Are "Sanctuary cities" constitutional?

[Porter Rockwell]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

I can't imagine who it could be. Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it. That seems like it is impossible.

What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?

Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.

Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.

So let me see if I understand.

You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.

Makes perfect sense. Glad you cleared that up for me.

You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:

1) Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as precedents

2) A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances

3) In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill. They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional. The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:

The United States Supreme Court reasoned:

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "HELD") that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws. If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law. THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. Thank you in advance. I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.

Maybe this will explain it better:

Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy

Now you know

 

[Andylusion]

I can't imagine who it could be. Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it. That seems like it is impossible.

What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?

Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.

Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.

So let me see if I understand.

You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.

Makes perfect sense. Glad you cleared that up for me.

You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:

1) Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as precedents

2) A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances

3) In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill. They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional. The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:

The United States Supreme Court reasoned:

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "HELD") that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws. If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law. THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. Thank you in advance. I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.

Maybe this will explain it better:

Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy

Now you know

What? Now that is even more stupid.

That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.

Do you not even realize the implications there? You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?

That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.

Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?

Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals. That was obvious. The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.

The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"

And Trump did this brilliantly.

Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example. Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill. It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.

And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us! That's a violation of the constitution!".

Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?

Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.

Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.

So let me see if I understand.

You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.

Makes perfect sense. Glad you cleared that up for me.

You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:

1) Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as precedents

2) A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances

3) In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill. They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional. The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:

The United States Supreme Court reasoned:

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "HELD") that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws. If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law. THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. Thank you in advance. I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.

Maybe this will explain it better:

Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy

Now you know

What? Now that is even more stupid.

That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.

Do you not even realize the implications there? You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?

That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.

Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?

Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals. That was obvious. The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.

The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"

And Trump did this brilliantly.

Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example. Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill. It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.

And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us! That's a violation of the constitution!".

Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.

I have no idea why you aimed that at me. I reported the laws. States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state. Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement. That is the law.

 

[danielpalos]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

It could if there were an actual social Power over the whole and entire concept of Immigration delegated to our federal Congress in our federal Constitution.

 

[eagle1462010]

Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.

Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.

So let me see if I understand.

You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.

Makes perfect sense. Glad you cleared that up for me.

You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:

1) Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as precedents

2) A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances

3) In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill. They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional. The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:

The United States Supreme Court reasoned:

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "HELD") that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws. If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law. THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. Thank you in advance. I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.

Maybe this will explain it better:

Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy

Now you know

What? Now that is even more stupid.

That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.

Do you not even realize the implications there? You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?

That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.

Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?

Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals. That was obvious. The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.

The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"

And Trump did this brilliantly.

Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example. Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill. It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.

And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us! That's a violation of the constitution!".

Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.

I have no idea why you aimed that at me. I reported the laws. States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state. Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement. That is the law.

This year that question goes to SCOTUS. And then we will find out.

The 9th Circus Court has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision. It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.

While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.

So let me see if I understand.

You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.

Makes perfect sense. Glad you cleared that up for me.

You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:

1) Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as precedents

2) A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances

3) In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill. They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional. The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:

The United States Supreme Court reasoned:

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "HELD") that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws. If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law. THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. Thank you in advance. I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.

Maybe this will explain it better:

Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy

Now you know

What? Now that is even more stupid.

That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.

Do you not even realize the implications there? You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?

That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.

Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?

Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals. That was obvious. The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.

The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"

And Trump did this brilliantly.

Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example. Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill. It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.

And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us! That's a violation of the constitution!".

Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.

I have no idea why you aimed that at me. I reported the laws. States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state. Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement. That is the law.

This year that question goes to SCOTUS. And then we will find out.

The 9th Circus Court has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision. It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.

While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.

And yet you have already been proven wrong. You didn't read my post. Read the dicta in the Printz case along with the holding.

Here is the bottom line truth:

The people who obsess over immigration, never taking a moment to consider both sides of the coin don't understand:

The question of whether or not states can be compelled to enforce federal law is settled. The advantage for the average person is that if / when the federal government passes laws that the states believe are unconstitutional, the states currently ignore unconstitutional laws.

The United States Supreme Court would like nothing better than to "make new law" and reverse the current rulings. For those people in pro-pot states, it will mean that the government cannot shield them and what they were doing openly means that they will now be considered suspects and arrested on federal felonies. Changing the law means that when the federal government orders gun control, states will have to send the sheriffs out to enforce laws that state governments believe unconstitutional.

