# Are "Sanctuary cities" constitutional?



## MaryL

An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?


----------



## bluzman61

MaryL said:


> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?


I believe they AREN'T.  I don't have a link to verify this, but I believe I've read that they AREN'T constitutional.


----------



## Weatherman2020

MaryL said:


> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?


Local law cannot override Federal laws. I hope after the election Trump starts having Mayors arrested.


----------



## deannalw

Weatherman2020 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Local law cannot override Federal laws. I hope after the election Trump starts having Mayors arrested.
Click to expand...



Starting with that bag of waste matter Gavin Newsome.


----------



## Oddball

Normally, my heart is like an alligator when someone tells the feds to shove it up their asses.

But in this case, real violent criminals are being spirited away out the back doors of courthouses, for no better reason that if they're sent to jail for their crimes they will then be deported.

Forget constitutional, sanctuary cities are aiding and abetting violent crime....Shit needs to be brought to a halt.


----------



## bluzman61

deannalw said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Local law cannot override Federal laws. I hope after the election Trump starts having Mayors arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Starting with that bag of waste matter Gavin Newsome.
Click to expand...

Yep.  A liberal friend of mine, a couple days ago, actually said he thought Newsom(e) would make a good president.  I held my tongue and didn't respond to this.  It's the only way we can remain friends.


----------



## deannalw

bluzman61 said:


> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Local law cannot override Federal laws. I hope after the election Trump starts having Mayors arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Starting with that bag of waste matter Gavin Newsome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  A liberal friend of mine, a couple days ago, actually said he thought Newsom(e) would make a good president.  I held my tongue and didn't respond to this.  It's the only way we can remain friends.
Click to expand...



If my friend is dumb enough to say something like that to me, they can stand around a bit while I sandblast their face with words of my own.


----------



## MaryL

This topic amazes me. I have seen entire industries and communities that used to be truly diverse, just vanish. And done so without our consent. Which begs the issue.


----------



## bluzman61

deannalw said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Local law cannot override Federal laws. I hope after the election Trump starts having Mayors arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Starting with that bag of waste matter Gavin Newsome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  A liberal friend of mine, a couple days ago, actually said he thought Newsom(e) would make a good president.  I held my tongue and didn't respond to this.  It's the only way we can remain friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If my friend is dumb enough to say something like that to me, they can stand around a bit while I sandblast their face with words of my own.
Click to expand...

My liberal friend is hopelessly brainwashed.  We had agreed some time ago that we would NOT talk politics.  He slips up occasionally and likes to make fun of our president.  When he does this I just ignore him and move him on to the next topic.  It's frustrating because he's brilliant concerning some topics, but is SO DAMNED STUPID and brainwashed when it comes to politics.


----------



## eagle1462010

Sanctuary Cities and Law Enforcement

*Are Sanctuary Cities Constitutional?*
In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot force state or local officials to enforce federal law.

Therefore, sanctuary cities are constitutional. The Constitution does not require local law enforcement agencies to help deport undocumented immigrants.

That’s the federal government’s job. However, some experts point out that the constitution may not protect cities and counties that refuse to share information with the federal government.

In Reno v. Condon, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could regulate states sharing people’s personal information.

In the decision, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote that the law in question did not violate the principles of federalism because it didn’t “require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes regulating private individuals.”

So the federal government can’t force local law enforcement agencies to detain undocumented immigrants. But it may be able to require them to share information about immigrants so federal officials can enforce immigration laws.




The LOOPHOLE of the Sanctuary cities is the 4th Amendment.  And the LOOPHOLE is the Sanctuary city Ordering the police there NOT to hold illegals there until ICE can get a Warrant and take custody of the prisoner.  The Legal eagles of Sanctuary have figured out that they can say that is holding a person without a charged crime.........BECAUSE ICE HASN'T ISSUED A WARRANT YET.

And POOF ........THEY ARE GONE.


----------



## Rye Catcher

MaryL said:


> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?



ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.

This turf war has been on going for decades.


----------



## sparky

MaryL said:


> This topic amazes me. I have seen entire industries and communities that used to be truly diverse, just vanish. And done so without our consent. Which begs the issue.




As i have as well Mary

What we have is a 10ther issue

IIRC, it's been to the SCOTUS

A very hot topic indeed!

~S~


----------



## citygator

Most of you have no idea what a sanctuary city is or why it exists. You’re just repeating conservative talking points. #sad


----------



## deannalw

bluzman61 said:


> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Local law cannot override Federal laws. I hope after the election Trump starts having Mayors arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Starting with that bag of waste matter Gavin Newsome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  A liberal friend of mine, a couple days ago, actually said he thought Newsom(e) would make a good president.  I held my tongue and didn't respond to this.  It's the only way we can remain friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If my friend is dumb enough to say something like that to me, they can stand around a bit while I sandblast their face with words of my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My liberal friend is hopelessly brainwashed.  We had agreed some time ago that we would NOT talk politics.  He slips up occasionally and likes to make fun of our president.  When he does this I just ignore him and move him on to the next topic.  It's frustrating because he's brilliant concerning some topics, but is SO DAMNED STUPID and brainwashed when it comes to politics.
Click to expand...



LOL! He may think the exact same thing about you...


----------



## Gdjjr

The 10th amendment says- 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.

I haven't seen the authority for the fed gov't to determine what is or is not constitutional- the role of the courts is to apply law- the SC, for better, or worse, determines the constitutionality.


----------



## bluzman61

citygator said:


> Most of you have no idea what a sanctuary city is or why it exists. You’re just repeating conservative talking points. #sad


We know EXACTLY what a sanctuary city is, you LOONY LIB.  Now go away to your Safe Space.  Git..............


----------



## Rye Catcher

deannalw said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Local law cannot override Federal laws. I hope after the election Trump starts having Mayors arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Starting with that bag of waste matter Gavin Newsome.
Click to expand...


Wrong.


----------



## deannalw

citygator said:


> Most of you have no idea what a sanctuary city is or why it exists. You’re just repeating conservative talking points. #sad




Don't be #sad!

Trump is your president for 5 more years!

Woo Hoo!


----------



## eagle1462010

sparky said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> This topic amazes me. I have seen entire industries and communities that used to be truly diverse, just vanish. And done so without our consent. Which begs the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As i have as well Mary
> 
> What we have is a 10ther issue
> 
> IIRC, it's been to the SCOTUS
> 
> A very hot topic indeed!
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...

lol..............The LEFT usually comes down on the 10th until it suits their needs.............but with illegals......they bend over backwards to ensure they get away from ICE...........and That's a Fact JACK......

Imagine that..................LOL

The left only cares about the Constitution when it goes to their narrative.


----------



## MaryL

This makes me wonder what is our obligation to a coherent set of standards IS as a federation of states when we can just arbitrarily  choose or ignore rules as a state?


----------



## citygator

bluzman61 said:


> citygator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you have no idea what a sanctuary city is or why it exists. You’re just repeating conservative talking points. #sad
> 
> 
> 
> We know EXACTLY what a sanctuary city is, you LOONY LIB.  Now go away to your Safe Space.  Git..............
Click to expand...

I don’t believe you.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Rye Catcher said:


> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Local law cannot override Federal laws. I hope after the election Trump starts having Mayors arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starting with that bag of waste matter Gavin Newsome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
Click to expand...


ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws. Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws. The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.

This turf war has been on going for decades.


----------



## citygator

deannalw said:


> citygator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you have no idea what a sanctuary city is or why it exists. You’re just repeating conservative talking points. #sad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be #sad!
> 
> Trump is your president for 5 more years!
> 
> Woo Hoo!
Click to expand...

Like I said. Google away cuz you have no idea.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Rye Catcher said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
Click to expand...

So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?

Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.


----------



## bluzman61

deannalw said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Local law cannot override Federal laws. I hope after the election Trump starts having Mayors arrested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starting with that bag of waste matter Gavin Newsome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep.  A liberal friend of mine, a couple days ago, actually said he thought Newsom(e) would make a good president.  I held my tongue and didn't respond to this.  It's the only way we can remain friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If my friend is dumb enough to say something like that to me, they can stand around a bit while I sandblast their face with words of my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My liberal friend is hopelessly brainwashed.  We had agreed some time ago that we would NOT talk politics.  He slips up occasionally and likes to make fun of our president.  When he does this I just ignore him and move him on to the next topic.  It's frustrating because he's brilliant concerning some topics, but is SO DAMNED STUPID and brainwashed when it comes to politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! He may think the exact same thing about you...
Click to expand...

He probably DOES.  But at least I know I'm right and he's dreadfully wrong.


----------



## eagle1462010

MaryL said:


> This makes me wonder what is our obligation to a coherent set of standards as a federation of states when we can just arbitrarily  choose or ignore rules as a state?


The Obligation is to Fix the Loop holes and require States to Hold Detainee Orders until Ice can get a Warrant and deport them.

Of course they will challenge it in the courts........and force a 4th and 10th Amendment decision.  But the sticky side to that is that Illegals..................are breaking the law........being here..............so that would be a very good challenge to see in SCOTUS........doesn't matter on past rulings........it can be challenged again.


----------



## bluzman61

citygator said:


> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> citygator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you have no idea what a sanctuary city is or why it exists. You’re just repeating conservative talking points. #sad
> 
> 
> 
> We know EXACTLY what a sanctuary city is, you LOONY LIB.  Now go away to your Safe Space.  Git..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t believe you.
Click to expand...

Well, I believe YOU'RE a liberal lunatic...................GIT.........................!


----------



## citygator

bluzman61 said:


> citygator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bluzman61 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> citygator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you have no idea what a sanctuary city is or why it exists. You’re just repeating conservative talking points. #sad
> 
> 
> 
> We know EXACTLY what a sanctuary city is, you LOONY LIB.  Now go away to your Safe Space.  Git..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don’t believe you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, I believe YOU'RE a liberal lunatic...................GIT.........................!
Click to expand...

Brilliant. What you believe is unimportant.


----------



## eagle1462010

Rye Catcher said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Local law cannot override Federal laws. I hope after the election Trump starts having Mayors arrested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starting with that bag of waste matter Gavin Newsome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws. Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws. The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
Click to expand...

It's more than a turf War though...........and I did agree with your post...it is an IDEOLOGICAL WAR as well.

It's clear that many Dem states intended purpose is to allow illegals to get away ..........and not all financial concerns.


----------



## CWayne

The feds can't, but the States can.

Stop giving them federal dollars until they rein in their wayward cities.

Problem solved.


----------



## eagle1462010

Rye Catcher said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're really arrogant and ignorant:  Go fuck yourself:
> 
> CHAPTER 4. Forgery and Counterfeiting [470 - 483.5]  ( Chapter 4 enacted 1872. )
> 
> 470.  (a) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, knowing that he or she has no authority to do so, signs the name of another person or of a fictitious person to any of the items listed in subdivision (d) is guilty of forgery.
> (b) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, counterfeits or forges the seal or handwriting of another is guilty of forgery.
> (c) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, alters, corrupts, or falsifies any record of any will, codicil, conveyance, or other instrument, the record of which is by law evidence, or any record of any judgment of a court or the return of any officer to any process of any court, is guilty of forgery.
Click to expand...

That is a thread on to itself...........in regards to immigration.........and goes back to the Laws for Employment  passed under Reagan..............which illegals decided to set up a network of ILLEGAL ID'S to work here.

I have shown the data from the IRS and Social Security Department on that issue many times.........They know MILLIONS of people working here that are using FRAUDULENT SSN'S..............they have admitted it......but say they really don't care because they pay taxes and are not the DOJ.

But like I said ...........that is a thread on to itself.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Rye Catcher said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're really arrogant and ignorant:  Go fuck yourself:
> 
> CHAPTER 4. Forgery and Counterfeiting [470 - 483.5]  ( Chapter 4 enacted 1872. )
> 
> 470.  (a) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, knowing that he or she has no authority to do so, signs the name of another person or of a fictitious person to any of the items listed in subdivision (d) is guilty of forgery.
> (b) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, counterfeits or forges the seal or handwriting of another is guilty of forgery.
> (c) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, alters, corrupts, or falsifies any record of any will, codicil, conveyance, or other instrument, the record of which is by law evidence, or any record of any judgment of a court or the return of any officer to any process of any court, is guilty of forgery.
Click to expand...

“Though often based in and elected by county voters in most American states, sheriffs and their deputies are often responsible for patrolling an area's state and federal routes, as well as its unincorporated or unpoliced municipalities. These officers, like municipal police, often find themselves enforcing local, *state or federal laws* on the front lines.”

What Are the Differences Between Federal, State & Local Law Enforcement? | Synonym

Ignoramus.


----------



## keepitreal

Weatherman2020 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Local law cannot override Federal laws. I hope after the election Trump starts having Mayors arrested.
Click to expand...

Why should it wait?
Why should this even be an issue?

Illegals should not be harbored 
nor be able to receive government assistance 

How much of the financial crisis in '08
involved illegals who created debt under an alias
or was unable to sustain the debt they incurred 
and simply went back home and had the money
they had been sending back home to fall back on


----------



## Rye Catcher

Weatherman2020 said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
Click to expand...


Codes Display Text.

Your ignorance is only exceeded by your foolishness.  Next time do some research.  The link to CA's Penal Code provides the ability of local and state law enforcement to arrest and prosecute counterfeiting of dozens of items (listed in the link, including money) as FRAUD.


----------



## eagle1462010

Read....
IRS Admits It Encourages Illegals To Steal Social Security Numbers For Taxes


Want to make the Politicians head spin............Investigate that and start deportations of those SSN's..........which there are MILLIONS OF THEM.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Rye Catcher said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Codes Display Text.
> 
> Your ignorance is only exceeded by your foolishness.  Next time do some research.  The link to CA's Penal Code provides the ability of local and state law enforcement to arrest and prosecute counterfeiting of dozens of items (listed in the link, including money) as FRAUD.
Click to expand...

“State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to enforce federal law in general. Although immigration is a federal matter, local law enforcement departments and personnel are not required to turn a blind eye to any illegal activity including violations of immigration law. It is illegal for local governments to prohibit police cooperation with the INS, and individual officers who report violations are protected by law.

Although the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 provied new authority for empowering local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law provisions against aliens illegally in the country, local police were never powerless to act on immigration law violations before adoption of that legislation. Local police departments have always had the ability to collaborate with the INS in enforcement operations. An example was local cooperation with the INS and the FBI in locating and interviewing foreign students from Middle Eastern countries following the September 11 terrorist attacks.

In addition, Section 274(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended in 1986, authorizes "...all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws," to arrest persons for smuggling, harboring or transporting illegal aliens. Furthermore, federal courts had repeatedly affirmed since 1984 that local police may inquire into immigration violations in the course of a routine stop (see e.g., U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon).”

Have a nice day!

Local Immigration Enforcement | Federation for American Immigration Reform


----------



## eagle1462010

Weatherman2020 said:


> In addition, Section 274(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended in 1986, authorizes "...all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws," to arrest persons for smuggling, harboring or transporting illegal aliens. Furthermore, federal courts had repeatedly affirmed since 1984 that local police may inquire into immigration violations in the course of a routine stop (see e.g., U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon).”


Winner winner chicken dinner............exactly what I was talking about.


----------



## MaryL

I was amused to hear announced on a local news cast  in Denver, they pretend to be shocked  that it's LEGAL to arrest illegal aliens!  Umm,  Captain Obvious goes..Really? Why is that even an issue?


----------



## eagle1462010

AILA - Announcements of ICE Enforcement Actions

Another reason the left Hates Trump...............Nice site......lists the raids.........


----------



## eagle1462010

Post 39 is a PRO ILLEGAL wedsite but is very informative..........but EXPOSES WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Here is a video of one of the largest raids ............while it's pure poor illegals........it comes to the point I have been talking about........clearly.
America First: The Legacy of an immigration raid


----------



## Rye Catcher

Weatherman2020 said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're really arrogant and ignorant:  Go fuck yourself:
> 
> CHAPTER 4. Forgery and Counterfeiting [470 - 483.5]  ( Chapter 4 enacted 1872. )
> 
> 470.  (a) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, knowing that he or she has no authority to do so, signs the name of another person or of a fictitious person to any of the items listed in subdivision (d) is guilty of forgery.
> (b) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, counterfeits or forges the seal or handwriting of another is guilty of forgery.
> (c) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, alters, corrupts, or falsifies any record of any will, codicil, conveyance, or other instrument, the record of which is by law evidence, or any record of any judgment of a court or the return of any officer to any process of any court, is guilty of forgery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Though often based in and elected by county voters in most American states, sheriffs and their deputies are often responsible for patrolling an area's state and federal routes, as well as its unincorporated or unpoliced municipalities. These officers, like municipal police, often find themselves enforcing local, *state or federal laws* on the front lines.”
> 
> What Are the Differences Between Federal, State & Local Law Enforcement? | Synonym
> 
> Ignoramus.
Click to expand...




Weatherman2020 said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Codes Display Text.
> 
> Your ignorance is only exceeded by your foolishness.  Next time do some research.  The link to CA's Penal Code provides the ability of local and state law enforcement to arrest and prosecute counterfeiting of dozens of items (listed in the link, including money) as FRAUD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to enforce federal law in general. Although immigration is a federal matter, local law enforcement departments and personnel are not required to turn a blind eye to any illegal activity including violations of immigration law. It is illegal for local governments to prohibit police cooperation with the INS, and individual officers who report violations are protected by law.
> 
> Although the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 provied new authority for empowering local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law provisions against aliens illegally in the country, local police were never powerless to act on immigration law violations before adoption of that legislation. Local police departments have always had the ability to collaborate with the INS in enforcement operations. An example was local cooperation with the INS and the FBI in locating and interviewing foreign students from Middle Eastern countries following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
> 
> In addition, Section 274(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended in 1986, authorizes "...all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws," to arrest persons for smuggling, harboring or transporting illegal aliens. Furthermore, federal courts had repeatedly affirmed since 1984 that local police may inquire into immigration violations in the course of a routine stop (see e.g., U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon).”
> 
> Have a nice day!
> 
> Local Immigration Enforcement | Federation for American Immigration Reform
Click to expand...


The issue is political, who pays.  Even a citizen can make an arrest or be deputized to assist all LE Agencies.  You made a point about prosecuting mayors for not enforcing federal laws.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Rye Catcher said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're really arrogant and ignorant:  Go fuck yourself:
> 
> CHAPTER 4. Forgery and Counterfeiting [470 - 483.5]  ( Chapter 4 enacted 1872. )
> 
> 470.  (a) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, knowing that he or she has no authority to do so, signs the name of another person or of a fictitious person to any of the items listed in subdivision (d) is guilty of forgery.
> (b) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, counterfeits or forges the seal or handwriting of another is guilty of forgery.
> (c) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, alters, corrupts, or falsifies any record of any will, codicil, conveyance, or other instrument, the record of which is by law evidence, or any record of any judgment of a court or the return of any officer to any process of any court, is guilty of forgery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Though often based in and elected by county voters in most American states, sheriffs and their deputies are often responsible for patrolling an area's state and federal routes, as well as its unincorporated or unpoliced municipalities. These officers, like municipal police, often find themselves enforcing local, *state or federal laws* on the front lines.”
> 
> What Are the Differences Between Federal, State & Local Law Enforcement? | Synonym
> 
> Ignoramus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Codes Display Text.
> 
> Your ignorance is only exceeded by your foolishness.  Next time do some research.  The link to CA's Penal Code provides the ability of local and state law enforcement to arrest and prosecute counterfeiting of dozens of items (listed in the link, including money) as FRAUD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to enforce federal law in general. Although immigration is a federal matter, local law enforcement departments and personnel are not required to turn a blind eye to any illegal activity including violations of immigration law. It is illegal for local governments to prohibit police cooperation with the INS, and individual officers who report violations are protected by law.
> 
> Although the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 provied new authority for empowering local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law provisions against aliens illegally in the country, local police were never powerless to act on immigration law violations before adoption of that legislation. Local police departments have always had the ability to collaborate with the INS in enforcement operations. An example was local cooperation with the INS and the FBI in locating and interviewing foreign students from Middle Eastern countries following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
> 
> In addition, Section 274(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended in 1986, authorizes "...all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws," to arrest persons for smuggling, harboring or transporting illegal aliens. Furthermore, federal courts had repeatedly affirmed since 1984 that local police may inquire into immigration violations in the course of a routine stop (see e.g., U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon).”
> 
> Have a nice day!
> 
> Local Immigration Enforcement | Federation for American Immigration Reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue is political, who pays.  Even a citizen can make an arrest or be deputized to assist all LE Agencies.  You made a point about prosecuting mayors for not enforcing federal laws.
Click to expand...

I look forward to Trump arresting the California Governor.


----------



## MaryL

Weatherman2020 said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> 
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're really arrogant and ignorant:  Go fuck yourself:
> 
> CHAPTER 4. Forgery and Counterfeiting [470 - 483.5]  ( Chapter 4 enacted 1872. )
> 
> 470.  (a) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, knowing that he or she has no authority to do so, signs the name of another person or of a fictitious person to any of the items listed in subdivision (d) is guilty of forgery.
> (b) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, counterfeits or forges the seal or handwriting of another is guilty of forgery.
> (c) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, alters, corrupts, or falsifies any record of any will, codicil, conveyance, or other instrument, the record of which is by law evidence, or any record of any judgment of a court or the return of any officer to any process of any court, is guilty of forgery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Though often based in and elected by county voters in most American states, sheriffs and their deputies are often responsible for patrolling an area's state and federal routes, as well as its unincorporated or unpoliced municipalities. These officers, like municipal police, often find themselves enforcing local, *state or federal laws* on the front lines.”
> 
> What Are the Differences Between Federal, State & Local Law Enforcement? | Synonym
> 
> Ignoramus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Codes Display Text.
> 
> Your ignorance is only exceeded by your foolishness.  Next time do some research.  The link to CA's Penal Code provides the ability of local and state law enforcement to arrest and prosecute counterfeiting of dozens of items (listed in the link, including money) as FRAUD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to enforce federal law in general. Although immigration is a federal matter, local law enforcement departments and personnel are not required to turn a blind eye to any illegal activity including violations of immigration law. It is illegal for local governments to prohibit police cooperation with the INS, and individual officers who report violations are protected by law.
> 
> Although the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 provied new authority for empowering local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law provisions against aliens illegally in the country, local police were never powerless to act on immigration law violations before adoption of that legislation. Local police departments have always had the ability to collaborate with the INS in enforcement operations. An example was local cooperation with the INS and the FBI in locating and interviewing foreign students from Middle Eastern countries following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
> 
> In addition, Section 274(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended in 1986, authorizes "...all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws," to arrest persons for smuggling, harboring or transporting illegal aliens. Furthermore, federal courts had repeatedly affirmed since 1984 that local police may inquire into immigration violations in the course of a routine stop (see e.g., U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon).”
> 
> Have a nice day!
> 
> Local Immigration Enforcement | Federation for American Immigration Reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue is political, who pays.  Even a citizen can make an arrest or be deputized to assist all LE Agencies.  You made a point about prosecuting mayors for not enforcing federal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I look forward to Trump arresting the California Governor.
Click to expand...

Me too.


----------



## eagle1462010

Rye Catcher said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're really arrogant and ignorant:  Go fuck yourself:
> 
> CHAPTER 4. Forgery and Counterfeiting [470 - 483.5]  ( Chapter 4 enacted 1872. )
> 
> 470.  (a) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, knowing that he or she has no authority to do so, signs the name of another person or of a fictitious person to any of the items listed in subdivision (d) is guilty of forgery.
> (b) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, counterfeits or forges the seal or handwriting of another is guilty of forgery.
> (c) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, alters, corrupts, or falsifies any record of any will, codicil, conveyance, or other instrument, the record of which is by law evidence, or any record of any judgment of a court or the return of any officer to any process of any court, is guilty of forgery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Though often based in and elected by county voters in most American states, sheriffs and their deputies are often responsible for patrolling an area's state and federal routes, as well as its unincorporated or unpoliced municipalities. These officers, like municipal police, often find themselves enforcing local, *state or federal laws* on the front lines.”
> 
> What Are the Differences Between Federal, State & Local Law Enforcement? | Synonym
> 
> Ignoramus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Codes Display Text.
> 
> Your ignorance is only exceeded by your foolishness.  Next time do some research.  The link to CA's Penal Code provides the ability of local and state law enforcement to arrest and prosecute counterfeiting of dozens of items (listed in the link, including money) as FRAUD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to enforce federal law in general. Although immigration is a federal matter, local law enforcement departments and personnel are not required to turn a blind eye to any illegal activity including violations of immigration law. It is illegal for local governments to prohibit police cooperation with the INS, and individual officers who report violations are protected by law.
> 
> Although the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 provied new authority for empowering local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law provisions against aliens illegally in the country, local police were never powerless to act on immigration law violations before adoption of that legislation. Local police departments have always had the ability to collaborate with the INS in enforcement operations. An example was local cooperation with the INS and the FBI in locating and interviewing foreign students from Middle Eastern countries following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
> 
> In addition, Section 274(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended in 1986, authorizes "...all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws," to arrest persons for smuggling, harboring or transporting illegal aliens. Furthermore, federal courts had repeatedly affirmed since 1984 that local police may inquire into immigration violations in the course of a routine stop (see e.g., U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon).”
> 
> Have a nice day!
> 
> Local Immigration Enforcement | Federation for American Immigration Reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue is political, who pays.  Even a citizen can make an arrest or be deputized to assist all LE Agencies.  You made a point about prosecuting mayors for not enforcing federal laws.
Click to expand...

The tax payers..........
https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2011reports/201141061fr.pdf


----------



## eagle1462010

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44420.pdf

Congressional interest in the child tax credit received by taxpayers without SSNs increased after a 2011 report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).6 The report found that ITIN filers whose returns were processed in 2010 claimed $4.2 billion worth of the ACTC, increasing from $924 million in 2005 and $2.1 billion in 2008. For returns processed in 2010, the average ACTC claimed by ITIN filers was $1,800.7 Of note, these figures did not necessarily represent the annual revenue losses associated with ITIN filers claiming the ACTC. For example, the report detailed that for returns processed in 2010, approximately 11% of claimants submitted tax returns for multiple years, claiming a little more than $1 billion in ACTCs. 8 The report recommended “legislation to clarify whether a social security number which is valid for employment is needed to claim the ACTC.”9 Around the same time that the TIGTA report was issued, there were media reports on a different issue regarding ITIN filers and the child tax credit. 10 These reports focused on allegations that some ITIN filers who resided in the United States had claimed the ACTC for children who were not U.S. citizens or nationals and had never resided in the United States. If true, it appears these ITIN filers violated the law. The problem is not that they are ITIN filers—as discussed above, ITIN filers may claim the ACTC under current law. Rather, it appears these ACTC claims were improper because the children did not qualify for the credit since, by law, a qualifying child must be a U.S. citizen, resident, or national. 11


----------



## eagle1462010

How do Undocumented Immigrants Pay Federal Taxes? An Explainer | Bipartisan Policy Center

*What is an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN)?*
In 1996, the Internal Revenue Service created the ITIN to provide a way for noncitizens who earn income in the United States, including legally-present noncitizens who do not have Social Security numbers, to pay taxes on money earned in the United States while not being technically employed by a U.S employer. For example, ITINs allow foreign nationals to pay taxes on the interest earned in a U.S. bank or investment account. They also allow spouses of work-authorized visa-holders to pay taxes on self-employment income, among other uses.

Most experts believe that the vast majority of tax returns filed with ITINs today are filed by undocumented immigrants rather than the intended recipient groups—a few categories of noncitizens who do not have a Social Security number and are not authorized to work but who are still earning income and legally residing in the United States. In 2010, ITINs were used to file over 3 million federal tax returns.


----------



## MaryL

I missed something somewhere, perhaps.  But giving sanctuary for illegal aliens was NEVER  on any ballot measure. If it was, you name it.  It was imposed on us against our will. And that makes it clearly unconstitutional. You disagree?


----------



## eagle1462010

MaryL said:


> I missed something somewhere, perhaps.  But giving sanctuary for illegal aliens was NEVER  on ballot measure. It was imposed on us against our will and that makes it clearly unconstitutional. You disagree?


