Kamala's America: Border Czar Harris Has Lost Track of 290,000 Unaccompanied Minors

[Hellokitty]

Trump himself said he killed the border deal. Lol.


Who said she was unable? I simply stated as VP she doesn't have political power to enact policy.

What do you think VPs usually do?

How can you say as VP she doesn't have any political power to enact policy and at the same time give TRUMP credit for doing just that as a private citizen?

My question was on Harris influencing policy, but I can understand why you don't want to address that.

 

[Catsnmeters]

I guess you missed the whining and moaning from your sanctuary city paradises about those horrible illegs being bussed to the cities they were invited to.

Nope. Didn't miss it.

What other administration gave away pre-paid debit cards?

The new York administration?

Show us a citation in the Constitution protecting sanctuary cities.

You don't have any idea what a sanctuary city is.

I don't? I'm not the one who doesn't know that sanctuary cities are constitutionally protected.

If you knew what sanctuary cities were, and you were familiar with the constitution, you would know better.

All sanctuary cities are is that states are choosing not to use state recourses to enforce federal law. It's called the separation of powers.

Here is an example of this fact in printz vs united states and the argument by the late Justice Scalia.

Redirect Notice

In Printz, Justice Scalia reinforced that concept. “The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program,” Scalia said. “Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

We obviously do have open borders. Millions of illegals crossing the border should have been a clue.

Are you saying we don't have manned border gates and patrols along the border? People just freely drive over the border whenever and wherever they want? Is that what you are saying?

Illegal immigration is a criminal act. Stop supporting it.

I don't support it.

What I support is congressional legislation to address the issue not EOs.

 

[Catsnmeters]

How can you say as VP she doesn't have any political power to enact policy and at the same time give TRUMP credit for doing just that as a private citizen?

He didn't enact policy. He used the threat of being primaried to compel Republicans in Congress to drop the bill.

My question was on Harris influencing policy, but I can understand why you don't want to address that.

Why do you think a VP can solve the border problem when nobody else has been able too?

All she was asked with was looking into lowering immigration by identifying causes and working to mitigate them from source countries.

Your expectations of that mandate are nonsensical.

 

[Hollie]

Nope. Didn't miss it.



The new York administration?



I don't? I'm not the one who doesn't know that sanctuary cities are constitutionally protected.

If you knew what sanctuary cities were, and you were familiar with the constitution, you would know better.

All sanctuary cities are is that states are choosing not to use state recourses to enforce federal law. It's called the separation of powers.

Here is an example of this fact in printz vs united states and the argument by the late Justice Scalia.

Redirect Notice

In Printz, Justice Scalia reinforced that concept. “The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program,” Scalia said. “Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”



Are you saying we don't have manned border gates and patrols along the border? People just freely drive over the border whenever and wherever they want? Is that what you are saying?


I don't support it.

What I support is congressional legislation to address the issue not EOs.

It should be simple enough to cite where in the Constitution, sanctuary cities are protected. It should be easy to provide the citation.

Your pointless. " because I say so" claims are really not funny.

Are you saying that the top of bank of the Rio Grande is a port of entry?

 

[Catsnmeters]

It should be simple enough to cite where in the Constitution, sanctuary cities are protected. It should be easy to provide the citation.

Your pointless. " because I say so" claims are really not funny.

Did you miss it?

I posted it and the link.

It's because the constitution and SCOTUS says so.

Do you think it is constitutional for the federal government to force state agencies to enforce federal laws using state recourses...in this case immigration?

Yes or no?

Are you saying that the top of bank of the Rio Grande is a port of entry?

No. I'm saying we don't have open borders.

 

[Hollie]

Did you miss it?

I posted it and the link.

It's because the constitution and SCOTUS says so.

Do you think it is constitutional for the federal government to force state agencies to enforce federal laws using state recourses...in this case immigration?

Yes or no?


No. I'm saying we don't have open borders.

How did you think such a phony mistepresentation was valid. Not a single reference to sanctuary city was in your link. You claimed sanctuary cities were protected in the Constitution yet you cannot provide a citation

Of course we do have open borders. Thst why millions of illegals are allowed to walk across the border.

 

[Catsnmeters]

How did you think such a phony mistepresentation was valid. Not a single reference to sanctuary city was in your link. You claimed sanctuary cities were protected in the Constitution yet you cannot provide a citation

Can you answer my simple question please?