The people with the obsession over foreigners are going to destroy the Republic and they are not smart enough to realize they are being played.

 

[eagle1462010]

So let me see if I understand.

You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.

Makes perfect sense. Glad you cleared that up for me.

You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:

1) Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as precedents

2) A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances

3) In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill. They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional. The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:

The United States Supreme Court reasoned:

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "HELD") that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws. If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law. THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. Thank you in advance. I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.

Maybe this will explain it better:

Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy

Now you know

What? Now that is even more stupid.

That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.

Do you not even realize the implications there? You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?

That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.

Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?

Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals. That was obvious. The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.

The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"

And Trump did this brilliantly.

Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example. Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill. It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.

And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us! That's a violation of the constitution!".

Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.

I have no idea why you aimed that at me. I reported the laws. States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state. Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement. That is the law.

This year that question goes to SCOTUS. And then we will find out.

The 9th Circus Court has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision. It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.

While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.

And yet you have already been proven wrong. You didn't read my post. Read the dicta in the Printz case along with the holding.

Here is the bottom line truth:

The people who obsess over immigration, never taking a moment to consider both sides of the coin don't understand:

The question of whether or not states can be compelled to enforce federal law is settled. The advantage for the average person is that if / when the federal government passes laws that the states believe are unconstitutional, the states will have to enforce the federal law.

The United States Supreme Court would like nothing better than to "make new law" and reverse the current rulings. For those people in pro-pot states, it will mean that the government cannot shield them and what they were doing openly means that they will now be considered suspects and arrested on federal felonies. Changing the law means that when the federal government orders gun control, states will have to send the sheriffs out to enforce laws that state governments believe unconstitutional.

The people with the obsession over foreigners are going to destroy the Republic and they are not smart enough to realize they are being played.

SCOTUS will confirm who is wrong now. Not me......and Not you.

Unless you want to offer your services for the court case to California.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:

1) Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as precedents

2) A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances

3) In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill. They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional. The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:

The United States Supreme Court reasoned:

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "HELD") that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws. If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law. THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. Thank you in advance. I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.

Maybe this will explain it better:

Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy

Now you know

What? Now that is even more stupid.

That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.

Do you not even realize the implications there? You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?

That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.

Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?

Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals. That was obvious. The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.

The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"

And Trump did this brilliantly.

Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example. Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill. It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.

And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us! That's a violation of the constitution!".

Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.

I have no idea why you aimed that at me. I reported the laws. States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state. Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement. That is the law.

This year that question goes to SCOTUS. And then we will find out.

The 9th Circus Court has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision. It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.

While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.

And yet you have already been proven wrong. You didn't read my post. Read the dicta in the Printz case along with the holding.

Here is the bottom line truth:

The people who obsess over immigration, never taking a moment to consider both sides of the coin don't understand:

The question of whether or not states can be compelled to enforce federal law is settled. The advantage for the average person is that if / when the federal government passes laws that the states believe are unconstitutional, the states will have to enforce the federal law.

The United States Supreme Court would like nothing better than to "make new law" and reverse the current rulings. For those people in pro-pot states, it will mean that the government cannot shield them and what they were doing openly means that they will now be considered suspects and arrested on federal felonies. Changing the law means that when the federal government orders gun control, states will have to send the sheriffs out to enforce laws that state governments believe unconstitutional.

The people with the obsession over foreigners are going to destroy the Republic and they are not smart enough to realize they are being played.

SCOTUS will confirm who is wrong now. Not me......and Not you.

Unless you want to offer your services for the court case to California.

I will offer my legal research time pro bono to protect states rights if asked.

 

[eagle1462010]

Judge rules state's sanctuary state law unconstitutional

In his decision, the Superior Court judge said the law violates the rights of charter cities.

The ruling came after the city of Huntington Beach sued the state, arguing the law infringes on local governments’ authority. The judge agreed, saying cities must be allowed to police themselves.



Overturned by the 9th........

Will again be overturned by SCOTUS this year.

 

[eagle1462010]

What? Now that is even more stupid.

That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.

Do you not even realize the implications there? You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?

That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.

Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?

Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals. That was obvious. The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.

The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"

And Trump did this brilliantly.

Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example. Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill. It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.

And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us! That's a violation of the constitution!".

Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.

I have no idea why you aimed that at me. I reported the laws. States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state. Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement. That is the law.