I don't disagree............but as I stated they use Legal Loop holes around it.  The same way they use Flores to force the Border Patrol to release illegals who claim asylum.

The legal eagles have found ways to cut the illegals loose into our country.........who just blend in, changer their names and never show up for court..............When they don't ICE issues detainer orders into the data base..........and Sanctuary cities just ignore them when they are caught.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

MaryL said:


> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?


No. 

There is no such thing as a ‘sanctuary city’:

‘There is much confusion about the term “sanctuary city.” The term is often used derisively by immigration opponents to blast what are best described as community policing policies. Critics claim that these cities and states provide “sanctuary” to undocumented immigrants, but research shows that the opposite is true. In fact, community policing policies are about providing public safety services, not sanctuary, to both immigrant residents and the entire community. Crime experts, including hundreds of local police officers, have found that cities with community policing policies continue to work closely with DHS and have built bridges to immigrant communities that have improved their ability to fight crime and protect the entire community.’

Debunking the Myth of "Sanctuary Cities"

Indeed, it’s un-Constitutional for the Federal government to compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws – including Federal immigration laws.

Moreover, that an immigrant might be undocumented doesn’t mean he’s ‘illegal’ – it’s perfectly appropriate, warranted, and consistent with the Constitution for a local jurisdiction to recognize and respect the right of immigrants to a presumption of innocence and due process of the law.

It’s also perfectly appropriate, warranted, and consistent with the Constitution for local jurisdictions to refrain from using their limited law enforcement resources to pursue immigrants suspected of entering the country absent authorization.

When asked by Federal authorities to assist with the detention of an immigrant suspect, all local jurisdictions comply with that request.

But local jurisdictions are at liberty to not engage in the unilateral pursuit of immigrant suspects if not requested to do so by Federal authorities.


----------



## eagle1462010

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> When asked by Federal authorities to assist with the detention of an immigrant suspect, all local jurisdictions comply with that request.


----------



## MaryL

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> There is no such thing as a ‘sanctuary city’:
> 
> ‘There is much confusion about the term “sanctuary city.” The term is often used derisively by immigration opponents to blast what are best described as community policing policies. Critics claim that these cities and states provide “sanctuary” to undocumented immigrants, but research shows that the opposite is true. In fact, community policing policies are about providing public safety services, not sanctuary, to both immigrant residents and the entire community. Crime experts, including hundreds of local police officers, have found that cities with community policing policies continue to work closely with DHS and have built bridges to immigrant communities that have improved their ability to fight crime and protect the entire community.’
> 
> Debunking the Myth of "Sanctuary Cities"
> 
> Indeed, it’s un-Constitutional for the Federal government to compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws – including Federal immigration laws.
> 
> Moreover, that an immigrant might be undocumented doesn’t mean he’s ‘illegal’ – it’s perfectly appropriate, warranted, and consistent with the Constitution for a local jurisdiction to recognize and respect the right of immigrants to a presumption of innocence and due process of the law.
> 
> It’s also perfectly appropriate, warranted, and consistent with the Constitution for local jurisdictions to refrain from using their limited law enforcement resources to pursue immigrants suspected of entering the country absent authorization.
> 
> When asked by Federal authorities to assist with the detention of an immigrant suspect, all local jurisdictions comply with that request.
> 
> But local jurisdictions are at liberty to not engage in the unilateral pursuit of immigrant suspects if not requested to do so by Federal authorities.
Click to expand...

This all comes down to corruption ,Jesus Christ, WHO is going to profit from illegal aliens? All those homeless white people living in the streets?


----------



## Rye Catcher

MaryL said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're really arrogant and ignorant:  Go fuck yourself:
> 
> CHAPTER 4. Forgery and Counterfeiting [470 - 483.5]  ( Chapter 4 enacted 1872. )
> 
> 470.  (a) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, knowing that he or she has no authority to do so, signs the name of another person or of a fictitious person to any of the items listed in subdivision (d) is guilty of forgery.
> (b) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, counterfeits or forges the seal or handwriting of another is guilty of forgery.
> (c) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, alters, corrupts, or falsifies any record of any will, codicil, conveyance, or other instrument, the record of which is by law evidence, or any record of any judgment of a court or the return of any officer to any process of any court, is guilty of forgery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Though often based in and elected by county voters in most American states, sheriffs and their deputies are often responsible for patrolling an area's state and federal routes, as well as its unincorporated or unpoliced municipalities. These officers, like municipal police, often find themselves enforcing local, *state or federal laws* on the front lines.”
> 
> What Are the Differences Between Federal, State & Local Law Enforcement? | Synonym
> 
> Ignoramus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Codes Display Text.
> 
> Your ignorance is only exceeded by your foolishness.  Next time do some research.  The link to CA's Penal Code provides the ability of local and state law enforcement to arrest and prosecute counterfeiting of dozens of items (listed in the link, including money) as FRAUD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to enforce federal law in general. Although immigration is a federal matter, local law enforcement departments and personnel are not required to turn a blind eye to any illegal activity including violations of immigration law. It is illegal for local governments to prohibit police cooperation with the INS, and individual officers who report violations are protected by law.
> 
> Although the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 provied new authority for empowering local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law provisions against aliens illegally in the country, local police were never powerless to act on immigration law violations before adoption of that legislation. Local police departments have always had the ability to collaborate with the INS in enforcement operations. An example was local cooperation with the INS and the FBI in locating and interviewing foreign students from Middle Eastern countries following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
> 
> In addition, Section 274(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended in 1986, authorizes "...all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws," to arrest persons for smuggling, harboring or transporting illegal aliens. Furthermore, federal courts had repeatedly affirmed since 1984 that local police may inquire into immigration violations in the course of a routine stop (see e.g., U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon).”
> 
> Have a nice day!
> 
> Local Immigration Enforcement | Federation for American Immigration Reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The issue is political, who pays.  Even a citizen can make an arrest or be deputized to assist all LE Agencies.  You made a point about prosecuting mayors for not enforcing federal laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I look forward to Trump arresting the California Governor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Me too.
Click to expand...


So both of you want to live in a banana republic.


----------



## Vandalshandle

bluzman61 said:


> citygator said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of you have no idea what a sanctuary city is or why it exists. You’re just repeating conservative talking points. #sad
> 
> 
> 
> We know EXACTLY what a sanctuary city is, you LOONY LIB.  Now go away to your Safe Space.  Git..............
Click to expand...


Actually, you do not.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Weatherman2020 said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're really arrogant and ignorant:  Go fuck yourself:
> 
> CHAPTER 4. Forgery and Counterfeiting [470 - 483.5]  ( Chapter 4 enacted 1872. )
> 
> 470.  (a) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, knowing that he or she has no authority to do so, signs the name of another person or of a fictitious person to any of the items listed in subdivision (d) is guilty of forgery.
> (b) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, counterfeits or forges the seal or handwriting of another is guilty of forgery.
> (c) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, alters, corrupts, or falsifies any record of any will, codicil, conveyance, or other instrument, the record of which is by law evidence, or any record of any judgment of a court or the return of any officer to any process of any court, is guilty of forgery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Though often based in and elected by county voters in most American states, sheriffs and their deputies are often responsible for patrolling an area's state and federal routes, as well as its unincorporated or unpoliced municipalities. These officers, like municipal police, often find themselves enforcing local, *state or federal laws* on the front lines.”
> 
> What Are the Differences Between Federal, State & Local Law Enforcement? | Synonym
> 
> Ignoramus.
Click to expand...


There is no legal requirement that any city, state, or county law enforcement personnel enforce any federal law, PERIOD.


----------



## Rye Catcher

CWayne said:


> The feds can't, but the States can.
> 
> Stop giving them federal dollars until they rein in their wayward cities.
> 
> Problem solved.





Weatherman2020 said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Codes Display Text.
> 
> Your ignorance is only exceeded by your foolishness.  Next time do some research.  The link to CA's Penal Code provides the ability of local and state law enforcement to arrest and prosecute counterfeiting of dozens of items (listed in the link, including money) as FRAUD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to enforce federal law in general. Although immigration is a federal matter, local law enforcement departments and personnel are not required to turn a blind eye to any illegal activity including violations of immigration law. It is illegal for local governments to prohibit police cooperation with the INS, and individual officers who report violations are protected by law.
> 
> Although the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 provied new authority for empowering local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law provisions against aliens illegally in the country, local police were never powerless to act on immigration law violations before adoption of that legislation. Local police departments have always had the ability to collaborate with the INS in enforcement operations. An example was local cooperation with the INS and the FBI in locating and interviewing foreign students from Middle Eastern countries following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
> 
> In addition, Section 274(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended in 1986, authorizes "...all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws," to arrest persons for smuggling, harboring or transporting illegal aliens. Furthermore, federal courts had repeatedly affirmed since 1984 that local police may inquire into immigration violations in the course of a routine stop (see e.g., U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon).”
> 
> Have a nice day!
> 
> Local Immigration Enforcement | Federation for American Immigration Reform
Click to expand...


LOL, your source is not legitimate.  The Code of Federal Regulations and the US Code are the only sources which would, and don't, require local and state policing agencies to do the work of Federal Le agencies.

They can and do work together as do local agencies do in mutual aid compacts.  When drag nets such as those trump has ordered local government and state governments are not required to do the work of the Federal Government.

See and read the 10th Amendment for confirmation.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Rye Catcher said:


> CWayne said:
> 
> 
> 
> The feds can't, but the States can.
> 
> Stop giving them federal dollars until they rein in their wayward cities.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Codes Display Text.
> 
> Your ignorance is only exceeded by your foolishness.  Next time do some research.  The link to CA's Penal Code provides the ability of local and state law enforcement to arrest and prosecute counterfeiting of dozens of items (listed in the link, including money) as FRAUD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to enforce federal law in general. Although immigration is a federal matter, local law enforcement departments and personnel are not required to turn a blind eye to any illegal activity including violations of immigration law. It is illegal for local governments to prohibit police cooperation with the INS, and individual officers who report violations are protected by law.
> 
> Although the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 provied new authority for empowering local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law provisions against aliens illegally in the country, local police were never powerless to act on immigration law violations before adoption of that legislation. Local police departments have always had the ability to collaborate with the INS in enforcement operations. An example was local cooperation with the INS and the FBI in locating and interviewing foreign students from Middle Eastern countries following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
> 
> In addition, Section 274(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended in 1986, authorizes "...all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws," to arrest persons for smuggling, harboring or transporting illegal aliens. Furthermore, federal courts had repeatedly affirmed since 1984 that local police may inquire into immigration violations in the course of a routine stop (see e.g., U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon).”
> 
> Have a nice day!
> 
> Local Immigration Enforcement | Federation for American Immigration Reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, your source is not legitimate.  The Code of Federal Regulations and the US Code are the only sources which would, and don't, require local and state policing agencies to do the work of Federal Le agencies.
> 
> They can and do work together as do local agencies do in mutual aid compacts.  When drag nets such as those trump has ordered local government and state governments are not required to do the work of the Federal Government.
> 
> See and read the 10th Amendment for confirmation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, only people arrested by the FBI are in Federal Courts today.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Weatherman2020 said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CWayne said:
> 
> 
> 
> The feds can't, but the States can.
> 
> Stop giving them federal dollars until they rein in their wayward cities.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> ICE, and all federal LE agencies enforce Federal Laws.  Local Police/Sheriff agencies do not have the authority to enforce Federal Laws.  The can do so as a courtesy, but the FEDS expect local gov't taxpayers and local gov't agencies to enforce Federal law, and to keep them in custody at the expense of the local government.
> 
> This turf war has been on going for decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Codes Display Text.
> 
> Your ignorance is only exceeded by your foolishness.  Next time do some research.  The link to CA's Penal Code provides the ability of local and state law enforcement to arrest and prosecute counterfeiting of dozens of items (listed in the link, including money) as FRAUD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to enforce federal law in general. Although immigration is a federal matter, local law enforcement departments and personnel are not required to turn a blind eye to any illegal activity including violations of immigration law. It is illegal for local governments to prohibit police cooperation with the INS, and individual officers who report violations are protected by law.
> 
> Although the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 provied new authority for empowering local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law provisions against aliens illegally in the country, local police were never powerless to act on immigration law violations before adoption of that legislation. Local police departments have always had the ability to collaborate with the INS in enforcement operations. An example was local cooperation with the INS and the FBI in locating and interviewing foreign students from Middle Eastern countries following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
> 
> In addition, Section 274(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended in 1986, authorizes "...all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws," to arrest persons for smuggling, harboring or transporting illegal aliens. Furthermore, federal courts had repeatedly affirmed since 1984 that local police may inquire into immigration violations in the course of a routine stop (see e.g., U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon).”
> 
> Have a nice day!
> 
> Local Immigration Enforcement | Federation for American Immigration Reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, your source is not legitimate.  The Code of Federal Regulations and the US Code are the only sources which would, and don't, require local and state policing agencies to do the work of Federal Le agencies.
> 
> They can and do work together as do local agencies do in mutual aid compacts.  When drag nets such as those trump has ordered local government and state governments are not required to do the work of the Federal Government.
> 
> See and read the 10th Amendment for confirmation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, only people arrested by the FBI are in Federal Courts today.
Click to expand...


Do the right thing and admit you are a damn liar.  The only source you've posted as evidence is a right wing source web site.  STFU, you've been proved to be another jerk who fails to mislead the readers.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Rye Catcher said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CWayne said:
> 
> 
> 
> The feds can't, but the States can.
> 
> Stop giving them federal dollars until they rein in their wayward cities.
> 
> Problem solved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So a sheriff can’t arrest money counterfeiters?
> 
> Your lies are beyond hilarious they are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Codes Display Text.
> 
> Your ignorance is only exceeded by your foolishness.  Next time do some research.  The link to CA's Penal Code provides the ability of local and state law enforcement to arrest and prosecute counterfeiting of dozens of items (listed in the link, including money) as FRAUD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to enforce federal law in general. Although immigration is a federal matter, local law enforcement departments and personnel are not required to turn a blind eye to any illegal activity including violations of immigration law. It is illegal for local governments to prohibit police cooperation with the INS, and individual officers who report violations are protected by law.
> 
> Although the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996 provied new authority for empowering local law enforcement agencies to enforce immigration law provisions against aliens illegally in the country, local police were never powerless to act on immigration law violations before adoption of that legislation. Local police departments have always had the ability to collaborate with the INS in enforcement operations. An example was local cooperation with the INS and the FBI in locating and interviewing foreign students from Middle Eastern countries following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
> 
> In addition, Section 274(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended in 1986, authorizes "...all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws," to arrest persons for smuggling, harboring or transporting illegal aliens. Furthermore, federal courts had repeatedly affirmed since 1984 that local police may inquire into immigration violations in the course of a routine stop (see e.g., U.S. v. Salinas-Calderon).”
> 
> Have a nice day!
> 
> Local Immigration Enforcement | Federation for American Immigration Reform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, your source is not legitimate.  The Code of Federal Regulations and the US Code are the only sources which would, and don't, require local and state policing agencies to do the work of Federal Le agencies.
> 
> They can and do work together as do local agencies do in mutual aid compacts.  When drag nets such as those trump has ordered local government and state governments are not required to do the work of the Federal Government.
> 
> See and read the 10th Amendment for confirmation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, only people arrested by the FBI are in Federal Courts today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do the right thing and admit you are a damn liar.  The only source you've posted as evidence is a right wing source web site.  STFU, you've been proved to be another jerk who fails to mislead the readers.
Click to expand...

I’m a liar says the Dufus who claims local law enforcement can’t arrest people for Federal crimes.


----------



## Desperado

No  The Federal government needs to cut off all funding to these cities and see how quickly they become "unsancuary" Cities


----------



## Dogmaphobe

citygator said:


> Most of you have no idea what a sanctuary city is or why it exists. You’re just repeating conservative talking points. #sad


A sanctuary city is a city whose leadership is more invested in virtue signaling than protecting its citizens.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

MaryL said:


> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?



American citizens are not allowed to break our laws.
Only Democrats and illegal aliens are allowed to break our laws.


----------



## Vandalshandle

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American citizens are not allowed to break our laws.
> Only Democrats and illegal aliens are allowed to break our laws.
Click to expand...


I am a democrat. What law have I broken? I mean, other than the law that forbids me to put a bumper sticker on my car reading, "Not my president".


----------



## MaryL

If there any legal scholars out there: I would like to know in your opinion, what you think about of the legality and constitutionality so called "sanctuary cities". From my plebeian perspective, it seems questionable. On so many levels. I don't know what  part of this to start this off with. Lets go with:
1) We were not clearly openly  asked nor were we informed of the adoption of these policies. The policies that created sanctuary for undocumented immigrants was never  stated clearly as such on any ballot nor was it made clear it was being enacted.
 2) Its effects where/are detrimental to many  lower class working poor  Americans. 
3) Our elected representatives are supposed to represent the  best interest of the* electorat**e*. Not foreign nationals or those that exploit or profit from them.


----------



## Vandalshandle

MaryL said:


> If there any legal scholars out there: I would like to know in your opinion, what you think about of the legality and constitutionality so called "sanctuary cities". From my plebeian perspective, it seems questionable. On so many levels. I don't know what  part of this to start this off with. Lets go with:
> 1) We were not clearly openly  asked nor were we informed of the adoption of these policies. The policies that created sanctuary for undocumented immigrants was never  stated clearly as such on any ballot nor was it made clear it was being enacted.
> 2) Its effects where/are detrimental to many  lower class working poor  Americans.
> 3) Our elected representatives are supposed to represent the  best interest of the* electorat**e*. Not foreign nationals or those that exploit or profit from them.



Post no, 10 clearly and concisely answers your question, unless you are going fishing for another answer because you don't like the correct answer.


----------



## MaryL

Vandalshandle said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there any legal scholars out there: I would like to know in your opinion, what you think about of the legality and constitutionality so called "sanctuary cities". From my plebeian perspective, it seems questionable. On so many levels. I don't know what  part of this to start this off with. Lets go with:
> 1) We were not clearly openly  asked nor were we informed of the adoption of these policies. The policies that created sanctuary for undocumented immigrants was never  stated clearly as such on any ballot nor was it made clear it was being enacted.
> 2) Its effects where/are detrimental to many  lower class working poor  Americans.
> 3) Our elected representatives are supposed to represent the  best interest of the* electorat**e*. Not foreign nationals or those that exploit or profit from them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post no, 10 clearly and concisely answers your question, unless you are going fishing for another answer because you don't like the correct answer.
Click to expand...

I will read it. I want answers, not a pissing contest.


----------



## MaryL

I just read post #10. It doesn't answer the core questions at all. I am not  concerned so much about the federal aspect of this, I am talking about LOCAL aspect of this to begin with. That's were  this  issue starts.  We weren't t asked nor was this policy adopted with out best interest in mind.  The questions I posited on post #63 remain unanswered.


----------



## Vandalshandle

MaryL said:


> I just read post post #10. It doesn't answer the core questions at all. I am not asking  about how the federal aspect of this, I am talking about LOCAL aspect to begin with. The questions I posited on post #63 remain unanswered.



If you don't like the decisions of your city council, you can vote them out and vote someone in whose decision you do like. That seems pretty straightforward to me.


----------



## candycorn

I’m against them but what part of the constitution does a SC violate?


----------



## MaryL

Vandalshandle said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read post post #10. It doesn't answer the core questions at all. I am not asking  about how the federal aspect of this, I am talking about LOCAL aspect to begin with. The questions I posited on post #63 remain unanswered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like the decisions of your city council, you can vote them out and vote someone in whose decision you do like. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
Click to expand...

So, do you happen to have time machine I can borrow? Perhaps you think its a good idea for any politician to do things without our knowledge and without our consent? Perhaps I am old fashioned, I expect a certain level of honesty and openness  from our representatives on all matters. Don't you?


----------



## eagle1462010

California Governor Signs 'Sanctuary State' Bill

The bill, SB 54 by California Senate President pro tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), takes effect on January 1st, 2018. In broad terms, it extends local "sanctuary city" protections for immigrants living in California without legal documentation. (The governor, De León and some of the bill's backers prefer not to use the term "sanctuary state" because they argue it has become politically loaded and there is confusion over its precise meaning.)

*Specifically, it bans state and local agencies,* excluding the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,* from enforcing "holds" on people in custody. It blocks the deputization of police as immigration agents and bars state and local law enforcement agencies from inquiring into an individual's immigration status.*

It also prohibits new or expanded contracts with federal agencies to use California law enforcement facilities as detention centers, although it does not force the termination of existing contracts – including Orange County's $22 million annual contract with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

"The California Values Act won't stop ICE from trolling our streets. It will not provide full sanctuary. But it will put a kink – a large kink – in Trump's perverse and inhumane deportation machine," De León said at a news conference Thursday after Governor Brown signed the bill. "California is building a wall – a wall of justice – against President Trump's xenophobic, racist and ignorant immigration policies."


----------



## Vandalshandle

MaryL said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read post post #10. It doesn't answer the core questions at all. I am not asking  about how the federal aspect of this, I am talking about LOCAL aspect to begin with. The questions I posited on post #63 remain unanswered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like the decisions of your city council, you can vote them out and vote someone in whose decision you do like. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, do you happen to have time machine I can borrow? Perhaps you think its a good idea for any politician to do things without our knowledge and without our consent? Perhaps I am old fashioned, I expect a certain level of honesty and openness  from our representatives on all matters. Don't you?
Click to expand...


I am in no position to judge your city council. I do not live in a city, so I guess this is your problem to solve.


----------



## eagle1462010

Detainers

These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. *When LEAs fail to honor immigration detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.*

ICE continues to collaborate with all law enforcement agencies to help ensure that aliens who may pose a threat to our communities are not released onto the streets to potentially reoffend and harm individuals living within our communities. *However, in some cases, state or local laws, ordinances or policies restrict or prohibit cooperation with ICE. In other cases, jurisdictions choose to willfully decline ICE detainers or requests *for notification and release removable aliens back into the community.


----------



## MaryL

Vandalshandle said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read post post #10. It doesn't answer the core questions at all. I am not asking  about how the federal aspect of this, I am talking about LOCAL aspect to begin with. The questions I posited on post #63 remain unanswered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like the decisions of your city council, you can vote them out and vote someone in whose decision you do like. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
Click to expand...

So, do you happen to have time machine I can borrow? Perhaps you think its a good idea for any politician to do things without our knowledge and without our consent? Perhaps I am old fashioned, I expect a certain level of honesty and openness  from our representatives on all matters. Don't you?


eagle1462010 said:


> California Governor Signs 'Sanctuary State' Bill
> 
> The bill, SB 54 by California Senate President pro tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), takes effect on January 1st, 2018. In broad terms, it extends local "sanctuary city" protections for immigrants living in California without legal documentation. (The governor, De León and some of the bill's backers prefer not to use the term "sanctuary state" because they argue it has become politically loaded and there is confusion over its precise meaning.)
> 
> *Specifically, it bans state and local agencies,* excluding the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,* from enforcing "holds" on people in custody. It blocks the deputization of police as immigration agents and bars state and local law enforcement agencies from inquiring into an individual's immigration status.*
> 
> It also prohibits new or expanded contracts with federal agencies to use California law enforcement facilities as detention centers, although it does not force the termination of existing contracts – including Orange County's $22 million annual contract with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
> 
> "The California Values Act won't stop ICE from trolling our streets. It will not provide full sanctuary. But it will put a kink – a large kink – in Trump's perverse and inhumane deportation machine," De León said at a news conference Thursday after Governor Brown signed the bill. "California is building a wall – a wall of justice – against President Trump's xenophobic, racist and ignorant immigration policies."


Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. NOBODY is above the law.  I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change the federal law and do so openly.  Don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's probably  unconstitutional.


----------



## eagle1462010

United States v. California, No. 18-16496 (9th Cir. 2019)

ourt Description: Immigration. In a case in which the United States sought to enjoin the enforcement of three laws California enacted expressly to protect its residents from federal immigration enforcement, the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s denial in large part of the United States’ motion for a preliminary injunction.* The United States challenged three California laws: AB 450, which—as relevant to this appeal—requires employers to alert employees before federal immigration inspections; AB 103, which imposes inspection requirements on facilities that house civil immigration detainees; and SB 54, which limits the cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.* The United States sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that these laws violated the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity and the doctrine of conflict preemption. The district court concluded that the United States was unlikely to succeed on the merits of many of its claims, and so denied in large part the motion for a preliminary injunction. With respect to AB 450, which requires employers to alert employees before federal immigration inspections, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary


----------



## Vandalshandle

eagle1462010 said:


> Detainers
> 
> These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. *When LEAs fail to honor immigration detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.*
> 
> ICE continues to collaborate with all law enforcement agencies to help ensure that aliens who may pose a threat to our communities are not released onto the streets to potentially reoffend and harm individuals living within our communities. *However, in some cases, state or local laws, ordinances or policies restrict or prohibit cooperation with ICE. In other cases, jurisdictions choose to willfully decline ICE detainers or requests *for notification and release removable aliens back into the community.


In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.


----------



## eagle1462010

MaryL said:


> Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.


I agree with you.  Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here.  1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.

So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............

I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL

That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.


----------



## Vandalshandle

MaryL said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read post post #10. It doesn't answer the core questions at all. I am not asking  about how the federal aspect of this, I am talking about LOCAL aspect to begin with. The questions I posited on post #63 remain unanswered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like the decisions of your city council, you can vote them out and vote someone in whose decision you do like. That seems pretty straightforward to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, do you happen to have time machine I can borrow? Perhaps you think its a good idea for any politician to do things without our knowledge and without our consent? Perhaps I am old fashioned, I expect a certain level of honesty and openness  from our representatives on all matters. Don't you?
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> California Governor Signs 'Sanctuary State' Bill
> 
> The bill, SB 54 by California Senate President pro tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), takes effect on January 1st, 2018. In broad terms, it extends local "sanctuary city" protections for immigrants living in California without legal documentation. (The governor, De León and some of the bill's backers prefer not to use the term "sanctuary state" because they argue it has become politically loaded and there is confusion over its precise meaning.)
> 
> *Specifically, it bans state and local agencies,* excluding the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,* from enforcing "holds" on people in custody. It blocks the deputization of police as immigration agents and bars state and local law enforcement agencies from inquiring into an individual's immigration status.*
> 
> It also prohibits new or expanded contracts with federal agencies to use California law enforcement facilities as detention centers, although it does not force the termination of existing contracts – including Orange County's $22 million annual contract with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
> 
> "The California Values Act won't stop ICE from trolling our streets. It will not provide full sanctuary. But it will put a kink – a large kink – in Trump's perverse and inhumane deportation machine," De León said at a news conference Thursday after Governor Brown signed the bill. "California is building a wall – a wall of justice – against President Trump's xenophobic, racist and ignorant immigration policies."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. NOBODY is above the law.  I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change the federal law and do so openly.  Don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's probably  unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


Nobody is "skirting" the law. If so, you would have to complain that the FBI is skirting the law by not helping the city arrest speeders on Main Street.


----------



## eagle1462010

Vandalshandle said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Detainers
> 
> These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. *When LEAs fail to honor immigration detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.*
> 
> ICE continues to collaborate with all law enforcement agencies to help ensure that aliens who may pose a threat to our communities are not released onto the streets to potentially reoffend and harm individuals living within our communities. *However, in some cases, state or local laws, ordinances or policies restrict or prohibit cooperation with ICE. In other cases, jurisdictions choose to willfully decline ICE detainers or requests *for notification and release removable aliens back into the community.
> 
> 
> 
> In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.
Click to expand...

They don't have that kind of manpower and you know it.

They issue Detainer orders for people they are looking for..............for a number of reasons...........One of the main ones being .................THEY MISSED ASYLUM COURT............which is VERY COMMON......imagine that.

The Detainer order is always an Order for someone who is breaking our nations laws.......and California is pissing on Federal Law with the 3 laws they passed AGAINST ICE.

This is BS and you know it.


----------



## Vandalshandle

eagle1462010 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.  Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here.  1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.
> 
> So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............
> 
> I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL
> 
> That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.
Click to expand...


Call it insane, if you like, but the citizens of California seem to like it, because if they did not, they would vote for somebody else, and they do have the right to elect their own state lawgivers.


