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

[danielpalos]

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.

States have no authority over immigration since 1808. It is in our federal Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The right wing merely likes to "hate on the poorest".

 

[toomuchtime_]

"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, it's a display of leftist judicial activism. This is one of the reasons it was so dire to keep Hillary out of the White House. Now anybody that follows politics can see why it was so good to have Trump selecting judges instead.

We have a separation of powers for a reason. When the judicial starts legislating, we are heading for a tyrannical government which is very dangerous, especially when they cite the US Constitution and giving phony boloney reasons there are violations which there aren't.

They can have their fun and show their loyalty to the Democrat party, but when it is overturned, we will be the last ones laughing.

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.

lol So you support them but don't know what they are? Can you spell bigot?

I know exactly what a sanctuary city is, Toomuch. Apparently the point that I was making that you do NOT know how to define the term just flew over your head.

You didn't make any point, asshole, you just tried to turn a debate over the issue into a personal argument - so here you go, dumbass - because you are a simple minded bigot who only supports sanctuary cities because you think you're supposed to. Are you really stupid enough to believe states and municipalities should be able to pick and choose which federal laws they will obey?

You have outed yourself, Toomuch. in your short paragraph that you just posted, you have revealed that you do not know what a sanctuary city is. It assumes that sanctuary cities do not obey federal law. That reveals that you are posting about something that you do not know anything about.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.[26]Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities' bans against municipal workers reporting a person's immigration status to federal authorities.[27]

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia

It is a violation of federal law, dumbass.

What, specifically, does a Sanctuary city do that is in violation of federal law, and if that were true, why hasn't anyone in any of the 200 plus sanctuary cities been charged, indicted, arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for breaking federal laws?

How ******* stupid can you be? It is a civil offense, not a criminal offense, you moron.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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.

Exactly..
It was Janet and her thugs being bully's


On US soil

 

[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, it's a display of leftist judicial activism. This is one of the reasons it was so dire to keep Hillary out of the White House. Now anybody that follows politics can see why it was so good to have Trump selecting judges instead.

We have a separation of powers for a reason. When the judicial starts legislating, we are heading for a tyrannical government which is very dangerous, especially when they cite the US Constitution and giving phony boloney reasons there are violations which there aren't.

They can have their fun and show their loyalty to the Democrat party, but when it is overturned, we will be the last ones laughing.

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.

I know exactly what a sanctuary city is, Toomuch. Apparently the point that I was making that you do NOT know how to define the term just flew over your head.

You didn't make any point, asshole, you just tried to turn a debate over the issue into a personal argument - so here you go, dumbass - because you are a simple minded bigot who only supports sanctuary cities because you think you're supposed to. Are you really stupid enough to believe states and municipalities should be able to pick and choose which federal laws they will obey?

You have outed yourself, Toomuch. in your short paragraph that you just posted, you have revealed that you do not know what a sanctuary city is. It assumes that sanctuary cities do not obey federal law. That reveals that you are posting about something that you do not know anything about.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.[26]Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities' bans against municipal workers reporting a person's immigration status to federal authorities.[27]

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia

It is a violation of federal law, dumbass.

What, specifically, does a Sanctuary city do that is in violation of federal law, and if that were true, why hasn't anyone in any of the 200 plus sanctuary cities been charged, indicted, arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for breaking federal laws?

How ******* stupid can you be? It is a civil offense, not a criminal offense, you moron.

Special pleading while proclaiming to be for the "gospel Truth" is what the right wing is best at.

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

BS. They were armed to the teeth.

 

[BrokeLoser]

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.

That's just typical Libtard word-play and a not so clever spin and repackage.
Actually if you want to get technical the correct term is WETBACKS.

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.

I like "DREAMER" the best...haha
Poor little beaners...They are such victims.

 

[Timmy]

Should ICE agents be allowed to write speeding tickets ? No, cause that's not their job .

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

It is not now nor ever a requirement to be IN a militia to own possess or use firearms. And the Supreme Court so ruled.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

BS. They were armed to the teeth.

And not ONCE EVER did they use said weapons on anyone inside or outside the compound. The evidence shows that the BATF killed their own people and that they fired on the compound while no one in the compound fired on them. In a 90 day siege NOT one attempt was made to leave and NOT one shot was fired on any of the officials surrounding the compound. There was no reason to assault the compound. NONE NADA ZIP.

 

[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.

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

Correll, the terms, "illegal alien", and "undocumented alien" are legal terms. i would not expect you to understand.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Should ICE agents be allowed to write speeding tickets ? No, cause that's not their job .

Are you trying to make a point here or something? Because if you are, you lost me, and I'm sure many others on this topic.

 

[Vandalshandle]

"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, it's a display of leftist judicial activism. This is one of the reasons it was so dire to keep Hillary out of the White House. Now anybody that follows politics can see why it was so good to have Trump selecting judges instead.

We have a separation of powers for a reason. When the judicial starts legislating, we are heading for a tyrannical government which is very dangerous, especially when they cite the US Constitution and giving phony boloney reasons there are violations which there aren't.

They can have their fun and show their loyalty to the Democrat party, but when it is overturned, we will be the last ones laughing.

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.

I know exactly what a sanctuary city is, Toomuch. Apparently the point that I was making that you do NOT know how to define the term just flew over your head.

