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

[westwall]

So much for state rights!

That doesn't even make sense considering the topic. lol

It's timmy... Anything related to intellect doesn't apply. That being said i look forward to the first politician being arrested for violating their oath of office.

 

[danielpalos]

So much for state rights!

States have no right to protect foreign criminals.

States have no authority over immigration into the Union, since 1808.

Therefore Trump is correct to stop sanctuary cities.

by interfering in States' rights? We have a Commerce Clause, we need proper and market friendly solutions to our illegal problem.

The state legislature is passing a law to ban sanctuary cities. The "STATE" of Texas. Federal legislation needs to follow.

States have no authority over immigration since 1808. Why only social plans on a national basis instead of Commerce, well regulated, right wingers? Laissez-fair, all the way.

 

[danielpalos]

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."

Won't happen here. Just won't.

It will probably soon be happening everywhere.

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to federal authorities.

The poll shows that President Trump has broad public support in his effort to crack down on sanctuary cities.

A survey from Harvard–Harris Poll provided exclusively to The Hill found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.

Poll: Americans overwhelmingly oppose sanctuary cities

i hearsay and soothsay, plenty of litigation for the party of nothing but social plans on a national basis instead of the Capitalism of Commerce, well regulated.

 

[danielpalos]

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?"

Given the idea that you know more than Texas's top attorneys, tell us what's unconstitutional about it.

What Trump didn't understand was all the red tape involved with deporting people. Each deportation case has to be heard in court, and Trump didn't realize it. That's why they are adding 75 more immigrant judges to the mix.

States have no authority over immigration into the Union since 1808. Why is the State of Texas not busier attracting more business from more liberal States, instead of merely, "harassing", less fortunate illegals.

 

[toomuchtime_]

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."

Won't happen here. Just won't.

It will probably soon be happening everywhere.

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to federal authorities.

The poll shows that President Trump has broad public support in his effort to crack down on sanctuary cities.

A survey from Harvard–Harris Poll provided exclusively to The Hill found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.

Poll: Americans overwhelmingly oppose sanctuary cities

i hearsay and soothsay, plenty of litigation for the party of nothing but social plans on a national basis instead of the Capitalism of Commerce, well regulated.

It is remarkable that you can find so many ways to say nothing.

 

[Hossfly]

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?"

Given the idea that you know more than Texas's top attorneys, tell us what's unconstitutional about it.

What Trump didn't understand was all the red tape involved with deporting people. Each deportation case has to be heard in court, and Trump didn't realize it. That's why they are adding 75 more immigrant judges to the mix.

States have no authority over immigration into the Union since 1808. Why is the State of Texas not busier attracting more business from more liberal States, instead of merely, "harassing", less fortunate illegals.

The very last word in your post spells it all.............illegals.

 

[bripat9643]

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?"

Would that be more simplistic than Obamacare? "The government can fix it" isn't simplistic?

You have just self identified as a moron.

Thanks for that.

 

[bripat9643]

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?"

Given the idea that you know more than Texas's top attorneys, tell us what's unconstitutional about it.

What Trump didn't understand was all the red tape involved with deporting people. Each deportation case has to be heard in court, and Trump didn't realize it. That's why they are adding 75 more immigrant judges to the mix.

I think he did realize it. He knew he would need more judges and more ICE personnel. He's in the process of putting together the team he needs to get the job done. He never claimed it would be done by within 100 days.

 

[danielpalos]

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."

Won't happen here. Just won't.

It will probably soon be happening everywhere.

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to federal authorities.

The poll shows that President Trump has broad public support in his effort to crack down on sanctuary cities.

A survey from Harvard–Harris Poll provided exclusively to The Hill found that 80 percent of voters say local authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal immigrants they come into contact with.

Poll: Americans overwhelmingly oppose sanctuary cities

i hearsay and soothsay, plenty of litigation for the party of nothing but social plans on a national basis instead of the Capitalism of Commerce, well regulated.

It is remarkable that you can find so many ways to say nothing.

I said plenty; simple rejection or repeal, is usually considered, mere fallacy.

 

[danielpalos]

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?"

Given the idea that you know more than Texas's top attorneys, tell us what's unconstitutional about it.

What Trump didn't understand was all the red tape involved with deporting people. Each deportation case has to be heard in court, and Trump didn't realize it. That's why they are adding 75 more immigrant judges to the mix.

States have no authority over immigration into the Union since 1808. Why is the State of Texas not busier attracting more business from more liberal States, instead of merely, "harassing", less fortunate illegals.

The very last word in your post spells it all.............illegals.

States have no authority over immigration into the Union since 1808.

 

[Hossfly]

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?"

Given the idea that you know more than Texas's top attorneys, tell us what's unconstitutional about it.

What Trump didn't understand was all the red tape involved with deporting people. Each deportation case has to be heard in court, and Trump didn't realize it. That's why they are adding 75 more immigrant judges to the mix.

States have no authority over immigration into the Union since 1808. Why is the State of Texas not busier attracting more business from more liberal States, instead of merely, "harassing", less fortunate illegals.

The very last word in your post spells it all.............illegals.

States have no authority over immigration into the Union since 1808.

They do over illegal border crossing wetbacks.

 

[my2¢]

Based on the anti-commandeering doctrine I doubt Texas has a leg to stand on.
(EDIT: I think it comes down to the question can state law deny local authorities their U.S. constitutional rights?)

States Don’t Have to Comply: The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

While the federal government does exercise authority over immigration, it cannot force state or local governments to cooperate in enforcement or implementation. The feds must exercise their authority on their own, unless the state and local governments choose to assist.

Simply put, the federal government cannot force state or local governments to act against their will.

