Sanctuary City Question Leaves Gibbs Stammering

[Ravi]

Indeed. Now how does that apply to cities?

Cities are part of the States...so unless the State compels the city to act in a certain manner that is constitutional the city is free to do as it pleases.

Well, that's interesting.

Funny how you rail against Arizona for violating Federal law...but give a pass to cities who do the same thing.

Sanctuary cities aren't violating Federal law because they are not compelled to enforce it.

 

[daveman]

Sanctuary cities aren't violating Federal law because they are not compelled to enforce it.

On the contrary.

§ 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

(a) Criminal penalties
(1)
(A) Any person who—
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

§ 1644. Communication between State and local government agencies and Immigration and Naturalization Service

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no State or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.

Sanctuary cities are indeed a violation of Federal law.

 

[Ravi]

No. States are not required to verify someone's immigration status unless it is for employment purposes.

 

[hortysir]

Indeed. Now how does that apply to cities?

Doesn't matter anyway Dave, she's wrong, states CAN limit your constitutionally protected rights. IF they have good cause.

Wrong.

Your stupidity really has no bounds, does it?

A state can keep you from purchasing a firearm if you have been convicted of a felony.
A state can keep you from going to church, where children attend services, if you have been convicted of a sex-crime.


Shall I go on, or would you like to take this opportunity to add the words "I am" to your reply of "Wrong"???

 

[Charles_Main]

Doesn't matter anyway Dave, she's wrong, states CAN limit your constitutionally protected rights. IF they have good cause.

Wrong.

Your stupidity really has no bounds, does it?

A state can keep you from purchasing a firearm if you have been convicted of a felony.
A state can keep you from going to church, where children attend services, if you have been convicted of a sex-crime.


Shall I go on, or would you like to take this opportunity to add the words "I am" to your reply of "Wrong"???

Guys she will never admit she is wrong. She is not arguing with you because she believes any of the shit she says. She is arguing with you because she is a shameless Obama Partisan that will tolerate any thing he does in the name of Hope and change. She is not even worth arguing with. We have repeatedly devastated her arguments with cold hard facts and still she will not admit being wrong. Move on.

 

[ConHog]

Doesn't matter anyway Dave, she's wrong, states CAN limit your constitutionally protected rights. IF they have good cause.

Wrong.

Your stupidity really has no bounds, does it?

A state can keep you from purchasing a firearm if you have been convicted of a felony.
A state can keep you from going to church, where children attend services, if you have been convicted of a sex-crime.


Shall I go on, or would you like to take this opportunity to add the words "I am" to your reply of "Wrong"???

Thanks for saving me the time to type it.

Ravi fail #15

 

[ConHog]

I was under the impression we were discussing sanctuary cities...that is where you are all arguing against states rights.

But I do believe that the states cannot pass laws that are the jurisdiction of the federal government. The can chose to round people up and turn them over to ICE but they cannot bring charges against people for violating a federal law.

how is arguing against sanctuary cities being against state rights. You do know they are cities right. NOT STATES.

If a state were to pass sanctuary laws it would be challenged on the grounds that Obama is using to challenge Arizona right now as it would be a state impeding the Feds ability to do its job. See that is what you call an originalist view of the constitution. You support States rights up until those rights conflict with the supremacy clause. Which of course Arizona's law does not, but a Sanctuary state? Now that would.

States rights are not unlimited. They for example can not make war, if one were to claim they could. It would not be hypocritical for a states rights advocated to say they can't, Because States rights are limited by constitution in that case..

By the same token a state can not make laws that impede the Feds ability to do its duty. See Article VI, Clause 2. Of the constitution. A state can pass laws that enforce Federal law, they can not make laws that conflict with it. So it would not be hypocritical for a States rights advocate to be against a states right to pass sanctuary laws, let alone a cities, as said law would be a clear violation of the constitution.

See being for states rights goes hand in hand with being for a strict originalist interpretation of the constitution.