----------



## Vandalshandle

eagle1462010 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Detainers
> 
> These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. *When LEAs fail to honor immigration detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.*
> 
> ICE continues to collaborate with all law enforcement agencies to help ensure that aliens who may pose a threat to our communities are not released onto the streets to potentially reoffend and harm individuals living within our communities. *However, in some cases, state or local laws, ordinances or policies restrict or prohibit cooperation with ICE. In other cases, jurisdictions choose to willfully decline ICE detainers or requests *for notification and release removable aliens back into the community.
> 
> 
> 
> In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't have that kind of manpower and you know it.
> 
> They issue Detainer orders for people they are looking for..............for a number of reasons...........One of the main ones being .................THEY MISSED ASYLUM COURT............which is VERY COMMON......imagine that.
> 
> The Detainer order is always an Order for someone who is breaking our nations laws.......and California is pissing on Federal Law with the 3 laws they passed AGAINST ICE.
> 
> This is BS and you know it.
Click to expand...


The feds lack of manpower is not the city's problem


----------



## MaryL

I despise partisanship. Anyway...


Vandalshandle said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Detainers
> 
> These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien.  the community.
> 
> 
> 
> In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.
Click to expand...




eagle1462010 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.  Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here.  1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.
> 
> So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............
> 
> I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL
> 
> That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.
Click to expand...

Thank you, but I can forgive illegal undocumented immigrant aliens to certain degree. But its our so called "elected  officials"  that create artificial refuges for criminals without consent of the electorate  and to our  collective detriment  that I can't forgive. They have betrayed us, and betrayed American principles.


----------



## eagle1462010

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

To sum it up.............the 9th Circus court upheld........imagine that.........Liberals Favorite shopping center for Liberal Judges..............and now through appeals.............it is heading the Supreme Court to determine if these 3 laws are Constitutional..............The 9th has a bad habbit of being overturned.........

United States v. California

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2019/10/25/california.pet_.10.22.19.pdf
STATEMENT In 2017, California enacted multiple statutes that have the purpose and effect of obstructing federal immigration enforcement. See App., infra, 2a, 34a, 39a. The United States filed suit to enjoin portions of three statutes as preempted by federal law and barred by the United States’ intergovernmental immunity. Id. at 2a. The district court and the court of appeals held that certain provisions of two of those statutes were likely invalid. Id. at 16a-30a, 60a-78a. At issue in this petition for a writ of certiorari is the court of appeals’ affirmance of the district court’s decision not to enjoin the challenged provisions of the third statute: Senate Bill No. 54 (SB 54). Id. at 30a-40a.


----------



## eagle1462010

Vandalshandle said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Detainers
> 
> These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. *When LEAs fail to honor immigration detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.*
> 
> ICE continues to collaborate with all law enforcement agencies to help ensure that aliens who may pose a threat to our communities are not released onto the streets to potentially reoffend and harm individuals living within our communities. *However, in some cases, state or local laws, ordinances or policies restrict or prohibit cooperation with ICE. In other cases, jurisdictions choose to willfully decline ICE detainers or requests *for notification and release removable aliens back into the community.
> 
> 
> 
> In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't have that kind of manpower and you know it.
> 
> They issue Detainer orders for people they are looking for..............for a number of reasons...........One of the main ones being .................THEY MISSED ASYLUM COURT............which is VERY COMMON......imagine that.
> 
> The Detainer order is always an Order for someone who is breaking our nations laws.......and California is pissing on Federal Law with the 3 laws they passed AGAINST ICE.
> 
> This is BS and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The feds lack of manpower is not the city's problem
Click to expand...

Your problem is an upcoming Supreme Court Ruling that may force you to comply with Federal Law which superceeds State Law.

All 3 California Laws are going to the Supreme Court of the United States.......and this Constitutional question of this thread will be answered there...........

I have provided the case number and the arguments against the Constitution by the DOJ who filed the case on October 22............of this year.


----------



## eagle1462010

Vandalshandle said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.  Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here.  1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.
> 
> So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............
> 
> I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL
> 
> That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it insane, if you like, but the citizens of California seem to like it, because if they did not, they would vote for somebody else, and they do have the right to elect their own state lawgivers.
Click to expand...

They have the right to elect whomever they please............but they do not have the right to OBSTRUCT Federal Law Enforcement Agencies...........Which these laws do............Not only that........Employers under the laws passed by Reagan require them to be Legal to work here.  If they are illegal and it is known........those employers can be FINED under that law for doing so............

Ordering Employers to notify illegals with Detainer orders from ICE is a violation of Federal Law passed under Reagan...............and the employer under that law is subject to FINES for even hiring them.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when weave a web of deceit......

It is going to the Supreme Court.


----------



## eagle1462010

I have provided the court case and summaries on whether Sanctuary Laws are Unconstitutional..........It is in the DOJ case to the Supreme Court.


----------



## MaryL

We are united by laws. We are united under laws.My brain boggles at how certain states think  that it's  justified  defying federal law(s) without actually trying to change them first. And without consent or informing the local  populace to begin with, that's wrong on so many levels. Nobody is above the laws. State or federal.


----------



## Natural Citizen

MaryL said:


> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?




Sanctuary Cities - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Snip...

_Enter the sanctuary cities. These are places where there are large immigrant populations, among which many are undocumented, yet where there is apparently not a little public sentiment and local governmental support for sheltering the undocumented from federal reach. Trump has argued that these cities are required to comply with federal law by actively assisting the feds — or at least not aggressively resisting them.

Thus the question: Are state and local governments required to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word: No.

The term “sanctuary cities” is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them — including the case of Chicago’s offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation. As unwise as these expenditures may be by cities that are essentially bankrupt and rely on federal largesse in order to remain in the black, they are not unlawful. Cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, taking into account the local political climate.

Enter the Supreme Court. It has required the states — and thus the municipalities in them — to make social services available to everyone resident within them, irrespective of citizenry or lawful or unlawful immigration status. This is so because the constitutional command to the states of equal protection applies to all persons, not just to citizens. So the states and municipalities may not deny basic social services to anyone based on nationality or immigration status.

The high court has also prohibited the federal government from “commandeering” the states by forcing them to work for the feds at their own expense by actively enforcing federal law. As Ronald Reagan reminded us in his first inaugural address, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. They did so by ceding 16 discrete powers to the federal government and retaining to themselves all powers not ceded.

If this constitutional truism were not recognized or enforced by the courts, the federal government could effectively eradicate the sovereignty of the states or even bankrupt them by forcing them to spend their tax dollars enforcing federal law or paying for federal programs.

Thus the Trump dilemma. He must follow the Constitution, or the courts will enjoin him as they have his predecessor._


----------



## eagle1462010

PRESIDENT SIGNS LANDMARK BILL ON IMMIGRATION

The author of this section, Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in an interview that Mr. Reagan's interpretation was ''intellectually dishonest, mean-spirited'' and incorrect. ''A pattern or practice of discriminatory activity would violate the law even if you cannot prove an intent to discriminate,'' Mr. Frank said. Under the new law, employers who hire illegal aliens will be subject to civil penalties of $250 to $10,000 for each such alien. Mr. Reagan described this provision as ''the keystone'' of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. ''It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here,'' he said.


----------



## MaryL

Natural Citizen said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary Cities - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> Snip...
> 
> _Enter the sanctuary cities. These are places where there are large immigrant populations, among which many are undocumented, yet where there is apparently not a little public sentiment and local governmental support for sheltering the undocumented from federal reach. Trump has argued that these cities are required to comply with federal law by actively assisting the feds — or at least not aggressively resisting them.
> 
> Thus the question: Are state and local governments required to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word: No.
> 
> The term “sanctuary cities” is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them — including the case of Chicago’s offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation. As unwise as these expenditures may be by cities that are essentially bankrupt and rely on federal largesse in order to remain in the black, they are not unlawful. Cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, taking into account the local political climate.
> 
> Enter the Supreme Court. It has required the states — and thus the municipalities in them — to make social services available to everyone resident within them, irrespective of citizenry or lawful or unlawful immigration status. This is so because the constitutional command to the states of equal protection applies to all persons, not just to citizens. So the states and municipalities may not deny basic social services to anyone based on nationality or immigration status.
> 
> The high court has also prohibited the federal government from “commandeering” the states by forcing them to work for the feds at their own expense by actively enforcing federal law. As Ronald Reagan reminded us in his first inaugural address, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. They did so by ceding 16 discrete powers to the federal government and retaining to themselves all powers not ceded.
> 
> If this constitutional truism were not recognized or enforced by the courts, the federal government could effectively eradicate the sovereignty of the states or even bankrupt them by forcing them to spend their tax dollars enforcing federal law or paying for federal programs.
> 
> Thus the Trump dilemma. He must follow the Constitution, or the courts will enjoin him as they have his predecessor._
Click to expand...




Natural Citizen said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary Cities - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com
> 
> Snip...
> 
> _Enter the sanctuary cities. These are places where there are large immigrant populations, among which many are undocumented, yet where there is apparently not a little public sentiment and local governmental support for sheltering the undocumented from federal reach. Trump has argued that these cities are required to comply with federal law by actively assisting the feds — or at least not aggressively resisting them.
> 
> Thus the question: Are state and local governments required to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word: No.
> 
> The term “sanctuary cities” is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them — including the case of Chicago’s offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation. As unwise as these expenditures may be by cities that are essentially bankrupt and rely on federal largesse in order to remain in the black, they are not unlawful. Cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, taking into account the local political climate.
> 
> Enter the Supreme Court. It has required the states — and thus the municipalities in them — to make social services available to everyone resident within them, irrespective of citizenry or lawful or unlawful immigration status. This is so because the constitutional command to the states of equal protection applies to all persons, not just to citizens. So the states and municipalities may not deny basic social services to anyone based on nationality or immigration status.
> 
> The high court has also prohibited the federal government from “commandeering” the states by forcing them to work for the feds at their own expense by actively enforcing federal law. As Ronald Reagan reminded us in his first inaugural address, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. They did so by ceding 16 discrete powers to the federal government and retaining to themselves all powers not ceded.
> 
> If this constitutional truism were not recognized or enforced by the courts, the federal government could effectively eradicate the sovereignty of the states or even bankrupt them by forcing them to spend their tax dollars enforcing federal law or paying for federal programs.
> 
> Thus the Trump dilemma. He must follow the Constitution, or the courts will enjoin him as they have his predecessor._
Click to expand...

Ah yes, Reagan and his infamous immigration policies. But this still begs the question, can local politicians  create  such far reaching and potent  policies without the consent  and without notifying  or involvement of the populace? People  are missing that fine point...Nobody asked US, they just did it.  AND that is the bigger question. And it had a huge detrimental effect to many of us.


----------



## eagle1462010

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article233009382.html

U.S. immigration authorities have begun targeting businesses nationwide that offer work to undocumented immigrants in what they are calling “worksite enforcement surges” and will pursue criminal charges where warranted, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Tuesday.

*Immigration officials so far have served 3,282 businesses with notices of inspection between July 15 and July 19, warning them that their records will be audited.* Officials said notices won’t stop there and will continue to be rolled out across the 50 states and Puerto Rico.


----------



## Natural Citizen

MaryL said:


> Ah yes, Reagan and his infamous immigration policies. But this still begs the question, can local politicians  create  such far reaching and potent  policies without the consent  and without notifying  or involvement of the populace? People  are missing that fine point...Nobody asked US, they just did it.  AND that is the bigger question. And it had a huge detrimental effect to many of us.



Basically the SCOTUS forced them to provide expanded social services to all people in these places regardless of nationality or citizenship. 

Another reason to abolish the SCOTUS and put the power back into the hands of the state justice departments.


----------



## eagle1462010

MaryL said:


> Ah yes, Reagan and his infamous immigration policies


Everyone tries to slam Reagan for that law....................but it was not supposed to cause illegals to set up a network of getting Illegal I.D.s and SSN's, which are in FACT A CRIME in itself................To skirt the Reagan law.........as I've already said........they set up a network across the country to just change their names and get fake SSN's.....

I have shown in this thread where the IRS and SSN offices OPENLY ADMIT this is going on.

I showed a video where a raid deported 393 illegals at one work place.......if you watched some of that video........it stated Clearly...........Those caught there had 2 OPTIONS...........Agree to Immediate Deportation or be Charged with a Crime for fake I.D.s...........Which is not only a crime here but all over the world.

And now...........as I'm seeing........ICE is going after businesses.................over 3000 of them as I just showed.

In regards to elected officials passing laws for Sanctuary.............the people of that state ELECT these people........and they determine the laws of that State.......or city...........who are doing these things.......So they need to be voted out.


----------



## MaryL

My biggest problem is we have "representatives" in office that act superstitiously to aid those violating valid laws without our consent that does harm to us. Trump's impeachment is hanging on far lesser offenses, so think that over.


----------



## eagle1462010

Natural Citizen said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, Reagan and his infamous immigration policies. But this still begs the question, can local politicians  create  such far reaching and potent  policies without the consent  and without notifying  or involvement of the populace? People  are missing that fine point...Nobody asked US, they just did it.  AND that is the bigger question. And it had a huge detrimental effect to many of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically the SCOTUS forced them to provide expanded social services to all people in these places regardless of nationality or citizenship.
> 
> Another reason to abolish the SCOTUS and put the power back into the hands of the state justice departments.
Click to expand...

You must be talking about Flores and the loop hole there.......and the Federal Rulings of how they must be detained.............More loop holes.........forcing Illegals to be set free.............

ABOLISH SCOTUS..........which is a check on the powers of the other 2 branches..........LOL.......you have got to be kidding me.......

Do that and the leftist will run rampant in any state with the 9th Circuit court on steroids.


----------



## eagle1462010

MaryL said:


> My biggest problem is we have "representatives" in office that act superstitiously to aid those violating valid laws without our consent that does harm to us. Trump's impeachment is hanging on far lesser offenses, so think that over.


Which requires people there to vote them out of office...............We have a corrupt gov't .....and that is why the immigration policies aren't fixed.....................

They serve the money masters.........who donate to them.........The Chamber of Commerce wants cheap labor and they pay off politicians to make sure they do their bidding both sides...........Which is why this problem isn't fixed........

They don't care if illegals get in because they want to make more money by using them.......so they violate the laws of this country and don't care.


----------



## eagle1462010

FYI  Flores.

Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)


----------



## Natural Citizen

eagle1462010 said:


> You must be talking about Flores and the loop hole there.......and the Federal Rulings of how they must be detained.............More loop holes.........forcing Illegals to be set free.............
> 
> ABOLISH SCOTUS..........which is a check on the powers of the other 2 branches..........LOL.......you have got to be kidding me.......
> 
> Do that and the leftist will run rampant in any state with the 9th Circuit court on steroids.



Congress has basically been derelict of its duty for some time. All it does is pass off its responsibility to the SCOTUS.

I'm talking about the fact that judicial review doesn't exist in Article III in the first place. Yet the SCOTUS is who is saying the localities MUST grant the illegals social services. That's the only thing that makes them sanctuary cities. As was said, sanctuary cities isn't a legal term.

The only real loophole is the power of judicial review which the SCOTUS gave to itself.


----------



## eagle1462010

Natural Citizen said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be talking about Flores and the loop hole there.......and the Federal Rulings of how they must be detained.............More loop holes.........forcing Illegals to be set free.............
> 
> ABOLISH SCOTUS..........which is a check on the powers of the other 2 branches..........LOL.......you have got to be kidding me.......
> 
> Do that and the leftist will run rampant in any state with the 9th Circuit court on steroids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress has basically been derelict of its duty for some time. All it does do is pass of its responsibility to the SCOTUS.
> 
> I'm talking about the fact that judicial review doesn't exist in Article III in the first place. Yet the SCOTUS is who is saying the localities MUST grant the illegals social services. That's the only thing that makes them sanctuary cities. As was said, sanctuary cities isn't a legal term.
> 
> The only real loophole is the power of judicial review which the SCOTUS gave to itself.
Click to expand...

We disagree...........That is not the only thing that makes them Sanctuary cities.........while the Sanctuary term isn't a real LEGAL TERM........they Refuse to honor Federal Laws in States and cities................

The SCOTUS cases you are referring to was cases brought to them by those appealing about conditions for illegals..............And the length of internment of children.....20 days.........

While I agree that SCOTUS and the Courts SHOULDN'T make laws via Judicial Activism.............Getting rid of SCOTUS would ONLY MAKE MATTERS WORSE................It is a check on the other branches..........that it is being misused.............we agree there.


----------



## Vandalshandle

MaryL said:


> I despise partisanship. Anyway...
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Detainers
> 
> These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien.  the community.
> 
> 
> 
> In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with you.  Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here.  1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.
> 
> So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............
> 
> I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL
> 
> That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you, but I can forgive illegal undocumented immigrant aliens to certain degree. But its our so called "elected  officials"  that create artificial refuges for criminals without consent of the electorate  and to our  collective detriment  that I can't forgive. They have betrayed us, and betrayed American principles.
Click to expand...


Personally, I would protest if my city used my city tax money to enforce federal law. I already pay federal taxes. I see no reason for my city to collect taxes from me to pay for expenses not related to my city.


----------



## Vandalshandle

eagle1462010 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Detainers
> 
> These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. *When LEAs fail to honor immigration detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.*
> 
> ICE continues to collaborate with all law enforcement agencies to help ensure that aliens who may pose a threat to our communities are not released onto the streets to potentially reoffend and harm individuals living within our communities. *However, in some cases, state or local laws, ordinances or policies restrict or prohibit cooperation with ICE. In other cases, jurisdictions choose to willfully decline ICE detainers or requests *for notification and release removable aliens back into the community.
> 
> 
> 
> In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't have that kind of manpower and you know it.
> 
> They issue Detainer orders for people they are looking for..............for a number of reasons...........One of the main ones being .................THEY MISSED ASYLUM COURT............which is VERY COMMON......imagine that.
> 
> The Detainer order is always an Order for someone who is breaking our nations laws.......and California is pissing on Federal Law with the 3 laws they passed AGAINST ICE.
> 
> This is BS and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The feds lack of manpower is not the city's problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your problem is an upcoming Supreme Court Ruling that may force you to comply with Federal Law which superceeds State Law.
> 
> All 3 California Laws are going to the Supreme Court of the United States.......and this Constitutional question of this thread will be answered there...........
> 
> I have provided the case number and the arguments against the Constitution by the DOJ who filed the case on October 22............of this year.
Click to expand...


I support constitutional law. if the Supreme Court rules that a city must enforce federal law, I will support it, but I seriously doubt if that will happen.


----------



## Vandalshandle

eagle1462010 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.  Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here.  1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.
> 
> So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............
> 
> I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL
> 
> That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it insane, if you like, but the citizens of California seem to like it, because if they did not, they would vote for somebody else, and they do have the right to elect their own state lawgivers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have the right to elect whomever they please............but they do not have the right to OBSTRUCT Federal Law Enforcement Agencies...........Which these laws do............Not only that........Employers under the laws passed by Reagan require them to be Legal to work here.  If they are illegal and it is known........those employers can be FINED under that law for doing so............
> 
> Ordering Employers to notify illegals with Detainer orders from ICE is a violation of Federal Law passed under Reagan...............and the employer under that law is subject to FINES for even hiring them.
> 
> Oh what a tangled web we weave when weave a web of deceit......
> 
> It is going to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...


I disagree with your interpretation of the definition of the word, "obstruction".


----------



## MaryL

What is the legal and factual term when refering to the fac


Vandalshandle said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise partisanship. Anyway...
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Detainers
> 
> These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien.  the community.
> 
> 
> 
> In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with you.  Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here.  1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.
> 
> So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............
> 
> I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL
> 
> That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you, but I can forgive illegal undocumented immigrant aliens to certain degree. But its our so called "elected  officials"  that create artificial refuges for criminals without consent of the electorate  and to our  collective detriment  that I can't forgive. They have betrayed us, and betrayed American principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I would protest if my city used my city tax money to enforce federal law. I already pay federal taxes. I see no reason for my city to collect taxes from me to pay for expenses not related to my city.
Click to expand...

Um, ok.  Do you equally  protest when states  help the federal government enforce...say, pharmaceutical standards and practices? Or say, auto-theft laws? No? SHH, don't tell anybody:  our local government is supposed actually  reflect  OUR parochial wishes and do what WE want. Not dictate to us. You agree?


----------



## gipper

MaryL said:


> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?


First, we are not a nation of laws. This is clearly erroneous. Our government doesn’t follow the Constitution and hasn’t for a long time. It is a lawless enterprise. 

Secondly, many are above the law. If you think you and I get the same level of justice a billionaire or a Clinton or Obama gets, you are not paying attention. 

Thirdly, we have much bigger problems than sanctuary cities.


----------



## MaryL

gipper said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> First, we are not a nation of laws. This is clearly erroneous. Our government doesn’t follow the Constitution and hasn’t for a long time. It is a lawless enterprise.
> 
> Secondly, many are above the law. If you think you and I get the same level of justice a billionaire or a Clinton or Obama gets, you are not paying attention.
> 
> Thirdly, we have much bigger problems than sanctuary cities.
Click to expand...

Well judging by how I nearly got killed this morning by some random  zoomer that cant follow speed limits I can't think of anything else. Speed limits,  immigration laws cheating on your spouse  or tax laws. What would YOU think is a larger issue?  Just wondering. Lying  and cheating and being deceitful, why do you people bother with Trump when you seem to enable criminals and revel in violating laws and dishonesty? I  am confused here.


----------



## Vandalshandle

MaryL said:


> What is the legal and factual term when refering to the fac
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I despise partisanship. Anyway...
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Detainers
> 
> These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien.  the community.
> 
> 
> 
> In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree with you.  Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here.  1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.
> 
> So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............
> 
> I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL
> 
> That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you, but I can forgive illegal undocumented immigrant aliens to certain degree. But its our so called "elected  officials"  that create artificial refuges for criminals without consent of the electorate  and to our  collective detriment  that I can't forgive. They have betrayed us, and betrayed American principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, I would protest if my city used my city tax money to enforce federal law. I already pay federal taxes. I see no reason for my city to collect taxes from me to pay for expenses not related to my city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, ok.  Do you equally  protest when states  help the federal government enforce...say, pharmaceutical standards and practices? Or say, auto-theft laws? No? SHH, don't tell anybody:  our local government is supposed actually  reflect  OUR parochial wishes and do what WE want. Not dictate to us. You agree?
Click to expand...


For my local government to insist that Federal laws be enforced by federal employees, using federal money, is exactly what I want my local government to do. My state does not enforce federal pharmaceutical laws, or anything else that you mentioned. My state has their own pharmaceutical laws. In fact, in my state, marijuana is legal with a prescription, in spite of the fact that it is illegal under obsolete federal law, and my state does not cooperate with the feds who want it to turn over all marijuana buyers' names.


----------



## MaryL

The liberals are using the tired old "states rights"  rationale  the same way 1850's American   south used to justify slavery. Isn't  that ironic as hell? And the kicker here is: We locals where never asked nor is this OUR collective  will to allow it. It wasn't on any local state or city ballot for our approval. Nope.  And the larger point is: it is to our DETRIMENT. We have people displaced and  living in the streets starving and it coincides with the unilateral creation of "sanctuary cities'.


----------



## Vandalshandle

MaryL said:


> The liberals are using the tired old "states rights"  rationale  the same way 1850's American   south used to justify slavery. Isn't  that ironic as hell? And the kicker here is: We locals where never asked nor is this OUR collective  will to allow it. It wasn't on any local state or city ballot for our approval. Nope.  And the larger point is: it is to our DETRIMENT. We have people displaced and  living in the streets starving and it coincides with the unilateral creation of "sanctuary cities'.



You are going in circles, and I have been to this place of the discussion before. You have a right to vote the local rascals out of office, or even to impeach them, so that is your legal remedy. "Sanctuary cities" have been ruled constitutional by the Supreme court. nobody in law enforcement is violating any laws. End of discussion.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> The liberals are using the tired old "states rights"  rationale  the same way 1850's American   south used to justify slavery. Isn't  that ironic as hell? And the kicker here is: We locals where never asked nor is this OUR collective  will to allow it. It wasn't on any local state or city ballot for our approval. Nope.  And the larger point is: it is to our DETRIMENT. We have people displaced and  living in the streets starving and it coincides with the unilateral creation of "sanctuary cities'.



In your opinion, can you explain the meaning of this?

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."


----------



## gipper

MaryL said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> First, we are not a nation of laws. This is clearly erroneous. Our government doesn’t follow the Constitution and hasn’t for a long time. It is a lawless enterprise.
> 
> Secondly, many are above the law. If you think you and I get the same level of justice a billionaire or a Clinton or Obama gets, you are not paying attention.
> 
> Thirdly, we have much bigger problems than sanctuary cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well judging by how I nearly got killed this morning by some random  zoomer that cant follow speed limits I can't think of anything else. Speed limits,  immigration laws cheating on your spouse  or tax laws. What would YOU think is a larger issue?  Just wondering. Lying  and cheating and being deceitful, why do you people bother with Trump when you seem to enable criminals and revel in violating laws and dishonesty? I  am confused here.
Click to expand...

I will say it is part and parcel of a bigger problem. A lawless government that considers the people the enemy.


----------



## sparky

MaryL said:


> our local government is supposed actually reflect OUR parochial wishes and do what WE want. Not dictate to us. You agree?



Agree, but the_ reality_ is far different Mary



gipper said:


> Secondly, many are above the law. If you think you and I get the same level of justice a billionaire or a Clinton or Obama gets, you are not paying attention.



One would have to be fairly _dense_ to miss this Gip....



MaryL said:


> why do you people bother with Trump when you seem to enable criminals and revel in violating laws and dishonesty? I am confused here.



Trump , like most modern potus' simply provide a diversion for a failed system



MaryL said:


> The liberals are using the tired old "states rights" rationale the same way 1850's American south used to justify slavery. Isn't that ironic as hell?



10ther's have always been around , one could....if one wished....even paint our FF's 10ther's....



MaryL said:


> We have people displaced and living in the streets starving and it coincides with the unilateral creation of "sanctuary cities'.



Yes, google *tent cites* .....



Porter Rockwell said:


> In your opinion, can you explain the meaning of this?



It has none anymore

~S~


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Not Just Federal But State Authority To Deport Illegal Migrants "*

** Hold State Officials Accountable For Ignoring Sanctuary Cities **

It is absurd to assert that states do not have at least equal authority with the federal government to deport illegal migrants , and to arrest those protecting them , because individuals are not just citizens of the united states but citizens of the state wherein they reside that gives states authority to deport and arrest individuals for cause .

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
_Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, *are citizens *of the United States and* of the State wherein they reside*._


----------



## Porter Rockwell

sparky said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> our local government is supposed actually reflect OUR parochial wishes and do what WE want. Not dictate to us. You agree?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree, but the_ reality_ is far different Mary
> 
> 
> 
> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, many are above the law. If you think you and I get the same level of justice a billionaire or a Clinton or Obama gets, you are not paying attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One would have to be fairly _dense_ to miss this Gip....
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do you people bother with Trump when you seem to enable criminals and revel in violating laws and dishonesty? I am confused here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump , like most modern potus' simply provide a diversion for a failed system
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The liberals are using the tired old "states rights" rationale the same way 1850's American south used to justify slavery. Isn't that ironic as hell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 10ther's have always been around , one could....if one wished....even paint our FF's 10ther's....
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have people displaced and living in the streets starving and it coincides with the unilateral creation of "sanctuary cities'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, google *tent cites* .....
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion, can you explain the meaning of this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has none anymore
> 
> ~S~
Click to expand...


sparky, I would be almost inclined to believe that what I quoted has no meaning any longer, but that is a decision the posterity of the founders will ultimately make.

I have a series of questions I'd like someone like Mary to answer so that we could get on a level playing field and the answers to immigration woes are not what she thinks they are.

If that quote *ever* had any meaning, what does it mean?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Not Just Federal But State Authority To Deport Illegal Migrants "*
> 
> ** Hold State Officials Accountable For Ignoring Sanctuary Cities **
> 
> It is more absurd to assert that states do not have at least equal authority with the federal government to deport illegal migrants , and to arrest those protecting them , because individuals are not just citizens of the united states but citizens of the state wherein they reside .
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> _Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, *are citizens *of the United States and* of the State wherein they reside*._




The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.  If not for the 14th Amendment, people could not bitch about so - called "_anchor babies_."  They would not exist.  