This year that question goes to SCOTUS. And then we will find out.

The 9th Circus Court has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision. It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.

While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.

And yet you have already been proven wrong. You didn't read my post. Read the dicta in the Printz case along with the holding.

Here is the bottom line truth:

The people who obsess over immigration, never taking a moment to consider both sides of the coin don't understand:

The question of whether or not states can be compelled to enforce federal law is settled. The advantage for the average person is that if / when the federal government passes laws that the states believe are unconstitutional, the states will have to enforce the federal law.

The United States Supreme Court would like nothing better than to "make new law" and reverse the current rulings. For those people in pro-pot states, it will mean that the government cannot shield them and what they were doing openly means that they will now be considered suspects and arrested on federal felonies. Changing the law means that when the federal government orders gun control, states will have to send the sheriffs out to enforce laws that state governments believe unconstitutional.

The people with the obsession over foreigners are going to destroy the Republic and they are not smart enough to realize they are being played.

SCOTUS will confirm who is wrong now. Not me......and Not you.

Unless you want to offer your services for the court case to California.

I will offer my legal research time pro bono to protect states rights if asked.

I suggest you call California and offer your services then..........

Because this is GOING TO THE SUPREME COURT.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Judge rules state's sanctuary state law unconstitutional

In his decision, the Superior Court judge said the law violates the rights of charter cities.

The ruling came after the city of Huntington Beach sued the state, arguing the law infringes on local governments’ authority. The judge agreed, saying cities must be allowed to police themselves.



Overturned by the 9th........

Will again be overturned by SCOTUS this year.

What does the state constitution say with regard to the limits of state powers?

In Georgia, I made a big mistake as a kid. When I first began studying law, I belonged to a group called GASP (Georgians Against Smoking Pollution.) I helped draft a law that prohibited public smoking in many places. The law was introduced and passed.

A couple of years later, the city of Atlanta passed an ordinance against so - called "assault weapons." I worked with a group called Citizens for Safe Government. We challenged that law. The city, in their briefs cited the law I helped to write banning smoking. The city said that the people had entrusted public health and safety to the government.

The ONLY reason that city statute was over-turned is because state laws preempts county and city laws.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I have no idea why you aimed that at me. I reported the laws. States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state. Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement. That is the law.

This year that question goes to SCOTUS. And then we will find out.

The 9th Circus Court has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision. It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.

While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.

And yet you have already been proven wrong. You didn't read my post. Read the dicta in the Printz case along with the holding.

Here is the bottom line truth:

The people who obsess over immigration, never taking a moment to consider both sides of the coin don't understand:

The question of whether or not states can be compelled to enforce federal law is settled. The advantage for the average person is that if / when the federal government passes laws that the states believe are unconstitutional, the states will have to enforce the federal law.

The United States Supreme Court would like nothing better than to "make new law" and reverse the current rulings. For those people in pro-pot states, it will mean that the government cannot shield them and what they were doing openly means that they will now be considered suspects and arrested on federal felonies. Changing the law means that when the federal government orders gun control, states will have to send the sheriffs out to enforce laws that state governments believe unconstitutional.

The people with the obsession over foreigners are going to destroy the Republic and they are not smart enough to realize they are being played.

SCOTUS will confirm who is wrong now. Not me......and Not you.

Unless you want to offer your services for the court case to California.

I will offer my legal research time pro bono to protect states rights if asked.

I suggest you call California and offer your services then..........

Because this is GOING TO THE SUPREME COURT.

IF the people who obsess over immigration win, the result will be much worse than Nancy Pelosi's impeachment efforts. Liberty will be dealt a severe blow. If any of you live in California and want to call whoever is assigned to represent the government and offer my time and help, PM me.

 

[Andylusion]

Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.

Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.

So let me see if I understand.

You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.

Makes perfect sense. Glad you cleared that up for me.

You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:

1) Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as precedents

2) A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances

3) In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill. They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional. The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:

The United States Supreme Court reasoned:

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "HELD") that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws. If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law. THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. Thank you in advance. I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.

Maybe this will explain it better:

Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy

Now you know

What? Now that is even more stupid.

That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.

Do you not even realize the implications there? You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?

That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.

Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?

Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals. That was obvious. The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.

The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"

And Trump did this brilliantly.

Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example. Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill. It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.

And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us! That's a violation of the constitution!".

Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.

I have no idea why you aimed that at me. I reported the laws. States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state. Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement. That is the law.