However don't let that stop you from making more ridicules comparisons like this one trying to say if you are against a CITY who made sanctuary laws you must be against states rights. Pretty funny logic their hun.

State's aren't impeding the Fed by allowing sanctuary cities. They are merely not helping them...a big difference.

And yes, I do believe in this instance you are against states rights.

Ravi, read this SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWLY

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI of the COTUS

Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It specifically compels ALL jurisdictions within the US to follow federal law. If this were not the case cities or states could feel free to ignore federal laws on such matters at counterfeiting or murder, or any other federal law they didn't like. Only a complete moron, which I believe you are, would argue that the can.


Ravi fail #16

 

[ConHog]

Where did Ravi go?

Did the first smart thing she has done on this thread. Gave up.

To bad she could not do the right thing, and Admit she is wrong.

Actually I went out to dinner. How enjoyable to know that cornjob spent the night obsessing over me.

Sure you did, and actually I spent the evening laughing at you, as did quite a few others on here.

Ravi fail #17

 

[ConHog]

States can't limit constitutionally granted rights...see the recent 2nd amendment case.

Indeed. Now how does that apply to cities?

Cities are part of the States...so unless the State compels the city to act in a certain manner that is constitutional the city is free to do as it pleases.

Article VI of the COTUS compels cities to follow federal law.

Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ravi fail #17

 

[ConHog]

Indeed. Now how does that apply to cities?

Doesn't matter anyway Dave, she's wrong, states CAN limit your constitutionally protected rights. IF they have good cause.

Wrong.

Correct. If you are a felon, for instance, say goodbye to your rights. If you're in an airport, you forfeit the right to yell bomb, yelling fire is frowned upon, to say the least, etc etc

Ravi fail #18

 

[ConHog]

Indeed. Now how does that apply to cities?

Cities are part of the States...so unless the State compels the city to act in a certain manner that is constitutional the city is free to do as it pleases.

Well, that's interesting.

Funny how you rail against Arizona for violating Federal law...but give a pass to cities who do the same thing.

Except that AZ is NOT violating federal law while sanctuary cities are

Ravi fail #19

 

[ConHog]

Cities are part of the States...so unless the State compels the city to act in a certain manner that is constitutional the city is free to do as it pleases.

Well, that's interesting.

Funny how you rail against Arizona for violating Federal law...but give a pass to cities who do the same thing.

Sanctuary cities aren't violating Federal law because they are not compelled to enforce it.

Again, Article VI of the COTUS says that YES they are compelled to enforce federal law.

Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ravi fail #20

Damn you're stupid. Just stop

 

[ConHog]

No. States are not required to verify someone's immigration status unless it is for employment purposes.

Imagine this, Ravi incorrect again. Now states have been given until next year to comply, but all but 10 states are complying now

REAL ID Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ravi fail #21

 

[Ravi]

Doesn't matter anyway Dave, she's wrong, states CAN limit your constitutionally protected rights. IF they have good cause.

Wrong.

Your stupidity really has no bounds, does it?

A state can keep you from purchasing a firearm if you have been convicted of a felony.
A state can keep you from going to church, where children attend services, if you have been convicted of a sex-crime.


Shall I go on, or would you like to take this opportunity to add the words "I am" to your reply of "Wrong"???

Operative words: if you have been convicted. You may not realize this because you aren't very bright but being convicted of a crime comes with a penalty.

 

[Ravi]

Wrong.

Your stupidity really has no bounds, does it?

A state can keep you from purchasing a firearm if you have been convicted of a felony.
A state can keep you from going to church, where children attend services, if you have been convicted of a sex-crime.


Shall I go on, or would you like to take this opportunity to add the words "I am" to your reply of "Wrong"???

Guys she will never admit she is wrong. She is not arguing with you because she believes any of the shit she says. She is arguing with you because she is a shameless Obama Partisan that will tolerate any thing he does in the name of Hope and change. She is not even worth arguing with. We have repeatedly devastated her arguments with cold hard facts and still she will not admit being wrong. Move on.