The 14th Amendment, being illegally ratified, was used to strip the states of their constitutional authority to determine who could and could not be in a state.  So, in 1875, the United States Supreme Court granted _plenary powers_ to Congress over all things dealing with foreigners.  It's funny.  I've read the Constitution so many times I know most of it verbatim and yet I keep missing that section that gives the United States Supreme Court the* authority* to grant any powers to any other branch of government.


----------



## Gdjjr

Porter Rockwell said:


> It's funny. I've read the Constitution so many times I know most of it verbatim and yet I keep missing that section that gives the United States Supreme Court the* authority* to grant any powers to any other branch of government.


It is sadly funny- reading is not a strong suit of the allegedly astute- they seem to deem it an esoteric venture.


----------



## Andylusion

MaryL said:


> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?



I can't imagine who it could be.  Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it.  That seems like it is impossible.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Andylusion said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine who it could be.  Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it.  That seems like it is impossible.
Click to expand...


What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?


----------



## eagle1462010

Vandalshandle said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.  Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here.  1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.
> 
> So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............
> 
> I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL
> 
> That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it insane, if you like, but the citizens of California seem to like it, because if they did not, they would vote for somebody else, and they do have the right to elect their own state lawgivers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have the right to elect whomever they please............but they do not have the right to OBSTRUCT Federal Law Enforcement Agencies...........Which these laws do............Not only that........Employers under the laws passed by Reagan require them to be Legal to work here.  If they are illegal and it is known........those employers can be FINED under that law for doing so............
> 
> Ordering Employers to notify illegals with Detainer orders from ICE is a violation of Federal Law passed under Reagan...............and the employer under that law is subject to FINES for even hiring them.
> 
> Oh what a tangled web we weave when weave a web of deceit......
> 
> It is going to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with your interpretation of the definition of the word, "obstruction".
Click to expand...

Then we will disagree then.  Federal Laws are still laws of this land........and illegals are breaking the law.  So in fact, LEA's are releasing those who have committed a crime in this country.......and this country is SUPPORSED TO BE THE PEOPLE.  

I do not agree with the montage being presented here that the Federal Gov't is it's own entity.  The Local Gov't is supposed to be a part of the Federal Gov't itself.........

Refusal to honor detainer orders is a CLEAR OBSTRUCTION of ICE and the Federal Gov't doing their jobs.


----------



## Monk-Eye

** Wasting Time Until Some Won Gets Up And Does Some Thing A Bout It **

** Subject To Contract Clause **



Porter Rockwell said:


> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.  If not for the 14th Amendment, people could not bitch about so - called "_anchor babies_."  They would not exist.


As for " anchor babies " , there has not been a case heard upon which to render a judgment through stair decisis that a child be given citizenship when born of a migrant without a legal status as a subject in us immigration system .

The closest contest to any judgment on the " anchor babies " matter is United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia and it does not come near to establish precedence that children of illegal migrants be given citizenship as the court clearly considered that wong was a registered subject of the us immigration system and upon that clear understanding the court ceded to the claim for citizenship by birth .

Those individuals sojourning through the united states and not subjects within the jurisdiction of the us immigration system do not satisfy the " subject to us jurisdiction " clause within us 14th amendment , and consequently their children are not eligible for us state or federal citizenship .

Contractual term - Wikipedia


** State Auspices Beyond Ineptitude **



Porter Rockwell said:


> The 14th Amendment, being illegally ratified, was used to strip the states of their constitutional authority to determine who could and could not be in a state.  So, in 1875, *the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all things dealing with foreigners.*  It's funny.  I've read the Constitution so many times I know most of it verbatim and yet *I keep missing that section that gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant any powers to any other branch of government.*


To begin a case requires a state legislature to authorize a state magistrate not to process state citizenship for any child born of an illegal migrant and therefore not initiate filing a petition for federal citizenship as well ; a state attorney general needs to be prepared to forward opposing litigation as necessary .

Perhaps figure out who or whom a state attorney general could charge with granting state citizenship to children born of illegal migrants may be a means to have a case heard before courts ,

With most admonition , us diplomacy should ensure that children born of illegal migrants receive the citizenship from the country of origin from which the mother originates , so as not to create a humanitarian issue of individuals without citizenship in some nation of origin , and so as to shore up an understanding that a state has an ability to deny citizenship of individuals and that includes not granting state citizenship to individuals from another state .

Individual citizens are entitled to sojourn between states under federal protections .

State legislature (United States) - Wikipedia
_Every state except Nebraska has a bicameral legislature, meaning that the legislature consists of two separate legislative chambers or houses. In each case the smaller chamber is called the Senate and is usually referred to as the upper house.  ... Members of the smaller chamber represent more citizens and usually serve for longer terms than members of the larger chamber, generally four years. ... Members of the larger chamber usually serve for terms of two years. The larger chamber customarily has the exclusive power to initiate taxing legislation and articles of impeachment._

_Prior to the United States Supreme Court decisions Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), the basis of representation in most state legislatures was modeled on that of the U.S. Congress: the state senators represented geographical units, while members of the larger chamber represented population. In Reynolds v. Sims the Supreme Court decided upon the one man, one vote standard for state legislatures and invalidated representation based on geographical units regardless of population. (The ruling does not affect the U.S. Senate, because that chamber's makeup is prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.)_


----------



## Unkotare

Monk-Eye said:


> *....*
> 
> Those individuals sojourning through the united states and not subjects within the jurisdiction of the us immigration system do not satisfy the " subject to us jurisdiction " clause .....




What happens to your sojourner if he steals a car in Ohio? 






Thanks for playing.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Best To Know Where You Are And Where You Are From "*

** Diplomatic Rules Of The Road **


Unkotare said:


> What happens to your sojourner if he steals a car in Ohio?
> Thanks for playing.


The country of origin is responsible for reprising a violation of civil liberties for an individual sojourning and without being within jurisdiction of a foreign country as a subject of its immigration system .

The us can do whatever it wishes with a sojourner whom is not a legal migrant and steals a car , including extraditing the individual for prosecution and incarceration in their country of origin  grinding them into mulch .

If a us citizen were to kill a sojourner whom is not a legal migrant , then the us is diplomatically obligated to prosecute said perpetrator upon request by the country from which the victim originated as that country is responsible for reprising a violation of civil liberties for their citizen , though the us is not necessarily obligated to prosecute one of its citizens at all .


----------



## Unkotare

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Best To Know Where You Are And Where You Are From "*
> 
> ** Diplomatic Rules Of The Road **
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happens to your sojourner if he steals a car in Ohio?
> Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> 
> The country of origin is responsible for reprising a violation of civil liberties for an individual sojourning and without being within jurisdiction of a foreign country as a subject of its immigration system .
> 
> The us can do whatever it wishes with a sojourner whom is not a legal migrant and steals a car , including extraditing the individual for prosecution and incarceration in their country of origin  grinding them into mulch .
> 
> If a us citizen were to kill a sojourner whom is not a legal migrant , then the us is diplomatically obligated to prosecute said perpetrator except upon request by the country from which the victim originated as it is responsible for reprising a violation of civil liberties , and not necessarily obligated to prosecute one of its citizens at all .
Click to expand...



The correct answer is: The sojourner will be arrested, tried, and incarcerated in Ohio because he is subject to our laws while in our country. This happens everyday.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Monk-Eye said:


> ** Wasting Time Until Some Won Gets Up And Does Some Thing A Bout It **
> 
> ** Subject To Contract Clause **
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified.  If not for the 14th Amendment, people could not bitch about so - called "_anchor babies_."  They would not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> As for " anchor babies " , there has not been a case heard upon which to render a judgment through stair decisis that a child be given citizenship when born of a migrant without a legal status as a subject in us immigration system .
> 
> The closest contest to any judgment on the " anchor babies " matter is United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia and it does not come near to establish precedence that children of illegal migrants be given citizenship as the court clearly considered that wong was a registered subject of the us immigration system and upon that clear understanding the court ceded to the claim for citizenship by birth .
> 
> Those individuals sojourning through the united states and not subjects within the jurisdiction of the us immigration system do not satisfy the " subject to us jurisdiction " clause within us 14th amendment , and consequently their children are not eligible for us state or federal citizenship .
> 
> Contractual term - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> ** State Auspices Beyond Ineptitude **
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th Amendment, being illegally ratified, was used to strip the states of their constitutional authority to determine who could and could not be in a state.  So, in 1875, *the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers to Congress over all things dealing with foreigners.*  It's funny.  I've read the Constitution so many times I know most of it verbatim and yet *I keep missing that section that gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to grant any powers to any other branch of government.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To begin a case requires a state legislature to authorize a state magistrate not to process state citizenship for any child born of an illegal migrant and therefore not initiate filing a petition for federal citizenship as well ; a state attorney general needs to be prepared to forward opposing litigation as necessary .
> 
> Perhaps figure out who or whom a state attorney general could charge with granting state citizenship to children born of illegal migrants may be a means to have a case heard before courts ,
> 
> With most admonition , us diplomacy should ensure that children born of illegal migrants receive the citizenship from the country of origin from which the mother originates , so as not to create a humanitarian issue of individuals without citizenship in some nation of origin , and so as to shore up an understanding that a state has an ability to deny citizenship of individuals and that includes not granting state citizenship to individuals from another state .
> 
> Individual citizens are entitled to sojourn between states under federal protections .
> 
> State legislature (United States) - Wikipedia
> _Every state except Nebraska has a bicameral legislature, meaning that the legislature consists of two separate legislative chambers or houses. In each case the smaller chamber is called the Senate and is usually referred to as the upper house.  ... Members of the smaller chamber represent more citizens and usually serve for longer terms than members of the larger chamber, generally four years. ... Members of the larger chamber usually serve for terms of two years. The larger chamber customarily has the exclusive power to initiate taxing legislation and articles of impeachment._
> 
> _Prior to the United States Supreme Court decisions Baker v. Carr (1962) and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), the basis of representation in most state legislatures was modeled on that of the U.S. Congress: the state senators represented geographical units, while members of the larger chamber represented population. In Reynolds v. Sims the Supreme Court decided upon the one man, one vote standard for state legislatures and invalidated representation based on geographical units regardless of population. (The ruling does not affect the U.S. Senate, because that chamber's makeup is prescribed by the U.S. Constitution.)_
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you just said.  If someone is born in the United States, they are given a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "_Social Security Number_" which is the de facto National ID Card.  They are issued a birth certificate.  They are a citizen.  

No matter what country a person hails from; no matter what their immigration status is, they are subject to the jurisdiction (which has nothing to do with "_subjects_" as if you could tell us the name of our alleged king.)  The only people the 14th Amendment cannot apply to is foreign diplomats and maybe military personnel.  

If you eliminate the 14th Amendment, you end the "_anchor baby_" argument, but states would then retain their rights... and liberalism is antithetical to the principle of states rights.


----------



## Vandalshandle

eagle1462010 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.  Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here.  1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.
> 
> So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............
> 
> I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL
> 
> That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it insane, if you like, but the citizens of California seem to like it, because if they did not, they would vote for somebody else, and they do have the right to elect their own state lawgivers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have the right to elect whomever they please............but they do not have the right to OBSTRUCT Federal Law Enforcement Agencies...........Which these laws do............Not only that........Employers under the laws passed by Reagan require them to be Legal to work here.  If they are illegal and it is known........those employers can be FINED under that law for doing so............
> 
> Ordering Employers to notify illegals with Detainer orders from ICE is a violation of Federal Law passed under Reagan...............and the employer under that law is subject to FINES for even hiring them.
> 
> Oh what a tangled web we weave when weave a web of deceit......
> 
> It is going to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with your interpretation of the definition of the word, "obstruction".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then we will disagree then.  Federal Laws are still laws of this land........and illegals are breaking the law.  So in fact, LEA's are releasing those who have committed a crime in this country.......and this country is SUPPORSED TO BE THE PEOPLE.
> 
> I do not agree with the montage being presented here that the Federal Gov't is it's own entity.  The Local Gov't is supposed to be a part of the Federal Gov't itself.........
> 
> Refusal to honor detainer orders is a CLEAR OBSTRUCTION of ICE and the Federal Gov't doing their jobs.
Click to expand...


Not to put too fine a point on it, but there is no case where anyone in local law enforcement has been convicted of "obstruction" for failure to detain someone suspected of commiting a federal crime., so I guess that the law of the land is interpreted the same way that I interpret it.Get back to me if they start convicting local officials for "obstruction".


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.  Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here.  1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.
> 
> So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............
> 
> I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL
> 
> That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Call it insane, if you like, but the citizens of California seem to like it, because if they did not, they would vote for somebody else, and they do have the right to elect their own state lawgivers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have the right to elect whomever they please............but they do not have the right to OBSTRUCT Federal Law Enforcement Agencies...........Which these laws do............Not only that........Employers under the laws passed by Reagan require them to be Legal to work here.  If they are illegal and it is known........those employers can be FINED under that law for doing so............
> 
> Ordering Employers to notify illegals with Detainer orders from ICE is a violation of Federal Law passed under Reagan...............and the employer under that law is subject to FINES for even hiring them.
> 
> Oh what a tangled web we weave when weave a web of deceit......
> 
> It is going to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with your interpretation of the definition of the word, "obstruction".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then we will disagree then.  Federal Laws are still laws of this land........and illegals are breaking the law.  So in fact, LEA's are releasing those who have committed a crime in this country.......and this country is SUPPORSED TO BE THE PEOPLE.
> 
> I do not agree with the montage being presented here that the Federal Gov't is it's own entity.  The Local Gov't is supposed to be a part of the Federal Gov't itself.........
> 
> Refusal to honor detainer orders is a CLEAR OBSTRUCTION of ICE and the Federal Gov't doing their jobs.
Click to expand...


The United States Supreme Court has already ruled on this.  I know.  I donated legal research time and money to the case that established the precedent.  

The feds cannot compel the states to enforce federal law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

MaryL said:


> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?


Of course, the ‘sanctuary city’ lie is yet another example the right’s desire to divide the American people with a hot-button non-issue, to deflect from actual problems that need to be addressed, and to deflect from the failed Trump immigration policy.


----------



## bluzman61

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the ‘sanctuary city’ lie is yet another example the right’s desire to divide the American people with a hot-button non-issue, to deflect from actual problems that need to be addressed, and to deflect from the failed Trump immigration policy.
Click to expand...

YAWN..............


----------



## Porter Rockwell

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, the ‘sanctuary city’ lie is yet another example the right’s desire to divide the American people with a hot-button non-issue, to deflect from actual problems that need to be addressed, and to deflect from the failed Trump immigration policy.
Click to expand...



What do you see being the problems that need to be addressed?  Trump's policy was never really Trump's.  Listen to this guy (and we wasn't the first either):


----------



## Monk-Eye

** Having Civil Liberties Issues Traveling Abroad Then See Your Local Consulate **

** Sought Sighted Direct Argument **


Unkotare said:


> The correct answer is: The sojourner will be arrested, tried, and incarcerated in Ohio because he is subject to our laws while in our country. This happens everyday.


The third clause of " subject to contractual terms " separates a general meaning for the term " subject " from a more formal meaning for the term " subject " as an agreement , for the clause " subject to the jurisdiction " .

Contractual term - Wikipedia
_3 . It is merely *an agreement to agree lacking the requisite intention to create legal relations,* and *the deal will only be binding unless and until the formalized contract has been drawn up.*_

Prior to committing a crime a sojourner remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction , as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with our without authorization .

A sojourner may become a subject of us jurisdiction through registration of title with its legal immigration systems ; or , a sojourner may become a legal subject of us jurisdiction through its criminal justice system ; yet , in either , the sojourner also remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with or without authorization .

The majority opinion of us v wka deduced that obeying us law was relevant for an entitlement to jus soli , and the minority opinion deduced that not being a subject to foreign jurisdiction was relevant to jus sangiunis ; and , both opinions disqualify children from us citizenship by a mother which is an illegal migrant without being a subject with registered title in the us legal immigration system .

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
_The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. *The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law;* on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.[2] *The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[8]—*that is, *not being claimed as a citizen by another country* via jus sanguinis_ *(inheriting citizenship from a parent)*—an interpretation which, in *the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[9]*


----------



## Unkotare

Wikipedia -


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Monk-Eye said:


> ** Having Civil Liberties Issues Traveling Abroad Then See Your Local Consulate **
> 
> ** Sought Sighted Direct Argument **
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> The correct answer is: The sojourner will be arrested, tried, and incarcerated in Ohio because he is subject to our laws while in our country. This happens everyday.
> 
> 
> 
> The third clause of " subject to contractual terms " separates a general meaning for the term " subject " from a more formal meaning for the term " subject " as an agreement , for the clause " subject to the jurisdiction " .
> 
> Contractual term - Wikipedia
> _3 . It is merely *an agreement to agree lacking the requisite intention to create legal relations,* and *the deal will only be binding unless and until the formalized contract has been drawn up.*_
> 
> Prior to committing a crime a sojourner remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction , as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with our without authorization .
> 
> A sojourner may become a subject of us jurisdiction through registration of title with its legal immigration systems ; or , a sojourner may become a legal subject of us jurisdiction through its criminal justice system ; yet , in either , the sojourner also remains a legal subject of foreign jurisdiction as a citizen traveling abroad , whether with or without authorization .
> 
> The majority opinion of us v wka deduced that obeying us law was relevant for an entitlement to jus soli , and the minority opinion deduced that not being a subject to foreign jurisdiction was relevant to jus sangiunis ; and , both opinions disqualify children from us citizenship by a mother which is an illegal migrant for being without being a subject with registered title in the us legal immigration system .
> 
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
> _The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. *The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law;* on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to children born of foreigners (a concept known as jus soli), with only a limited set of exceptions mostly based in English common law.[2] *The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power[8]—*that is, *not being claimed as a citizen by another country* via jus sanguinis_ *(inheriting citizenship from a parent)*—an interpretation which, in *the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[9]*
Click to expand...



Dyslexic maybe?  Most of us here realize that the law don't work that way at all.  Found your article.  You sly fox; you omitted this:

"_In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[10] *A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil"* and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[11] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[12][13] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted_..."

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

I could cite you a lot of cases that dismiss your beliefs, but it wouldn't change your mind.  So, we have to look at the facts.  And the facts are that we are now entering *THREE* generations (in some cases, maybe more) of undocumented foreigners having children that acquired a Socialist Surveillance Number ..ooops - "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  Some of those children grew up years ago and are on police forces, in the military, and working in some very important jobs... plus they have children of their own, born right here in the United States!!!!!  Let me translate this for you in plain English:

There would not be a snowball's chance in Hell the courts will change the law to your interpretation.  It would mean stripping *MILLIONS* of Americans of their citizenship and deporting them.  You saw the backlash at separating families of undocumented foreigners.  Certainly you're not so stupid that you don't  realize the clusterphuck that would ensue if we interpreted the Constitution consistent with your views. 

Your better course is to realize the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and have it nullified.  That stops the issue from that point, forward.  Be that as it may, all of us are adults and know that the law has never been applied as you suggest -  right or wrong, that's reality.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Propaganda Rookie Convenient Omissions "*

** Dyslexia With Mirrored Perception **


Porter Rockwell said:


> Dyslexic maybe?  Most of us here realize that the law don't work that way at all.  Found your article.  You sly fox; you omitted this:
> 
> "_In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[10] *A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil"* and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[11] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[12][13] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted_..."
> 
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia


Why were you then incapable of highlighting the remainder of the summary , " _ the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[11]  " ?_

** Histrionics In Theatrical Absurd **


Porter Rockwell said:


> I could cite you a lot of cases that dismiss your beliefs, but it wouldn't change your mind.  So, we have to look at the facts.  And the facts are that we are now entering *THREE* generations (in some cases, maybe more) of undocumented foreigners having children that acquired a Socialist Surveillance Number ..ooops - "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  Some of those children grew up years ago and are on police forces, in the military, and working in some very important jobs... plus they have children of their own, born right here in the United States!!!!!  Let me translate this for you in plain English:
> 
> There would not be a snowball's chance in Hell the courts will change the law to your interpretation.  *It would mean stripping MILLIONS of Americans of their citizenship and deporting them.*  You saw the backlash at separating families of undocumented foreigners.  Certainly you're not so stupid that you don't  realize the clusterphuck that would ensue if we interpreted the Constitution consistent with your views.
> 
> Your better course is to realize the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and have it nullified.  That stops the issue from that point, forward.  Be that as it may, all of us are adults and know that the law has never been applied as you suggest -  right or wrong, that's reality.


" It would mean stripping MILLIONS of Americans of their citizenship and deporting them. " is a mindless assertion , as those which have been granted citizenship are in fact registered subjects of a title , irrespective of whether bureaucratic institutions were at the time privy to process the registration for citizenship .


----------



## The Professor

MaryL said:


> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?





MaryL said:


> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?



You might be interested in what the federal laws say about the subject.. The following are excerpts from the applicable law

"Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).”

“Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- 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.

“Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.”

1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses

I will leave it to you to determine whether the law permits sanctuary cities. I have a doctorate in law and although I am not an expert on immigration law, my interpretation of the quoted Federal Statue makes it clear that those who create sanctuary cities could be, and should be, prosecuted.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Propaganda Rookie Convenient Omissions "*
> 
> ** Dyslexia With Mirrored Perception **
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dyslexic maybe?  Most of us here realize that the law don't work that way at all.  Found your article.  You sly fox; you omitted this:
> 
> "_In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[10] *A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil"* and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[11] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[12][13] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted_..."
> 
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Why were you then incapable of highlighting the remainder of the summary , " _ the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[11]  " ?_
> 
> ** Histrionics In Theatrical Absurd **
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could cite you a lot of cases that dismiss your beliefs, but it wouldn't change your mind.  So, we have to look at the facts.  And the facts are that we are now entering *THREE* generations (in some cases, maybe more) of undocumented foreigners having children that acquired a Socialist Surveillance Number ..ooops - "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  Some of those children grew up years ago and are on police forces, in the military, and working in some very important jobs... plus they have children of their own, born right here in the United States!!!!!  Let me translate this for you in plain English:
> 
> There would not be a snowball's chance in Hell the courts will change the law to your interpretation.  *It would mean stripping MILLIONS of Americans of their citizenship and deporting them.*  You saw the backlash at separating families of undocumented foreigners.  Certainly you're not so stupid that you don't  realize the clusterphuck that would ensue if we interpreted the Constitution consistent with your views.
> 
> Your better course is to realize the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and have it nullified.  That stops the issue from that point, forward.  Be that as it may, all of us are adults and know that the law has never been applied as you suggest -  right or wrong, that's reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> " It would mean stripping MILLIONS of Americans of their citizenship and deporting them. " is a mindless assertion , as those which have been granted citizenship are in fact registered subjects of a title , irrespective of whether bureaucratic institutions were at the time privy to process the registration for citizenship .
Click to expand...


** Dyslexia With Mirrored Perception **


Porter Rockwell said:


> Dyslexic maybe?  Most of us here realize that the law don't work that way at all.  Found your article.  You sly fox; you omitted this:
> 
> "_In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[10] *A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil"* and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[11] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[12][13] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted_..."
> 
> United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia


Why were you then incapable of highlighting the remainder of the summary , " _ the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[11]  " ?_

** Histrionics In Theatrical Absurd **


Porter Rockwell said:


> I could cite you a lot of cases that dismiss your beliefs, but it wouldn't change your mind.  So, we have to look at the facts.  And the facts are that we are now entering *THREE* generations (in some cases, maybe more) of undocumented foreigners having children that acquired a Socialist Surveillance Number ..ooops - "_Social Security Number_" and a birth certificate.  Some of those children grew up years ago and are on police forces, in the military, and working in some very important jobs... plus they have children of their own, born right here in the United States!!!!!  Let me translate this for you in plain English:
> 
> There would not be a snowball's chance in Hell the courts will change the law to your interpretation.  *It would mean stripping MILLIONS of Americans of their citizenship and deporting them.*  You saw the backlash at separating families of undocumented foreigners.  Certainly you're not so stupid that you don't  realize the clusterphuck that would ensue if we interpreted the Constitution consistent with your views.
> 
> Your better course is to realize the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and have it nullified.  That stops the issue from that point, forward.  Be that as it may, all of us are adults and know that the law has never been applied as you suggest -  right or wrong, that's reality.


" It would mean stripping MILLIONS of Americans of their citizenship and deporting them. " is a mindless assertion , as those which have been granted citizenship are in fact registered subjects of a title , irrespective of whether bureaucratic institutions were at the time privy to process the registration for citizenship .[/QUOTE]

What the Hell?  You're mad that I didn't highlight the rest of the summary???  I addressed it, didn't I?  So what is the difference??

If people were granted citizenship and such a grant were illegal, the government would then be compelled to rescind such grant.  Secondary to that, those who were born here and their parents were undocumented established a precedent that would be damn near impossible to reverse.  Even if it were possible, it would be decades in the courts and by that time, the undocumented, their families, and supporters would outnumber you and vote you into oblivion.

There are other issues out there you fail to consider.  There is that part of the 14th Amendment guaranteeing to all persons (as differentiated from citizens) the "_equal protection of the laws_."  So, your view is some people were illegally granted citizenship and get to stay while others in the same, exact predicament should be treated differently???  

Now, let us carry your logic a little further.  We deport all the undocumented foreigners who have American born children that you admit are American citizens.  There are two things that happen here:

First, the parent (s) leave and the children become wards of the state.  Start thinking *massive* welfare for these MILLIONS of what are now, essentially, orphans.  

The second option is that these deported adults take their children with them.  Well, in a few years, those people you *admitted* are American citizens start becoming of age and want to come to the United States.  How in the Hell are you going to deny them entry?  They are citizens.  And, now they will be entering the United States as citizens who have probably forgotten the language, have no family support system, have no job skills, no money, no education, no resources to draw from... what is your brilliant plan now???  What are you going to do with them?

I'm surprised the dullards at the Southern Poverty Law Center or some Latino organization has not filed a lawsuit claiming that deportation is a violation of the Eighth Amendment.  But, there is a reason that the undocumented are not being more vigorously defended.  It's a different thread, but food for thought as we examine the flaws in your rationale.


----------



## Vandalshandle

The Professor said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might be interested in what the federal laws say about the subject.. The following are excerpts from the applicable law
> 
> "Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).”
> 
> “Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- 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.
> 
> “Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.”
> 
> 1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses
> 
> I will leave it to you to determine whether the law permits sanctuary cities. I have a doctorate in law and although I am not an expert on immigration law, my interpretation of the quoted Federal Statue makes it clear that those who create sanctuary cities could be, and should be, prosecuted.
Click to expand...


Your interpretation is wrong.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

The Professor said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might be interested in what the federal laws say about the subject.. The following are excerpts from the applicable law
> 
> "Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).”
> 
> “Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- 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.
> 
> “Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.”
> 
> 1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses
> 
> I will leave it to you to determine whether the law permits sanctuary cities. I have a doctorate in law and although I am not an expert on immigration law, my interpretation of the quoted Federal Statue makes it clear that those who create sanctuary cities could be, and should be, prosecuted.
Click to expand...


I spent six years working *in* immigration law.  I've worked all sides of the law - the defense side, prosecution side, expert witness,etc.  One thing is obvious:  you are* NOT* an attorney.  Let's listen to Donald Trump's personal attorney as he refutes your position.  Listen carefully because you will find it impossible to put the predictable spin on this that you are trying:


Shall I cite what the United States Supreme Court ruled?  You also ignored the *FACT* that the United States Supreme Court ruled that the states cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Speculative Supposition Searching For Travails "*

** How To File A Binding Petition Able To Maintain Itself Through US Court System **


The Professor said:


> You might be interested in what the federal laws say about the subject.. The following are excerpts from the applicable law
> 
> "Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).”
> 
> “Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- 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.
> 
> “Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.”
> 
> 1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses
> 
> I will leave it to you to determine whether the law permits sanctuary cities. I have a doctorate in law and although I am not an expert on immigration law, my interpretation of the quoted Federal Statue makes it clear that those who create sanctuary cities could be, and should be, prosecuted.


Would it be possible through legal proceeding to convene a grand jury to prosecute or at least establish an injunction to proscribe the action of granting state citizenship to children of illegal migrants , where sufficient cause is available to provide citizenship from the country of origin via jus sangiunis ( inheriting citizenship from a parent ) ?

