DHS preparing to arrest sanctuary city leaders?

[jknowgood]

"Most Americans" don't get a say in California's laws.

Their laws don't have to benefit people in Texas, or be in the interests of Vermont.

They do have to benefit the citizens of the state.....not the non-citizens.

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

Cool I had no idea. So the citizens of any given state can block federal abortion laws? How about not paying federal income taxes? Up to the state citizens?

I honestly don't think making the effort to explain it to you will make much of an impact.

I guess we can start with the fact that there are no "federal abortion laws".

There are federal laws. Your claim is that the citizens of states can ignore them.

Wanna try again, or should we dig up George Wallace and ask him about defying federal law?

Or ask Arizona when they tried to obey federal laws on immigration. If I remember the Obama administration stop it.

 

[Aba Incieni]

[
Cha I just watched a segment on Fox about it.

But you're big on links. Read all about if from Newsweek:

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

watched a segment on fox...

want in one hand, then shit in the other

which one fills up first?

trump wanted his inauguration to be the biggest evah!

how'd that work out for the buffoon-in-chief?

The...doctor...guy said the feds weren't talking about it. He was wrong about that, too.

sure, pal

run along now, it's adult time

Answer me this, lady.

Must states follow federal law, or can they ignore the laws they don't agree with.

 

[del]

[
Cha I just watched a segment on Fox about it.

But you're big on links. Read all about if from Newsweek:

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

watched a segment on fox...

want in one hand, then shit in the other

which one fills up first?

trump wanted his inauguration to be the biggest evah!

how'd that work out for the buffoon-in-chief?

The...doctor...guy said the feds weren't talking about it. He was wrong about that, too.

sure, pal

run along now, it's adult time

Answer me this, lady.

Must states follow federal law, or can they ignore the laws they don't agree with.

i'm not a lady, you stupid ****, and local govts are in no way obligated to hold people on ice detainers.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Their flimsy excuses keep getting shot down.
I cant wait for the next excuse for illegal immigration,I'm sure it'll set well with the voters.

I seem to recall reading about a democrat who tried to block federal civil rights laws by standing on the steps of a schoolhouse. JFK sent in troops.

If the Supreme Court rules that sanctuary policies were unconstitutional, then you'd have a point.

But that's not going to happen.

The SC has ruled on the authority of the POTUS regrading immigration policy. The feds indeed are discussing arresting state politicians who refuse to follow the law. Had Lincoln tried such tactics, he may have avoided the first Civil War.

No, "the feds" aren't discussing it. Read the whole article in the OP, not just the headline.

The head of DHS was asked if they were considering arresting sanctuary city leaders, and she responded "We're looking into all avenues".

That's a non-answer to a reporter, not a statement that it's actually being discussed.

But that's beside the point. The SCOTUS has also ruled, numerous times, that local law enforcement is not subordinate to federal law enforcement.

If ICE asks the SFPD to hold someone, without a warrant, the SFPD can tell them to go **** themselves.

Cha I just watched a segment on Fox about it.

But you're big on links. Read all about if from Newsweek:

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

This is the statement, from your link.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues might be available. The context of this is of course not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.”

Does that sound like "we're seriously discussing this" to you?

 

[del]

I seem to recall reading about a democrat who tried to block federal civil rights laws by standing on the steps of a schoolhouse. JFK sent in troops.

If the Supreme Court rules that sanctuary policies were unconstitutional, then you'd have a point.

But that's not going to happen.

The SC has ruled on the authority of the POTUS regrading immigration policy. The feds indeed are discussing arresting state politicians who refuse to follow the law. Had Lincoln tried such tactics, he may have avoided the first Civil War.

No, "the feds" aren't discussing it. Read the whole article in the OP, not just the headline.

The head of DHS was asked if they were considering arresting sanctuary city leaders, and she responded "We're looking into all avenues".

That's a non-answer to a reporter, not a statement that it's actually being discussed.