State's are not required to verify anyone's immigration status unless they are applying for a job with the State (ditto cities). In fact they aren't required to find out if you've committed any crimes.

There is no reason a city cannot be a sanctuary city. Look at it as a DADT policy.

 

[ConHog]

Wrong.

Your stupidity really has no bounds, does it?

A state can keep you from purchasing a firearm if you have been convicted of a felony.
A state can keep you from going to church, where children attend services, if you have been convicted of a sex-crime.


Shall I go on, or would you like to take this opportunity to add the words "I am" to your reply of "Wrong"???

Operative words: if you have been convicted. You may not realize this because you aren't very bright but being convicted of a crime comes with a penalty.

What? How stupid are you Ravi? You wrote , and I quote "States can't take away your rights" I proved you wrong, then you come back with this bullshit?

How weak.

ANd the person who can't yell bomb in airport hasn't committed any crimes but still has a right limited anyway.

Ravi fail #21

 

[Bullfighter]

[: State's are not required to verify anyone's immigration status unless they are applying for a job with the State (ditto cities). In fact they aren't required to find out if you've committed any crimes.

.

Would you accept this ID?

Well..............YOU would!

 

[ConHog]

Your stupidity really has no bounds, does it?

A state can keep you from purchasing a firearm if you have been convicted of a felony.
A state can keep you from going to church, where children attend services, if you have been convicted of a sex-crime.


Shall I go on, or would you like to take this opportunity to add the words "I am" to your reply of "Wrong"???

Guys she will never admit she is wrong. She is not arguing with you because she believes any of the shit she says. She is arguing with you because she is a shameless Obama Partisan that will tolerate any thing he does in the name of Hope and change. She is not even worth arguing with. We have repeatedly devastated her arguments with cold hard facts and still she will not admit being wrong. Move on.

State's are not required to verify anyone's immigration status unless they are applying for a job with the State (ditto cities). In fact they aren't required to find out if you've committed any crimes.

There is no reason a city cannot be a sanctuary city. Look at it as a DADT policy.

Ravi, read the REAL ID Act, it's on it's way and certainly states will be required to check immigration status before issuing state ID, and as I pointed out in 2 different threads now, all but 10 states are already compliant even though they have until 2011 to do so.

It scares the hell out of me that someone so stupid and unable to admit that they have been thoroughly whipped is walking around free, let alone voting on the issues that affect my children s futures.

Are you just completely incapable of admitting you are wrong? Or are you just such a stupid partisan hack that you truly can't see that you are wrong? Either way, it's pathetic

Ravi fail #22

 

[hortysir]

Indeed. Now how does that apply to cities?

Doesn't matter anyway Dave, she's wrong, states CAN limit your constitutionally protected rights. IF they have good cause.

Wrong.

States can't limit constitutionally granted rights...see the recent 2nd amendment case.

Operative words: if you have been convicted. You may not realize this because you aren't very bright but being convicted of a crime comes with a penalty.

Which is it?
Con says they can IF they have good cause.
You say they can't.
I tell you they CAN.
So, in response, you say IF they have good cause.

You are so dead-set on arguing you don;t give a flying **** what you say as long as it is opposite from everyone else. Including your own dumbass self.

 

[ConHog]

Doesn't matter anyway Dave, she's wrong, states CAN limit your constitutionally protected rights. IF they have good cause.

Wrong.

Operative words: if you have been convicted. You may not realize this because you aren't very bright but being convicted of a crime comes with a penalty.

Which is it?
Con says they can IF they have good cause.
You say they can't.
I tell you they CAN.
So, in response, you say IF they have good cause.

You are so dead-set on arguing you don;t give a flying **** what you say as long as it is opposite from everyone else. Including your own dumbass self.

Exactly, I've beat her ass so many ways on this thread, she doesn't even know what she's arguing now. She went full circle from saying they can't to saying well ok they can sometimes but I'm still right...............


Notice none of her loon friends are in here defending her..... It's because unlike Ravi they might be partisan but they aren't stupid and they know when to stay away from a clear loser.