Sanctuary City Question Leaves Gibbs Stammering

[saveliberty]

So the State of California itself wants its cities to comply. Then the cities have no choice.

But the Federal government can't force states and cities to comply.

You'd be surprised how fast compliance occurs when you withhold federal funds for projects and entitlements.

 

[ConHog]

So the State of California itself wants its cities to comply. Then the cities have no choice.

But the Federal government can't force states and cities to comply.

OMG you are fucking retarded. You went from saying the cities can refuse to comply to oh no the cities cant refuse but states can refuse to comply Ravi, NO ONE can refuse to comply. You don't think that Brown refused to comply that someone from the DoJ would tell him to shut up and comply?

You are wrong about EVERYTHING on this issue Ravi. I guarantee you have not read SB 1070 from AZ, I guarantee you did not read the link I gave you to Section 287(g) and I guarantee that you did not read the link to secure community. Otherwise you would shut up. You have not been right ONE time on ANY point in this thread. NOT ONCE.

Ravi fail #32

 

[saveliberty]

Ravi,

...and I say this in the nicest way...can I see your birth certificate please? lol

 

[ConHog]

Ravi,

...and I say this in the nicest way...can I see your birth certificate please? lol

I'd be more interested in seeing her high school diploma, that school should be sued.

 

[txlonghorn]

Ravi,

...and I say this in the nicest way...can I see your birth certificate please? lol

 

[ConHog]

Ravi,

...and I say this in the nicest way...can I see your birth certificate please? lol

the best part was yesterday when she neg repped me and told me she was CLEARLY telling me how it is in this thread

 

[Ravi]

So the State of California itself wants its cities to comply. Then the cities have no choice.

But the Federal government can't force states and cities to comply.

You'd be surprised how fast compliance occurs when you withhold federal funds for projects and entitlements.

Yes, the Fed has within its powers the power to do that. But that is a tad different.

It appears a lawsuit will eventually settle this:

The attorney general's decision could lead to a lawsuit.
"Our Constitution, the 10th Amendment in particular, would not permit the federal government to impose these kinds of obligations mandatorily on local governments," Sheryl Munoz-Bergman from the International Institute of the Bay Area said.
ABC7 Legal Analyst Dean Johnson says case law favors those who argue a county should be able to say no.
"A federal program cannot commandeer the resources of state and local government for the administration of that program, and that's true even if the resources that are taken from local and state officials are very small, minimal and ephemeral. They just can't do it," he said.

Request denied for San Francisco to opt out of secure communities | abc7news.com

It appears to be the case that the person quoted above is correct, SCOTUS has ruled on this issue before.

Forced participation or commandeering

The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes. In 1992, in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), for only the second time in 55 years, the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment. The case challenged a portion of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The act provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The first two incentives were monetary. The third, which was challenged in the case, obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.
In 1997, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This moron should be fired, imo. He thinks?

Asked whether the program was mandatory, Richard Rocha, deputy press secretary for ICE, said communities can talk to the state agency overseeing it to determine what options they have.
"I don't believe we're requiring anyone to take part in it. I think it's a local decision," Mr. Caher said.

Security Check for Immigrants - WSJ.com

Well, that's enough of this topic. It was amusing to see all the "conservatives" argue against states right and to see cornjob make a fool of himself. But I can only keep repeating myself so many times.

 

[saveliberty]

It is called an unfunded mandate and the federal government does it ALL the time.

 

[ConHog]

So the State of California itself wants its cities to comply. Then the cities have no choice.

But the Federal government can't force states and cities to comply.

You'd be surprised how fast compliance occurs when you withhold federal funds for projects and entitlements.

Yes, the Fed has within its powers the power to do that. But that is a tad different.

It appears a lawsuit will eventually settle this:

Request denied for San Francisco to opt out of secure communities | abc7news.com

It appears to be the case that the person quoted above is correct, SCOTUS has ruled on this issue before.

Forced participation or commandeering

The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes. In 1992, in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), for only the second time in 55 years, the Supreme Court invalidated a portion of a federal law for violating the Tenth Amendment. The case challenged a portion of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The act provided three incentives for states to comply with statutory obligations to provide for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. The first two incentives were monetary. The third, which was challenged in the case, obliged states to take title to any waste within their borders that was not disposed of prior to January 1, 1996, and made each state liable for all damages directly related to the waste. The Court, in a 6–3 decision, ruled that the imposition of that obligation on the states violated the Tenth Amendment. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations.
In 1997, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This moron should be fired, imo. He thinks?

