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.
dude, first degrees need to go first; that is all.sure, and the legal precedent hasn't been set by SCOTUS, as reaffirmed by conservative justice scalia..
there are no boundaries in trumpswap fantasia...........
Why do local law enforcement not want to help federal law enforcement?
Why active aiding and abetting of criminals, instead of professional co-operation?
Dude, we have a Statue of Liberty, for reason.I agree to, "blame the right" if we have to give our Statue of Liberty, back to the French.“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.
Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.
In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.
Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.
Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.
YOu ready to admit that you are actively hostile to the welfare and interests of Americans?
So is the entire right wing.“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.
Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.
In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.
Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.
Opinion | Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.
Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.
That fact that the linked article finds it necessary to lie about the issue by calling the illegal aliens, "undocumented migrants" shows that the entire paradigm is based on dishonesty.
We have a Commerce Clause.
Tourism with permission to work in the US, is Not, immigration.
This is why I don't take the right wing seriously about economics or the law; they simply don't understand the concepts.So is the entire right wing.“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.
Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.
In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.
Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.
Opinion | Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.
Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.
That fact that the linked article finds it necessary to lie about the issue by calling the illegal aliens, "undocumented migrants" shows that the entire paradigm is based on dishonesty.
We have a Commerce Clause.
Tourism with permission to work in the US, is Not, immigration.
YOur gibberish does not counter my point.
The people in question are illegal aliens, they are not "undocumented migrants".
An refusal to describe the issue honestly, renders any analysis to be complete garbage.
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.
Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.
In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.
Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.
Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.
Dude, we have a Statue of Liberty, for reason.I agree to, "blame the right" if we have to give our Statue of Liberty, back to the French.“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.
Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.
In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.
Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.
Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.
YOu ready to admit that you are actively hostile to the welfare and interests of Americans?
This is why I don't take the right wing seriously about economics or the law; they simply don't understand the concepts.So is the entire right wing.“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.
Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.
In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.
Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.
Opinion | Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.
Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.
That fact that the linked article finds it necessary to lie about the issue by calling the illegal aliens, "undocumented migrants" shows that the entire paradigm is based on dishonesty.
We have a Commerce Clause.
Tourism with permission to work in the US, is Not, immigration.
YOur gibberish does not counter my point.
The people in question are illegal aliens, they are not "undocumented migrants".
An refusal to describe the issue honestly, renders any analysis to be complete garbage.
the constitutional principles involved are evidently WAY over trumpswab heads!
I only admit the right wing is clueless Causeless; so I never worry about going to Court for an, Order to Show Cause.Dude, we have a Statue of Liberty, for reason.I agree to, "blame the right" if we have to give our Statue of Liberty, back to the French.“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.
Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.
In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.
Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.
Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.
YOu ready to admit that you are actively hostile to the welfare and interests of Americans?
Yep. ANd it is not to demonstrate that we, as a nation, do not have the Right to invite who we wish to join our community, or NOT.
I responded to your point.
Now will you respond to mine?
YOu ready to admit that you are actively hostile to the welfare and interests of Americans?
dude, first degrees need to go first; that is all.sure, and the legal precedent hasn't been set by SCOTUS, as reaffirmed by conservative justice scalia..
there are no boundaries in trumpswap fantasia...........
Why do local law enforcement not want to help federal law enforcement?
Why active aiding and abetting of criminals, instead of professional co-operation?
I only admit the right wing is clueless Causeless; so I never worry about going to Court for an, Order to Show Cause.Dude, we have a Statue of Liberty, for reason.I agree to, "blame the right" if we have to give our Statue of Liberty, back to the French.“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.
Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.
In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.
Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.
Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.
YOu ready to admit that you are actively hostile to the welfare and interests of Americans?
Yep. ANd it is not to demonstrate that we, as a nation, do not have the Right to invite who we wish to join our community, or NOT.
I responded to your point.
Now will you respond to mine?
YOu ready to admit that you are actively hostile to the welfare and interests of Americans?
Correct. The crack dealer is not an undocumented pharmacistSo is the entire right wing.“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.
Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.
In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.
Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.
Opinion | Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.
Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.
That fact that the linked article finds it necessary to lie about the issue by calling the illegal aliens, "undocumented migrants" shows that the entire paradigm is based on dishonesty.
We have a Commerce Clause.
Tourism with permission to work in the US, is Not, immigration.
YOur gibberish does not counter my point.
The people in question are illegal aliens, they are not "undocumented migrants".
An refusal to describe the issue honestly, renders any analysis to be complete garbage.
Correct. The crack dealer is not an undocumented pharmacistSo is the entire right wing.“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.
Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.
In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.
Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.
Opinion | Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.
Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.
That fact that the linked article finds it necessary to lie about the issue by calling the illegal aliens, "undocumented migrants" shows that the entire paradigm is based on dishonesty.
We have a Commerce Clause.
Tourism with permission to work in the US, is Not, immigration.
YOur gibberish does not counter my point.
The people in question are illegal aliens, they are not "undocumented migrants".