You didn't make any point, asshole, you just tried to turn a debate over the issue into a personal argument - so here you go, dumbass - because you are a simple minded bigot who only supports sanctuary cities because you think you're supposed to. Are you really stupid enough to believe states and municipalities should be able to pick and choose which federal laws they will obey?

You have outed yourself, Toomuch. in your short paragraph that you just posted, you have revealed that you do not know what a sanctuary city is. It assumes that sanctuary cities do not obey federal law. That reveals that you are posting about something that you do not know anything about.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.[26]Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities' bans against municipal workers reporting a person's immigration status to federal authorities.[27]

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia

It is a violation of federal law, dumbass.

What, specifically, does a Sanctuary city do that is in violation of federal law, and if that were true, why hasn't anyone in any of the 200 plus sanctuary cities been charged, indicted, arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for breaking federal laws?

How ******* stupid can you be? It is a civil offense, not a criminal offense, you moron.

So, what you are saying is the the city fathers of sanctuary cities have broken a federal law for which they can not be criminally prosecuted, and for which they have never been civilly litigated.....(This is getting better and better!)

 

[Dr Grump]

And not ONCE EVER did they use said weapons on anyone inside or outside the compound. The evidence shows that the BATF killed their own people and that they fired on the compound while no one in the compound fired on them. In a 90 day siege NOT one attempt was made to leave and NOT one shot was fired on any of the officials surrounding the compound. There was no reason to assault the compound. NONE NADA ZIP.

Ignore the headline, read the piece....

Total utter bullshit. FALSE: Hillary Clinton Was Responsible for the Waco Massacre

 

[toomuchtime_]

No, it's a display of leftist judicial activism. This is one of the reasons it was so dire to keep Hillary out of the White House. Now anybody that follows politics can see why it was so good to have Trump selecting judges instead.

We have a separation of powers for a reason. When the judicial starts legislating, we are heading for a tyrannical government which is very dangerous, especially when they cite the US Constitution and giving phony boloney reasons there are violations which there aren't.

They can have their fun and show their loyalty to the Democrat party, but when it is overturned, we will be the last ones laughing.

First degrees get to go first.

You didn't make any point, asshole, you just tried to turn a debate over the issue into a personal argument - so here you go, dumbass - because you are a simple minded bigot who only supports sanctuary cities because you think you're supposed to. Are you really stupid enough to believe states and municipalities should be able to pick and choose which federal laws they will obey?

You have outed yourself, Toomuch. in your short paragraph that you just posted, you have revealed that you do not know what a sanctuary city is. It assumes that sanctuary cities do not obey federal law. That reveals that you are posting about something that you do not know anything about.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.[26]Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities' bans against municipal workers reporting a person's immigration status to federal authorities.[27]

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia

It is a violation of federal law, dumbass.

What, specifically, does a Sanctuary city do that is in violation of federal law, and if that were true, why hasn't anyone in any of the 200 plus sanctuary cities been charged, indicted, arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for breaking federal laws?

How ******* stupid can you be? It is a civil offense, not a criminal offense, you moron.

So, what you are saying is the the city fathers of sanctuary cities have broken a federal law for which they can not be criminally prosecuted, and for which they have never been civilly litigated.....(This is getting better and better!)

If you had been paying attention you would understand the individuals are not being held liable but the municipalities are.

 

[Vandalshandle]

You have outed yourself, Toomuch. in your short paragraph that you just posted, you have revealed that you do not know what a sanctuary city is. It assumes that sanctuary cities do not obey federal law. That reveals that you are posting about something that you do not know anything about.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.[26]Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities' bans against municipal workers reporting a person's immigration status to federal authorities.[27]

Sanctuary city - Wikipedia

It is a violation of federal law, dumbass.

What, specifically, does a Sanctuary city do that is in violation of federal law, and if that were true, why hasn't anyone in any of the 200 plus sanctuary cities been charged, indicted, arrested, convicted, and incarcerated for breaking federal laws?

How ******* stupid can you be? It is a civil offense, not a criminal offense, you moron.

So, what you are saying is the the city fathers of sanctuary cities have broken a federal law for which they can not be criminally prosecuted, and for which they have never been civilly litigated.....(This is getting better and better!)

If you had been paying attention you would understand the individuals are not being held liable but the municipalities are.

Well, then. I am sure that you can provide links where municipalities have found to be in violation of federal law, and have been fined, just like the feds did with Sheriff Joe's illegal racial profiling, and fined Phoenix millions of dollars, right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And not ONCE EVER did they use said weapons on anyone inside or outside the compound. The evidence shows that the BATF killed their own people and that they fired on the compound while no one in the compound fired on them. In a 90 day siege NOT one attempt was made to leave and NOT one shot was fired on any of the officials surrounding the compound. There was no reason to assault the compound. NONE NADA ZIP.

Ignore the headline, read the piece....

Total utter bullshit. FALSE: Hillary Clinton Was Responsible for the Waco Massacre

More lies by the Government, a Government agency that stone walled the Congress and purposefully hid evidence from them.

 

[WEATHER53]

Should ICE agents be allowed to write speeding tickets ? No, cause that's not their job .

Just poor reasoning
If they saw an assault taking place your idea would be they stand back because "not immigration"

 

[Political Junky]

Hot Air is a fitting name.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It is not now nor ever a requirement to be IN a militia to own possess or use firearms. And the Supreme Court so ruled.

I am not claiming there is. You merely confuse, natural rights, with our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution.

There are No natural rights secured by our Second Amendment.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.