This is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, and it is well established in constitutional jurisprudence. Four Supreme Court opinions dating back to 1842 serve as the foundation for this legal doctrine.

Printz v. United States (1997) serves as the lynchpin for the anti-commandeering doctrine. At issue was a provision in the Brady Gun Bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer part of the background check program. Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack sued, arguing these provisions unconstitutionally forced them to administer a federal program. Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, writing in the majority opinion “it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme.”

Citing the New York case, the court majority declared this provision of the Brady Gun Bill unconstitutional, expanding the reach of the anti-commandeering doctrine.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Based on the anti-commandeering doctrine I doubt Texas has a leg to stand on.
(EDIT: I think it comes down to the question can state law deny local authorities their U.S. constitutional rights?)

States Don’t Have to Comply: The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

While the federal government does exercise authority over immigration, it cannot force state or local governments to cooperate in enforcement or implementation. The feds must exercise their authority on their own, unless the state and local governments choose to assist.

Simply put, the federal government cannot force state or local governments to act against their will.

This is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, and it is well established in constitutional jurisprudence. Four Supreme Court opinions dating back to 1842 serve as the foundation for this legal doctrine.

Printz v. United States (1997) serves as the lynchpin for the anti-commandeering doctrine. At issue was a provision in the Brady Gun Bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer part of the background check program. Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack sued, arguing these provisions unconstitutionally forced them to administer a federal program. Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, writing in the majority opinion “it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme.”

Citing the New York case, the court majority declared this provision of the Brady Gun Bill unconstitutional, expanding the reach of the anti-commandeering doctrine.

Holly shit the bitch-slap reply of all time. Scalia's corpse will come back to kick both Sessions and drumpf in the nuts.

"Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, writing in the majority opinion “it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme.” "

With his cold dead hand.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Based on the anti-commandeering doctrine I doubt Texas has a leg to stand on.
(EDIT: I think it comes down to the question can state law deny local authorities their U.S. constitutional rights?)

States Don’t Have to Comply: The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

While the federal government does exercise authority over immigration, it cannot force state or local governments to cooperate in enforcement or implementation. The feds must exercise their authority on their own, unless the state and local governments choose to assist.

Simply put, the federal government cannot force state or local governments to act against their will.

This is known as the anti-commandeering doctrine, and it is well established in constitutional jurisprudence. Four Supreme Court opinions dating back to 1842 serve as the foundation for this legal doctrine.

Printz v. United States (1997) serves as the lynchpin for the anti-commandeering doctrine. At issue was a provision in the Brady Gun Bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer part of the background check program. Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack sued, arguing these provisions unconstitutionally forced them to administer a federal program. Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, writing in the majority opinion “it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme.”

Citing the New York case, the court majority declared this provision of the Brady Gun Bill unconstitutional, expanding the reach of the anti-commandeering doctrine.

Except nobody is "forcing" anybody to do anything.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?"

Given the idea that you know more than Texas's top attorneys, tell us what's unconstitutional about it.

What Trump didn't understand was all the red tape involved with deporting people. Each deportation case has to be heard in court, and Trump didn't realize it. That's why they are adding 75 more immigrant judges to the mix.

I think he did realize it. He knew he would need more judges and more ICE personnel. He's in the process of putting together the team he needs to get the job done. He never claimed it would be done by within 100 days.

Of course it was explained to him after he made the statement of broad deportation while running in the primaries.

People who worked with Trump in the private sector state that Trump is one of those people that like a challenge. He likes to find a way to make the unworkable work. If the problem is we can't deport people fast enough, find a way to deport them faster. He did, and it will work.

It may not be mass deportation, but in the future, we will be deporting more people than ever before.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?"

Given the idea that you know more than Texas's top attorneys, tell us what's unconstitutional about it.

What Trump didn't understand was all the red tape involved with deporting people. Each deportation case has to be heard in court, and Trump didn't realize it. That's why they are adding 75 more immigrant judges to the mix.

States have no authority over immigration into the Union since 1808. Why is the State of Texas not busier attracting more business from more liberal States, instead of merely, "harassing", less fortunate illegals.

States do have the authority to carry out federal requirements. A state is not allowed to make their own guidelines when it comes to deportation. Apples and Oranges.

 

[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.......

 

[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?"

Given the idea that you know more than Texas's top attorneys, tell us what's unconstitutional about it.

What Trump didn't understand was all the red tape involved with deporting people. Each deportation case has to be heard in court, and Trump didn't realize it. That's why they are adding 75 more immigrant judges to the mix.

I've been telling people on this board for over 2 years that you can not deport anyone without a trial. That is 8th grade Civics. And Trump didn't know it. What a surprise!

 

[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?"

Given the idea that you know more than Texas's top attorneys, tell us what's unconstitutional about it.

What Trump didn't understand was all the red tape involved with deporting people. Each deportation case has to be heard in court, and Trump didn't realize it. That's why they are adding 75 more immigrant judges to the mix.

States have no authority over immigration into the Union since 1808. Why is the State of Texas not busier attracting more business from more liberal States, instead of merely, "harassing", less fortunate illegals.

The very last word in your post spells it all.............illegals.

States have no authority over immigration into the Union since 1808.

They do over illegal border crossing wetbacks.

Nope.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I am a Sheriff's Auxiliary volunteer. I wear a uniform, and a badge and patrol in a squad car. I have the duty, and the authority, to radio in to a deputy any time I see anyone violating a county ordinance. I have no duty, or responsibility to do anything at all about violators of federal law. In fact, I don't even have a telephone number in the car to which I could report border violations, if I wanted to, and I live 35 miles from the border. I am not paid, but the deputies are, and the county does not pay them to enforce federal law.