Graham Introduces Legislation To End Sanctuary Cities Forever

Again, its the illegal activities. Obama wasnt locking up citizens and killing people on the streets. I've shown you a few samples of the lawlessness. You think its worth it for whatever reason. I do not. Not for anything.
dude, you're factually incorrect as usual.


stop ignoring facts you can't compete with. makes you a sad fk.
 
dude, you're factually incorrect as usual.


stop ignoring facts you can't compete with. makes you a sad fk.
Your link showed no one killed on the street like a dog nor did it show Obama locking up citizens. Maybe you can reread our thread here and come back when the comprehension hits you. Why would you say I am incorrect then make a post that shows I am correct? You must have lost track of the line of debate.
 
Your link showed no one killed on the street like a dog nor did it show Obama locking up citizens. Maybe you can reread our thread here and come back when the comprehension hits you. Why would you say I am incorrect then make a post that shows I am correct? You must have lost track of the line of debate.
but they did and I ain't gonna argue with a puke who ignores facts. I don't really care. It happened, you should grow some balls and accept those facts, here's some more for you


Obama ended the large-scale arrests of immigrants at their workplaces, prioritizing instead the prosecutions of employers who hired unauthorized workers. But some immigrants were still arrested when agents showed up to workplaces to execute search warrant against employers.
 
but they did and I ain't gonna argue with a puke who ignores facts. I don't really care. It happened, you should grow some balls and accept those facts, here's some more for you


Obama ended the large-scale arrests of immigrants at their workplaces, prioritizing instead the prosecutions of employers who hired unauthorized workers. But some immigrants were still arrested when agents showed up to workplaces to execute search warrant against employers.
Nothing you posted is relevant. What are you arguing? You are arguing Obama and Biden deported people without violence and without locking up citizens and without soldiers, and without murdering citizens. WE AGREE. YOU AND I ARE ON THE SAME PAGE HERE BUDDY. Trump's militarization of ICE was unnecessary and has violated the constitution.
 
Nothing you posted is relevant. What are you arguing? You are arguing Obama and Biden deported people without violence and without locking up citizens and without soldiers, and without murdering citizens. WE AGREE. YOU AND I ARE ON THE SAME PAGE HERE BUDDY. Trump's militarization of ICE was unnecessary and has violated the constitution.
And Obama deported the one's who needed to be deported because they were criminals.

Trump is deporting people because he needs 3,000 bodies a day to meet his deportation goal. Trump doesn't go after criminals, he goes after whoever he can easily pickup to get his numbers up.
 
Don't know if this is an actual serious attempt, or if it's all for show.
It needs to happen. We need to make it clear to Democrats that these safe zones for illegals are no longer going to be tolerated.



We don’t need legislation, we just need them to enforce existing laws. Sanctuary cities are already illegal
 
Well, it would be unconstitutional, but other than that.
Only the parts about them trying to force local police into helping. Penalties and forbidding them from harboring illegals is already in the law, and so they can be penalized for breaking the law. That’s totally constitutional.
 
Not going to pass. The federal government can enforce immigration law, but it cannot jail governors, mayors, or sheriffs for refusing to do the federal government’s job for it. The Supreme Court has been clear on that for decades.

Key precedent (settled law, not controversial):
  • New York v. United States
  • Printz v. United States
  • Murphy v. NCAA (2018 – reaffirmed and strengthened the rule)

Under these cases, Congress may enforce federal law itself, but it may not:
  • Order state or local officials to participate
  • Criminalize their refusal to assist
  • Punish them for following state law instead of federal preferences
Yes they can. If a mayor or other official is harboring illegals, they can certainly be prosecuted.
 
Yes they can. If a mayor or other official is harboring illegals, they can certainly be prosecuted.
That isnt happening. You cant find any court cases on it except the one I know about where a judge let someone run out the back door. Nothing. You speak in generalities because you are making it up.
 
Non-response. I asked you for examples of convictions showing it is happening. You guys are too low IQ to debate me.

You never asked me to provide anything you just said that it wasn’t gonna happen. I pointed to a law that says that it is already illegal. The only difference is, is if somebody actually starts enforcing it. Sure, you may not have any cases because nobody has taken the initiative to actually persue it but because they haven’t done it doesn’t mean it’s not not illegal.

also:

AI Overview




Prosecutions under 8 U.S.C. 1324—covering smuggling, transporting, and harboring undocumented immigrants—have reached record highs, with 3,894 convictions reported in the first eight months of FY 2023
. Cases often involve high-risk smuggling, such as transporting individuals in dangerous conditions. Legal interpretations differ on "harboring" intent.

Apparently there are 4000 convictions under that law in 2023 alone. Feel free to go look them up
 
Last edited:
The federal government cannot force state and local authorities to work with ICE.
.

And it'll be fun watching those who refuse to do so screeching about the federal money tit being shut off.







.
 
That isnt happening. You cant find any court cases on it except the one I know about where a judge let someone run out the back door. Nothing. You speak in generalities because you are making it up.

One of your fellow Confederates just let a rapist walk out of her courtroom in NYC.

 
Don't know if this is an actual serious attempt, or if it's all for show.
It needs to happen. We need to make it clear to Democrats that these safe zones for illegals are no longer going to be tolerated.



I have a better idea. Require each state to annually file a report stating the number of undocumented immigrants living in the state in order to be eligible for federal aid and adjust aid to that state to only cover people who are there legally. If the state refuses to provide such information, the federal government will us its own estimate to adjust aid, and if the state misrepresents how many illegals it is harboring, that is clear evidence of fraud and federal charges can be brought against the officials responsible. This would require a law to compel the state government to allow the federal government to inspect relevant state documents.

This law would be easier to pass and enforce because polls still show the majority of voters still want the illegals to be gone even as they are complaining about how current policies are not to their liking.
 
15th post
The federal government cannot force state and local authorities to work with ICE.
True, but the federal government can bill the states for the extra costs non cooperation makes necessary and reduce federal aid to the state by that amount.
 
Graham should call it the Infectious Disease Prevention Bill. Because Biden and those asshole Democrats flooded the country with millions of illegals who were not screened for diseases AS REQUIRED BY LAW during legal immigration.

Headline news today, Tuberculosis Outbreak at a school, shocker.
 
But those on the left can be arrested for interfering with federal law enforcement officers doing their jobs.
Yes. Now what we need is for federal agents to be able to be held criminally liable for breaking the law.

Graham signaled during a floor speech Friday that he could settle for the votes at a later date, instead of as part of the pending spending bill. A spokesperson said Graham is not asking for votes today.

Senate Republican leaders believe they can move forward with approval of the spending agreement notched by President Donald Trump and Senate Democrats by offering votes on amendments demanded by the South Carolina Republican — one related to cities that don’t comply with federal immigration laws and two changes related to the defunct investigation into the 2020 election led by former special counsel Jack Smith.

Giving Graham those amendment votes would require sign-on from all 99 of his colleagues.

 
You never asked me to provide anything you just said that it wasn’t gonna happen. I pointed to a law that says that it is already illegal. The only difference is, is if somebody actually starts enforcing it. Sure, you may not have any cases because nobody has taken the initiative to actually persue it but because they haven’t done it doesn’t mean it’s not not illegal.

also:



Apparently there are 4000 convictions under that law in 2023 alone. Feel free to go look them up
Our debate is on whether local and state leaders are interfering with the execution of immigration law like was claimed. That is not happening which is why you cant link a case. And because you think everyone is as dumb as you, you simply decide to type random shit, like people are prosecuted for smuggling. Awesome dipshit. That has not connection to our line of debate. **** off if you are going to be disingenuous.
 
Back
Top Bottom