red states rule
Senior Member
- May 30, 2006
- 16,011
- 573
- 48
- Thread starter
- #21
That's actually true - Indymedia will go to town.
and NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, and the LA Times to name a few
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's actually true - Indymedia will go to town.
The point is, this Mayor is telling the Federal government and the law to fuck off.
Illegals are costing the taxpayers of CA billions and the number is growing.
He did the same thing when the voters in CA, voted to state the the CA Constitution marriage is between a man and a women
It was a disaster for him and the Dem party. This time is is hurting everyone
and NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, and the LA Times to name a few
When it comes to illegals I usually won't comment. That's because for me to pronounce upon a purely domestic policy in the US (as opposed to foreign policy which affects me, or on theoretical or philosophical issues which I feel free to let rip on) I think it's none of my business. But before you hammer with my own Louisville Slugger let me say that's my decision, I don't feel as if I can't, I feel as if I shouldn't).
But breaking my own rule for once - I can understand people getting pissy about illegals, it plays merry hell with the labour market, forces down the cost of labour and therefore people's wages.
No more comment from me about illegals specifically.
So if a constituency of a Mayor said they did not to obey the Federal speed limt law - what would happen?
Irrelevant, speculative fishing expedition. You cannot factually answer your own question any more than I can.
For starters, they city would lose all Federal funding - which should happen in this instance
Incorrect. States used to lose federal highway dollars for not enforcing the federally-mandated 55 mph speed limit. This authority has since been returned to the states.
The city receives federal funds via the state. The state would not lose federal funding because a certain group stated they opposed and/or did not intend to enforce a specific law.
If any politican does not agree with a law, change it through the legislative process
So, if a federal ban on ALL hanguns is signed into law tomorrow, you are going to voluntarily turn in your handguns and await the outcome of the legislative process?
Sure he has a right to speak out. But one must be willing to accept the consequences
In 2004, a report stated the cost to taxpayers in CA was $9 billion per year
Then their were only 3 million illegals in the state
I hate to think what the cost in now
Not to mention the increasing crimes they commit not only in CA, but in all 50 states
So it should be your business
The point is, this Mayor is telling the Federal government and the law to fuck off.
Illegals are costing the taxpayers of CA billions and the number is growing.
He did the same thing when the voters in CA, voted to state the the CA Constitution marriage is between a man and a women
It was a disaster for him and the Dem party. This time is is hurting everyone
The legal consequence for this Mayor speaking out is ....what exactly?
Is he? The Mayor of a city usually is the de facto head of that city's police force.
The Mayor of a city is neither tasked with nor responsible for the enforcement if US immigration laws. The Federal government is. If his city's police force doen't have a cooperative, working relationship with a federal agency, he's just one on a long list.
He's grandstanding, and people like you are "smart" enough to buy it.
Now, I challenged you to a debate. You directed me to this thread. There is no debate here. For one thing, it's hard to tell what you're debating. You're all over the place.
Sure you don't want to try again?
Speaking out none. His willful inaction to enforcing the law - - perhaps aiding and abetting the illegals, and willfully violating a Federal law comes to mind
As I already stated, he doesn't have to enforce anything. He doesn't work for INS, nor does he have jurisdiction over NIS.
No Mayor cannot make law from his office
Elected officials take an oath to enforce the law
He is not grandstanding when he fails to enforce the laws on the books
As I posted eariler, illegals are hurting the citizens of the city and the state
Since when can elected officials pick and choose what laws they enforce?
You are incorrect, and rather ignorant to law enforcement. It is not his job to enforce immigration laws. You can't charge him with jack shit for not enforcing laws he is not responsible for enforcing.
So yeah, he's grandstanding. He made a belligerent statement as if he was going to defy the Federal government when in actuality the basis of his threat is bogus. He never was tasked with enforcing federal immigration laws.
When illegas are picked up by Police, the Police are not allowed to call INS and report them - that is aiding and abetting
Some states have now passed laws where the Police are required to at least make the phone call
It is not aiding and abetting if the police are not required to by policy, and if the city has not included it in its laws, and the state has not included it in state laws local police are required to enforce.
Local police are NOT INS agents. What part of that is confusing you?
Yes Police are not INS agents -
Thank you for conceding. Everything after the bolded protion is an op-ed by you, irrelevant to the topic at hand.
but they can enforce existing laws and notify INS - which would make their jobs easier
In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens - this was in 2004
The numbers are much bigger by now
His reply would be in that pukey green text amidst your jump of shit in quotes.
(Just trying to help)