Texas to arrest Sanctuary City Leaders, Police Chiefs, etc...

[danielpalos]

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, first degrees need to go first; that is all.

NOthing about that is an answer to my question.

Yes, it is; we merely have a printing press that prints money, almost as if by magic. We call it, fiat money.

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".

None of that is a answer to my question either.

IF you have a point, what is the gain from hiding it from everyone except yourself?

What was Your question, rightwing fisherman? Nothing but Red Herrings.

 

[danielpalos]

Dude, we have a Statue of Liberty, for reason.

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?

I only admit the right wing is clueless Causeless; so I never worry about going to Court for an, Order to Show Cause.

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.

Yes, your agenda was revealed by your completely refusal for the very concept of including American interests in the crafting of American policy.

Your loyalty is obviously SOLELY towards your fellow national Mexicans.

Indeed, you instead are actively HOSTILE to even American children.


You are a monster.

You are simply clueless and Causeless, right winger. How completely and totally, usual.

We have a Commerce Clause; we should have no illegal problem.

 

[Desperado]

Hopefully that should set an example for the rest of the country

 

[Correll]

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, first degrees need to go first; that is all.

NOthing about that is an answer to my question.

Yes, it is; we merely have a printing press that prints money, almost as if by magic. We call it, fiat money.

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".

None of that is a answer to my question either.

IF you have a point, what is the gain from hiding it from everyone except yourself?

What was Your question, rightwing fisherman? Nothing but Red Herrings.

From above, from a post that you hit the "reply " button on, but never actually replied to.



Why do local law enforcement not want to help federal law enforcement?

Why active aiding and abetting of criminals, instead of professional co-operation?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If it's part of their job description, yes, they will enforce federal law.

Nope, and it is never in their job description. BTW. Arizona already tried this a couple of years ago, and the feds shut the state down for infringing on fed jurisdiction. Another example. County deputies have no jurisdiction in AZ over anything happening ion the interstate highway, and frontage roads. We won't even respond to calls there.That is AZ Highway patrol jurisdiction.

Justice Department Files Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law

The justice department prevailed in this suit, and the State had to stop operating in federal jurisdiction.

Apples and oranges. What DumBama sued for is that Arizona created their own immigration regulations. This is entirely different. These are regulations that have been on the book for decades, and the feds give their blessing to local authorities that do as they ask.

The feds cannot make local authorities enforce their law, but the state or county can. If it's required by them to follow federal guidelines, not doing so means they are not doing their job and probably subject to termination. The person who signs your paycheck makes the rules.

The state or county has no immigration laws that they can force a municipality to enforce, Ray, and they have no legal authority to force municipalities to enforce federal law.. Do I really have to point that out to you?

No, they can't. But what's happening in Texas is something they can do. If the state creates a law or requirement of working with the feds, you work with the feds. If you don't, your municipality may be subject to losing state funds. If they want to lose those funds, fine, do what you like. But don't complain about the results.

10USC311 is also, federal law; you cannot, "pick and choose".

You mean the militia law, you are aware that does not in anyway restrict who can and can not own possess or use weapons right? And that the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd is in an INDIVIDUAL right not a collective right?

 

[Correll]

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?

I only admit the right wing is clueless Causeless; so I never worry about going to Court for an, Order to Show Cause.

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.

Yes, your agenda was revealed by your completely refusal for the very concept of including American interests in the crafting of American policy.

Your loyalty is obviously SOLELY towards your fellow national Mexicans.

Indeed, you instead are actively HOSTILE to even American children.


You are a monster.

You are simply clueless and Causeless, right winger. How completely and totally, usual.

We have a Commerce Clause; we should have no illegal problem.

Yes, your agenda was revealed by your completely refusal for the very concept of including American interests in the crafting of American policy.

Your loyalty is obviously SOLELY towards your fellow national Mexicans.

Indeed, you instead are actively HOSTILE to even American children.


You are a monster.

 

[Thinker101]

“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

States have no authority over immigration since 1808. It is in our federal Constitution.

Yikes, isn't that what I said?

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Don't count on rulings from activist judges to hold when these cases make their way to the Supreme Court. The feds can legally and constitutionally withhold funds from anybody they desire for any reason they desire. It's been used as a threat by Democrats multiple times in the past. As for stopping people coming here from selected countries, that has been a law passed by Congress and Senate for years now."

And, yet again, the federal court ruled the opposite of what you claim, within the last 2 weeks. Alternate facts on your part, I guess.