But that's beside the point. The SCOTUS has also ruled, numerous times, that local law enforcement is not subordinate to federal law enforcement.

If ICE asks the SFPD to hold someone, without a warrant, the SFPD can tell them to go **** themselves.

Cha I just watched a segment on Fox about it.

But you're big on links. Read all about if from Newsweek:

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

This is the statement, from your link.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues might be available. The context of this is of course not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.”

Does that sound like "we're seriously discussing this" to you?

of course it does, that's the problem.

 

[Aba Incieni]

[
Cha I just watched a segment on Fox about it.

But you're big on links. Read all about if from Newsweek:

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

watched a segment on fox...

want in one hand, then shit in the other

which one fills up first?

trump wanted his inauguration to be the biggest evah!

how'd that work out for the buffoon-in-chief?

The...doctor...guy said the feds weren't talking about it. He was wrong about that, too.

sure, pal

run along now, it's adult time

Answer me this, lady.

Must states follow federal law, or can they ignore the laws they don't agree with.

i'm not a lady, you stupid ****, and local govts are in no way obligated to hold people on ice detainers.

And I'm not your pal, mud crotch. And state governments are beholden to federal law. Ask Jefferson Davis.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well, that's the thing. Sanctuary city policies don't "help" illegal immigrants - they just don't help the feds.

There's no law that says states or cities have to actively help the federal government against their own interests.

I see your point, but they are harboring illegals, some which are very bad people, and most Americans don't want them here. So their interest isn't the interest of most Americans. In which in one way or the other, if will effect all of us, and not in a good way.

"Most Americans" don't get a say in California's laws.

Their laws don't have to benefit people in Texas, or be in the interests of Vermont.

They do have to benefit the citizens of the state.....not the non-citizens.

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

So you think the same about gay marriage and abortion? Or maybe federal law on a murderer?

You appear to be having a hard time following the conversation.

 

[del]

watched a segment on fox...

want in one hand, then shit in the other

which one fills up first?

trump wanted his inauguration to be the biggest evah!

how'd that work out for the buffoon-in-chief?

The...doctor...guy said the feds weren't talking about it. He was wrong about that, too.

sure, pal

run along now, it's adult time

Answer me this, lady.

Must states follow federal law, or can they ignore the laws they don't agree with.

i'm not a lady, you stupid ****, and local govts are in no way obligated to hold people on ice detainers.

And I'm not your pal, mud crotch. And state governments are beholden to federal law. Ask Jefferson Davis.

that must be why the federal courts told ice to take their detainers and stuff them up their asses

 

[Aba Incieni]

I seem to recall reading about a democrat who tried to block federal civil rights laws by standing on the steps of a schoolhouse. JFK sent in troops.

If the Supreme Court rules that sanctuary policies were unconstitutional, then you'd have a point.

But that's not going to happen.

The SC has ruled on the authority of the POTUS regrading immigration policy. The feds indeed are discussing arresting state politicians who refuse to follow the law. Had Lincoln tried such tactics, he may have avoided the first Civil War.

No, "the feds" aren't discussing it. Read the whole article in the OP, not just the headline.

The head of DHS was asked if they were considering arresting sanctuary city leaders, and she responded "We're looking into all avenues".

That's a non-answer to a reporter, not a statement that it's actually being discussed.

But that's beside the point. The SCOTUS has also ruled, numerous times, that local law enforcement is not subordinate to federal law enforcement.

If ICE asks the SFPD to hold someone, without a warrant, the SFPD can tell them to go **** themselves.

Cha I just watched a segment on Fox about it.

But you're big on links. Read all about if from Newsweek:

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

This is the statement, from your link.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues might be available. The context of this is of course not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.”

Does that sound like "we're seriously discussing this" to you?

Here's the more pertinent quote:

"The context of this is of course not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.”

She said it's safer for immigration agents to do their jobs if they have the assistance of local and state jurisdictions.

Sounds pretty serious to me, although my statement was that they're discussing it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

[
Cha I just watched a segment on Fox about it.