Do you think it is constitutional for the federal government to force state agencies to enforce federal laws using state recourses...in this case immigration?

Yes or no?

Of course we do have open borders. Thst why millions of illegals are allowed to walk across the border.

Can you answer my simple question please.

Are you saying we don't have manned border gates and patrols along the border? People just freely drive over the border whenever and wherever they want? Is that what you are saying?

Yes or no?

 

[Hollie]

Can you answer my simple question please?

Do you think it is constitutional for the federal government to force state agencies to enforce federal laws using state recourses...in this case immigration?

Yes or no?


Can you answer my simple question please.

Are you saying we don't have manned border gates and patrols along the border? People just freely drive over the border whenever and wherever they want? Is that what you are saying?

Yes or no?

Can you male a attempt to support your argument?

Can you provide a citation in the Constitution supporting sanctuary cities?

Yes or no?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Can you male a attempt to support your argument?

Yes. I did.

Can you provide a citation in the Constitution supporting sanctuary cities?

Yes or no?

So you refuse to answer the questions.

Then you ignore my citations.

It's pretty scary that some people believe the federal government can commandeer state recourses to enforce federal law.

This from the party that presumably supports small federal government and states rights.

Here is some more information from the same link.

The 10th Amendment says that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In New York v. United States, Justice O’Connor wrote that a federal waste-management law “would ‘commandeer’ state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes, and would for this reason be inconsistent with the Constitution’s division of authority between federal and state governments.”

Again from the same link.

Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in the recent Murphy v. NCAA case emphatically restated the ideas expressed by O’Connor and Scalia as the Court settled a controversy about New Jersey’s desires to start legal sports betting despite a federal law that prohibited such actions.

“The anti-commandeering doctrine may sound arcane, but it is simply the expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, i.e., the decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States,” Alito wrote. “Conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anti-commandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority,” he added.

 

[Hollie]

Yes. I did.



So you refuse to answer the questions.

Then you ignore my citations.

It's pretty scary that some people believe the federal government can commandeer state recourses to enforce federal law.

This from the party that presumably supports small federal government and states rights.

Here is some more information from the same link.

The 10th Amendment says that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In New York v. United States, Justice O’Connor wrote that a federal waste-management law “would ‘commandeer’ state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes, and would for this reason be inconsistent with the Constitution’s division of authority between federal and state governments.”

Again from the same link.

Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in the recent Murphy v. NCAA case emphatically restated the ideas expressed by O’Connor and Scalia as the Court settled a controversy about New Jersey’s desires to start legal sports betting despite a federal law that prohibited such actions.

“The anti-commandeering doctrine may sound arcane, but it is simply the expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, i.e., the decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States,” Alito wrote. “Conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anti-commandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority,” he added.

So no. Nothing in the Constiution about a sanctuary city. It would have been easier for you if you had a bit of honesty and integrity not to make specious claims.

 

[Catsnmeters]

So no. Nothing in the Constiution about a sanctuary city. It would have been easier for you if you had a bit of honesty and integrity not to make specious claims.

Lol. Your ignorance of the constitution is appalling.

Here is another question. Maybe you will answer it.

From the above link...

The 10th Amendment says that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In New York v. United States, Justice O’Connor wrote that a federal waste-management law “would ‘commandeer’ state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes, and would for this reason be inconsistent with the Constitution’s division of authority between federal and state governments.”

The above is a SCOTUS decision supporting constitutional law.

Is federal waste management in the constitution?

 

[Hollie]

Lol. Your ignorance of the constitution is appalling. Nothing of what you have cu5vand pasted addresses sanctuary cities.

Here is another question. Maybe you will answer it.

From the above link...

The 10th Amendment says that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In New York v. United States, Justice O’Connor wrote that a federal waste-management law “would ‘commandeer’ state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes, and would for this reason be inconsistent with the Constitution’s division of authority between federal and state governments.”

The above is a SCOTUS decision supporting constitutional law.

Is federal waste management in the constitution?

My understanding of the Constitution leads me to understand there is no citation you can present that deals with sanctuary cities.

Your nonsense claims are appalling.

Cutting and pasting irrelevant snippets does nothing to support your claims that sanctuary cities are protected by the Constitution.