Asked whether the program was mandatory, Richard Rocha, deputy press secretary for ICE, said communities can talk to the state agency overseeing it to determine what options they have.
"I don't believe we're requiring anyone to take part in it. I think it's a local decision," Mr. Caher said.

Security Check for Immigrants - WSJ.com

Well, that's enough of this topic. It was amusing to see all the "conservatives" argue against states right and to see cornjob make a fool of himself. But I can only keep repeating myself so many times.

The 10th? Oops guess they forgot to read ARticle VI, wonder why

Ravi Fail #33

Yes, that guy is wrong, it is not a local decision as AG Brown informed the fairy mayor of SF.

Ravi Fail #34

How sad that you think I am the one who was made the fool in this thread, and that you claim this as a victory?

Ravi Fail #35

State's rights have nothing to do with SF wanting to be a sanctuary city

Ravi Fail #36

You should have left this thread four days ago when you had some shred of dignity left, instead you kept coming back for more. I beat you like you a rented mule.

Ravi Fail #37

 

[ConHog]

odd, you ask Ravi for her proof of citizenship and suddenly she hauls ass. If I had known that I would have yelled ICE about 2 days ago.

 

[saveliberty]

I guess we could also treat Mexicans like the Indians and put them on reservations. I'd personally make the reservations in Iraq.

 

[ConHog]

I guess we could also treat Mexicans like the Indians and put them on reservations. I'd personally make the reservations in Iraq.

I said a long time ago, give them a weapon and a pack and send them to Afghanistan, any that serve a year over there, they have earned immediate citizenship upon return. Any that refuse earn a bus trip to Tijuana.

 

[hortysir]

I just got an e-mail about the u.s. congress passing to extend soc. sec. to illegal immigrants. Not related to this topic but it shows that maybe states need to look out for themselves because the current idiots in D.C. are not.

Got a link or a quote for that?
I get weekly e-mails from congress.org and others.
Just checked mine, and Congress has been in recess this week, so.....

 

[ConHog]

I just got an e-mail about the u.s. congress passing to extend soc. sec. to illegal immigrants. Not related to this topic but it shows that maybe states need to look out for themselves because the current idiots in D.C. are not.

Got a link or a quote for that?
I get weekly e-mails from congress.org and others.
Just checked mine, and Congress has been in recess this week, so.....

Yeah I don't buy that anymore than I buy the crap Ravi tries to sell.

 

[Meister]

I just got an e-mail about the u.s. congress passing to extend soc. sec. to illegal immigrants. Not related to this topic but it shows that maybe states need to look out for themselves because the current idiots in D.C. are not.

Got a link or a quote for that?
I get weekly e-mails from congress.org and others.
Just checked mine, and Congress has been in recess this week, so.....

Yeah I don't buy that anymore than I buy the crap Ravi tries to sell.

This is what snopes said about it....it is false...mostly.
snopes.com: Social Security for Illegal Aliens

 

[froggy]

Uh...no...they arrest them and hold them in jail and don't turn them over to ICE. That is the law they made...it is illegal to be in Arizona if you aren't a citizen or have a green card.

Subtle, yet different.

Clearly you need to read the law again. lol

They will only be held until ICE takes them. If Ice refuses to take them, well then who knows lol. That is kinda the whole point of the law. If the Feds were doing their job Arizona would never have passed their law.

ICE doesn't have the budget to deal with 20 million illegals. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Put your money where your mouth is.

If they used all the money they're spending on keeping illegals here they would have plenty.

 

[ConHog]

Clearly you need to read the law again. lol

They will only be held until ICE takes them. If Ice refuses to take them, well then who knows lol. That is kinda the whole point of the law. If the Feds were doing their job Arizona would never have passed their law.

ICE doesn't have the budget to deal with 20 million illegals. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Put your money where your mouth is.

If they used all the money they're spending on keeping illegals here they would have plenty.

Already proven, ICE has plenty of funds. That isn't even an issue here, and Ravi Bunker the liar knows it.