Would it be possible for a state district attorney to accept a task of enforcing that citizenship at the state level not be granted to children of illegal migrants ; and would the action block a petition of registration for citizenship at the federal level ?

A state district attorney could stipulate that magistrates implement the " subject to jurisdiction " clause and provide that citizenship be inherited from a parent for children of illegal migrants ; noting , it is necessary that individuals not be without a nation of origin .

Certainly , diplomatic constituents should be circumventing the motivation to compromise us immigration and social welfare systems and mitigate the constraints in manners similar with social security Totalization agreements - Wikipedia ( Social Security Totalization Agreements ) that also is to include an agreement that citizenship from the foreign jurisdiction be provided to children of its citizen migrants sojourning without legal standing of being a subject of us jurisdiction . 

There are fiscal realizations concomitant with subsuming sojourning citizens of foreign jurisdiction and countries of origin should be accountable to order as are those individuals allowed and committed to completing the us legal migration process .

There are clauses in visa programs that traveling to us with intent to have a child that is a us citizen is a violation of the visa ; and yet , conceivably , such a condition could be prosecuted , even as it continues to occur , even as citizens are compelled by absent reason of political pundits and legal magistrates to entreat even more egregious acts with the same purpose through the illegal immigration process .


----------



## Andylusion

Vandalshandle said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine who it could be.  Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it.  That seems like it is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?
Click to expand...


Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Andylusion said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine who it could be.  Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it.  That seems like it is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.
Click to expand...


Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.


----------



## Andylusion

Vandalshandle said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine who it could be.  Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it.  That seems like it is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.
Click to expand...


So let me see if I understand.

You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.

Makes perfect sense.  Glad you cleared that up for me.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Andylusion said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine who it could be.  Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it.  That seems like it is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me see if I understand.
> 
> You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.  Glad you cleared that up for me.
Click to expand...


I know jhow easily confused you get Andy, I suspect that you slept through 8th grade Civics class.  Maybe you can get a federal judge to explain why sanctuary cities are legal


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Andylusion said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine who it could be.  Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it.  That seems like it is impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me see if I understand.
> 
> You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.  Glad you cleared that up for me.
Click to expand...


You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:

1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
*
2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
*
3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:

The United States Supreme Court reasoned:

"_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.

Maybe this will explain it better:

Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy

Now you know


----------



## Andylusion

Porter Rockwell said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine who it could be.  Effectively what a "sanctuary city" is, is a location where people can violate law, and not be prosecuted for it.  That seems like it is impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me see if I understand.
> 
> You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.  Glad you cleared that up for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:
> 
> 1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
> *
> 2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
> *
> 3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court reasoned:
> 
> "_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.
> 
> Maybe this will explain it better:
> 
> Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy
> 
> Now you know
Click to expand...


What?  Now that is even more stupid.

That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.

Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?  

That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.

Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?

Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.

The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"

And Trump did this brilliantly.

Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.

And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".

Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Andylusion said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What color is the sky in your universe, Andy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me see if I understand.
> 
> You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.  Glad you cleared that up for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:
> 
> 1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
> *
> 2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
> *
> 3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court reasoned:
> 
> "_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.
> 
> Maybe this will explain it better:
> 
> Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy
> 
> Now you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Now that is even more stupid.
> 
> That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.
> 
> Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?
> 
> That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.
> 
> Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?
> 
> Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.
> 
> The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"
> 
> And Trump did this brilliantly.
> 
> Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.
> 
> And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".
> 
> Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.
Click to expand...


I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.


----------



## danielpalos

MaryL said:


> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?


It could if there were an actual social Power over the whole and entire concept of Immigration delegated to our federal Congress in our federal Constitution.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me see if I understand.
> 
> You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.  Glad you cleared that up for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:
> 
> 1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
> *
> 2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
> *
> 3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court reasoned:
> 
> "_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.
> 
> Maybe this will explain it better:
> 
> Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy
> 
> Now you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Now that is even more stupid.
> 
> That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.
> 
> Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?
> 
> That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.
> 
> Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?
> 
> Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.
> 
> The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"
> 
> And Trump did this brilliantly.
> 
> Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.
> 
> And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".
> 
> Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
Click to expand...

This year that question goes to SCOTUS.  And then we will find out.

The 9th Circus Court  has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision.  It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.

While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me see if I understand.
> 
> You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.  Glad you cleared that up for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:
> 
> 1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
> *
> 2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
> *
> 3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court reasoned:
> 
> "_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.
> 
> Maybe this will explain it better:
> 
> Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy
> 
> Now you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Now that is even more stupid.
> 
> That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.
> 
> Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?
> 
> That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.
> 
> Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?
> 
> Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.
> 
> The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"
> 
> And Trump did this brilliantly.
> 
> Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.
> 
> And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".
> 
> Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This year that question goes to SCOTUS.  And then we will find out.
> 
> The 9th Circus Court  has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision.  It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.
> 
> While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.
Click to expand...


And yet you have already been proven wrong.  You didn't read my post.  Read the dicta in the Printz case along with the holding.

Here is the bottom line truth:

The people who obsess over immigration, never taking a moment to consider both sides of the coin don't understand:

The question of whether or not states can be compelled to enforce federal law is settled.  The advantage for the average person is that if / when the federal government passes laws that the states believe are unconstitutional, the states currently ignore unconstitutional laws.  

The United States Supreme Court would like nothing better than to "_make new law_" and *reverse* the current rulings.  For those people in pro-pot states, it will mean that the government cannot shield them and what they were doing openly means that they will now be considered suspects and arrested on federal felonies. Changing the law means that when the federal government orders gun control, states will have to send the sheriffs out to enforce laws that state governments believe unconstitutional. 

The people with the obsession over foreigners are going to destroy the Republic and they are not smart enough to realize they are being played.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me see if I understand.
> 
> You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.  Glad you cleared that up for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:
> 
> 1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
> *
> 2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
> *
> 3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court reasoned:
> 
> "_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.
> 
> Maybe this will explain it better:
> 
> Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy
> 
> Now you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Now that is even more stupid.
> 
> That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.
> 
> Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?
> 
> That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.
> 
> Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?
> 
> Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.
> 
> The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"
> 
> And Trump did this brilliantly.
> 
> Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.
> 
> And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".
> 
> Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This year that question goes to SCOTUS.  And then we will find out.
> 
> The 9th Circus Court  has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision.  It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.
> 
> While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you have already been proven wrong.  You didn't read my post.  Read the dicta in the Printz case along with the holding.
> 
> Here is the bottom line truth:
> 
> The people who obsess over immigration, never taking a moment to consider both sides of the coin don't understand:
> 
> The question of whether or not states can be compelled to enforce federal law is settled.  The advantage for the average person is that if / when the federal government passes laws that the states believe are unconstitutional, the states will have to enforce the federal law.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court would like nothing better than to "_make new law_" and *reverse* the current rulings.  For those people in pro-pot states, it will mean that the government cannot shield them and what they were doing openly means that they will now be considered suspects and arrested on federal felonies. Changing the law means that when the federal government orders gun control, states will have to send the sheriffs out to enforce laws that state governments believe unconstitutional.
> 
> The people with the obsession over foreigners are going to destroy the Republic and they are not smart enough to realize they are being played.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS will confirm who is wrong now.  Not me......and Not you.

Unless you want to offer your services for the court case to California.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:
> 
> 1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
> *
> 2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
> *
> 3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court reasoned:
> 
> "_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.
> 
> Maybe this will explain it better:
> 
> Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy
> 
> Now you know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?  Now that is even more stupid.
> 
> That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.
> 
> Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?
> 
> That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.
> 
> Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?
> 
> Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.
> 
> The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"
> 
> And Trump did this brilliantly.
> 
> Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.
> 
> And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".
> 
> Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This year that question goes to SCOTUS.  And then we will find out.
> 
> The 9th Circus Court  has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision.  It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.
> 
> While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you have already been proven wrong.  You didn't read my post.  Read the dicta in the Printz case along with the holding.
> 
> Here is the bottom line truth:
> 
> The people who obsess over immigration, never taking a moment to consider both sides of the coin don't understand:
> 
> The question of whether or not states can be compelled to enforce federal law is settled.  The advantage for the average person is that if / when the federal government passes laws that the states believe are unconstitutional, the states will have to enforce the federal law.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court would like nothing better than to "_make new law_" and *reverse* the current rulings.  For those people in pro-pot states, it will mean that the government cannot shield them and what they were doing openly means that they will now be considered suspects and arrested on federal felonies. Changing the law means that when the federal government orders gun control, states will have to send the sheriffs out to enforce laws that state governments believe unconstitutional.
> 
> The people with the obsession over foreigners are going to destroy the Republic and they are not smart enough to realize they are being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SCOTUS will confirm who is wrong now.  Not me......and Not you.
> 
> Unless you want to offer your services for the court case to California.
Click to expand...


I will offer my legal research time pro bono to protect states rights if asked.


----------



## eagle1462010

Judge rules state's sanctuary state law unconstitutional

In his decision, the Superior Court judge said the law violates the rights of charter cities.

The ruling came after the city of Huntington Beach sued the state, arguing the law infringes on local governments’ authority. The judge agreed, saying cities must be allowed to police themselves.



Overturned by the 9th........

Will again be overturned by SCOTUS this year.


----------



## eagle1462010

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  Now that is even more stupid.
> 
> That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.
> 
> Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?
> 
> That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.
> 
> Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?
> 
> Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.
> 
> The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"
> 
> And Trump did this brilliantly.
> 
> Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.
> 
> And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".
> 
> Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This year that question goes to SCOTUS.  And then we will find out.
> 
> The 9th Circus Court  has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision.  It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.
> 
> While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you have already been proven wrong.  You didn't read my post.  Read the dicta in the Printz case along with the holding.
> 
> Here is the bottom line truth:
> 
> The people who obsess over immigration, never taking a moment to consider both sides of the coin don't understand:
> 
> The question of whether or not states can be compelled to enforce federal law is settled.  The advantage for the average person is that if / when the federal government passes laws that the states believe are unconstitutional, the states will have to enforce the federal law.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court would like nothing better than to "_make new law_" and *reverse* the current rulings.  For those people in pro-pot states, it will mean that the government cannot shield them and what they were doing openly means that they will now be considered suspects and arrested on federal felonies. Changing the law means that when the federal government orders gun control, states will have to send the sheriffs out to enforce laws that state governments believe unconstitutional.
> 
> The people with the obsession over foreigners are going to destroy the Republic and they are not smart enough to realize they are being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SCOTUS will confirm who is wrong now.  Not me......and Not you.
> 
> Unless you want to offer your services for the court case to California.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will offer my legal research time pro bono to protect states rights if asked.
Click to expand...

I suggest you call California and offer your services then..........

Because this is GOING TO THE SUPREME COURT.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Judge rules state's sanctuary state law unconstitutional
> 
> In his decision, the Superior Court judge said the law violates the rights of charter cities.
> 
> The ruling came after the city of Huntington Beach sued the state, arguing the law infringes on local governments’ authority. The judge agreed, saying cities must be allowed to police themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Overturned by the 9th........
> 
> Will again be overturned by SCOTUS this year.



What does the state constitution say with regard to the limits of state powers?

In Georgia, I made a big mistake as a kid.  When I first began studying law, I belonged to a group called GASP (Georgians Against Smoking Pollution.)  I helped draft a law that prohibited public smoking in many places.  The law was introduced and passed.

A couple of years later, the city of Atlanta passed an ordinance against so - called "_assault weapons_."  I worked with a group called Citizens for Safe Government. We challenged that law.  The city, in their briefs cited the law I helped to write banning smoking.  The city said that the people had entrusted public health and safety to the government.

The *ONLY* reason that city statute was over-turned is because state laws preempts county and city laws.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
> 
> 
> 
> This year that question goes to SCOTUS.  And then we will find out.
> 
> The 9th Circus Court  has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision.  It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.
> 
> While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet you have already been proven wrong.  You didn't read my post.  Read the dicta in the Printz case along with the holding.
> 
> Here is the bottom line truth:
> 
> The people who obsess over immigration, never taking a moment to consider both sides of the coin don't understand:
> 
> The question of whether or not states can be compelled to enforce federal law is settled.  The advantage for the average person is that if / when the federal government passes laws that the states believe are unconstitutional, the states will have to enforce the federal law.
> 
> The United States Supreme Court would like nothing better than to "_make new law_" and *reverse* the current rulings.  For those people in pro-pot states, it will mean that the government cannot shield them and what they were doing openly means that they will now be considered suspects and arrested on federal felonies. Changing the law means that when the federal government orders gun control, states will have to send the sheriffs out to enforce laws that state governments believe unconstitutional.
> 
> The people with the obsession over foreigners are going to destroy the Republic and they are not smart enough to realize they are being played.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> SCOTUS will confirm who is wrong now.  Not me......and Not you.
> 
> Unless you want to offer your services for the court case to California.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will offer my legal research time pro bono to protect states rights if asked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you call California and offer your services then..........
> 
> Because this is GOING TO THE SUPREME COURT.
Click to expand...


IF the people who obsess over immigration win, the result will be much worse than Nancy Pelosi's impeachment efforts.  Liberty will be dealt a severe blow.  If any of you live in California and want to call whoever is assigned to represent the government and offer my time and help, PM me.


----------



## Andylusion

Porter Rockwell said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blue, because it's where the people not warped into a mythical socialist utopia live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So let me see if I understand.
> 
> You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.  Glad you cleared that up for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:
> 
> 1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
> *
> 2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
> *
> 3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court reasoned:
> 
> "_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.
> 
> Maybe this will explain it better:
> 
> Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy
> 
> Now you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Now that is even more stupid.
> 
> That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.
> 
> Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?
> 
> That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.
> 
> Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?
> 
> Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.
> 
> The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"
> 
> And Trump did this brilliantly.
> 
> Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.
> 
> And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".
> 
> Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
Click to expand...


Just responding to the link you posted.
If you don't share the views of the link, than I direct my comments towards whoever does.

I would personally care a lot less, if the Federal government wasn't handing out tax money to people.

If we could end all entitlements, it would bother me less.

However, protection of the country is in fact a duty of the Federal Government, is it not?   I would think protecting the borders would fall under protecting the country, do you agree?

And we have laws about that, which sanctuary cities are directly undermining.... is that not true?

Something in this equation doesn't fit.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Andylusion said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me see if I understand.
> 
> You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.  Glad you cleared that up for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:
> 
> 1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
> *
> 2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
> *
> 3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court reasoned:
> 
> "_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.
> 
> Maybe this will explain it better:
> 
> Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy
> 
> Now you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Now that is even more stupid.
> 
> That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.
> 
> Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?
> 
> That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.
> 
> Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?
> 
> Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.
> 
> The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"
> 
> And Trump did this brilliantly.
> 
> Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.
> 
> And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".
> 
> Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just responding to the link you posted.
> If you don't share the views of the link, than I direct my comments towards whoever does.
> 
> I would personally care a lot less, if the Federal government wasn't handing out tax money to people.
> 
> If we could end all entitlements, it would bother me less.
> 
> However, protection of the country is in fact a duty of the Federal Government, is it not?   I would think protecting the borders would fall under protecting the country, do you agree?
> 
> And we have laws about that, which sanctuary cities are directly undermining.... is that not true?
> 
> Something in this equation doesn't fit.
Click to expand...


It is the federal government's job to enforce federal immigration laws.
Trump is president of the USA, and the administration of laws is his responsibility.
Trump is failing to deal with illegal immigration.
You should hold him accountable.
But, instead, Trumpets blame Trump's failure on people who have absolutely no responsibility to enforce federal laws.
You are right. Something in the equation does not fit.


----------



## MaryL

Well, thank you, everyone for your response here. All of you. I was a little dubious creating  this thread.
My major concern is: Sanctuary Cities where created WITHOUT the consent of the local populace or even informing us, let alone a mandate of the people.  And yet, most  people accept it. That's  shocking to me. It seems to contradict everything a Democracy is all about. And then there is this "Don't question ( Democrat liberal SJW) authority forced on you without your consent" thing. They are setting precedent we all might regret inevitably. Because  it reeks of    dictatorships or fascism.  We should ALL be concerned about this issue.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Andylusion said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me see if I understand.
> 
> You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.  Glad you cleared that up for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:
> 
> 1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
> *
> 2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
> *
> 3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court reasoned:
> 
> "_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.
> 
> Maybe this will explain it better:
> 
> Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy
> 
> Now you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Now that is even more stupid.
> 
> That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.
> 
> Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?
> 
> That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.
> 
> Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?
> 
> Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.
> 
> The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"
> 
> And Trump did this brilliantly.
> 
> Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.
> 
> And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".
> 
> Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just responding to the link you posted.
> If you don't share the views of the link, than I direct my comments towards whoever does.
> 
> I would personally care a lot less, if the Federal government wasn't handing out tax money to people.
> 
> If we could end all entitlements, it would bother me less.
> 
> However, protection of the country is in fact a duty of the Federal Government, is it not?   I would think protecting the borders would fall under protecting the country, do you agree?
> 
> And we have laws about that, which sanctuary cities are directly undermining.... is that not true?
> 
> Something in this equation doesn't fit.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's as simple as you want it to be.  Does the federal government have a duty to protect the border?  The answer is yes.

Does the federal government have the duty to impose on a governor to police the border when that governor says he does not need the feds there?  Well, have you ever heard of states rights?  

The really BIG deal to all of this is that there is *nothing* in the Constitution giving the federal government the *authority *to tell the states who they can and cannot allow into their respective states.  So, how did the feds get involved in dictating to the states who they can and cannot allow?

In 1875 the United States Supreme Court bestowed upon Congress "_plenary powers_" over everything to do with foreigners. The problem there is that there is *nothing* in the United States Constitution that gives the United States Supreme Court the *authority* to bestow upon any other branch of government any power of any kind.  

Now, the issue gets even more complicated.  The immigration laws that the people who obsess over border control want enforced were laws forced through Congress by Democrats with the intent of diluting the white vote.  Congress wanted to turn America over to non-whites.

We aren't quite done.  There are still two more pieces to this puzzle.  

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson states:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator* with certain *unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, *Liberty *and the pursuit of Happiness_."

Notice that a Creator (a God, whomever we deem that to be) gave ALL men Liberty.  The United States Supreme Court has ruled that *unalienable* Rights are above the Constitution.  Those Rights existed before the government was formed.  As such, the earliest courts ruled that *unalienable* Rights are inherent, natural, irrevocable, and absolute.  Jefferson could not mean that those Rights were specific to citizens as no such creature existed at that juncture.  So there is another piece to this puzzle.  Let's discuss the last piece of the puzzle:

America is a free market economy.  So, if you try to put a limit on a foreigner's Right to partake of the free market economy, then you limit HIS Rights.  The courts than use that precedent to attack *YOUR* Rights.  It seems that there is that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the "_equal protection of the laws._"

So, it boils down to how much government you are willing to tolerate in your life in order to get rid of people you call _"illegal aliens_."  So far those who obsess over immigration have passed the so - called "_Patriot Act_,"  the National ID / REAL ID Act; they've created the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, spent *trillions of tax dollars* (which is far more than they claimed they were going to save us) and attacked a lot of our fundamental Rights (like the Freedom of Association, equal protection of the laws, the Right to Privacy, and we now have selective prosecution and profiling.)  

The *REAL* answer to the puzzle is to remember what Trump promised.  He said he was going to Make America Great Again.  So, what we do is go back to when America was "_great_" and begin repealing laws related to immigration until we have Liberty and everybody is making their own choices.  The more laws we've passed, the more of a spider's web we've created for ourselves.


----------



## MaryL

I am a dreamer. Like John Lennon. American immigration laws apply to everyone. They don't discriminate against  any group or nation. I dream one day Democrats will wake up and realize that. I dream western American Democrats  will stop shilling for  international globalists.  That's my dream, as a dreamer.


----------



## Vandalshandle

MaryL said:


> I am a dreamer. Like John Lennon. American immigration laws apply to everyone. They don't discriminate against  any group or nation. I dream one day Democrats will wake up and realize that. I dream western American Democrats  will stop shilling for  international globalists.  That's my dream, as a dreamer.



Interesting post, in view of the fact that one of the first things that Trump did was to ban immigration from several Muslim nations.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Well, thank you, everyone for your response here. All of you. I was a little dubious creating  this thread.
> My major concern is: Sanctuary Cities where created WITHOUT the consent of the local populace or even informing us, let alone a mandate of the people.  And yet, most  people accept it. That's  shocking to me. It seems to contradict everything a Democracy is all about. And then there is this "Don't question ( Democrat liberal SJW) authority forced on you without your consent" thing. They are setting precedent we all might regret inevitably. Because  it reeks of    dictatorships or fascism.  We should ALL be concerned about this issue.



I wish I had a good response.  In the Constitution we are guaranteed a "_Republican Form of Government_."  Democracy has resulted in unconstitutional taxes, and the government telling us who we can and cannot hire, fire, do business with and associate with.  

If there is something your local or state government failed to inform you of, you might want to take it up at the state level.  

The "_dictatorship"_ I see is the one wherein whites are so brainwashed that they support laws that were purposely designed to make them a minority.  The "_dictatorship_" I see is the one wherein we conflate immigration with citizenship, hindering the free market economy and keeping guest worker visa levels at half century old levels while naturalizing nearly a million new citizens each year - citizens that have shown will be anti-Constitution and anti - white.  I look at it in bewilderment and wonder if the posterity of the founders have lost their damn mind.

Unless the American people wake up in this generation, demographics will decide and those obsessing over immigration will be the minority... and then payback will be bad to the bone.  The non-whites will nail the right's ass to the wall.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> I am a dreamer. Like John Lennon. American immigration laws apply to everyone. They don't discriminate against  any group or nation. I dream one day Democrats will wake up and realize that. I dream western American Democrats  will stop shilling for  international globalists.  That's my dream, as a dreamer.



You are quite mistaken.  White people are only 1 in 13 of the world's population.  Different rules apply to different countries (asylum would be an example.)  

Secondly, the word immigrant, according to Black's Law Dictionary means:

"_This term describes a person who enters a country for *permanent residence *from another country_."

Temporary workers, guests, and people simply partaking of the free market economy do not fit that description and should not be referred to as such.  *NOTHING* will be gained by forcing those people to become citizens.  Force them to become citizens and they will end up hating you and outvoting you eventually.  

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about crematoriums along the border?  I've heard the ideas of land mines and so forth as a solution, but Americans could step on a land mine.  I'll be surprised if someone hasn't already run the idea of crematoriums by Congress.


----------



## MaryL

Vandalshandle said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a dreamer. Like John Lennon. American immigration laws apply to everyone. They don't discriminate against  any group or nation. I dream one day Democrats will wake up and realize that. I dream western American Democrats  will stop shilling for  international globalists.  That's my dream, as a dreamer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting post, in view of the fact that one of the first things that Trump did was to ban immigration from several Muslim nations.
Click to expand...

Off topic. Trump isn't the issue here.  The legality and constitutionally of sanctuary cities. But good question.


----------



## Circe

MaryL said:


> Off topic. Trump isn't the issue here.  The legality and constitutionally of sanctuary cities. But good question.



I think legality doesn't matter. What matters is whether they can get away with it. This is basically the opening move of a potential civil war, because of course it is denying the authority of the government (whether state or federal) and that is the definition of a rebellion. Note that the gun rights supporters in Virginia immediately used this same tactic because that is what they want, not to accept the authority of a government determined to confiscate their guns.

In such a case, law is not important: power is. Secession was obviously against the law, but the Southern States one by one and very quickly seceded from the Union as soon as Lincoln was elected. And they explicitly hoped to get away with it --- they did not bring war to the Union, they just wanted to be left alone. That isn't what happened, but that's the principle: people do what they hope will solve their problem and hope to get away with it.

There have been several such attempts in American history. The Mormon polygamy spreading all over the West was another -- Brigham Young wanted to rule the Republic of Utah and indeed declared it. That didn't work either. Polygamy kept on being practiced for 40 years, until increasing penalties and actions by the government did put a stop to it formally in 1890, though it was practiced on the quiet (and continues that way) for years more.

It's all about what people can get away with, and for how long. If the law can't be enforced, it won't be.

Take treason: it has never been used since Jane Fonda travelled to North Vietnam and sided with the enemy. That was plainly treasonous under any definition of the law, but the government nearly lost all educated young people and maybe the country over that stupid war and were afraid to move against her. But since they didn't move against an obvious case, it inactivated the law. She got away with it and had a fairly normal Hollywood career.


----------



## danielpalos

eagle1462010 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let me see if I understand.
> 
> You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.  Glad you cleared that up for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:
> 
> 1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
> *
> 2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
> *
> 3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court reasoned:
> 
> "_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.
> 
> Maybe this will explain it better:
> 
> Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy
> 
> Now you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Now that is even more stupid.
> 
> That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.
> 
> Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?
> 
> That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.
> 
> Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?
> 
> Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.
> 
> The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"
> 
> And Trump did this brilliantly.
> 
> Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.
> 
> And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".
> 
> Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This year that question goes to SCOTUS.  And then we will find out.
> 
> The 9th Circus Court  has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision.  It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.
> 
> While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.
Click to expand...

The several States have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state since 1808.  Entry into the Union is an Obligation of the general government since then.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me see if I understand.
> 
> You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.  Glad you cleared that up for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:
> 
> 1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
> *
> 2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
> *
> 3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court reasoned:
> 
> "_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.
> 
> Maybe this will explain it better:
> 
> Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy
> 
> Now you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Now that is even more stupid.
> 
> That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.
> 
> Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?
> 
> That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.
> 
> Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?
> 
> Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.
> 
> The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"
> 
> And Trump did this brilliantly.
> 
> Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.
> 
> And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".
> 
> Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This year that question goes to SCOTUS.  And then we will find out.
> 
> The 9th Circus Court  has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision.  It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.
> 
> While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The several States have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state since 1808.  Entry into the Union is an Obligation of the general government since then.
Click to expand...


Since 1808 the Constitution only covers the prohibition of the importation of slaves.  Until 1875 the states had control of who came and went within a state.  The federal government only controls naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  

If the only way a foreigner can be here is via citizenship, it's only a matter of time before they become the majority and vote the posterity of the founders into oblivion.


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:
> 
> 1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
> *
> 2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
> *
> 3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court reasoned:
> 
> "_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.
> 
> Maybe this will explain it better:
> 
> Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy
> 
> Now you know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?  Now that is even more stupid.
> 
> That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.
> 
> Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?
> 
> That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.
> 
> Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?
> 
> Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.
> 
> The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"
> 
> And Trump did this brilliantly.
> 
> Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.
> 
> And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".
> 
> Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This year that question goes to SCOTUS.  And then we will find out.
> 
> The 9th Circus Court  has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision.  It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.
> 
> While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The several States have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state since 1808.  Entry into the Union is an Obligation of the general government since then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since 1808 the Constitution only covers the prohibition of the importation of slaves.  Until 1875 the states had control of who came and went within a state.  The federal government only controls naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.
> 
> If the only way a foreigner can be here is via citizenship, it's only a matter of time before they become the majority and vote the posterity of the founders into oblivion.
Click to expand...

Legacy laws that should have been challenged at every opportunity.  The several States were organized differently under the Articles of Confederation and had that sovereignty over their State borders, then.

Entry into the Union is a federal Obligation since 1808 and the several States _of the Union_ no longer had any basis to care if someone was from out of State or from out of state since freedom of travel is a natural right and a civil right implied in State Constitutions under the United States.


----------



## MaryL

I have walked down the same hallowed  halls Molly Brown trod. I don't think the same assholes that want open borders,  they don't give a flying shit. We have roots and we care.


----------



## MaryL

I have to wonder. 2020 and still. Liberals want to impeach Trump, but never ask HOW did sanctuary cities happen?  It violates every precept of the  constitution I know. Homelessness is constitutional...but the 8th amendment. But allowing camping in the streets is humane?


----------



## Vandalshandle

MaryL said:


> I have to wonder. 2020 and still. Liberals want to impeach Trump, but never ask HOW did sanctuary cities happen?  It violates every precept of the  constitution I know. Homelessness is constitutional...but the 8th amendment. But allowing camping in the streets is humane?


Oh, god, here you go again....


----------



## MaryL

Vandalshandle said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to wonder. 2020 and still. Liberals want to impeach Trump, but never ask HOW did sanctuary cities happen?  It violates every precept of the  constitution I know. Homelessness is constitutional...but the 8th amendment. But allowing camping in the streets is humane?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, god, here I  go again...you imply that's a bad thing.
Click to expand...