 

[Vandalshandle]

It is fun reading simplistic solutions to complex problems. Until Trump ran for president, which seemed to attract simplistic people like catnip attracts cats, I had no idea just how many people buy into this kind of problem solving! I first noticed it when Trump said that he was going to deport 12 million illegal aliens within 2 years, which is impossible without violating the Constitution. Of course, now he isn't even talking about how many he will deport in any time frame. Nobody has even come out with a clear definition of what a sanctuary city is, but by god, they have to be punished! Texas is always up there with simplistic solutions. The law that they are trying to pass is so blatantly unconstitutional that it boggles the mind with questions, like, "Do they even have a law school in that state?"

A recent poll showed that 80% of voters oppose sanctuary cities, so how stupid do you to be to believe one rogue federal district judge can stop what nearly all of America wants by issuing a political decision instead of a legal decision?

80% of voters don't even know what a sanctuary city is.......

They know what a sanctuary city is and they want to get rid of them.

Why don't you explain to us, exactly what a "sanctuary city" is, Toomuch?

lol So you support them but don't know what they are? Can you spell bigot?

I know exactly what a sanctuary city is, Toomuch. Apparently the point that I was making that you do NOT know how to define the term just flew over your head.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"Don't count on rulings from activist judges to hold when these cases make their way to the Supreme Court. The feds can legally and constitutionally withhold funds from anybody they desire for any reason they desire. It's been used as a threat by Democrats multiple times in the past. As for stopping people coming here from selected countries, that has been a law passed by Congress and Senate for years now."

And, yet again, the federal court ruled the opposite of what you claim, within the last 2 weeks. Alternate facts on your part, I guess.

No, it's a display of leftist judicial activism. This is one of the reasons it was so dire to keep Hillary out of the White House. Now anybody that follows politics can see why it was so good to have Trump selecting judges instead.

We have a separation of powers for a reason. When the judicial starts legislating, we are heading for a tyrannical government which is very dangerous, especially when they cite the US Constitution and giving phony boloney reasons there are violations which there aren't.

They can have their fun and show their loyalty to the Democrat party, but when it is overturned, we will be the last ones laughing.

 

[danielpalos]

dude, first degrees need to go first; that is all.

NOthing about that is an answer to my question.

Yes, it is; we merely have a printing press that prints money, almost as if by magic. We call it, fiat money.

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".

None of that is a answer to my question either.

IF you have a point, what is the gain from hiding it from everyone except yourself?

What was Your question, rightwing fisherman? Nothing but Red Herrings.

From above, from a post that you hit the "reply " button on, but never actually replied to.



Why do local law enforcement not want to help federal law enforcement?

Why active aiding and abetting of criminals, instead of professional co-operation?

First degrees get to go first.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

“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.

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?

Dude, we have a Statue of Liberty, for reason.

Too bad you don't know what that is.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A recent poll showed that 80% of voters oppose sanctuary cities, so how stupid do you to be to believe one rogue federal district judge can stop what nearly all of America wants by issuing a political decision instead of a legal decision?

80% of voters don't even know what a sanctuary city is.......

They know what a sanctuary city is and they want to get rid of them.

Why don't you explain to us, exactly what a "sanctuary city" is, Toomuch?

lol So you support them but don't know what they are? Can you spell bigot?

I know exactly what a sanctuary city is, Toomuch. Apparently the point that I was making that you do NOT know how to define the term just flew over your head.

You didn't make any point, asshole, you just tried to turn a debate over the issue into a personal argument - so here you go, dumbass - because you are a simple minded bigot who only supports sanctuary cities because you think you're supposed to. Are you really stupid enough to believe states and municipalities should be able to pick and choose which federal laws they will obey?

 

[danielpalos]

“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.

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?

Dude, we have a Statue of Liberty, for reason.

Too bad you don't know what that is.

It is on the plaque?

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Don't count on rulings from activist judges to hold when these cases make their way to the Supreme Court. The feds can legally and constitutionally withhold funds from anybody they desire for any reason they desire. It's been used as a threat by Democrats multiple times in the past. As for stopping people coming here from selected countries, that has been a law passed by Congress and Senate for years now."

And, yet again, the federal court ruled the opposite of what you claim, within the last 2 weeks. Alternate facts on your part, I guess.

No, it's a display of leftist judicial activism. This is one of the reasons it was so dire to keep Hillary out of the White House. Now anybody that follows politics can see why it was so good to have Trump selecting judges instead.

We have a separation of powers for a reason. When the judicial starts legislating, we are heading for a tyrannical government which is very dangerous, especially when they cite the US Constitution and giving phony boloney reasons there are violations which there aren't.

They can have their fun and show their loyalty to the Democrat party, but when it is overturned, we will be the last ones laughing.

NOthing about that is an answer to my question.

