been a case heard upon which to render a judgment through stair decisis that a child be given citizenship when born of a migrant without a legal status as a subject in us immigration system .

The closest contest to any judgment on the " anchor babies " matter is United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia and it does not come near to establish precedence that children of illegal migrants be given citizenship as the court clearly considered that wong was a registered subject of the us immigration system and upon that clear understanding the court ceded to the claim for citizenship by birth .

Those individuals sojourning through the united states and not subjects within the jurisdiction of the us immigration system do not satisfy the " subject to us jurisdiction " clause within us 14th amendment , and consequently their children are not eligible for us state or federal citizenship .

Contractual term - Wikipedia


* State Auspices Beyond Ineptitude *

The 14th Amendment, being illegally ratified, was used to strip the states of their constitutional authority to determine who could and could not be in a state. So, in 1875, the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all things dealing with foreigners. It's funny. I've read the Constitution so many times I know most of it verbatim and yet I keep missing that section that gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant any powers to any other branch of government.

To begin a case requires a state legislature to authorize a state magistrate not to process state citizenship for any child born of an illegal migrant and therefore not initiate filing a petition for federal citizenship as well ; a state attorney general needs to be prepared to forward opposing litigation as necessary .

Perhaps figure out who or whom a state attorney general could charge with granting state citizenship to children born of illegal migrants may be a means to have a case heard before courts ,

With most admonition , us diplomacy should ensure that children born of illegal migrants receive the citizenship from the country of origin from which the mother originates , so as not to create a humanitarian issue of individuals without citizenship in some nation of origin , and so as to shore up an understanding that a state has an ability to deny citizenship of individuals and that includes not granting state citizenship to individuals from another state .

Individual citizens are entitled to sojourn between states under federal protections .

State legislature (United States) - Wikipedia
Every state except Nebraska has a bicameral legislature, meaning that the legislature consists of two separate legislative chambers or houses. In each case the smaller chamber is called the Senate and is usually referred to as the upper house. ... Members of the smaller chamber represent more citizens and usually serve for longer terms than members of the larger chamber, generally four years. ... Members of the larger chamber usually serve for terms of two years. The larger chamber customarily has the exclusive power to initiate taxing legislation and articles of impeachment.

Prior to the United States Supreme Court decisions Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), the basis of representation in most state legislatures was modeled on that of the U.S. Congress: the state senators represented geographical units, while members of the larger chamber represented population. In Reynolds v. Sims the Supreme Court decided upon the one man, one vote standard for state legislatures and invalidated representation based on geographical units regardless of population. (The ruling does not affect the U.S. Senate, because that chamber's makeup is prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.)

 

[Unkotare]

....

Those individuals sojourning through the united states and not subjects within the jurisdiction of the us immigration system do not satisfy the " subject to us jurisdiction " clause .....

What happens to your sojourner if he steals a car in Ohio?






Thanks for playing.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Best To Know Where You Are And Where You Are From "

* Diplomatic Rules Of The Road *

What happens to your sojourner if he steals a car in Ohio?
Thanks for playing.

The country of origin is responsible for reprising a violation of civil liberties for an individual sojourning and without being within jurisdiction of a foreign country as a subject of its immigration system .

The us can do whatever it wishes with a sojourner whom is not a legal migrant and steals a car , including extraditing the individual for prosecution and incarceration in their country of origin grinding them into mulch .

If a us citizen were to kill a sojourner whom is not a legal migrant , then the us is diplomatically obligated to prosecute said perpetrator upon request by the country from which the victim originated as that country is responsible for reprising a violation of civil liberties for their citizen , though the us is not necessarily obligated to prosecute one of its citizens at all .