----------



## MaryL

What statutory laws did Trump break? What LAWS exactly  did Trump violate exactly/?  Unlike say, the liberals, that violate federal laws and do without our consent ...um, sanctuary cities, WE  didn't want it  nor did WE ask for it.So, like I asked before, what is the legitimacy and the constitutional basis  of sanctuary cities?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> I have to wonder. 2020 and still. Liberals want to impeach Trump, but never ask HOW did sanctuary cities happen?  It violates every precept of the  constitution I know. Homelessness is constitutional...but the 8th amendment. But allowing camping in the streets is humane?



If anyone is scratching their heads, asking how sanctuary cities happened, they don't have a very high IQ.  

*FACT*:* the right* made sanctuary cities legal AND they damn well should be proud.  It's going to save their ass when state and local cops refuse to enforce Red Flag Laws, gun confiscations, bans, high capacity magazine bans, etc.


----------



## protectionist

MaryL said:


> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?


Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.


----------



## MaryL

protectionist said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.
Click to expand...

Well, since our so called Democrat councilpersons and local government seems  to be  above the laws they hold Trump to, when Pelosi turns in those impeachment  articles to the Senate, I am going to snicker a little.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

MaryL said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, since our so called Democrat councilpersons and local government seems  to be  above the laws they hold Trump to, when Pelosi turns in those impeachment  articles to the Senate, I am going to snicker a little.
Click to expand...

_‘Are "Sanctuary cities" constitutional?’_

Yes.

Again, the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from compelling states and local jurisdictions to enforce Federal laws – including immigration laws.

State and local law enforcement cooperate with Federal authorities when requested to do so, but local law enforcement is at liberty to not enforce Federal immigration laws or unilaterally detain those suspected of violating immigration law.


----------



## MaryL

Funny about this...it's early January 2020. Pelosi hasn't yet  YET handed over the articles of impeachment. These same people that created sanctuary cities without our consent,  giving aid and assisting foreign nationals skirting federal laws everyone else had to follow....And so on and so forth,,,,What statutory law did Trump violate that democrats willing violated and called it social justice or whatever  and the have it overturned because it suits them?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.
Click to expand...


*No, sanctuary cities are NOT violations of 8 USC 1324*.  Had the pro-gun sheriffs not taken the issue to court and won in the United States Supreme Court (see Printz v. US) there would be no sanctuary cities.  That being the case, gun groups could not rely on pro-gun sanctuary cities to help shield them from federal gun control measures designed to circumvent the Constitution.


----------



## protectionist

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, since our so called Democrat councilpersons and local government seems  to be  above the laws they hold Trump to, when Pelosi turns in those impeachment  articles to the Senate, I am going to snicker a little.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _‘Are "Sanctuary cities" constitutional?’_
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Again, the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from compelling states and local jurisdictions to enforce Federal laws – including immigration laws.
> 
> State and local law enforcement cooperate with Federal authorities when requested to do so, but local law enforcement is at liberty to not enforce Federal immigration laws or unilaterally detain those suspected of violating immigration law.
Click to expand...

Whether they cooperate with ICE or not, by providing any sanctuary in any way, they are in violation of US Code 8, Section 1324. 

Barr should be arresting all of these sanctuary granting traitors.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, sanctuary cities are NOT violations of 8 USC 1324*.  Had the pro-gun sheriffs not taken the issue to court and won in the United States Supreme Court (see Printz v. US) there would be no sanctuary cities.  That being the case, gun groups could not rely on pro-gun sanctuary cities to help shield them from federal gun control measures designed to circumvent the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about.  US Code 8, Section 1324 is about shielding illegal aliens.  Has nothing to do with guns.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, sanctuary cities are NOT violations of 8 USC 1324*.  Had the pro-gun sheriffs not taken the issue to court and won in the United States Supreme Court (see Printz v. US) there would be no sanctuary cities.  That being the case, gun groups could not rely on pro-gun sanctuary cities to help shield them from federal gun control measures designed to circumvent the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  US Code 8, Section 1324 is about shielding illegal aliens.  Has nothing to do with guns.
Click to expand...


You, sir don't know what in the HELL you're talking about.  I will give you a free mini civics lesson here:

The United States Supreme Court interprets the law.  *WHEN* they do so, they create what are known as *precedents*.  These precedents establish principles of law that must be followed in all states, by *ALL* courts. 

In 1997 the United States Supreme Court lumped a lot of pending lawsuits against the _Brady Bill _brought by Sheriffs across the country telling the federal government that state and local law enforcement *could not be forced *to enforce federal laws.  The United States Supreme Court agreed.  The high Court reasoned:

" _Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.   The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory"

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly_..."

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged in the courts.... well let me give you some more info:

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Hear Sanctuary Cities Case

Oooops... What is that?  The Printz case is being cited as the reason Trump loses. 

IF Trump could prevail, then no state or local law enforcement agencies could refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws as they are today.

As for you citing Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the United States Supreme Court ruled on that one too.  Let me give you *THEIR WORDS*:

"_By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, *it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States*_."  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

It's going to be interesting to see how your side tap dances around rulings by the United States Supreme Court.  The people you're listening to have been making the same arguments for over a decade and a half and have been consistently losing their proverbial posteriors.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, sanctuary cities are NOT violations of 8 USC 1324*.  Had the pro-gun sheriffs not taken the issue to court and won in the United States Supreme Court (see Printz v. US) there would be no sanctuary cities.  That being the case, gun groups could not rely on pro-gun sanctuary cities to help shield them from federal gun control measures designed to circumvent the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  US Code 8, Section 1324 is about shielding illegal aliens.  Has nothing to do with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, sir don't know what in the HELL you're talking about.  I will give you a free mini civics lesson here:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court interprets the law.  *WHEN* they do so, they create what are known as *precedents*.  These precedents establish principles of law that must be followed in all states, by *ALL* courts.
> 
> In 1997 the United States Supreme Court lumped a lot of pending lawsuits against the _Brady Bill _brought by Sheriffs across the country telling the federal government that state and local law enforcement *could not be forced *to enforce federal laws.  The United States Supreme Court agreed.  The high Court reasoned:
> 
> " _Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.   The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory"
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly_..."
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged in the courts.... well let me give you some more info:
> 
> Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Hear Sanctuary Cities Case
> 
> Oooops... What is that?  The Printz case is being cited as the reason Trump loses.
> 
> IF Trump could prevail, then no state or local law enforcement agencies could refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws as they are today.
> 
> As for you citing Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the United States Supreme Court ruled on that one too.  Let me give you *THEIR WORDS*:
> 
> "_By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, *it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States*_."  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
> 
> It's going to be interesting to see how your side tap dances around rulings by the United States Supreme Court.  The people you're listening to have been making the same arguments for over a decade and a half and have been consistently losing their proverbial posteriors.
Click to expand...

I would answer this brain post with a reply of "Nice Try", but it doesn't even rate that, Mr DODGE.

Typical liberal tactic.  When defeated in debate, you change the subject, deflecting away from the initial subject.

US Code 8 Section 1324 pertains to the acts of harboring and/or shielding illegal aliens, not whether it is criminal for them to be here.  Try reading the statute.  If you are shielding these Invaders, you are a felon, and you better revise your activities.  In worst case, you could get the death penalty.  So says the statute.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No, sanctuary cities are NOT violations of 8 USC 1324*.  Had the pro-gun sheriffs not taken the issue to court and won in the United States Supreme Court (see Printz v. US) there would be no sanctuary cities.  That being the case, gun groups could not rely on pro-gun sanctuary cities to help shield them from federal gun control measures designed to circumvent the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  US Code 8, Section 1324 is about shielding illegal aliens.  Has nothing to do with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, sir don't know what in the HELL you're talking about.  I will give you a free mini civics lesson here:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court interprets the law.  *WHEN* they do so, they create what are known as *precedents*.  These precedents establish principles of law that must be followed in all states, by *ALL* courts.
> 
> In 1997 the United States Supreme Court lumped a lot of pending lawsuits against the _Brady Bill _brought by Sheriffs across the country telling the federal government that state and local law enforcement *could not be forced *to enforce federal laws.  The United States Supreme Court agreed.  The high Court reasoned:
> 
> " _Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.   The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory"
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly_..."
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged in the courts.... well let me give you some more info:
> 
> Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Hear Sanctuary Cities Case
> 
> Oooops... What is that?  The Printz case is being cited as the reason Trump loses.
> 
> IF Trump could prevail, then no state or local law enforcement agencies could refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws as they are today.
> 
> As for you citing Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the United States Supreme Court ruled on that one too.  Let me give you *THEIR WORDS*:
> 
> "_By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, *it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States*_."  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
> 
> It's going to be interesting to see how your side tap dances around rulings by the United States Supreme Court.  The people you're listening to have been making the same arguments for over a decade and a half and have been consistently losing their proverbial posteriors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would answer this brain post with a reply of "Nice Try", but it doesn't even rate that, Mr DODGE.
> 
> Typical liberal tactic.  When defeated in debate, you change the subject, deflecting away from the initial subject.
> 
> US Code 8 Section 1324 pertains to the acts of harboring and/or shielding illegal aliens, not whether it is criminal for them to be here.  Try reading the statute.  If you are shielding these Invaders, you are a felon, and you better revise your activities.  In worst case, you could get the death penalty.  So says the statute.
Click to expand...


You tried to misrepresent the statute.  I only clarified what the actual law says.

If you knew a damn thing about the Constitution, you would realize that Congress, outside of naturalization, *doesn't have any constitutional authority *in the matter.  It is clearly a state's rights issue.  But, the United States Supreme Court granted_ plenary powers_ to Congress.

Funny thing:  the United States Constitution NEVER mentions giving the United States Supreme Court ANY *authority *to grant Congress any kind of powers - plenary or otherwise..  So, you fail completely in constitutional law.

You have proven to be plain stupid.  It's no longer ignorance.  You are highly dishonest and now you're trying to deflect because YOU misrepresented a statute in hopes of proving a point that was refuted with United States Supreme Court rulings.  Only a fake, phony and a poseur would resort to that level of deflection, but calling me a liberal or saying what I do is a"l_iberal tactic_"...????????"

This level of stupidity cannot go unchallenged.  The people who bought into Bill Clinton's immigration talking points and then resorting to calling me a liberal can only be found spewing swill on discussion boards under assumed names because they lack the knowledge, intestinal fortitude, and the ethical standards to say that in public.

*NO LIBERAL HAS EVER EMPLOYED MY TACTICS AT ANY TIME, ANYWHERE, AT ANY PLACE..ON ANY ISSUE... PERIOD.  *Those posters who post this criticism of me are probably double agents for the left. and cannot make their case without stooping to this damn outrageous lie.  They lie to cover up the fact that after more than a decade and half they have had their butts kicked every time they've brought this idiocy before the courts.

Just for the record, I  gave Sheriff Mack a place and an audience to solicit support for gun owners to be able to reject the federal government's efforts to force state and local officials into participating in gun control.  I donated money AND legal research time into the effort.  NO LIBERAL HAS SUNK TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO FIGHTING GUN CONTROL OR THE EXPANSION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.)

protectionist does not get to interpret the law to his liking.  The states and local governments are not _"shielding"_ anyone as per the court's rulings.  I didn't write the laws; had no part in interpreting them and I'll be damned if I allow protectionist the luxury of lying his way out of this in a vain effort to promote hate and bigotry.

If you are concerned with the influx of foreigners into the United States, I feel your pain.  At the same time, I do not play the pretend _"illegal" _versus legal  immigrant B.S. when the rest of the Bill of Rights is at stake.  Additionally, protectionist pretends he gives a rat's rear about the legality (sic) of immigrants.  He knows full well that "_legal immigrants_" and their immediate offspring  comprise *13 percent of all federal legislators* and of the *68* immigrants and their immediate offspring in Congress, *57* of them are DEMOCRATS.  protectionist is only stroking the egos of ignorant white supremacists with less than a high school education to the benefit of the left wing, liberal Democrats.  That is a wolf in sheep's clothing.  The ONLY people who have benefited off the _"illegal immigration_" fight has been the left during the 15 + years I've been arguing it on discussion boards.  protectionist helps them along.  Otherwise, he would realize that adding nearly a* million* new citizens per year, who are *11 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE DEMOCRATS than REPUBLICANS *renders his criticisms moot.  So much for his _"legal immigration_" theory unless he's working for Nancy Pelosi.  Rant over.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No, sanctuary cities are NOT violations of 8 USC 1324*.  Had the pro-gun sheriffs not taken the issue to court and won in the United States Supreme Court (see Printz v. US) there would be no sanctuary cities.  That being the case, gun groups could not rely on pro-gun sanctuary cities to help shield them from federal gun control measures designed to circumvent the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  US Code 8, Section 1324 is about shielding illegal aliens.  Has nothing to do with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, sir don't know what in the HELL you're talking about.  I will give you a free mini civics lesson here:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court interprets the law.  *WHEN* they do so, they create what are known as *precedents*.  These precedents establish principles of law that must be followed in all states, by *ALL* courts.
> 
> In 1997 the United States Supreme Court lumped a lot of pending lawsuits against the _Brady Bill _brought by Sheriffs across the country telling the federal government that state and local law enforcement *could not be forced *to enforce federal laws.  The United States Supreme Court agreed.  The high Court reasoned:
> 
> " _Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.   The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory"
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly_..."
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged in the courts.... well let me give you some more info:
> 
> Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Hear Sanctuary Cities Case
> 
> Oooops... What is that?  The Printz case is being cited as the reason Trump loses.
> 
> IF Trump could prevail, then no state or local law enforcement agencies could refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws as they are today.
> 
> As for you citing Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the United States Supreme Court ruled on that one too.  Let me give you *THEIR WORDS*:
> 
> "_By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, *it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States*_."  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
> 
> It's going to be interesting to see how your side tap dances around rulings by the United States Supreme Court.  The people you're listening to have been making the same arguments for over a decade and a half and have been consistently losing their proverbial posteriors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would answer this brain post with a reply of "Nice Try", but it doesn't even rate that, Mr DODGE.
> 
> Typical liberal tactic.  When defeated in debate, you change the subject, deflecting away from the initial subject.
> 
> US Code 8 Section 1324 pertains to the acts of harboring and/or shielding illegal aliens, not whether it is criminal for them to be here.  Try reading the statute.  If you are shielding these Invaders, you are a felon, and you better revise your activities.  In worst case, you could get the death penalty.  So says the statute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You tried to misrepresent the statute.  I only clarified what the actual law says.
> 
> If you knew a damn thing about the Constitution, you would realize that Congress, outside of naturalization, *doesn't have any constitutional authority *in the matter.  It is clearly a state's rights issue.  But, the United States Supreme Court granted_ plenary powers_ to Congress.
> 
> Funny thing:  the United States Constitution NEVER mentions giving the United States Supreme Court ANY *authority *to grant Congress any kind of powers - plenary or otherwise..  So, you fail completely in constitutional law.
> 
> You have proven to be plain stupid.  It's no longer ignorance.  You are highly dishonest and now you're trying to deflect because YOU misrepresented a statute in hopes of proving a point that was refuted with United States Supreme Court rulings.  Only a fake, phony and a poseur would resort to that level of deflection, but calling me a liberal or saying what I do is a"l_iberal tactic_"...????????"
> 
> This level of stupidity cannot go unchallenged.  The people who bought into Bill Clinton's immigration talking points and then resorting to calling me a liberal can only be found spewing swill on discussion boards under assumed names because they lack the knowledge, intestinal fortitude, and the ethical standards to say that in public.
> 
> *NO LIBERAL HAS EVER EMPLOYED MY TACTICS AT ANY TIME, ANYWHERE, AT ANY PLACE..ON ANY ISSUE... PERIOD.  *Those posters who post this criticism of me are probably double agents for the left. and cannot make their case without stooping to this damn outrageous lie.  They lie to cover up the fact that after more than a decade and half they have had their butts kicked every time they've brought this idiocy before the courts.
> 
> Just for the record, I  gave Sheriff Mack a place and an audience to solicit support for gun owners to be able to reject the federal government's efforts to force state and local officials into participating in gun control.  I donated money AND legal research time into the effort.  NO LIBERAL HAS SUNK TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO FIGHTING GUN CONTROL OR THE EXPANSION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.)
> 
> protectionist does not get to interpret the law to his liking.  The states and local governments are not _"shielding"_ anyone as per the court's rulings.  I didn't write the laws; had no part in interpreting them and I'll be damned if I allow protectionist the luxury of lying his way out of this in a vain effort to promote hate and bigotry.
> 
> If you are concerned with the influx of foreigners into the United States, I feel your pain.  At the same time, I do not play the pretend _"illegal" _versus legal  immigrant B.S. when the rest of the Bill of Rights is at stake.  Additionally, protectionist pretends he gives a rat's rear about the legality (sic) of immigrants.  He knows full well that "_legal immigrants_" and their immediate offspring  comprise *13 percent of all federal legislators* and of the *68* immigrants and their immediate offspring in Congress, *57* of them are DEMOCRATS.  protectionist is only stroking the egos of ignorant white supremacists with less than a high school education to the benefit of the left wing, liberal Democrats.  That is a wolf in sheep's clothing.  The ONLY people who have benefited off the _"illegal immigration_" fight has been the left during the 15 + years I've been arguing it on discussion boards.  protectionist helps them along.  Otherwise, he would realize that adding nearly a* million* new citizens per year, who are *11 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE DEMOCRATS than REPUBLICANS *renders his criticisms moot.  So much for his _"legal immigration_" theory unless he's working for Nancy Pelosi.  Rant over.
Click to expand...

You talk a lot.  Your problem is you don't say much of anything other than a confused pile of babbling. Your post is so dumb, it makes me feel silly to be responding to it .

Of course the governments who enact sanctuary laws are shielding illegal aliens.  That's exactly what those laws do.

As for "hate", yes I hate the violation and disrespecting of our laws (and us) by illegal alien Invaders . I hate the US traitors who criminally harbor and shield them too.

I have not misrepresented anything.  The statute, as I correctly stated, bans the harboring and shielding of illegal aliens.  On this dinky cell phone, I can't copy/paste the statute.

  When I get to the library, I will post the statute, and we can all read it verbatim.

PS - are you dreaming ?  Where did I say anything about "legal immigration theory"?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No, sanctuary cities are NOT violations of 8 USC 1324*.  Had the pro-gun sheriffs not taken the issue to court and won in the United States Supreme Court (see Printz v. US) there would be no sanctuary cities.  That being the case, gun groups could not rely on pro-gun sanctuary cities to help shield them from federal gun control measures designed to circumvent the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.  US Code 8, Section 1324 is about shielding illegal aliens.  Has nothing to do with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You, sir don't know what in the HELL you're talking about.  I will give you a free mini civics lesson here:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court interprets the law.  *WHEN* they do so, they create what are known as *precedents*.  These precedents establish principles of law that must be followed in all states, by *ALL* courts.
> 
> In 1997 the United States Supreme Court lumped a lot of pending lawsuits against the _Brady Bill _brought by Sheriffs across the country telling the federal government that state and local law enforcement *could not be forced *to enforce federal laws.  The United States Supreme Court agreed.  The high Court reasoned:
> 
> " _Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.   The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory"
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly_..."
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged in the courts.... well let me give you some more info:
> 
> Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Hear Sanctuary Cities Case
> 
> Oooops... What is that?  The Printz case is being cited as the reason Trump loses.
> 
> IF Trump could prevail, then no state or local law enforcement agencies could refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws as they are today.
> 
> As for you citing Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the United States Supreme Court ruled on that one too.  Let me give you *THEIR WORDS*:
> 
> "_By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, *it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States*_."  Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)
> 
> It's going to be interesting to see how your side tap dances around rulings by the United States Supreme Court.  The people you're listening to have been making the same arguments for over a decade and a half and have been consistently losing their proverbial posteriors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would answer this brain post with a reply of "Nice Try", but it doesn't even rate that, Mr DODGE.
> 
> Typical liberal tactic.  When defeated in debate, you change the subject, deflecting away from the initial subject.
> 
> US Code 8 Section 1324 pertains to the acts of harboring and/or shielding illegal aliens, not whether it is criminal for them to be here.  Try reading the statute.  If you are shielding these Invaders, you are a felon, and you better revise your activities.  In worst case, you could get the death penalty.  So says the statute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You tried to misrepresent the statute.  I only clarified what the actual law says.
> 
> If you knew a damn thing about the Constitution, you would realize that Congress, outside of naturalization, *doesn't have any constitutional authority *in the matter.  It is clearly a state's rights issue.  But, the United States Supreme Court granted_ plenary powers_ to Congress.
> 
> Funny thing:  the United States Constitution NEVER mentions giving the United States Supreme Court ANY *authority *to grant Congress any kind of powers - plenary or otherwise..  So, you fail completely in constitutional law.
> 
> You have proven to be plain stupid.  It's no longer ignorance.  You are highly dishonest and now you're trying to deflect because YOU misrepresented a statute in hopes of proving a point that was refuted with United States Supreme Court rulings.  Only a fake, phony and a poseur would resort to that level of deflection, but calling me a liberal or saying what I do is a"l_iberal tactic_"...????????"
> 
> This level of stupidity cannot go unchallenged.  The people who bought into Bill Clinton's immigration talking points and then resorting to calling me a liberal can only be found spewing swill on discussion boards under assumed names because they lack the knowledge, intestinal fortitude, and the ethical standards to say that in public.
> 
> *NO LIBERAL HAS EVER EMPLOYED MY TACTICS AT ANY TIME, ANYWHERE, AT ANY PLACE..ON ANY ISSUE... PERIOD.  *Those posters who post this criticism of me are probably double agents for the left. and cannot make their case without stooping to this damn outrageous lie.  They lie to cover up the fact that after more than a decade and half they have had their butts kicked every time they've brought this idiocy before the courts.
> 
> Just for the record, I  gave Sheriff Mack a place and an audience to solicit support for gun owners to be able to reject the federal government's efforts to force state and local officials into participating in gun control.  I donated money AND legal research time into the effort.  NO LIBERAL HAS SUNK TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS INTO FIGHTING GUN CONTROL OR THE EXPANSION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.)
> 
> protectionist does not get to interpret the law to his liking.  The states and local governments are not _"shielding"_ anyone as per the court's rulings.  I didn't write the laws; had no part in interpreting them and I'll be damned if I allow protectionist the luxury of lying his way out of this in a vain effort to promote hate and bigotry.
> 
> If you are concerned with the influx of foreigners into the United States, I feel your pain.  At the same time, I do not play the pretend _"illegal" _versus legal  immigrant B.S. when the rest of the Bill of Rights is at stake.  Additionally, protectionist pretends he gives a rat's rear about the legality (sic) of immigrants.  He knows full well that "_legal immigrants_" and their immediate offspring  comprise *13 percent of all federal legislators* and of the *68* immigrants and their immediate offspring in Congress, *57* of them are DEMOCRATS.  protectionist is only stroking the egos of ignorant white supremacists with less than a high school education to the benefit of the left wing, liberal Democrats.  That is a wolf in sheep's clothing.  The ONLY people who have benefited off the _"illegal immigration_" fight has been the left during the 15 + years I've been arguing it on discussion boards.  protectionist helps them along.  Otherwise, he would realize that adding nearly a* million* new citizens per year, who are *11 TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE DEMOCRATS than REPUBLICANS *renders his criticisms moot.  So much for his _"legal immigration_" theory unless he's working for Nancy Pelosi.  Rant over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talk a lot.  Your problem is you don't say much of anything other than a confused pile of babbling. Your post is so dumb, it makes me feel silly to be responding to it .
> 
> Of course the governments who enact sanctuary laws are shielding illegal aliens.  That's exactly what those laws do.
> 
> As for "hate", yes I hate the violation and disrespecting of our laws (and us) by illegal alien Invaders . I hate the US traitors who criminally harbor and shield them too.
> 
> I have not misrepresented anything.  The statute, as I correctly stated, bans the harboring and shielding of illegal aliens.  On this dinky cell phone, I can't copy/paste the statute.
> 
> When I get to the library, I will post the statute, and we can all read it verbatim.
> 
> PS - are you dreaming ?  Where did I say anything about "legal immigration theory"?
Click to expand...


Your initial post did not have anything to do with the wording of the statute.  *Save your time, the wording is not in dispute.*  You are creating a *strawman* in order to deflect from what you did.

The FACT that *you cannot read* more than five sentences in a post does not mean I talk a lot.  It means you don't have the mental capacity to understand.

You argue with the courts and pretend you're arguing against me.

The current immigration laws are blatantly unconstitutional which is why people use their legal options and employ* civil disobedience* (just as they do with drug laws and gun laws)

The state / local government is not under any obligation to enforce federal laws according to the courts and if you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you'd understand why your argument is a classic FAIL.

You get your tighty whiteys in a bunch over the enforcement of liberal, left wing, Democrat legislation pushed through Congress by liberal Ted Kennedy.  It appears to me that *YOU* *are using a typical liberal tactic in demanding we enforce socialist laws*. 

According to Wikipedia:

"_Largely to restrict immigration from Asia, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe, the Immigration Act of 1924 had permanently established the National Origins Formula as the basis of U.S. immigration policy. By limiting immigration of non-Northern Europeans, according to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the 1924 act was "to preserve the ideal of American [Northwestern European] homogeneity".[1] During the 1960s, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, the National Origins Formula increasingly came under attack for being racially discriminatory. With the support of the Johnson administration, Senator Philip Hart and *Congressman Emanuel Celler introduced a bill to repeal the formula*_."

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia

In plain English, you support a law, introduced by Emmanuel Cellar, a Democrat from New York.  It was pushed by Ted Kennedy, a Democrat; signed into law by Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat.  That law was intended to destroy the homogeneity and *force America to become a multicultural nation.  THAT is a typical liberal tactic which you choose to support.
*
You accused me of a "_typical liberal tactic_."  That was a damn lie and one of which is going to get expensive if you don't stand down.  You are the pot what calls the kettle black.  The facts that you don't understand what you read; that you make false accusations based off of your total stupidity; that you are serving the part what the communists called useful idiots is very clear.

You think that just because I am tired of watching clowns like you trip over their feet with stupid arguments that I'm "_liberal_."  Yet you lack the common courtesy of ASKING me where I stand on the issue.  You are employing liberal tactics, hoping to rule this thread by lying, creating strawman arguments, then getting a majority vote.  It's not going to come cheaply.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> Your initial post did not have anything to do with the wording of the statute.  *Save your time, the wording is not in dispute.*  You are creating a *strawman* in order to deflect from what you did.
> 
> The FACT that *you cannot read* more than five sentences in a post does not mean I talk a lot.  It means you don't have the mental capacity to understand.
> 
> You argue with the courts and pretend you're arguing against me.
> 
> The current immigration laws are blatantly unconstitutional which is why people use their legal options and employ* civil disobedience* (just as they do with drug laws and gun laws)
> 
> The state / local government is not under any obligation to enforce federal laws according to the courts and if you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you'd understand why your argument is a classic FAIL.
> 
> You get your tighty whiteys in a bunch over the enforcement of liberal, left wing, Democrat legislation pushed through Congress by liberal Ted Kennedy.  It appears to me that *YOU* *are using a typical liberal tactic in demanding we enforce socialist laws*.
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "_Largely to restrict immigration from Asia, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe, the Immigration Act of 1924 had permanently established the National Origins Formula as the basis of U.S. immigration policy. By limiting immigration of non-Northern Europeans, according to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the 1924 act was "to preserve the ideal of American [Northwestern European] homogeneity".[1] During the 1960s, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, the National Origins Formula increasingly came under attack for being racially discriminatory. With the support of the Johnson administration, Senator Philip Hart and *Congressman Emanuel Celler introduced a bill to repeal the formula*_."
> 
> Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia
> 
> In plain English, you support a law, introduced by Emmanuel Cellar, a Democrat from New York.  It was pushed by Ted Kennedy, a Democrat; signed into law by Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat.  That law was intended to destroy the homogeneity and *force America to become a multicultural nation.  THAT is a typical liberal tactic which you choose to support.
> *
> You accused me of a "_typical liberal tactic_."  That was a damn lie and one of which is going to get expensive if you don't stand down.  You are the pot what calls the kettle black.  The facts that you don't understand what you read; that you make false accusations based off of your total stupidity; that you are serving the part what the communists called useful idiots is very clear.
> 
> You think that just because I am tired of watching clowns like you trip over their feet with stupid arguments that I'm "_liberal_."  Yet you lack the common courtesy of ASKING me where I stand on the issue.  You are employing liberal tactics, hoping to rule this thread by lying, creating strawman arguments, then getting a majority vote.  It's not going to come cheaply.