An refusal to describe the issue honestly, renders any analysis to be complete garbage.
Yes, it is; we merely have a printing press that prints money, almost as if by magic. We call it, fiat money.dude, first degrees need to go first; that is all.sure, and the legal precedent hasn't been set by SCOTUS, as reaffirmed by conservative justice scalia..
there are no boundaries in trumpswap fantasia...........
Why do local law enforcement not want to help federal law enforcement?
Why active aiding and abetting of criminals, instead of professional co-operation?
NOthing about that is an answer to my question.
I only admit the right wing is clueless Causeless; so I never worry about going to Court for an, Order to Show Cause.Dude, we have a Statue of Liberty, for reason.I agree to, "blame the right" if we have to give our Statue of Liberty, back to the French.
YOu ready to admit that you are actively hostile to the welfare and interests of Americans?
Yep. ANd it is not to demonstrate that we, as a nation, do not have the Right to invite who we wish to join our community, or NOT.
I responded to your point.
Now will you respond to mine?
YOu ready to admit that you are actively hostile to the welfare and interests of Americans?
The fact that you have to hide your agenda from those you talk to, that's strong evidence that you are the bad guy.
Why do you WANT to be the bad guy? Does that not negatively impact your self image?
Yes, it is; we merely have a printing press that prints money, almost as if by magic. We call it, fiat money.dude, first degrees need to go first; that is all.sure, and the legal precedent hasn't been set by SCOTUS, as reaffirmed by conservative justice scalia..
there are no boundaries in trumpswap fantasia...........
Why do local law enforcement not want to help federal law enforcement?
Why active aiding and abetting of criminals, instead of professional co-operation?
NOthing about that is an answer to my question.
It is about best use of limited resources. First degrees need to go, first. It really is that simple. Hopefully, a "two for one" deal on both State and federal first degrees, would be a "bonus".
I only admit the right wing is clueless Causeless; so I never worry about going to Court for an, Order to Show Cause.Dude, we have a Statue of Liberty, for reason.YOu ready to admit that you are actively hostile to the welfare and interests of Americans?
Yep. ANd it is not to demonstrate that we, as a nation, do not have the Right to invite who we wish to join our community, or NOT.
I responded to your point.
Now will you respond to mine?
YOu ready to admit that you are actively hostile to the welfare and interests of Americans?
The fact that you have to hide your agenda from those you talk to, that's strong evidence that you are the bad guy.
Why do you WANT to be the bad guy? Does that not negatively impact your self image?
I already have stated, more than several times, that we need to solve our illegal problem at the federal borders with the federal powers already delegated to our federal Congress by our federal Constitution.
We have a Commerce Clause; we should have no illegal problem.
No evidence any of that happened NONE.What they should have done is follow him when he left the compound and arrest him away from those people. He was their leader and without him, they would have given up.
Again, you are really speculating what a bunch of religious nuts with guns might have done under other circumstances.
Arresting Koresh wasn't the point. the goal was to get all the weapons he and his followers were converting to full automatic and selling illegally.
States have no authority over immigration since 1808. It is in our federal Constitution.“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
President-elect Donald Trump is likely to need the cooperation of state and local governments, as federal law enforcement personnel are extremely limited. Numerous cities have “sanctuary” policies under which they are committed to refusing cooperation with most federal deportation efforts. They include New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, and other cities with large immigrant populations. Sanctuary cities refuse to facilitate deportation both because city leaders believe it to be harmful and unjust, and because local law enforcement officials have concluded that it poisons community relations and undermines efforts to combat violent crime. They also recognize that mass deportation would have severe economic costs.
Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law.
In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.
Trump has said that he intends to break the resistance of sanctuary cities by cutting off all of their federal funding. The cities might continue resisting even if they do lose some federal funds. But Trump’s threat is not as formidable as it might seem.
Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities
The looming fight over sanctuary cities is an example of how federalism and constitutional limitations on federal power can sometimes protect vulnerable minorities – in this case undocumented immigrants. States and localities have a reputation for being enemies of minority rights, while the federal government is seen as their protector. That has often been true historically. But sometimes the situation is reversed – a pattern that has become more common in recent years.
Many deportation advocates claim it is essential to enforce the law against all violators. But the vast majority of Americans have violated the law at some point in their lives, and few truly believe that all lawbreaking should be punished, regardless of the nature of the law in question or the reason for the violation. And few have more defensible reasons for violating law than undocumented migrants whose only other option is a lifetime of Third World poverty and oppression. In any event, even if there is an obligation to enforce a particular law, it does not follow that the duty falls on state and local governments.
The U.S. Constitution does not have a provision for immigration sanctuary, and there is no legal precedent for it in the history of the United States of America.
When U.S. cities and even entire states declare themselves to be "sanctuaries" for illegal aliens, they act outside the law, and by their actions could be charged with a felony for each violation of federal law by "concealing, harboring, or sheltering illegal aliens" (8 U.S. Code, sections 1324 and 1325; Immigration and Naturalization Act sections 274 and 275