 

[Catsnmeters]

My understanding of the Constitution leads me to understand there is no citation you can present that deals with sanctuary cities.

Your nonsense claims are appalling.n

Willful ignorance.

I provided the relevant SCOTUS decisions but you refuse to accept it.

You actually think the federal government can overrule state sovereignty, the tenth amendment and separation of powers and commandeer state agencies to enforce federal law. Shameful as an American.

That should be terrifying to anyone who reads this thread, democrat or republican.

 

[Hollie]

Willful ignorance.

I provided the relevant SCOTUS decisions but you refuse to accept it.

You actually think the federal government can overrule state sovereignty, the tenth amendment and separation of powers and commandeer state agencies to enforce federal law. Shameful as an American.

That should be terrifying to anyone who reads this thread, democrat or republican.

You provided nothing that addresses sanctuary cities. Do you actually believe that spamming the thread with irrelevant cut and paste

snippets of opinions not dealing with sanctuary cities supports you claim thst sanctuary cities are protected by the Constitution?


The federal government obviously can overule state sovereignty. That happened recently when the free real government tore down razor wire erected by the state of Texas intended to stop illegals from crossing the border and entering the state of Texas.

You making up Constitutional law to fit your political agenda should be concerning to anyone who reads this thread, democrat or republican.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You provided nothing that addresses sanctuary cities. Do you actually believe that spamming the thread with irrelevant cut and paste snippets of opinions not dealing with sanctuary cities supports you claim thst sanctuary cities are protected by the Constitution?

You think all laws must be specifically mentioned in the constitution.

That is like saying freedom of speech laws pertaining to social media are null and void because the constitution doesn't reference social media.

It's a child's fallacy.

This, besides making no sense, flies in the face of 9th and 10th amendment and enumerated rights

You have heard of and know what enumerated rights are, correct?

 

[Hollie]

You think all laws must be specifically mentioned in the constitution.

That is like saying freedom of speech laws pertaining to social media are null and void because the constitution doesn't reference social media.

It's a child's fallacy.

This, besides making no sense, flies in the face of 9th and 10th amendment and enumerated rights

You have heard of and know what enumerated rights are, correct?

Wilfull ignorance. You think your subjective view of the Constitution should be taken seriously by anyone else?

It was your claim that sanctuary cities are protected by the constitution yet you offer nothing to support that. You copied and pasted something that doesn’t even reference sanctuary cities,

Do you know what the Constitution is?

 

[Catsnmeters]

You think your subjective view of the Constitution should be taken seriously by anyone else?

It's not my subjective view. It is constitutional precedent based on separation of powers, state sovereignty and the tenth amendment.

It was your claim that sanctuary cities are protected by the constitution yet you offer nothing to support that. You copied and pasted something that doesn’t even reference sanctuary cities,

Sanctuary cities are simply cities where they refuse to use local recourses to go after immigrants. Nothing more.

Since the fed can't commandeer local agencies based on the above and the associated SCOTUS decisions, it simply follows that sanctuary cities are protected by the constitution.

Do you know what the Constitution is?

Again, you don't answer my questions.

You are polite and I appreciate that but you are very disingenuous in not answering any of my simple yes or no questions.

 

[Hollie]

It's not my subjective view. It is constitutional precedent based on separation of powers, state sovereignty and the tenth amendment.



Sanctuary cities are simply cities where they refuse to use local recourses to go after immigrants. Nothing more.

Since the fed can't commandeer local agencies based on the above and the associated SCOTUS decisions, it simply follows that sanctuary cities are protected by the constitution.


Again, you don't answer my questions.

You are polite and I appreciate that but you are very disingenuous in not answering any of my simple yes or no questions.

Your “ because I say so” admonitions are funny. Your demands that I answer your yes or no questions is .just a way to sidestep supporting your bogus claims.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Your “ because I say so” admonitions are funny. Your demands that I answer your yes or no questions is .just a way to sidestep supporting your bogus claims.

Did you think the links I provided were constitutional decisions made by me? ROFL.

I didn't say so.

Scalia said so. O'Connor said so. Alito said so. The supreme court said so.

This thread isn't about what I think, it's about what SCOTUS has decided over and over.

 

[HeyNorm]

What's a border Czar and who appointed her to that position?

Throwing shade for child trafficking is not a good look.