Ha ha ha.  So now I'm a liberal, and a multiculturalist, huh ?  You have no idea what an idiot you are making out of yourself here.  The liberals in USMB who battle me year in year out, must be getting a kick out of this.  

Stop talking, At this point you're no more than a raving lunatic.


----------



## Andylusion

Vandalshandle said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me see if I understand.
> 
> You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.  Glad you cleared that up for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:
> 
> 1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
> *
> 2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
> *
> 3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court reasoned:
> 
> "_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.
> 
> Maybe this will explain it better:
> 
> Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy
> 
> Now you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Now that is even more stupid.
> 
> That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.
> 
> Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?
> 
> That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.
> 
> Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?
> 
> Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.
> 
> The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"
> 
> And Trump did this brilliantly.
> 
> Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.
> 
> And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".
> 
> Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just responding to the link you posted.
> If you don't share the views of the link, than I direct my comments towards whoever does.
> 
> I would personally care a lot less, if the Federal government wasn't handing out tax money to people.
> 
> If we could end all entitlements, it would bother me less.
> 
> However, protection of the country is in fact a duty of the Federal Government, is it not?   I would think protecting the borders would fall under protecting the country, do you agree?
> 
> And we have laws about that, which sanctuary cities are directly undermining.... is that not true?
> 
> Something in this equation doesn't fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is the federal government's job to enforce federal immigration laws.
> Trump is president of the USA, and the administration of laws is his responsibility.
> Trump is failing to deal with illegal immigration.
> You should hold him accountable.
> But, instead, Trumpets blame Trump's failure on people who have absolutely no responsibility to enforce federal laws.
> You are right. Something in the equation does not fit.
Click to expand...


Congress controls the money.
Are you actually advocating that Trump rule by executive order?
Because he could just start signing a bunch of executive orders to make it all happen.
If you don't want Trump ruling by executive order, then by your own standard, we should blame Congress in equal measure.


----------



## protectionist

Andylusion said:


> Congress controls the money.
> Are you actually advocating that Trump rule by executive order?
> Because he could just start signing a bunch of executive orders to make it all happen.
> If you don't want Trump ruling by executive order, then by your own standard, we should blame Congress in equal measure.


No need for executive order. We already have federal law banning sanctuary activity.  >>* US Code 8 Section 1324.*  Simply enforce this federal law, and arrest mayors, city councilmen, governors, anybody harboring or shielding illegal aliens. Simple as that.  Punishments vary from 5 years federal prison to the death penalty.  Here's the statute .  >>>

8 U.S. Code § 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;
(v)
(I)
engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II)
aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
(ii)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
(iii)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.


----------



## Andylusion

Porter Rockwell said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> So let me see if I understand.
> 
> You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.
> 
> Makes perfect sense.  Glad you cleared that up for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:
> 
> 1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
> *
> 2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
> *
> 3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court reasoned:
> 
> "_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.
> 
> Maybe this will explain it better:
> 
> Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy
> 
> Now you know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Now that is even more stupid.
> 
> That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.
> 
> Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?
> 
> That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.
> 
> Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?
> 
> Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.
> 
> The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"
> 
> And Trump did this brilliantly.
> 
> Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.
> 
> And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".
> 
> Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just responding to the link you posted.
> If you don't share the views of the link, than I direct my comments towards whoever does.
> 
> I would personally care a lot less, if the Federal government wasn't handing out tax money to people.
> 
> If we could end all entitlements, it would bother me less.
> 
> However, protection of the country is in fact a duty of the Federal Government, is it not?   I would think protecting the borders would fall under protecting the country, do you agree?
> 
> And we have laws about that, which sanctuary cities are directly undermining.... is that not true?
> 
> Something in this equation doesn't fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it's as simple as you want it to be.  Does the federal government have a duty to protect the border?  The answer is yes.
> 
> Does the federal government have the duty to impose on a governor to police the border when that governor says he does not need the feds there?  Well, have you ever heard of states rights?
> 
> The really BIG deal to all of this is that there is *nothing* in the Constitution giving the federal government the *authority *to tell the states who they can and cannot allow into their respective states.  So, how did the feds get involved in dictating to the states who they can and cannot allow?
> 
> In 1875 the United States Supreme Court bestowed upon Congress "_plenary powers_" over everything to do with foreigners. The problem there is that there is *nothing* in the United States Constitution that gives the United States Supreme Court the *authority* to bestow upon any other branch of government any power of any kind.
> 
> Now, the issue gets even more complicated.  The immigration laws that the people who obsess over border control want enforced were laws forced through Congress by Democrats with the intent of diluting the white vote.  Congress wanted to turn America over to non-whites.
> 
> We aren't quite done.  There are still two more pieces to this puzzle.
> 
> In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson states:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator* with certain *unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, *Liberty *and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Notice that a Creator (a God, whomever we deem that to be) gave ALL men Liberty.  The United States Supreme Court has ruled that *unalienable* Rights are above the Constitution.  Those Rights existed before the government was formed.  As such, the earliest courts ruled that *unalienable* Rights are inherent, natural, irrevocable, and absolute.  Jefferson could not mean that those Rights were specific to citizens as no such creature existed at that juncture.  So there is another piece to this puzzle.  Let's discuss the last piece of the puzzle:
> 
> America is a free market economy.  So, if you try to put a limit on a foreigner's Right to partake of the free market economy, then you limit HIS Rights.  The courts than use that precedent to attack *YOUR* Rights.  It seems that there is that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the "_equal protection of the laws._"
> 
> So, it boils down to how much government you are willing to tolerate in your life in order to get rid of people you call _"illegal aliens_."  So far those who obsess over immigration have passed the so - called "_Patriot Act_,"  the National ID / REAL ID Act; they've created the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, spent *trillions of tax dollars* (which is far more than they claimed they were going to save us) and attacked a lot of our fundamental Rights (like the Freedom of Association, equal protection of the laws, the Right to Privacy, and we now have selective prosecution and profiling.)
> 
> The *REAL* answer to the puzzle is to remember what Trump promised.  He said he was going to Make America Great Again.  So, what we do is go back to when America was "_great_" and begin repealing laws related to immigration until we have Liberty and everybody is making their own choices.  The more laws we've passed, the more of a spider's web we've created for ourselves.
Click to expand...


I would agree with most all of that.   

Again, what it boils down to is, are we giving out tax money from the Federal government to the states?

yes or no.

If the answer is no, then the states can make their own rules as to who can live in their state, and I have no problem with that.

If the answer is yes, then the Federal Government has a duty to the tax payers, to make sure those funds are not going to people who are not part of the US citizenry, and that the funds are not being used by people who don't contribute in equal measure.

Do you not agree?


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.


FALSE! No one is protected from federal law, which all Americans are obligated to obey. Sanctuary cities are illegal, and the Trump administration should have taken action against them long ago.  This may still be done, any month, week, or day.

THIS is_ "the law"_  >>>

8 U.S. Code § 1324 -  Bringing in and harboring certain aliens


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your initial post did not have anything to do with the wording of the statute.  *Save your time, the wording is not in dispute.*  You are creating a *strawman* in order to deflect from what you did.
> 
> The FACT that *you cannot read* more than five sentences in a post does not mean I talk a lot.  It means you don't have the mental capacity to understand.
> 
> You argue with the courts and pretend you're arguing against me.
> 
> The current immigration laws are blatantly unconstitutional which is why people use their legal options and employ* civil disobedience* (just as they do with drug laws and gun laws)
> 
> The state / local government is not under any obligation to enforce federal laws according to the courts and if you had an IQ higher than your shoe size, you'd understand why your argument is a classic FAIL.
> 
> You get your tighty whiteys in a bunch over the enforcement of liberal, left wing, Democrat legislation pushed through Congress by liberal Ted Kennedy.  It appears to me that *YOU* *are using a typical liberal tactic in demanding we enforce socialist laws*.
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> "_Largely to restrict immigration from Asia, Southern Europe, and Eastern Europe, the Immigration Act of 1924 had permanently established the National Origins Formula as the basis of U.S. immigration policy. By limiting immigration of non-Northern Europeans, according to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian the purpose of the 1924 act was "to preserve the ideal of American [Northwestern European] homogeneity".[1] During the 1960s, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, the National Origins Formula increasingly came under attack for being racially discriminatory. With the support of the Johnson administration, Senator Philip Hart and *Congressman Emanuel Celler introduced a bill to repeal the formula*_."
> 
> Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 - Wikipedia
> 
> In plain English, you support a law, introduced by Emmanuel Cellar, a Democrat from New York.  It was pushed by Ted Kennedy, a Democrat; signed into law by Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat.  That law was intended to destroy the homogeneity and *force America to become a multicultural nation.  THAT is a typical liberal tactic which you choose to support.
> *
> You accused me of a "_typical liberal tactic_."  That was a damn lie and one of which is going to get expensive if you don't stand down.  You are the pot what calls the kettle black.  The facts that you don't understand what you read; that you make false accusations based off of your total stupidity; that you are serving the part what the communists called useful idiots is very clear.
> 
> You think that just because I am tired of watching clowns like you trip over their feet with stupid arguments that I'm "_liberal_."  Yet you lack the common courtesy of ASKING me where I stand on the issue.  You are employing liberal tactics, hoping to rule this thread by lying, creating strawman arguments, then getting a majority vote.  It's not going to come cheaply.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha.  So now I'm a liberal, and a multiculturalist, huh ?  You have no idea what an idiot you are making out of yourself here.  The liberals in USMB who battle me year in year out, must be getting a kick out of this.
> 
> Stop talking, At this point you're no more than a raving lunatic.
Click to expand...


The people who vote as liberals are just like the right that gets conditioned, Pavlovian style, and then spews whatever party line says.  Tell us the truth there, paleface, isn't this the sentiment that you've been pushing all along?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress controls the money.
> Are you actually advocating that Trump rule by executive order?
> Because he could just start signing a bunch of executive orders to make it all happen.
> If you don't want Trump ruling by executive order, then by your own standard, we should blame Congress in equal measure.
> 
> 
> 
> No need for executive order. We already have federal law banning sanctuary activity.  >>* US Code 8 Section 1324.*  Simply enforce this federal law, and arrest mayors, city councilmen, governors, anybody harboring or shielding illegal aliens. Simple as that.  Punishments vary from 5 years federal prison to the death penalty.  Here's the statute .  >>>
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 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;
> (v)
> (I)
> engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
> (II)
> aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
> shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
> (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
> in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
> (ii)
> in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
> (iii)
> in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
> (iv)
> in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
Click to expand...


protectionist is oblivious to his dumbassery.  Such statutes are not incumbent upon the government, only on the citizenry.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Andylusion said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andylusion said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:
> 
> 1)  Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as *precedents
> *
> 2)  A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in *subsequent similar circumstances
> *
> 3)  In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill.  They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional.  The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:
> 
> The United States Supreme Court reasoned:
> 
> "_The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that *allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends*.
> 
> ...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument,* the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.*[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional._"
> 
> Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
> 
> When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "_HELD_")  that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws.  If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law.  THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.  Thank you in advance.  I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.
> 
> Maybe this will explain it better:
> 
> Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy
> 
> Now you know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?  Now that is even more stupid.
> 
> That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.
> 
> Do you not even realize the implications there?   You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?
> 
> That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.
> 
> Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?
> 
> Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals.   That was obvious.   The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.
> 
> The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"
> 
> And Trump did this brilliantly.
> 
> Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example.   Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill.  It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.
> 
> And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us!  That's a violation of the constitution!".
> 
> Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just responding to the link you posted.
> If you don't share the views of the link, than I direct my comments towards whoever does.
> 
> I would personally care a lot less, if the Federal government wasn't handing out tax money to people.
> 
> If we could end all entitlements, it would bother me less.
> 
> However, protection of the country is in fact a duty of the Federal Government, is it not?   I would think protecting the borders would fall under protecting the country, do you agree?
> 
> And we have laws about that, which sanctuary cities are directly undermining.... is that not true?
> 
> Something in this equation doesn't fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it's as simple as you want it to be.  Does the federal government have a duty to protect the border?  The answer is yes.
> 
> Does the federal government have the duty to impose on a governor to police the border when that governor says he does not need the feds there?  Well, have you ever heard of states rights?
> 
> The really BIG deal to all of this is that there is *nothing* in the Constitution giving the federal government the *authority *to tell the states who they can and cannot allow into their respective states.  So, how did the feds get involved in dictating to the states who they can and cannot allow?
> 
> In 1875 the United States Supreme Court bestowed upon Congress "_plenary powers_" over everything to do with foreigners. The problem there is that there is *nothing* in the United States Constitution that gives the United States Supreme Court the *authority* to bestow upon any other branch of government any power of any kind.
> 
> Now, the issue gets even more complicated.  The immigration laws that the people who obsess over border control want enforced were laws forced through Congress by Democrats with the intent of diluting the white vote.  Congress wanted to turn America over to non-whites.
> 
> We aren't quite done.  There are still two more pieces to this puzzle.
> 
> In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson states:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are *endowed by their Creator* with certain *unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, *Liberty *and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Notice that a Creator (a God, whomever we deem that to be) gave ALL men Liberty.  The United States Supreme Court has ruled that *unalienable* Rights are above the Constitution.  Those Rights existed before the government was formed.  As such, the earliest courts ruled that *unalienable* Rights are inherent, natural, irrevocable, and absolute.  Jefferson could not mean that those Rights were specific to citizens as no such creature existed at that juncture.  So there is another piece to this puzzle.  Let's discuss the last piece of the puzzle:
> 
> America is a free market economy.  So, if you try to put a limit on a foreigner's Right to partake of the free market economy, then you limit HIS Rights.  The courts than use that precedent to attack *YOUR* Rights.  It seems that there is that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the "_equal protection of the laws._"
> 
> So, it boils down to how much government you are willing to tolerate in your life in order to get rid of people you call _"illegal aliens_."  So far those who obsess over immigration have passed the so - called "_Patriot Act_,"  the National ID / REAL ID Act; they've created the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, spent *trillions of tax dollars* (which is far more than they claimed they were going to save us) and attacked a lot of our fundamental Rights (like the Freedom of Association, equal protection of the laws, the Right to Privacy, and we now have selective prosecution and profiling.)
> 
> The *REAL* answer to the puzzle is to remember what Trump promised.  He said he was going to Make America Great Again.  So, what we do is go back to when America was "_great_" and begin repealing laws related to immigration until we have Liberty and everybody is making their own choices.  The more laws we've passed, the more of a spider's web we've created for ourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would agree with most all of that.
> 
> Again, what it boils down to is, are we giving out tax money from the Federal government to the states?
> 
> yes or no.
> 
> If the answer is no, then the states can make their own rules as to who can live in their state, and I have no problem with that.
> 
> If the answer is yes, then the Federal Government has a duty to the tax payers, to make sure those funds are not going to people who are not part of the US citizenry, and that the funds are not being used by people who don't contribute in equal measure.
> 
> Do you not agree?
Click to expand...


Donald Trump owes the states *nothing*.  Presidents withhold federal funds all the time when a state refuses to enforce the policies the president wants enforced.  

This principle was addressed in Wickard v. Filburn in 1942.  The Court reasoned that:

"_It is hardly lack of due process for the Government to regulate that which it subsidizes_."

Wickard v. Filburn | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

If any federal funds reach undocumented foreigners, Trump can cut them off.  If California can afford undocumented foreigners, then they don't need money from Georgia (or other states where sanctuary cities are non-existent.)  If a state takes federal funds, that money is subject to federal regulations.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you aimed that at me.  I reported the laws.  States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state.  Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement.  That is the law.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE! No one is protected from federal law, which all Americans are obligated to obey. Sanctuary cities are illegal, and the Trump administration should have taken action against them long ago.  This may still be done, any month, week, or day.
> 
> THIS is_ "the law"_  >>>
> 
> 8 U.S. Code § 1324 -  Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
Click to expand...


That law, as unconstitutional as it is, does not apply to the state government.  Period.  As a matter of *fact*, who comes and goes within a state is the state's business, not the federal government's... presuming, of course, that we live under the de jure / lawful Constitution as envisioned by the framers.  

*IF* it were any other way and Trump has not acted now when his term of office is more than 3/4ths over, either I'm right or he is playing you.  And there you are, standing behind unconstitutional laws, designed to dilute the white vote in America, claiming you aren't a liberal.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

I'm not much for labels.  The immigration issue is one hand washing the other - nothing more, nothing less.  *BOTH* sides want more power.  *BOTH* sides want to penalize somebody.  *BOTH* sides want a bigger and more intrusive government.

NOBODY has a legitimate claim to be called a conservative, a patriot, or a constitutionalist when they want to take the power from the states and build a bigger and more intrusive government.  The very fact that those poseurs have declared a war against Liberty should be a wake up call.

The real solutions are to *incentivize *people and businesses to hire Americans, pay them better wages, and help the citizenry (especially those who have been disenfranchised and locked out) to become productive, self sufficient, and self reliant.

As each year rolls by, foreigners with values much different than what our forefathers envisioned are increasing in number, claiming more seats in our colleges, universities, and political offices.  Yet those playing this silly legal v._ illegal _game don't get it.  If the posterity of the framers do not heed this warning, in three more election cycles, their country will be gone for good.


----------



## TheParser

Sanctuary cities and states are obviously unconstitutional.

But in reality, the federal government cannot stop them.

Those sanctuary cities and states compare themselves to those places before the Civil War that refused to return runaway slaves, regardless of the law requiring them to do so.

President Trump has been trying to cut off federal funds to those sanctuary cities and states, but pro-sanctuary federal judges have stopped them.

And even if the Supreme Court rules them to be unconstitutional, they will refuse to obey the Supreme Court.  They feel that they must obey their conscience.

Needless to say, when (not "if")  the Dems get control of the executive branch again, this will become a sanctuary nation.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

TheParser said:


> Sanctuary cities and states are obviously unconstitutional.
> 
> But in reality, the federal government cannot stop them.
> 
> Those sanctuary cities and states compare themselves to those places before the Civil War that refused to return runaway slaves, regardless of the law requiring them to do so.
> 
> President Trump has been trying to cut off federal funds to those sanctuary cities and states, but pro-sanctuary federal judges have stopped them.
> 
> And even if the Supreme Court rules them to be unconstitutional, they will refuse to obey the Supreme Court.  They feel that they must obey their conscience.
> 
> Needless to say, when (not "if")  the Dems get control of the executive branch again, this will become a sanctuary nation.



You can't fix stupid.  There is no way to criminalize Liberty.  That is your first problem.

Secondly, if you do an honest amount of research, you will find that who comes and goes within a state was left up to the states.  The *ONLY *authority the federal government has relative to foreigners is naturalization.  The Constitution says:

"_The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution

Naturalization = citizenship.  

Under your interpretation, the only way "_in_" for foreigners is to be on a pathway to citizenship.  Liberty becomes a privilege instead of the *unalienable *Right the framers intended.  Nonwhites, who have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to hate the whites and whites have been instilled with a false sense of guilt so they hate themselves are insuring that your prediction will be a self fulfilling prophecy.

The overwhelming majority of "_legal_" immigration (immigration = permanent residence, NOT guest workers)  means more people to vote the posterity of the founders and framers out of existence.  

Obviously, Trump has not changed that, so the Constitution obviously protects sanctuary cities.  Ironically, the patriots and constitutionalists had this war won a couple of decades ago, before the left conned the right (Tom Sawyer style) and got dullards behind supporting laws that the Democrats passed.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities and states are obviously unconstitutional.
> 
> But in reality, the federal government cannot stop them.
> 
> Those sanctuary cities and states compare themselves to those places before the Civil War that refused to return runaway slaves, regardless of the law requiring them to do so.
> 
> President Trump has been trying to cut off federal funds to those sanctuary cities and states, but pro-sanctuary federal judges have stopped them.
> 
> And even if the Supreme Court rules them to be unconstitutional, they will refuse to obey the Supreme Court.  They feel that they must obey their conscience.
> 
> Needless to say, when (not "if")  the Dems get control of the executive branch again, this will become a sanctuary nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't fix stupid.  There is no way to criminalize Liberty.  That is your first problem.
> 
> Secondly, if you do an honest amount of research, you will find that who comes and goes within a state was left up to the states.  The *ONLY *authority the federal government has relative to foreigners is naturalization.  The Constitution says:
> 
> "_The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Naturalization = citizenship.
> 
> Under your interpretation, the only way "_in_" for foreigners is to be on a pathway to citizenship.  Liberty becomes a privilege instead of the *unalienable *Right the framers intended.  Nonwhites, who have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to hate the whites and whites have been instilled with a false sense of guilt so they hate themselves are insuring that your prediction will be a self fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of "_legal_" immigration (immigration = permanent residence, NOT guest workers)  means more people to vote the posterity of the founders and framers out of existence.
> 
> Obviously, Trump has not changed that, so the Constitution obviously protects sanctuary cities.  Ironically, the patriots and constitutionalists had this war won a couple of decades ago, before the left conned the right (Tom Sawyer style) and got dullards behind supporting laws that the Democrats passed.
Click to expand...

What is your vested interest in illegal immigration ?  No, we can't usually determine that, but when somebody is as cold obsessed with protecting illegals as you are, with or without all your Constitution yammering, there,s MONEY in it for them, somewhere, somehow.

With the lengthy list of vested interests who profits from illegal immigration, it's entirely easy to see you fitting right in.

Naturally, you'll deny any personal involvement, and laughably pretend to be all objective, but you can't prove that anymore than we can show where you fit in on the vested interest list (unless you slip up, and give it away).  

As for "the ONLY authority that the federal government has relative to foreigners"...is as Constitution Article 6, Section 2, part 1 says - "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land."

And one of those "laws of the United States" is US Code 8, Section 1324, which criminalizes sanctuary cities. 

Regarding WHO Section 1324 applies to, it is very clear.  It's first 2 words are "Any person".  The word "person" is stated 13 times throughout the statute.

Thus, any person who thinks he/she is above and outside of this law (state & local politicians included), is living dangerously.

Just because Barr hasn't gone after them YET, doesn't mean they (or you) are in the clear.  Of course, there always is the option of non-extradition countries.  I hear the weather is nice in Cuba, this time of the year.  Syria, anyone ?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities and states are obviously unconstitutional.
> 
> But in reality, the federal government cannot stop them.
> 
> Those sanctuary cities and states compare themselves to those places before the Civil War that refused to return runaway slaves, regardless of the law requiring them to do so.
> 
> President Trump has been trying to cut off federal funds to those sanctuary cities and states, but pro-sanctuary federal judges have stopped them.
> 
> And even if the Supreme Court rules them to be unconstitutional, they will refuse to obey the Supreme Court.  They feel that they must obey their conscience.
> 
> Needless to say, when (not "if")  the Dems get control of the executive branch again, this will become a sanctuary nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't fix stupid.  There is no way to criminalize Liberty.  That is your first problem.
> 
> Secondly, if you do an honest amount of research, you will find that who comes and goes within a state was left up to the states.  The *ONLY *authority the federal government has relative to foreigners is naturalization.  The Constitution says:
> 
> "_The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Naturalization = citizenship.
> 
> Under your interpretation, the only way "_in_" for foreigners is to be on a pathway to citizenship.  Liberty becomes a privilege instead of the *unalienable *Right the framers intended.  Nonwhites, who have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to hate the whites and whites have been instilled with a false sense of guilt so they hate themselves are insuring that your prediction will be a self fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of "_legal_" immigration (immigration = permanent residence, NOT guest workers)  means more people to vote the posterity of the founders and framers out of existence.
> 
> Obviously, Trump has not changed that, so the Constitution obviously protects sanctuary cities.  Ironically, the patriots and constitutionalists had this war won a couple of decades ago, before the left conned the right (Tom Sawyer style) and got dullards behind supporting laws that the Democrats passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your vested interest in illegal immigration ?  No, we can't usually determine that, but when somebody is as cold obsessed with protecting illegals as you are, with or without all your Constitution yammering, there,s MONEY in it for them, somewhere, somehow.
> 
> With the lengthy list of vested interests who profits from illegal immigration, it's entirely easy to see you fitting right in.
> 
> Naturally, you'll deny any personal involvement, and laughably pretend to be all objective, but you can't prove that anymore than we can show where you fit in on the vested interest list (unless you slip up, and give it away).
> 
> As for "the ONLY authority that the federal government has relative to foreigners"...is as Constitution Article 6, Section 2, part 1 says - "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land."
> 
> And one of those "laws of the United States" is US Code 8, Section 1324, which criminalizes sanctuary cities.
Click to expand...


My "_vested interest_" as you call it has nothing to do with nonexistent "_illegals._"  I do have to commend you for finally asking a pertinent question.  There are three things that you cannot get a handle on:

1)  America was founded by white Christians with the prevailing attitude that America was the regathering spot for biblical Israelites.  As such, our laws are built on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence.  In the FIRST naturalization laws, only whites could be citizens of the United States:

http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1 stat 103.pdf

There is a sermon, first preached in 1630 by John Winthrop, and portions have been cited by U.S. statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan.  You need to read this as it pertains to our history and destiny:

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

2)  Despite the fact that only whites were allowed to become citizens, people poured in from all over the world to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  According to the Declaration of Independence:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life,* Liberty *and the pursuit of Happiness_."

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, referred to that document as the "_Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man_."

You tend to conflate Liberty with the privileges of citizenship; hence, your* bogus* argument about "_legal versus illegal aliens_."  The laws you continue to cite were put into place in order to restrict Liberty and force people to come here and seek citizenship.  Such a strategy meant that people from every corner of the world got to come here equally, displacing the posterity of the founders.  White people only number 1 in 13 of the world's population.

It is your _"legal_" immigrants that joined forces with Democrats to wage a subtle war of genocide against the posterity of the founders / framers.  You cannot criminalize Liberty

3)  Instead of returning to the laws of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, you demand more laws that make government bigger and more intrusive.  You seem to be okay with giving America away provided we do so _"legally_" and, consequently, you demand strict adherence to* unconstitutional laws*, put into place to get rid of white people.  You turn our future over to a Congress that is, has been and will be even more so controlled by Democrats.  You demand more laws and more restrictions and even* more control*, thereby negating any possibility that the constitutionalists can resist tyranny in the future.  

Those are the facts and bad strategies are costing us dearly.  As pointed out to you, there are now pro-gun sanctuary cities popping up everywhere as the government begins to threaten us with Red Flag Gun Laws, confiscations, bans, registration, background checks, etc. on firearms.  You are aiding and abetting criminals, Democrats, and traitors.  I've leveled with you about my "_vested interests_" in this fight.