But you're big on links. Read all about if from Newsweek:

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

watched a segment on fox...

want in one hand, then shit in the other

which one fills up first?

trump wanted his inauguration to be the biggest evah!

how'd that work out for the buffoon-in-chief?

The...doctor...guy said the feds weren't talking about it. He was wrong about that, too.

sure, pal

run along now, it's adult time

Answer me this, lady.

Must states follow federal law, or can they ignore the laws they don't agree with.

i'm not a lady, you stupid ****, and local govts are in no way obligated to hold people on ice detainers.

Sure lady....

 

[Aba Incieni]

The...doctor...guy said the feds weren't talking about it. He was wrong about that, too.

sure, pal

run along now, it's adult time

Answer me this, lady.

Must states follow federal law, or can they ignore the laws they don't agree with.

i'm not a lady, you stupid ****, and local govts are in no way obligated to hold people on ice detainers.

And I'm not your pal, mud crotch. And state governments are beholden to federal law. Ask Jefferson Davis.

that must be why the federal courts told ice to take their detainers and stuff them up their asses

Tell it to the jailbirds.

 

[del]

watched a segment on fox...

want in one hand, then shit in the other

which one fills up first?

trump wanted his inauguration to be the biggest evah!

how'd that work out for the buffoon-in-chief?

The...doctor...guy said the feds weren't talking about it. He was wrong about that, too.

sure, pal

run along now, it's adult time

Answer me this, lady.

Must states follow federal law, or can they ignore the laws they don't agree with.

i'm not a lady, you stupid ****, and local govts are in no way obligated to hold people on ice detainers.

Sure lady....

short bus break down again?

don't forget your helmet

 

[jknowgood]

I see your point, but they are harboring illegals, some which are very bad people, and most Americans don't want them here. So their interest isn't the interest of most Americans. In which in one way or the other, if will effect all of us, and not in a good way.

"Most Americans" don't get a say in California's laws.

Their laws don't have to benefit people in Texas, or be in the interests of Vermont.

They do have to benefit the citizens of the state.....not the non-citizens.

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

So you think the same about gay marriage and abortion? Or maybe federal law on a murderer?

You appear to be having a hard time following the conversation.

Not really, gay marriage is federal now. So what do you think? Does a state have the right to refuse, to recognize gay marriage?

 

[del]

"Most Americans" don't get a say in California's laws.

Their laws don't have to benefit people in Texas, or be in the interests of Vermont.

They do have to benefit the citizens of the state.....not the non-citizens.

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

So you think the same about gay marriage and abortion? Or maybe federal law on a murderer?

You appear to be having a hard time following the conversation.

Not really, gay marriage is federal now. So what do you think? Does a state have the right to refuse, to recognize gay marriage?

post the statute.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If the Supreme Court rules that sanctuary policies were unconstitutional, then you'd have a point.

But that's not going to happen.

The SC has ruled on the authority of the POTUS regrading immigration policy. The feds indeed are discussing arresting state politicians who refuse to follow the law. Had Lincoln tried such tactics, he may have avoided the first Civil War.

No, "the feds" aren't discussing it. Read the whole article in the OP, not just the headline.

The head of DHS was asked if they were considering arresting sanctuary city leaders, and she responded "We're looking into all avenues".

That's a non-answer to a reporter, not a statement that it's actually being discussed.

But that's beside the point. The SCOTUS has also ruled, numerous times, that local law enforcement is not subordinate to federal law enforcement.

If ICE asks the SFPD to hold someone, without a warrant, the SFPD can tell them to go **** themselves.

Cha I just watched a segment on Fox about it.

But you're big on links. Read all about if from Newsweek:

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

This is the statement, from your link.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues might be available. The context of this is of course not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.”

Does that sound like "we're seriously discussing this" to you?

Here's the more pertinent quote:

"The context of this is of course not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.”

She said it's safer for immigration agents to do their jobs if they have the assistance of local and state jurisdictions.