Just responding to the link you posted.
If you don't share the views of the link, than I direct my comments towards whoever does.

I would personally care a lot less, if the Federal government wasn't handing out tax money to people.

If we could end all entitlements, it would bother me less.

However, protection of the country is in fact a duty of the Federal Government, is it not? I would think protecting the borders would fall under protecting the country, do you agree?

And we have laws about that, which sanctuary cities are directly undermining.... is that not true?

Something in this equation doesn't fit.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.

So let me see if I understand.

You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.

Makes perfect sense. Glad you cleared that up for me.

You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:

1) Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as precedents

2) A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances

3) In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill. They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional. The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:

The United States Supreme Court reasoned:

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "HELD") that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws. If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law. THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. Thank you in advance. I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.

Maybe this will explain it better:

Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy

Now you know

What? Now that is even more stupid.

That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.

Do you not even realize the implications there? You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?

That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.

Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?

Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals. That was obvious. The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.

The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"

And Trump did this brilliantly.

Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example. Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill. It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.

And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us! That's a violation of the constitution!".

Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.

I have no idea why you aimed that at me. I reported the laws. States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state. Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement. That is the law.

Just responding to the link you posted.
If you don't share the views of the link, than I direct my comments towards whoever does.

I would personally care a lot less, if the Federal government wasn't handing out tax money to people.

If we could end all entitlements, it would bother me less.

However, protection of the country is in fact a duty of the Federal Government, is it not? I would think protecting the borders would fall under protecting the country, do you agree?

And we have laws about that, which sanctuary cities are directly undermining.... is that not true?

Something in this equation doesn't fit.

It is the federal government's job to enforce federal immigration laws.
Trump is president of the USA, and the administration of laws is his responsibility.
Trump is failing to deal with illegal immigration.
You should hold him accountable.
But, instead, Trumpets blame Trump's failure on people who have absolutely no responsibility to enforce federal laws.
You are right. Something in the equation does not fit.

 

[MaryL]

Well, thank you, everyone for your response here. All of you. I was a little dubious creating this thread.
My major concern is: Sanctuary Cities where created WITHOUT the consent of the local populace or even informing us, let alone a mandate of the people. And yet, most people accept it. That's shocking to me. It seems to contradict everything a Democracy is all about. And then there is this "Don't question ( Democrat liberal SJW) authority forced on you without your consent" thing. They are setting precedent we all might regret inevitably. Because it reeks of dictatorships or fascism. We should ALL be concerned about this issue.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.

So let me see if I understand.

You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.

Makes perfect sense. Glad you cleared that up for me.

You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:

1) Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as precedents

2) A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances

3) In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill. They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional. The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:

The United States Supreme Court reasoned:

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "HELD") that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws. If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law. THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. Thank you in advance. I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.

Maybe this will explain it better:

Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy

Now you know

What? Now that is even more stupid.

That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.

Do you not even realize the implications there? You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?

That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.

Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?

Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals. That was obvious. The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.

The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"

And Trump did this brilliantly.

Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example. Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill. It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.

And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us! That's a violation of the constitution!".

Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.

I have no idea why you aimed that at me. I reported the laws. States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state. Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement. That is the law.

Just responding to the link you posted.
If you don't share the views of the link, than I direct my comments towards whoever does.

I would personally care a lot less, if the Federal government wasn't handing out tax money to people.

If we could end all entitlements, it would bother me less.

However, protection of the country is in fact a duty of the Federal Government, is it not? I would think protecting the borders would fall under protecting the country, do you agree?

And we have laws about that, which sanctuary cities are directly undermining.... is that not true?

Something in this equation doesn't fit.

I don't think it's as simple as you want it to be. Does the federal government have a duty to protect the border? The answer is yes.

Does the federal government have the duty to impose on a governor to police the border when that governor says he does not need the feds there? Well, have you ever heard of states rights?

The really BIG deal to all of this is that there is nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government the authority to tell the states who they can and cannot allow into their respective states. So, how did the feds get involved in dictating to the states who they can and cannot allow?

In 1875 the United States Supreme Court bestowed upon Congress "plenary powers" over everything to do with foreigners. The problem there is that there is nothing in the United States Constitution that gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to bestow upon any other branch of government any power of any kind.

Now, the issue gets even more complicated. The immigration laws that the people who obsess over border control want enforced were laws forced through Congress by Democrats with the intent of diluting the white vote. Congress wanted to turn America over to non-whites.

