Texas to arrest Sanctuary City Leaders, Police Chiefs, etc...

[theHawk]

While states like California are trying to find ways to defy President Trump by protecting criminal illegals, Texas is on the verge of passing legislation that would hold Mauors, police Ciefs, and other city officials accountable for enabling Sanctuary Cities.

If caught doing so, these coty officials could be SENT TO JAIL for breaking the law and aiding /abetting criminals.

GO, TEXAS! HUA!

Texas prepares to begin locking up leaders in sanctuary cities - Hot Air

"Texas would be the first in which police chiefs and sheriffs could be jailed for not helping enforce immigration law. They could also lose their jobs."

It's time to put an end to all this activist lawlessness by elected officials and over government employees.

 

[JoeB131]

If they were welfare cheats, they should be Democrat heroes.

You are an utter fool saying children dying like that is no loss. WTF kind of person would say that???

Meh, no great loss. They'd have all grown up to be welfare cheats and religious nuts...

 

[JoeB131]

That fact that the linked article finds it necessary to lie about the issue by calling the illegal aliens, "undocumented migrants" shows that the entire paradigm is based on dishonesty.

Since being here without permission isn't actually a felony, 'undocumented immigrants" is actually the correct term.

 

[Clementine]

So much for state rights!

That doesn't even make sense considering the topic. lol

Hey, Texas can do what it wants . But the whole fight is state vs fed.

Law says Feds have the say so on immigration. Sanct cities are just going with that .

Sanctuary cities go against federal law, which states are obligated to follow.

Congress needs to get more involved. If those in office wish to remain there, they had better get their shit together and address this mess.

 

[Clementine]

That fact that the linked article finds it necessary to lie about the issue by calling the illegal aliens, "undocumented migrants" shows that the entire paradigm is based on dishonesty.

Since being here without permission isn't actually a felony, 'undocumented immigrants" is actually the correct term.

It's illegal to commit any crime, even if it's not a felony. Illegal entry makes them illegal aliens. If you sneak into someone's home you're not a guest, undocumented or otherwise. You are a criminal. You guys make 'undocumented' sound like nothing more than an insignificant piece of paper. No documents mean no permission, which means against federal law. It should be treated seriously.

If congress would clarify the birthright citizenship clause to deny citizenship for anchor babies, the problem would go away on it's own eventually.

 

[WEATHER53]

Defending the illegals. Too many video games and Internet chatrooms equals lack of reality and fact
Somebody breaks down my front door and enters my home they have Already committed an Illegal act, they don't have to be stealing my TV to be guilty of a crime

 

[Vandalshandle]

So much for state rights!

That doesn't even make sense considering the topic. lol

Hey, Texas can do what it wants . But the whole fight is state vs fed.

Law says Feds have the say so on immigration. Sanct cities are just going with that .

Sanctuary cities go against federal law, which states are obligated to follow.

Congress needs to get more involved. If those in office wish to remain there, they had better get their shit together and address this mess.

OH NO! Somebody call Colorado and tell them that they made a mistake legalizing marijuana, because growing it is in violation of a federal law, and the entire Colorado Legislature can be thrown in prison!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Vandalshandle]

That fact that the linked article finds it necessary to lie about the issue by calling the illegal aliens, "undocumented migrants" shows that the entire paradigm is based on dishonesty.

Since being here without permission isn't actually a felony, 'undocumented immigrants" is actually the correct term.

It's illegal to commit any crime, even if it's not a felony. Illegal entry makes them illegal aliens. If you sneak into someone's home you're not a guest, undocumented or otherwise. You are a criminal. You guys make 'undocumented' sound like nothing more than an insignificant piece of paper. No documents mean no permission, which means against federal law. It should be treated seriously.

If congress would clarify the birthright citizenship clause to deny citizenship for anchor babies, the problem would go away on it's own eventually.

Clementine, don't give up your day job to practice law. NOBODY is an illegal alien until convicted of being one in a court of law. Until then, they are an undocumented alien.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So much for state rights!

That doesn't even make sense considering the topic. lol

Hey, Texas can do what it wants . But the whole fight is state vs fed.

Law says Feds have the say so on immigration. Sanct cities are just going with that .

Sanctuary cities go against federal law, which states are obligated to follow.

Congress needs to get more involved. If those in office wish to remain there, they had better get their shit together and address this mess.

OH NO! Somebody call Colorado and tell them that they made a mistake legalizing marijuana, because growing it is in violation of a federal law, and the entire Colorado Legislature can be thrown in prison!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like we said 8 year's of Obama's unconstitutional ignorant behavior is going to take along time to undo.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If they were welfare cheats, they should be Democrat heroes.

You are an utter fool saying children dying like that is no loss. WTF kind of person would say that???