Sounds pretty serious to me, although my statement was that they're discussing it.

First of all, that's not a "more pertinent quote", fuckwit - that's a truncated version of the quote I posted. Cutting out the part that most makes you look like a clown doesn't fool anyone.

Second, you've put a whole lot of words into her mouth there - words she could have said, but didn't.

She said just enough to get you guys on the hook, but not enough to actually commit herself to anything.

Trump could take a lesson or two from her.

 

[Aba Incieni]

The SC has ruled on the authority of the POTUS regrading immigration policy. The feds indeed are discussing arresting state politicians who refuse to follow the law. Had Lincoln tried such tactics, he may have avoided the first Civil War.

No, "the feds" aren't discussing it. Read the whole article in the OP, not just the headline.

The head of DHS was asked if they were considering arresting sanctuary city leaders, and she responded "We're looking into all avenues".

That's a non-answer to a reporter, not a statement that it's actually being discussed.

But that's beside the point. The SCOTUS has also ruled, numerous times, that local law enforcement is not subordinate to federal law enforcement.

If ICE asks the SFPD to hold someone, without a warrant, the SFPD can tell them to go **** themselves.

Cha I just watched a segment on Fox about it.

But you're big on links. Read all about if from Newsweek:

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

This is the statement, from your link.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues might be available. The context of this is of course not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.”

Does that sound like "we're seriously discussing this" to you?

Here's the more pertinent quote:

"The context of this is of course not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.”

She said it's safer for immigration agents to do their jobs if they have the assistance of local and state jurisdictions.

Sounds pretty serious to me, although my statement was that they're discussing it.

First of all, that's not a "more pertinent quote", fuckwit - that's a truncated version of the quote I posted. Cutting out the part that most makes you look like a fool doesn't fool anyone.

Second, you've put a whole lot of words into her mouth there - words she could have said, but didn't.

She said just enough to get you guys on the hook, but not enough to actually commit herself to anything.

Trump could take a lesson or two from her.

It's a direct c/p quote from my link with no editing. Lying does not win debates...doctor.

It continues thus:

The Justice Department’s review follows a chilling warning earlier this month from the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, who said California would feel the wrath of his agency because of its decision to become a sanctuary state. Homan also called for local and state elected officials to be charged with federal crimes for adhering to sanctuary policies.

Here it is again so you can read it yourself: Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Most Americans" don't get a say in California's laws.

Their laws don't have to benefit people in Texas, or be in the interests of Vermont.

They do have to benefit the citizens of the state.....not the non-citizens.

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

So you think the same about gay marriage and abortion? Or maybe federal law on a murderer?

You appear to be having a hard time following the conversation.

Not really, gay marriage is federal now. So what do you think? Does a state have the right to refuse, to recognize gay marriage?

As I've said at least three or four times already in this thread - if the Supreme Court declares that "sanctuary city" policies are unconstitutional, then comparing it to gay marriage or abortion would be cogent.

Burping it out now as a comparison just makes it clear that you don't understand what you're talking about.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, "the feds" aren't discussing it. Read the whole article in the OP, not just the headline.

The head of DHS was asked if they were considering arresting sanctuary city leaders, and she responded "We're looking into all avenues".

That's a non-answer to a reporter, not a statement that it's actually being discussed.

But that's beside the point. The SCOTUS has also ruled, numerous times, that local law enforcement is not subordinate to federal law enforcement.

If ICE asks the SFPD to hold someone, without a warrant, the SFPD can tell them to go **** themselves.

Cha I just watched a segment on Fox about it.

But you're big on links. Read all about if from Newsweek:

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

This is the statement, from your link.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues might be available. The context of this is of course not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.”

Does that sound like "we're seriously discussing this" to you?

Here's the more pertinent quote:

"The context of this is of course not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.”

She said it's safer for immigration agents to do their jobs if they have the assistance of local and state jurisdictions.

Sounds pretty serious to me, although my statement was that they're discussing it.