Yes, it is; we merely have a printing press that prints money, almost as if by magic. We call it, fiat money.

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".

None of that is a answer to my question either.

IF you have a point, what is the gain from hiding it from everyone except yourself?

What was Your question, rightwing fisherman? Nothing but Red Herrings.

From above, from a post that you hit the "reply " button on, but never actually replied to.



Why do local law enforcement not want to help federal law enforcement?

Why active aiding and abetting of criminals, instead of professional co-operation?

First degrees get to go first.

80% of voters don't even know what a sanctuary city is.......

They know what a sanctuary city is and they want to get rid of them.

Why don't you explain to us, exactly what a "sanctuary city" is, Toomuch?

lol So you support them but don't know what they are? Can you spell bigot?

I know exactly what a sanctuary city is, Toomuch. Apparently the point that I was making that you do NOT know how to define the term just flew over your head.

You didn't make any point, asshole, you just tried to turn a debate over the issue into a personal argument - so here you go, dumbass - because you are a simple minded bigot who only supports sanctuary cities because you think you're supposed to. Are you really stupid enough to believe states and municipalities should be able to pick and choose which federal laws they will obey?

You have outed yourself, Toomuch. in your short paragraph that you just posted, you have revealed that you do not know what a sanctuary city is. It assumes that sanctuary cities do not obey federal law. That reveals that you are posting about something that you do not know anything about.

 

[Correll]

NOthing about that is an answer to my question.

Yes, it is; we merely have a printing press that prints money, almost as if by magic. We call it, fiat money.

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".

None of that is a answer to my question either.

IF you have a point, what is the gain from hiding it from everyone except yourself?

What was Your question, rightwing fisherman? Nothing but Red Herrings.

From above, from a post that you hit the "reply " button on, but never actually replied to.



Why do local law enforcement not want to help federal law enforcement?

Why active aiding and abetting of criminals, instead of professional co-operation?

First degrees get to go first.

Which does not address the question.

 

[toomuchtime_]

"Don't count on rulings from activist judges to hold when these cases make their way to the Supreme Court. The feds can legally and constitutionally withhold funds from anybody they desire for any reason they desire. It's been used as a threat by Democrats multiple times in the past. As for stopping people coming here from selected countries, that has been a law passed by Congress and Senate for years now."

And, yet again, the federal court ruled the opposite of what you claim, within the last 2 weeks. Alternate facts on your part, I guess.

No, it's a display of leftist judicial activism. This is one of the reasons it was so dire to keep Hillary out of the White House. Now anybody that follows politics can see why it was so good to have Trump selecting judges instead.

We have a separation of powers for a reason. When the judicial starts legislating, we are heading for a tyrannical government which is very dangerous, especially when they cite the US Constitution and giving phony boloney reasons there are violations which there aren't.

They can have their fun and show their loyalty to the Democrat party, but when it is overturned, we will be the last ones laughing.

Yes, it is; we merely have a printing press that prints money, almost as if by magic. We call it, fiat money.

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".

None of that is a answer to my question either.

IF you have a point, what is the gain from hiding it from everyone except yourself?

What was Your question, rightwing fisherman? Nothing but Red Herrings.

From above, from a post that you hit the "reply " button on, but never actually replied to.



Why do local law enforcement not want to help federal law enforcement?

Why active aiding and abetting of criminals, instead of professional co-operation?

First degrees get to go first.

They know what a sanctuary city is and they want to get rid of them.

Why don't you explain to us, exactly what a "sanctuary city" is, Toomuch?

lol So you support them but don't know what they are? Can you spell bigot?

I know exactly what a sanctuary city is, Toomuch. Apparently the point that I was making that you do NOT know how to define the term just flew over your head.

You didn't make any point, asshole, you just tried to turn a debate over the issue into a personal argument - so here you go, dumbass - because you are a simple minded bigot who only supports sanctuary cities because you think you're supposed to. Are you really stupid enough to believe states and municipalities should be able to pick and choose which federal laws they will obey?

You have outed yourself, Toomuch. in your short paragraph that you just posted, you have revealed that you do not know what a sanctuary city is. It assumes that sanctuary cities do not obey federal law. That reveals that you are posting about something that you do not know anything about.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.[26]Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities' bans against municipal workers reporting a person's immigration status to federal authorities.[27]

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia

It is a violation of federal law, dumbass.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"Don't count on rulings from activist judges to hold when these cases make their way to the Supreme Court. The feds can legally and constitutionally withhold funds from anybody they desire for any reason they desire. It's been used as a threat by Democrats multiple times in the past. As for stopping people coming here from selected countries, that has been a law passed by Congress and Senate for years now."

