Biden Administration Decides To Build Border Wall

[Catsnmeters]

You sure love your cope meme don't you?

Much easier then making an actual arguement and you get credit for your post from your boss.

 

[Hollie]

A lot of immigrants not looking for jobs are sure getting hired. Did they accidently walk into a job fair? Maybe they were in my town and saw all the Trabajo >>> signs on the sides of the crop circles put their by the farmers who also have Trump signs?



Yeah, not necessarily a fan of sanctuary cities but it is constitutional and I can sort of see why they do it.


They all did. Even Trump was putting immigrants up in hotels.

Did you cry to him too or is that not allowed by your employees? Commy Russians love them some Trump so you probably couldn't say anything.

Actually, there is nothing Constitutional about so-called sanctuary cities.

 

[Markle]

You sure love your cope meme don't you?

Much easier then making an actual arguement and you get credit for your post from your boss.

You have silly statements that make no sense and are worthy of only a couple of keystrokes.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Actually, there is nothing Constitutional about so-called sanctuary cities.

Yes. That is correct.

But there is something in the constitution that says federal authorities can not force states to utilize state recourses to uphold federal law.

Now you know. You're welcome.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You have silly statements that make no sense and are worthy of only a couple of keystrokes.

Lol. The double down.

I'm hear to debate, not read your pictures.

Have a great day!

 

[Hollie]

Yes. That is correct.

But there is something in the constitution that says federal authorities can not force states to utilize state recourses to uphold federal law.

Now you know. You're welcome.

Way, way wrong. There are many legal matters in which states and the federal government share responsibility. Immigration across the national boundary is not one of them. That is controlled by federal law.

Sanctuary city policies are an obstruction of federal immigration law.

Now you know. You are welcome.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Way, way wrong. There are many legal matters in which states and the federal government share responsibility. Immigration across the national boundary is not one of them. That is controlled by federal law.

Sanctuary city policies are an obstruction of federal immigration law.

Now you know. You are welcome.

You are incorrect. Federal authorites are more then welcome to enforce federal laws in sanctuary states/cities but can't force state authorites to do it.

Before I provide the links let's make sure we are on the same page.

Is it your contention that federal authorites can force states to use state recourses to enforce federal law? Yes or no?

 

[Hollie]

You are incorrect. Federal authorites are more then welcome to enforce federal laws in sanctuary states/cities.

Before I provide the links let's make sure we are on the same page.

Is it your contention that federal authorites can force states to use state recourses to enforce federal law? Yes or no?

You are incorrect. There is nothing in the Constitution that defines a ''sanctuary city''. That slogan has no legal definition. It is nothing more than a policy occasionally proclaimed in Dem / Socialist cities.

Is immigration a function of federal law? Yes or no?

 

[Catsnmeters]

You are incorrect. There is nothing in the Constitution that defines a ''sanctuary city''. That slogan has no legal definition. It is nothing more than a policy occasionally proclaimed in Dem / Socialist cities.

I have already agreed with that statement.

Is immigration a function of federal law? Yes or no?

Yes. That is exactly why states can't be compelled to enforce.

I refer you to printz vs United States and the late justice Scalias opinion.

This article is from the federalist society; the bread and butter of the conservative courts.

"Turning to constitutional structure, Justice Scalia observed, first, that the Framers established a system of "dual sovereignty" precisely to avoid the inefficiencies and conflicts bred by the Articles of Confederation's use of the states as instruments of the federal government. As the Court emphasized in its last major case on federal commandeering of state machinery, New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), "The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States." Allowing the federal government to commandeer state officers in the implementation of federal law, Justice Scalia said, would blur lines of political accountability and dilute the Constitution's structure of dual sovereignty.

Granting such authority to Congress would upset another of the Constitution's structural features: the separation of powers. The Constitution assigns the power to enforce laws to the President. The Brady Act, Justice Scalia observed, effectively transferred this power and responsibility to CLEOs located in all 50 states.

Finding support for the Government's position in neither historical practice nor constitutional design, Justice Scalia turned to the Court's jurisprudence on federal-state relations. Justice Scalia found those cases fatal to the Government's position. Because federal commandeering of state governments has been a relatively recent phenomenon, the Court did not address the issue explicitly until the early 1980s. When it did, the Court made clear, albeit at first in dicta, that it had never sanctioned a federal command that the states promulgate and enforce particular laws and regulations."

Printz v. United States | The Federalist Society

fedsoc.org

 

[Hollie]

I have already agreed with that statement.


Yes. That is exactly why states can't be compelled to enforce.

I refer you to printz vs United States and the late justice Scalias opinion.

This article is from the federalist society; the bread and butter of the conservative courts.

"Turning to constitutional structure, Justice Scalia observed, first, that the Framers established a system of "dual sovereignty" precisely to avoid the inefficiencies and conflicts bred by the Articles of Confederation's use of the states as instruments of the federal government. As the Court emphasized in its last major case on federal commandeering of state machinery, New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), "The Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States." Allowing the federal government to commandeer state officers in the implementation of federal law, Justice Scalia said, would blur lines of political accountability and dilute the Constitution's structure of dual sovereignty.

Granting such authority to Congress would upset another of the Constitution's structural features: the separation of powers. The Constitution assigns the power to enforce laws to the President. The Brady Act, Justice Scalia observed, effectively transferred this power and responsibility to CLEOs located in all 50 states.

Finding support for the Government's position in neither historical practice nor constitutional design, Justice Scalia turned to the Court's jurisprudence on federal-state relations. Justice Scalia found those cases fatal to the Government's position. Because federal commandeering of state governments has been a relatively recent phenomenon, the Court did not address the issue explicitly until the early 1980s. When it did, the Court made clear, albeit at first in dicta, that it had never sanctioned a federal command that the states promulgate and enforce particular laws and regulations."