First of all, that's not a "more pertinent quote", fuckwit - that's a truncated version of the quote I posted. Cutting out the part that most makes you look like a fool doesn't fool anyone.

Second, you've put a whole lot of words into her mouth there - words she could have said, but didn't.

She said just enough to get you guys on the hook, but not enough to actually commit herself to anything.

Trump could take a lesson or two from her.

It's a direct c/p quote from my link with no editing. Lying does not win debates...doctor.

It continues thus:

The Justice Department’s review follows a chilling warning earlier this month from the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, who said California would feel the wrath of his agency because of its decision to become a sanctuary state. Homan also called for local and state elected officials to be charged with federal crimes for adhering to sanctuary policies.

Here it is again so you can read it yourself: Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

Oh, that's right. I forgot about Homan.

He's just a raging fuckwit, like you guys, except that he has no excuse.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Cha I just watched a segment on Fox about it.

But you're big on links. Read all about if from Newsweek:

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

This is the statement, from your link.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues might be available. The context of this is of course not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.”

Does that sound like "we're seriously discussing this" to you?

Here's the more pertinent quote:

"The context of this is of course not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.”

She said it's safer for immigration agents to do their jobs if they have the assistance of local and state jurisdictions.

Sounds pretty serious to me, although my statement was that they're discussing it.

First of all, that's not a "more pertinent quote", fuckwit - that's a truncated version of the quote I posted. Cutting out the part that most makes you look like a fool doesn't fool anyone.

Second, you've put a whole lot of words into her mouth there - words she could have said, but didn't.

She said just enough to get you guys on the hook, but not enough to actually commit herself to anything.

Trump could take a lesson or two from her.

It's a direct c/p quote from my link with no editing. Lying does not win debates...doctor.

It continues thus:

The Justice Department’s review follows a chilling warning earlier this month from the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, who said California would feel the wrath of his agency because of its decision to become a sanctuary state. Homan also called for local and state elected officials to be charged with federal crimes for adhering to sanctuary policies.

Here it is again so you can read it yourself: Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

Oh, that's right. I forgot about Homan.

He's just a raging fuckwit, like you guys. He has no excuse.

The rabbit slurs the hunter that killed it.

Take a moment to read up on federal jurisdiction regarding your immigration laws. You may find it enlightening.

Federal vs. State Immigration Laws - FindLaw

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This is the statement, from your link.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues might be available. The context of this is of course not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.”

Does that sound like "we're seriously discussing this" to you?

Here's the more pertinent quote:

"The context of this is of course not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.”

She said it's safer for immigration agents to do their jobs if they have the assistance of local and state jurisdictions.

Sounds pretty serious to me, although my statement was that they're discussing it.

First of all, that's not a "more pertinent quote", fuckwit - that's a truncated version of the quote I posted. Cutting out the part that most makes you look like a fool doesn't fool anyone.

Second, you've put a whole lot of words into her mouth there - words she could have said, but didn't.

She said just enough to get you guys on the hook, but not enough to actually commit herself to anything.

Trump could take a lesson or two from her.

It's a direct c/p quote from my link with no editing. Lying does not win debates...doctor.

It continues thus:

The Justice Department’s review follows a chilling warning earlier this month from the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Homan, who said California would feel the wrath of his agency because of its decision to become a sanctuary state. Homan also called for local and state elected officials to be charged with federal crimes for adhering to sanctuary policies.

Here it is again so you can read it yourself: Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

Oh, that's right. I forgot about Homan.

He's just a raging fuckwit, like you guys. He has no excuse.

The rabbit slurs the hunter that killed it.

Take a moment to read up on federal jurisdiction regarding your immigration laws. You may find it enlightening.

Federal vs. State Immigration Laws - FindLaw

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

I'm aware of federal jurisdiction regarding immigration laws. In fact, that's my ******* point.

It's not the SFPD's job to hunt down illegals. That's the feds job.

SFPD is under no obligation whatsoever to actively help them do it, either.