Meh, no great loss. They'd have all grown up to be welfare cheats and religious nuts...

Or saved your ass

 

[Correll]

That fact that the linked article finds it necessary to lie about the issue by calling the illegal aliens, "undocumented migrants" shows that the entire paradigm is based on dishonesty.

Since being here without permission isn't actually a felony, 'undocumented immigrants" is actually the correct term.

It's illegal to commit any crime, even if it's not a felony. Illegal entry makes them illegal aliens. If you sneak into someone's home you're not a guest, undocumented or otherwise. You are a criminal. You guys make 'undocumented' sound like nothing more than an insignificant piece of paper. No documents mean no permission, which means against federal law. It should be treated seriously.

If congress would clarify the birthright citizenship clause to deny citizenship for anchor babies, the problem would go away on it's own eventually.

Clementine, don't give up your day job to practice law. NOBODY is an illegal alien until convicted of being one in a court of law. Until then, they are an undocumented alien.

Another lefty who believes that reality is a function of perception.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That fact that the linked article finds it necessary to lie about the issue by calling the illegal aliens, "undocumented migrants" shows that the entire paradigm is based on dishonesty.

Since being here without permission isn't actually a felony, 'undocumented immigrants" is actually the correct term.

There is no middle ground. You are either here legally, and if not, you are here illegally.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Defending the illegals. Too many video games and Internet chatrooms equals lack of reality and fact
Somebody breaks down my front door and enters my home they have Already committed an Illegal act, they don't have to be stealing my TV to be guilty of a crime

To a liberal, they would be considered an undocumented guest.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If they were welfare cheats, they should be Democrat heroes.

You are an utter fool saying children dying like that is no loss. WTF kind of person would say that???

Meh, no great loss. They'd have all grown up to be welfare cheats and religious nuts...

And if I said that about your precious blacks in the inner-city, you would have a heart attack.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So let's say a bank robbery is taking place and a police officer enters. One of the robbers grabs a woman and puts his gun to her head. Do you think the officer should aggressively try to stop the robber while he's holding the woman hostage?

Authorities are trained to protect the innocent when they are unfortunately in the middle of a situation. That's why they don't storm a house when they know a hostage is in there. They stay outside and try to reason with the suspect unless it gets to the point they believe the hostage will die no matter what they do, or they see a break such as a SWAT sharp shooter having a clear shot at the suspect. When police are in a high speed pursuit of a vehicle, they are instructed to call off the chase if the vehicle starts moving too fast. They do so to protect the suspect and more importantly, the innocent public.

The children in that compound were innocent, I don't care what their parents were involved in, and precautions should have taken place because in a sense, those children were hostages. Even if children know their parents are wrong, they have to follow their orders because they are the parents.

I didn't want to get involved in this debate, but I have to chime in when you say that it's nobody else's fault. It was badly planned, badly executed, and it doesn't matter if Koresh was right or wrong. They made a huge mistake.

What the hell are you talking about? The US police forces are some of the most gung ho there is out there. In fact, when I was training to be an LEO in NZ we were shown example after example of how NOT to do something. 99 percent of those examples were from the US.

I'm not saying they could have done it better. They probably could have. Hind sight is 20/20. I get pissed every time I hear a family whine and moan that their son, 17 year old Johnny was killed in a car chase because he refused to stop. "Oh the cops should have stopped chasing him". These day in NZ, police have to stop chases if they become too dangerous. I go back to the beginning. If Johnny hadn't been driving like a fuckwit in the first place it never would have happened. If Koresh didn't think he was god, wasn't armed to the teeth, and did what he was told, it never would have happened.

Don't blame the police for that piece of shit's action.

I didn't blame them. I said they could have done things much smarter and better. That's different than saying it was all their fault and nobody else's.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So let's say a bank robbery is taking place and a police officer enters. One of the robbers grabs a woman and puts his gun to her head. Do you think the officer should aggressively try to stop the robber while he's holding the woman hostage?

Authorities are trained to protect the innocent when they are unfortunately in the middle of a situation. That's why they don't storm a house when they know a hostage is in there. They stay outside and try to reason with the suspect unless it gets to the point they believe the hostage will die no matter what they do, or they see a break such as a SWAT sharp shooter having a clear shot at the suspect. When police are in a high speed pursuit of a vehicle, they are instructed to call off the chase if the vehicle starts moving too fast. They do so to protect the suspect and more importantly, the innocent public.

The children in that compound were innocent, I don't care what their parents were involved in, and precautions should have taken place because in a sense, those children were hostages. Even if children know their parents are wrong, they have to follow their orders because they are the parents.

I didn't want to get involved in this debate, but I have to chime in when you say that it's nobody else's fault. It was badly planned, badly executed, and it doesn't matter if Koresh was right or wrong. They made a huge mistake.