Printz v. United States | The Federalist Society

fedsoc.org

You sweepingly miss the point. While states have no specific obligation to assist in federal enforcement of immigration law, immigration law is a function of federal law.

In fact, the policies of Dem / Socialist 'sanctuary cities' is a violation of federal law.

Immigration and Nationality Act | USCIS

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was enacted in 1952. The INA collected many provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The INA has been amended many times over the years

www.uscis.gov

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is federal law enacted in 1952

 

[Magnus]

Biden's wall. Just another disaster perpetrated by the incompetent Dems / Socialists. More $millions of taxpayer money that will be needed to pay for the wall twice.

Biden Regime Decides to Build Border Wall Segment Two Months After They Sold All of the Trump Border Parts Worth $300 Million for $2 Million | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

On his first day in office after his inaugural behind fences and 20,000 military troops, Bidenhobbledto the Oval Officer where he signed several executive orders including the end of construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the end of construction of the Trump border wall.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

"August Maria Bartiromo announced that the Biden regime sold the Trump border wall parts worth $300 million for $2 million.

Now, just two months later Joe Biden is talking about building more border wall in Texas. It took the regime two-and-a-half years of open borders and 7 million illegal aliens flooding into the country to admit that President Trump was right."




Everything that Biden and the Dems /Socialists touch is another disaster.

So, you don't want a wall? Make up your fucking mind.

 

[Magnus]

Yes! I'm elated that you, me, and Joe Biden are all unified behind Trump's policy!

Yeah, I'm delighted that Biden is getting the job done as usual.

As they say... Never send a whining loser to do a Man's job.

Now you retards see firsthand why you need Democrats in power.

 

[Magnus]

What changed?

Well, we finally got a real President to get the job done.

Now a whiny lying loser who claims he will get Mexico to pay for the wall and scuttles off without getting it done.

Let me know if you are still confused.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

But hey Dimocrats, I thought walls were 'white supremacy'?!

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Well, we finally got a real President to get the job done.

Now a whiny lying loser who claims he will get Mexico to pay for the wall and scuttles off without getting it done.

Let me know if you are still confused.

"President Joe Biden – who, as a candidate, vowed that there will “not be another foot” of border wall constructed on his watch"

 

[candycorn]

Here's my point. Let's say there is a wall. There must be a door. So asylum seekers will go to the wall, then turn left or right till they get to the door. Then ask for asylum. Yes or no?

The wall I like it if it keeps them on that side. Where Mexico has to deal with them. Where we can interview them first before they come rushing in.

No one likes what's going on down there right now. It must be fixed and Biden can't pretend it's not an issue for most Americans. And if it's not, explain why not. Maybe we are sourcing these refuges where they are needed. In every town USA fast food says they need workers. Make these asylum seekers legal to work towards becoming citizens. We need their help.

No bad ideas above. Kudos.

Here is my point. We've had essentially the same situation on the border for 70 years or so. If there is a "crisis" now; there was a crisis in 2003; 1983, etc... During that time, we've had hundreds of lawyers in Congress and some held the Presidency. Why aren't we just making new courts to handle the "crisis". In the public sector, if there are 8,000 people in a school district, you may not get a Wal Mart, Target, Liquor Store, etc... built. You have 80,000 you get multiple locations. If we have a crisis; build more court rooms to hear asylum cases more regularly and deport/admit accordingly. Its nutty that we continuously have asylum seekers waiting months for a hearing. This should have been fixed decades ago.

 

[sealybobo]

No bad ideas above. Kudos.

Here is my point. We've had essentially the same situation on the border for 70 years or so. If there is a "crisis" now; there was a crisis in 2003; 1983, etc... During that time, we've had hundreds of lawyers in Congress and some held the Presidency. Why aren't we just making new courts to handle the "crisis". In the public sector, if there are 8,000 people in a school district, you may not get a Wal Mart, Target, Liquor Store, etc... built. You have 80,000 you get multiple locations. If we have a crisis; build more court rooms to hear asylum cases more regularly and deport/admit accordingly. Its nutty that we continuously have asylum seekers waiting months for a hearing. This should have been fixed decades ago.

70 years? Let me give you a history lesson on those years. Before Reagan, migrants came and did seasonal work Americans won't do, then left at the end of the season. Reagan told corporate America he wouldn't do anything if they hired undocumented workers. Bush too. Check this out.

Thom Hartmann: 'It's an Illegal Employer Problem'

Every time the media - or a Democrat - uses the phrase 'Illegal Immigration' they are promoting one of Karl Rove's most potent Republican Party frames. The reality is that we don't have an 'Illegal Immigration' problem in America. We have an 'Illegal ...

www.scoop.co.nz

As the Washington Post noted in an article by Hsu and Lydersen on June 19, 2006:

"Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

"In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three."

So we went from Clinton issuing fines to 417 companies to Bush only fining 3?

 

[Magnus]

"President Joe Biden – who, as a candidate, vowed that there will “not be another foot” of border wall constructed on his watch"

Ok. Sue him.

 

[Ralph Norton]

Yeah, I'm delighted that Biden is getting the job done as usual.

As they say... Never send a whining loser to do a Man's job.

Now you retards see firsthand why you need Democrats in power.

You're just pretending to be stupid, right?

 

[Magnus]

You're just pretending to be stupid, right?

Not to worry. Retards have a hard time understanding my posts. Read it a few times and you’ll get it. Good luck.