And, yet again, the federal court ruled the opposite of what you claim, within the last 2 weeks. Alternate facts on your part, I guess.

No, it's a display of leftist judicial activism. This is one of the reasons it was so dire to keep Hillary out of the White House. Now anybody that follows politics can see why it was so good to have Trump selecting judges instead.

We have a separation of powers for a reason. When the judicial starts legislating, we are heading for a tyrannical government which is very dangerous, especially when they cite the US Constitution and giving phony boloney reasons there are violations which there aren't.

They can have their fun and show their loyalty to the Democrat party, but when it is overturned, we will be the last ones laughing.

None of that is a answer to my question either.

IF you have a point, what is the gain from hiding it from everyone except yourself?

What was Your question, rightwing fisherman? Nothing but Red Herrings.

From above, from a post that you hit the "reply " button on, but never actually replied to.



Why do local law enforcement not want to help federal law enforcement?

Why active aiding and abetting of criminals, instead of professional co-operation?

First degrees get to go first.

Why don't you explain to us, exactly what a "sanctuary city" is, Toomuch?

lol So you support them but don't know what they are? Can you spell bigot?

I know exactly what a sanctuary city is, Toomuch. Apparently the point that I was making that you do NOT know how to define the term just flew over your head.

You didn't make any point, asshole, you just tried to turn a debate over the issue into a personal argument - so here you go, dumbass - because you are a simple minded bigot who only supports sanctuary cities because you think you're supposed to. Are you really stupid enough to believe states and municipalities should be able to pick and choose which federal laws they will obey?

You have outed yourself, Toomuch. in your short paragraph that you just posted, you have revealed that you do not know what a sanctuary city is. It assumes that sanctuary cities do not obey federal law. That reveals that you are posting about something that you do not know anything about.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.[26]Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities' bans against municipal workers reporting a person's immigration status to federal authorities.[27]

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia

It is a violation of federal law, dumbass.

What, specifically, does a Sanctuary city do that is in violation of federal law, and if that were true, why hasn't anyone in any of the 200 plus sanctuary cities been charged, indicted, arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for breaking federal laws?

 

[edward37]

While states like California are trying to find ways to defy President Trump by protecting criminal illegals, Texas is on the verge of passing legislation that would hold Mauors, police Ciefs, and other city officials accountable for enabling Sanctuary Cities.

If caught doing so, these coty officials could be SENT TO JAIL for breaking the law and aiding /abetting criminals.

GO, TEXAS! HUA!

Texas prepares to begin locking up leaders in sanctuary cities - Hot Air

"Texas would be the first in which police chiefs and sheriffs could be jailed for not helping enforce immigration law. They could also lose their jobs."

An excellent start.

Damn those coty officials Mauors and police Ciefs? You've been drinking easy?? One error NBD but 3

 

[Dr Grump]

So let's say a bank robbery is taking place and a police officer enters. One of the robbers grabs a woman and puts his gun to her head. Do you think the officer should aggressively try to stop the robber while he's holding the woman hostage?

Authorities are trained to protect the innocent when they are unfortunately in the middle of a situation. That's why they don't storm a house when they know a hostage is in there. They stay outside and try to reason with the suspect unless it gets to the point they believe the hostage will die no matter what they do, or they see a break such as a SWAT sharp shooter having a clear shot at the suspect. When police are in a high speed pursuit of a vehicle, they are instructed to call off the chase if the vehicle starts moving too fast. They do so to protect the suspect and more importantly, the innocent public.

The children in that compound were innocent, I don't care what their parents were involved in, and precautions should have taken place because in a sense, those children were hostages. Even if children know their parents are wrong, they have to follow their orders because they are the parents.

I didn't want to get involved in this debate, but I have to chime in when you say that it's nobody else's fault. It was badly planned, badly executed, and it doesn't matter if Koresh was right or wrong. They made a huge mistake.

What the hell are you talking about? The US police forces are some of the most gung ho there is out there. In fact, when I was training to be an LEO in NZ we were shown example after example of how NOT to do something. 99 percent of those examples were from the US.

I'm not saying they could have done it better. They probably could have. Hind sight is 20/20. I get pissed every time I hear a family whine and moan that their son, 17 year old Johnny was killed in a car chase because he refused to stop. "Oh the cops should have stopped chasing him". These day in NZ, police have to stop chases if they become too dangerous. I go back to the beginning. If Johnny hadn't been driving like a fuckwit in the first place it never would have happened. If Koresh didn't think he was god, wasn't armed to the teeth, and did what he was told, it never would have happened.

Don't blame the police for that piece of shit's action.