What the hell are you talking about? The US police forces are some of the most gung ho there is out there. In fact, when I was training to be an LEO in NZ we were shown example after example of how NOT to do something. 99 percent of those examples were from the US.

I'm not saying they could have done it better. They probably could have. Hind sight is 20/20. I get pissed every time I hear a family whine and moan that their son, 17 year old Johnny was killed in a car chase because he refused to stop. "Oh the cops should have stopped chasing him". These day in NZ, police have to stop chases if they become too dangerous. I go back to the beginning. If Johnny hadn't been driving like a fuckwit in the first place it never would have happened. If Koresh didn't think he was god, wasn't armed to the teeth, and did what he was told, it never would have happened.

Don't blame the police for that piece of shit's action.

Again for slow stupid and supporters of murderers of children. THERE WAS NO REASON TO RUSH THE COMPOUND, they were no threat to anyone NONE nada zip.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, it is; we merely have a printing press that prints money, almost as if by magic. We call it, fiat money.

It is about best use of limited resources. First degrees need to go, first. It really is that simple. Hopefully, a "two for one" deal on both State and federal first degrees, would be a "bonus".

None of that is a answer to my question either.

IF you have a point, what is the gain from hiding it from everyone except yourself?

What was Your question, rightwing fisherman? Nothing but Red Herrings.

From above, from a post that you hit the "reply " button on, but never actually replied to.



Why do local law enforcement not want to help federal law enforcement?

Why active aiding and abetting of criminals, instead of professional co-operation?

First degrees get to go first.

Which does not address the question.

Red Herrings are not relevant, right winger.

 

[danielpalos]

Nope, and it is never in their job description. BTW. Arizona already tried this a couple of years ago, and the feds shut the state down for infringing on fed jurisdiction. Another example. County deputies have no jurisdiction in AZ over anything happening ion the interstate highway, and frontage roads. We won't even respond to calls there.That is AZ Highway patrol jurisdiction.

Justice Department Files Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law

The justice department prevailed in this suit, and the State had to stop operating in federal jurisdiction.

Apples and oranges. What DumBama sued for is that Arizona created their own immigration regulations. This is entirely different. These are regulations that have been on the book for decades, and the feds give their blessing to local authorities that do as they ask.

The feds cannot make local authorities enforce their law, but the state or county can. If it's required by them to follow federal guidelines, not doing so means they are not doing their job and probably subject to termination. The person who signs your paycheck makes the rules.

The state or county has no immigration laws that they can force a municipality to enforce, Ray, and they have no legal authority to force municipalities to enforce federal law.. Do I really have to point that out to you?

No, they can't. But what's happening in Texas is something they can do. If the state creates a law or requirement of working with the feds, you work with the feds. If you don't, your municipality may be subject to losing state funds. If they want to lose those funds, fine, do what you like. But don't complain about the results.

10USC311 is also, federal law; you cannot, "pick and choose".

You mean the militia law, you are aware that does not in anyway restrict who can and can not own possess or use weapons right? And that the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd is in an INDIVIDUAL right not a collective right?

There is no individual right, regarding the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

I only admit the right wing is clueless Causeless; so I never worry about going to Court for an, Order to Show Cause.

The fact that you have to hide your agenda from those you talk to, that's strong evidence that you are the bad guy.


Why do you WANT to be the bad guy? Does that not negatively impact your self image?

I already have stated, more than several times, that we need to solve our illegal problem at the federal borders with the federal powers already delegated to our federal Congress by our federal Constitution.

We have a Commerce Clause; we should have no illegal problem.

Yes, your agenda was revealed by your completely refusal for the very concept of including American interests in the crafting of American policy.

Your loyalty is obviously SOLELY towards your fellow national Mexicans.

Indeed, you instead are actively HOSTILE to even American children.


You are a monster.

You are simply clueless and Causeless, right winger. How completely and totally, usual.

We have a Commerce Clause; we should have no illegal problem.

Yes, your agenda was revealed by your completely refusal for the very concept of including American interests in the crafting of American policy.

Your loyalty is obviously SOLELY towards your fellow national Mexicans.

Indeed, you instead are actively HOSTILE to even American children.


You are a monster.

It is Your red herring, right winger, how much is it worth in the fish market?

 

[danielpalos]

"Don't count on rulings from activist judges to hold when these cases make their way to the Supreme Court. The feds can legally and constitutionally withhold funds from anybody they desire for any reason they desire. It's been used as a threat by Democrats multiple times in the past. As for stopping people coming here from selected countries, that has been a law passed by Congress and Senate for years now."

And, yet again, the federal court ruled the opposite of what you claim, within the last 2 weeks. Alternate facts on your part, I guess.

No, they can't. They have to Provide, for the common defense and the general welfare.