We aren't quite done. There are still two more pieces to this puzzle.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Notice that a Creator (a God, whomever we deem that to be) gave ALL men Liberty. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that unalienable Rights are above the Constitution. Those Rights existed before the government was formed. As such, the earliest courts ruled that unalienable Rights are inherent, natural, irrevocable, and absolute. Jefferson could not mean that those Rights were specific to citizens as no such creature existed at that juncture. So there is another piece to this puzzle. Let's discuss the last piece of the puzzle:

America is a free market economy. So, if you try to put a limit on a foreigner's Right to partake of the free market economy, then you limit HIS Rights. The courts than use that precedent to attack YOUR Rights. It seems that there is that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the "equal protection of the laws."

So, it boils down to how much government you are willing to tolerate in your life in order to get rid of people you call "illegal aliens." So far those who obsess over immigration have passed the so - called "Patriot Act," the National ID / REAL ID Act; they've created the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, spent trillions of tax dollars (which is far more than they claimed they were going to save us) and attacked a lot of our fundamental Rights (like the Freedom of Association, equal protection of the laws, the Right to Privacy, and we now have selective prosecution and profiling.)

The REAL answer to the puzzle is to remember what Trump promised. He said he was going to Make America Great Again. So, what we do is go back to when America was "great" and begin repealing laws related to immigration until we have Liberty and everybody is making their own choices. The more laws we've passed, the more of a spider's web we've created for ourselves.

 

[MaryL]

I am a dreamer. Like John Lennon. American immigration laws apply to everyone. They don't discriminate against any group or nation. I dream one day Democrats will wake up and realize that. I dream western American Democrats will stop shilling for international globalists. That's my dream, as a dreamer.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I am a dreamer. Like John Lennon. American immigration laws apply to everyone. They don't discriminate against any group or nation. I dream one day Democrats will wake up and realize that. I dream western American Democrats will stop shilling for international globalists. That's my dream, as a dreamer.

Interesting post, in view of the fact that one of the first things that Trump did was to ban immigration from several Muslim nations.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Well, thank you, everyone for your response here. All of you. I was a little dubious creating this thread.
My major concern is: Sanctuary Cities where created WITHOUT the consent of the local populace or even informing us, let alone a mandate of the people. And yet, most people accept it. That's shocking to me. It seems to contradict everything a Democracy is all about. And then there is this "Don't question ( Democrat liberal SJW) authority forced on you without your consent" thing. They are setting precedent we all might regret inevitably. Because it reeks of dictatorships or fascism. We should ALL be concerned about this issue.

I wish I had a good response. In the Constitution we are guaranteed a "Republican Form of Government." Democracy has resulted in unconstitutional taxes, and the government telling us who we can and cannot hire, fire, do business with and associate with.

If there is something your local or state government failed to inform you of, you might want to take it up at the state level.

The "dictatorship" I see is the one wherein whites are so brainwashed that they support laws that were purposely designed to make them a minority. The "dictatorship" I see is the one wherein we conflate immigration with citizenship, hindering the free market economy and keeping guest worker visa levels at half century old levels while naturalizing nearly a million new citizens each year - citizens that have shown will be anti-Constitution and anti - white. I look at it in bewilderment and wonder if the posterity of the founders have lost their damn mind.

Unless the American people wake up in this generation, demographics will decide and those obsessing over immigration will be the minority... and then payback will be bad to the bone. The non-whites will nail the right's ass to the wall.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I am a dreamer. Like John Lennon. American immigration laws apply to everyone. They don't discriminate against any group or nation. I dream one day Democrats will wake up and realize that. I dream western American Democrats will stop shilling for international globalists. That's my dream, as a dreamer.

You are quite mistaken. White people are only 1 in 13 of the world's population. Different rules apply to different countries (asylum would be an example.)

Secondly, the word immigrant, according to Black's Law Dictionary means:

"This term describes a person who enters a country for permanent residence from another country."

Temporary workers, guests, and people simply partaking of the free market economy do not fit that description and should not be referred to as such. NOTHING will be gained by forcing those people to become citizens. Force them to become citizens and they will end up hating you and outvoting you eventually.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about crematoriums along the border? I've heard the ideas of land mines and so forth as a solution, but Americans could step on a land mine. I'll be surprised if someone hasn't already run the idea of crematoriums by Congress.