You can cite unconstitutional laws until Hell freezes over, but sheriffs had your little statute ruled unconstitutional and they could not be forced to enforce unconstitutional laws.  The courts have ruled consistently for both sides.  And, as someone who wants to retain his Rights, I support sanctuary cities.  Scroll through this link to the section entitled *Second Amendment Sanctuaries*:

Virginia Citizens Defense League - Home

There, sir, you have my vested interest in protecting sanctuary cities.  I'm wondering what your excuse is in defending Democrats and their legislation the way you do.  I suspect it's because you do not understand the law, political strategies, political guerrilla warfare, or the psychology of warfare.  I spent decades learning it and realize that most of your criticisms you make, aimed at me, are done so through abject ignorance.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities and states are obviously unconstitutional.
> 
> But in reality, the federal government cannot stop them.
> 
> Those sanctuary cities and states compare themselves to those places before the Civil War that refused to return runaway slaves, regardless of the law requiring them to do so.
> 
> President Trump has been trying to cut off federal funds to those sanctuary cities and states, but pro-sanctuary federal judges have stopped them.
> 
> And even if the Supreme Court rules them to be unconstitutional, they will refuse to obey the Supreme Court.  They feel that they must obey their conscience.
> 
> Needless to say, when (not "if")  the Dems get control of the executive branch again, this will become a sanctuary nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't fix stupid.  There is no way to criminalize Liberty.  That is your first problem.
> 
> Secondly, if you do an honest amount of research, you will find that who comes and goes within a state was left up to the states.  The *ONLY *authority the federal government has relative to foreigners is naturalization.  The Constitution says:
> 
> "_The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Naturalization = citizenship.
> 
> Under your interpretation, the only way "_in_" for foreigners is to be on a pathway to citizenship.  Liberty becomes a privilege instead of the *unalienable *Right the framers intended.  Nonwhites, who have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to hate the whites and whites have been instilled with a false sense of guilt so they hate themselves are insuring that your prediction will be a self fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of "_legal_" immigration (immigration = permanent residence, NOT guest workers)  means more people to vote the posterity of the founders and framers out of existence.
> 
> Obviously, Trump has not changed that, so the Constitution obviously protects sanctuary cities.  Ironically, the patriots and constitutionalists had this war won a couple of decades ago, before the left conned the right (Tom Sawyer style) and got dullards behind supporting laws that the Democrats passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your vested interest in illegal immigration ?  No, we can't usually determine that, but when somebody is as cold obsessed with protecting illegals as you are, with or without all your Constitution yammering, there,s MONEY in it for them, somewhere, somehow.
> 
> With the lengthy list of vested interests who profits from illegal immigration, it's entirely easy to see you fitting right in.
> 
> Naturally, you'll deny any personal involvement, and laughably pretend to be all objective, but you can't prove that anymore than we can show where you fit in on the vested interest list (unless you slip up, and give it away).
> 
> As for "the ONLY authority that the federal government has relative to foreigners"...is as Constitution Article 6, Section 2, part 1 says - "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land."
> 
> And one of those "laws of the United States" is US Code 8, Section 1324, which criminalizes sanctuary cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My "_vested interest_" as you call it has nothing to do with nonexistent "_illegals._"  I do have to commend you for finally asking a pertinent question.  There are three things that you cannot get a handle on:
> 
> 1)  America was founded by white Christians with the prevailing attitude that America was the regathering spot for biblical Israelites.  As such, our laws are built on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence.  In the FIRST naturalization laws, only whites could be citizens of the United States:
> 
> http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1 stat 103.pdf
> 
> There is a sermon, first preached in 1630 by John Winthrop, and portions have been cited by U.S. statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan.  You need to read this as it pertains to our history and destiny:
> 
> https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf
> 
> 2)  Despite the fact that only whites were allowed to become citizens, people poured in from all over the world to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  According to the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life,* Liberty *and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, referred to that document as the "_Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man_."
> 
> You tend to conflate Liberty with the privileges of citizenship; hence, your* bogus* argument about "_legal versus illegal aliens_."  The laws you continue to cite were put into place in order to restrict Liberty and force people to come here and seek citizenship.  Such a strategy meant that people from every corner of the world got to come here equally, displacing the posterity of the founders.  White people only number 1 in 13 of the world's population.
> 
> It is your _"legal_" immigrants that joined forces with Democrats to wage a subtle war of genocide against the posterity of the founders / framers.  You cannot criminalize Liberty
> 
> 3)  Instead of returning to the laws of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, you demand more laws that make government bigger and more intrusive.  You seem to be okay with giving America away provided we do so _"legally_" and, consequently, you demand strict adherence to* unconstitutional laws*, put into place to get rid of white people.  You turn our future over to a Congress that is, has been and will be even more so controlled by Democrats.  You demand more laws and more restrictions and even* more control*, thereby negating any possibility that the constitutionalists can resist tyranny in the future.
> 
> Those are the facts and bad strategies are costing us dearly.  As pointed out to you, there are now pro-gun sanctuary cities popping up everywhere as the government begins to threaten us with Red Flag Gun Laws, confiscations, bans, registration, background checks, etc. on firearms.  You are aiding and abetting criminals, Democrats, and traitors.  I've leveled with you about my "_vested interests_" in this fight.
> 
> You can cite unconstitutional laws until Hell freezes over, but sheriffs had your little statute ruled unconstitutional and they could not be forced to enforce unconstitutional laws.  The courts have ruled consistently for both sides.  And, as someone who wants to retain his Rights, I support sanctuary cities.  Scroll through this link to the section entitled *Second Amendment Sanctuaries*:
> 
> Virginia Citizens Defense League - Home
> 
> There, sir, you have my vested interest in protecting sanctuary cities.  I'm wondering what your excuse is in defending Democrats and their legislation the way you do.  I suspect it's because you do not understand the law, political strategies, political guerrilla warfare, or the psychology of warfare.  I spent decades learning it and realize that most of your criticisms you make, aimed at me, are done so through abject ignorance.
Click to expand...

At about the same point where I stopped reading your incoherent ravings, I noticed - US Code 8 Section 1324 is neither "little" nor is it mine.  It is US law, belonging to the American people for protection from Loons like you .

And despite your laughable attempt to justify your defense of sanctuary cities, your vested interest still remains a question.

Here's a multiple choice, any of which you might be :

1.  Illegal alien

2.   Illegal employer

3.   Spanish media owner/employee

4.   Churches needing parishoners$$$

5.    Unions needing members$$$

6.     Ethnocentrist groups

7.     Terrorists looking to commit terrorism.

8.  Mexicans seeking remittance$$

9.   Democrat seeking votes


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities and states are obviously unconstitutional.
> 
> But in reality, the federal government cannot stop them.
> 
> Those sanctuary cities and states compare themselves to those places before the Civil War that refused to return runaway slaves, regardless of the law requiring them to do so.
> 
> President Trump has been trying to cut off federal funds to those sanctuary cities and states, but pro-sanctuary federal judges have stopped them.
> 
> And even if the Supreme Court rules them to be unconstitutional, they will refuse to obey the Supreme Court.  They feel that they must obey their conscience.
> 
> Needless to say, when (not "if")  the Dems get control of the executive branch again, this will become a sanctuary nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't fix stupid.  There is no way to criminalize Liberty.  That is your first problem.
> 
> Secondly, if you do an honest amount of research, you will find that who comes and goes within a state was left up to the states.  The *ONLY *authority the federal government has relative to foreigners is naturalization.  The Constitution says:
> 
> "_The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Naturalization = citizenship.
> 
> Under your interpretation, the only way "_in_" for foreigners is to be on a pathway to citizenship.  Liberty becomes a privilege instead of the *unalienable *Right the framers intended.  Nonwhites, who have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to hate the whites and whites have been instilled with a false sense of guilt so they hate themselves are insuring that your prediction will be a self fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of "_legal_" immigration (immigration = permanent residence, NOT guest workers)  means more people to vote the posterity of the founders and framers out of existence.
> 
> Obviously, Trump has not changed that, so the Constitution obviously protects sanctuary cities.  Ironically, the patriots and constitutionalists had this war won a couple of decades ago, before the left conned the right (Tom Sawyer style) and got dullards behind supporting laws that the Democrats passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your vested interest in illegal immigration ?  No, we can't usually determine that, but when somebody is as cold obsessed with protecting illegals as you are, with or without all your Constitution yammering, there,s MONEY in it for them, somewhere, somehow.
> 
> With the lengthy list of vested interests who profits from illegal immigration, it's entirely easy to see you fitting right in.
> 
> Naturally, you'll deny any personal involvement, and laughably pretend to be all objective, but you can't prove that anymore than we can show where you fit in on the vested interest list (unless you slip up, and give it away).
> 
> As for "the ONLY authority that the federal government has relative to foreigners"...is as Constitution Article 6, Section 2, part 1 says - "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land."
> 
> And one of those "laws of the United States" is US Code 8, Section 1324, which criminalizes sanctuary cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My "_vested interest_" as you call it has nothing to do with nonexistent "_illegals._"  I do have to commend you for finally asking a pertinent question.  There are three things that you cannot get a handle on:
> 
> 1)  America was founded by white Christians with the prevailing attitude that America was the regathering spot for biblical Israelites.  As such, our laws are built on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence.  In the FIRST naturalization laws, only whites could be citizens of the United States:
> 
> http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1 stat 103.pdf
> 
> There is a sermon, first preached in 1630 by John Winthrop, and portions have been cited by U.S. statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan.  You need to read this as it pertains to our history and destiny:
> 
> https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf
> 
> 2)  Despite the fact that only whites were allowed to become citizens, people poured in from all over the world to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  According to the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life,* Liberty *and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, referred to that document as the "_Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man_."
> 
> You tend to conflate Liberty with the privileges of citizenship; hence, your* bogus* argument about "_legal versus illegal aliens_."  The laws you continue to cite were put into place in order to restrict Liberty and force people to come here and seek citizenship.  Such a strategy meant that people from every corner of the world got to come here equally, displacing the posterity of the founders.  White people only number 1 in 13 of the world's population.
> 
> It is your _"legal_" immigrants that joined forces with Democrats to wage a subtle war of genocide against the posterity of the founders / framers.  You cannot criminalize Liberty
> 
> 3)  Instead of returning to the laws of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, you demand more laws that make government bigger and more intrusive.  You seem to be okay with giving America away provided we do so _"legally_" and, consequently, you demand strict adherence to* unconstitutional laws*, put into place to get rid of white people.  You turn our future over to a Congress that is, has been and will be even more so controlled by Democrats.  You demand more laws and more restrictions and even* more control*, thereby negating any possibility that the constitutionalists can resist tyranny in the future.
> 
> Those are the facts and bad strategies are costing us dearly.  As pointed out to you, there are now pro-gun sanctuary cities popping up everywhere as the government begins to threaten us with Red Flag Gun Laws, confiscations, bans, registration, background checks, etc. on firearms.  You are aiding and abetting criminals, Democrats, and traitors.  I've leveled with you about my "_vested interests_" in this fight.
> 
> You can cite unconstitutional laws until Hell freezes over, but sheriffs had your little statute ruled unconstitutional and they could not be forced to enforce unconstitutional laws.  The courts have ruled consistently for both sides.  And, as someone who wants to retain his Rights, I support sanctuary cities.  Scroll through this link to the section entitled *Second Amendment Sanctuaries*:
> 
> Virginia Citizens Defense League - Home
> 
> There, sir, you have my vested interest in protecting sanctuary cities.  I'm wondering what your excuse is in defending Democrats and their legislation the way you do.  I suspect it's because you do not understand the law, political strategies, political guerrilla warfare, or the psychology of warfare.  I spent decades learning it and realize that most of your criticisms you make, aimed at me, are done so through abject ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At about the same point where I stopped reading your incoherent ravings, I noticed - US Code 8 Section 1324 is neither "little" nor is it mine.  It is US law, belonging to the American people for protection from Loons like you .
> 
> And despite your laughable attempt to justify your defense of sanctuary cities, your vested interest still remains a question.
> 
> Here's a multiple choice, any of which you might be :
> 
> 1.  Illegal alien
> 
> 2.   Illegal employer
> 
> 3.   Spanish media owner/employee
> 
> 4.   Churches needing parishoners$$$
> 
> 5.    Unions needing members$$$
> 
> 6.     Ethnocentrist groups
> 
> 7.     Terrorists looking to commit terrorism.
> 
> 8.  Mexicans seeking remittance$$
> 
> 9.   Democrat seeking votes
Click to expand...



So, with your limited reading capabilities, you have proven you don't pack the gear to be in a real conversation.  The communists had a term for people that were easily led:  useful idiots.  They have you right where they want you.

I'm sorry that you didn't make it very far in school.  Others, however, will see that your question was fully answered and IF there were anything to the irrelevant statute you cited (see the court rulings), something would have been over the last three years... unless Trump is playing you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Those like protectionist, who really feel that the Internet made them into a modern Clarence Darrow, I have nothing to say.  They seem to feed off each other's ignorance.

While the Constitution may be the "_law of the land_," there are a few things that are equally true which explain why protectionist and those who think like him lose consistently in the courts.

First, regardless of what a statute says; regardless of what the intent of the author of the bill's wording is, the United States Supreme Court has unilaterally declared that they are final arbiters of what the law is.  Google Marbury v. Madison for the explanation

Secondly, the Constitution *NEVER *gave the federal government any jurisdiction over foreigners that did not want to become citizens.  In 1875 the *California state immigration commissioner* did not mount a defense to a court case and the United States Supreme Court granted "_plenary powers_" to Congress over all aspects of foreigners because nobody challenged the United States Supreme Court. 

The immediate problem is that the Constitution *does not grant* the United States Supreme Court any* authority* to bestow upon any other branch of government ANY powers... plenary or otherwise.  So, the Democrat statutes protectionist wails about are not only by products of liberalism, but unconstitutional as well.  Not understanding the law, protectionist and the sheeple that follow that line of propaganda will *never* be able to resolve the immigration debacle in favor of the posterity of the founders / framers of this country.  They should go back to high school and take Civics 101.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctuary cities and states are obviously unconstitutional.
> 
> But in reality, the federal government cannot stop them.
> 
> Those sanctuary cities and states compare themselves to those places before the Civil War that refused to return runaway slaves, regardless of the law requiring them to do so.
> 
> President Trump has been trying to cut off federal funds to those sanctuary cities and states, but pro-sanctuary federal judges have stopped them.
> 
> And even if the Supreme Court rules them to be unconstitutional, they will refuse to obey the Supreme Court.  They feel that they must obey their conscience.
> 
> Needless to say, when (not "if")  the Dems get control of the executive branch again, this will become a sanctuary nation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't fix stupid.  There is no way to criminalize Liberty.  That is your first problem.
> 
> Secondly, if you do an honest amount of research, you will find that who comes and goes within a state was left up to the states.  The *ONLY *authority the federal government has relative to foreigners is naturalization.  The Constitution says:
> 
> "_The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Naturalization = citizenship.
> 
> Under your interpretation, the only way "_in_" for foreigners is to be on a pathway to citizenship.  Liberty becomes a privilege instead of the *unalienable *Right the framers intended.  Nonwhites, who have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to hate the whites and whites have been instilled with a false sense of guilt so they hate themselves are insuring that your prediction will be a self fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of "_legal_" immigration (immigration = permanent residence, NOT guest workers)  means more people to vote the posterity of the founders and framers out of existence.
> 
> Obviously, Trump has not changed that, so the Constitution obviously protects sanctuary cities.  Ironically, the patriots and constitutionalists had this war won a couple of decades ago, before the left conned the right (Tom Sawyer style) and got dullards behind supporting laws that the Democrats passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your vested interest in illegal immigration ?  No, we can't usually determine that, but when somebody is as cold obsessed with protecting illegals as you are, with or without all your Constitution yammering, there,s MONEY in it for them, somewhere, somehow.
> 
> With the lengthy list of vested interests who profits from illegal immigration, it's entirely easy to see you fitting right in.
> 
> Naturally, you'll deny any personal involvement, and laughably pretend to be all objective, but you can't prove that anymore than we can show where you fit in on the vested interest list (unless you slip up, and give it away).
> 
> As for "the ONLY authority that the federal government has relative to foreigners"...is as Constitution Article 6, Section 2, part 1 says - "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land."
> 
> And one of those "laws of the United States" is US Code 8, Section 1324, which criminalizes sanctuary cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My "_vested interest_" as you call it has nothing to do with nonexistent "_illegals._"  I do have to commend you for finally asking a pertinent question.  There are three things that you cannot get a handle on:
> 
> 1)  America was founded by white Christians with the prevailing attitude that America was the regathering spot for biblical Israelites.  As such, our laws are built on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence.  In the FIRST naturalization laws, only whites could be citizens of the United States:
> 
> http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1 stat 103.pdf
> 
> There is a sermon, first preached in 1630 by John Winthrop, and portions have been cited by U.S. statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan.  You need to read this as it pertains to our history and destiny:
> 
> https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf
> 
> 2)  Despite the fact that only whites were allowed to become citizens, people poured in from all over the world to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  According to the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life,* Liberty *and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, referred to that document as the "_Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man_."
> 
> You tend to conflate Liberty with the privileges of citizenship; hence, your* bogus* argument about "_legal versus illegal aliens_."  The laws you continue to cite were put into place in order to restrict Liberty and force people to come here and seek citizenship.  Such a strategy meant that people from every corner of the world got to come here equally, displacing the posterity of the founders.  White people only number 1 in 13 of the world's population.
> 
> It is your _"legal_" immigrants that joined forces with Democrats to wage a subtle war of genocide against the posterity of the founders / framers.  You cannot criminalize Liberty
> 
> 3)  Instead of returning to the laws of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, you demand more laws that make government bigger and more intrusive.  You seem to be okay with giving America away provided we do so _"legally_" and, consequently, you demand strict adherence to* unconstitutional laws*, put into place to get rid of white people.  You turn our future over to a Congress that is, has been and will be even more so controlled by Democrats.  You demand more laws and more restrictions and even* more control*, thereby negating any possibility that the constitutionalists can resist tyranny in the future.
> 
> Those are the facts and bad strategies are costing us dearly.  As pointed out to you, there are now pro-gun sanctuary cities popping up everywhere as the government begins to threaten us with Red Flag Gun Laws, confiscations, bans, registration, background checks, etc. on firearms.  You are aiding and abetting criminals, Democrats, and traitors.  I've leveled with you about my "_vested interests_" in this fight.
> 
> You can cite unconstitutional laws until Hell freezes over, but sheriffs had your little statute ruled unconstitutional and they could not be forced to enforce unconstitutional laws.  The courts have ruled consistently for both sides.  And, as someone who wants to retain his Rights, I support sanctuary cities.  Scroll through this link to the section entitled *Second Amendment Sanctuaries*:
> 
> Virginia Citizens Defense League - Home
> 
> There, sir, you have my vested interest in protecting sanctuary cities.  I'm wondering what your excuse is in defending Democrats and their legislation the way you do.  I suspect it's because you do not understand the law, political strategies, political guerrilla warfare, or the psychology of warfare.  I spent decades learning it and realize that most of your criticisms you make, aimed at me, are done so through abject ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At about the same point where I stopped reading your incoherent ravings, I noticed - US Code 8 Section 1324 is neither "little" nor is it mine.  It is US law, belonging to the American people for protection from Loons like you .
> 
> And despite your laughable attempt to justify your defense of sanctuary cities, your vested interest still remains a question.
> 
> Here's a multiple choice, any of which you might be :
> 
> 1.  Illegal alien
> 
> 2.   Illegal employer
> 
> 3.   Spanish media owner/employee
> 
> 4.   Churches needing parishoners$$$
> 
> 5.    Unions needing members$$$
> 
> 6.     Ethnocentrist groups
> 
> 7.     Terrorists looking to commit terrorism.
> 
> 8.  Mexicans seeking remittance$$
> 
> 9.   Democrat seeking votes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, with your limited reading capabilities, you have proven you don't pack the gear to be in a real conversation.  The communists had a term for people that were easily led:  useful idiots.  They have you right where they want you.
> 
> I'm sorry that you didn't make it very far in school.  Others, however, will see that your question was fully answered and IF there were anything to the irrelevant statute you cited (see the court rulings), something would have been over the last three years... unless Trump is playing you.
Click to expand...

My "question" ? What question is that ?

Pretending that US Code 8, Section 1324 to be irrelevant, reveals something about you.  You're afraid of it.  It is a threat to you.

You won't reveal which of the items on the list of vested interests correlated with you, but no matter.  You're one of those things, and you can keep blabbering, but it won't save your criminal ass.  They'll get you yet. lol

As for what has or hasn't happened with 1324, politics is complicated.  Just when you have gotten relaxed about something, the feds will be at your door.  

Poor soul PR thinks he can talk his way out of this.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't fix stupid.  There is no way to criminalize Liberty.  That is your first problem.
> 
> Secondly, if you do an honest amount of research, you will find that who comes and goes within a state was left up to the states.  The *ONLY *authority the federal government has relative to foreigners is naturalization.  The Constitution says:
> 
> "_The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization_"  Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Naturalization = citizenship.
> 
> Under your interpretation, the only way "_in_" for foreigners is to be on a pathway to citizenship.  Liberty becomes a privilege instead of the *unalienable *Right the framers intended.  Nonwhites, who have been programmed, Pavlovian style, to hate the whites and whites have been instilled with a false sense of guilt so they hate themselves are insuring that your prediction will be a self fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> The overwhelming majority of "_legal_" immigration (immigration = permanent residence, NOT guest workers)  means more people to vote the posterity of the founders and framers out of existence.
> 
> Obviously, Trump has not changed that, so the Constitution obviously protects sanctuary cities.  Ironically, the patriots and constitutionalists had this war won a couple of decades ago, before the left conned the right (Tom Sawyer style) and got dullards behind supporting laws that the Democrats passed.
> 
> 
> 
> What is your vested interest in illegal immigration ?  No, we can't usually determine that, but when somebody is as cold obsessed with protecting illegals as you are, with or without all your Constitution yammering, there,s MONEY in it for them, somewhere, somehow.
> 
> With the lengthy list of vested interests who profits from illegal immigration, it's entirely easy to see you fitting right in.
> 
> Naturally, you'll deny any personal involvement, and laughably pretend to be all objective, but you can't prove that anymore than we can show where you fit in on the vested interest list (unless you slip up, and give it away).
> 
> As for "the ONLY authority that the federal government has relative to foreigners"...is as Constitution Article 6, Section 2, part 1 says - "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land."
> 
> And one of those "laws of the United States" is US Code 8, Section 1324, which criminalizes sanctuary cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My "_vested interest_" as you call it has nothing to do with nonexistent "_illegals._"  I do have to commend you for finally asking a pertinent question.  There are three things that you cannot get a handle on:
> 
> 1)  America was founded by white Christians with the prevailing attitude that America was the regathering spot for biblical Israelites.  As such, our laws are built on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence.  In the FIRST naturalization laws, only whites could be citizens of the United States:
> 
> http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1 stat 103.pdf
> 
> There is a sermon, first preached in 1630 by John Winthrop, and portions have been cited by U.S. statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan.  You need to read this as it pertains to our history and destiny:
> 
> https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf
> 
> 2)  Despite the fact that only whites were allowed to become citizens, people poured in from all over the world to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  According to the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life,* Liberty *and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, referred to that document as the "_Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man_."
> 
> You tend to conflate Liberty with the privileges of citizenship; hence, your* bogus* argument about "_legal versus illegal aliens_."  The laws you continue to cite were put into place in order to restrict Liberty and force people to come here and seek citizenship.  Such a strategy meant that people from every corner of the world got to come here equally, displacing the posterity of the founders.  White people only number 1 in 13 of the world's population.
> 
> It is your _"legal_" immigrants that joined forces with Democrats to wage a subtle war of genocide against the posterity of the founders / framers.  You cannot criminalize Liberty
> 
> 3)  Instead of returning to the laws of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, you demand more laws that make government bigger and more intrusive.  You seem to be okay with giving America away provided we do so _"legally_" and, consequently, you demand strict adherence to* unconstitutional laws*, put into place to get rid of white people.  You turn our future over to a Congress that is, has been and will be even more so controlled by Democrats.  You demand more laws and more restrictions and even* more control*, thereby negating any possibility that the constitutionalists can resist tyranny in the future.
> 
> Those are the facts and bad strategies are costing us dearly.  As pointed out to you, there are now pro-gun sanctuary cities popping up everywhere as the government begins to threaten us with Red Flag Gun Laws, confiscations, bans, registration, background checks, etc. on firearms.  You are aiding and abetting criminals, Democrats, and traitors.  I've leveled with you about my "_vested interests_" in this fight.
> 
> You can cite unconstitutional laws until Hell freezes over, but sheriffs had your little statute ruled unconstitutional and they could not be forced to enforce unconstitutional laws.  The courts have ruled consistently for both sides.  And, as someone who wants to retain his Rights, I support sanctuary cities.  Scroll through this link to the section entitled *Second Amendment Sanctuaries*:
> 
> Virginia Citizens Defense League - Home
> 
> There, sir, you have my vested interest in protecting sanctuary cities.  I'm wondering what your excuse is in defending Democrats and their legislation the way you do.  I suspect it's because you do not understand the law, political strategies, political guerrilla warfare, or the psychology of warfare.  I spent decades learning it and realize that most of your criticisms you make, aimed at me, are done so through abject ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At about the same point where I stopped reading your incoherent ravings, I noticed - US Code 8 Section 1324 is neither "little" nor is it mine.  It is US law, belonging to the American people for protection from Loons like you .
> 
> And despite your laughable attempt to justify your defense of sanctuary cities, your vested interest still remains a question.
> 
> Here's a multiple choice, any of which you might be :
> 
> 1.  Illegal alien
> 
> 2.   Illegal employer
> 
> 3.   Spanish media owner/employee
> 
> 4.   Churches needing parishoners$$$
> 
> 5.    Unions needing members$$$
> 
> 6.     Ethnocentrist groups
> 
> 7.     Terrorists looking to commit terrorism.
> 
> 8.  Mexicans seeking remittance$$
> 
> 9.   Democrat seeking votes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, with your limited reading capabilities, you have proven you don't pack the gear to be in a real conversation.  The communists had a term for people that were easily led:  useful idiots.  They have you right where they want you.
> 
> I'm sorry that you didn't make it very far in school.  Others, however, will see that your question was fully answered and IF there were anything to the irrelevant statute you cited (see the court rulings), something would have been over the last three years... unless Trump is playing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My "question" ? What question is that ?
> 
> Pretending that US Code 8, Section 1324 to be irrelevant, reveals something about you.  You're afraid of it.  It is a threat to you.
> 
> You won't reveal which of the items on the list of vested interests correlated with you, but no matter.  You're one of those things, and you can keep blabbering, but it won't save your criminal ass.  They'll get you yet. lol
> 
> As for what has or hasn't happened with 1324, politics is complicated.  Just when you have gotten relaxed about something, the feds will be at your door.
> 
> Poor soul PR thinks he can talk his way out of this.
Click to expand...


Are you that poor of a troll OR are you really that stupid?

Let us recap:

You've made false allegations that were proven to be false according to an attorney who works in the very area of law in dispute.  Of the *1.35 million* lawyers in America, you could not find one, single, solitary lawyer to agree with your position.

I'm not "_pretending_" a damn thing.  The United States Supreme Court ruled that it is irrelevant for the purposes you stated.  The feds* are not *screwing with the state and local governments on this issue.  Trump has taken the matter to court and is expected to lose.

The section of law was irrelevant to the original disagreement you had with me.  To continue to argue that point is fruitless for you.  I almost feel sorry for you that you are unable to bullshit your way out of the hole you dug for yourself.

In post # 196, you opened with a question.  In post # 198 you said you didn't read the answer.  Now, you're asking me which of the points I have a vested interest.Now the answer is, read post # 197.  That is still my answer.  

It's pitiful watching you scramble around, trying to make yourself look good when the *ONLY REPLIES* between you and I are from a poster agreeing with my assessment. The rest is bickering between you and I because you made a challenge that once made, has been accepted and now you don't pack the gear to back up your end with.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

To all of you who want the straight skinny on this:

Many years ago there was a book called Tom Sawyer.  In the book, Tom is painting a fence and all the other boys in his neighborhood were having a good old time.  So, Tom pretends that he is having the time of his life, painting that fence.  Before long, Tom is able to con other guys into doing his work.

Mark Twain was a master at using fiction to teach younger people a lesson.  In the instant case, Tom Sawyer provides an example of how the the left conned the right into taking up their cause, but simply rephrased.  protectionist has NOT denied that he agrees with Bill Clinton and I want to repeat Bill Clinton in his own words:


The powers that be on the left wing / liberal / Socialist / Communist / Democrat side of the fence conned the right into taking up the left's battle cry on the immigration (sic) debacle.  The problem for the right is that the *proposed solutions* they settled for don't work.  But, bless their hearts, the right keeps digging their own grave.  

Those proposed solutions cost more than they promise to save; the proposed solutions take away individual Rights and empower the government; those proposed solutions make government so powerful that we cannot mount any defense against tyranny in government.  *Post # 197* illustrates the problem and I defer to it.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your vested interest in illegal immigration ?  No, we can't usually determine that, but when somebody is as cold obsessed with protecting illegals as you are, with or without all your Constitution yammering, there,s MONEY in it for them, somewhere, somehow.
> 
> With the lengthy list of vested interests who profits from illegal immigration, it's entirely easy to see you fitting right in.
> 
> Naturally, you'll deny any personal involvement, and laughably pretend to be all objective, but you can't prove that anymore than we can show where you fit in on the vested interest list (unless you slip up, and give it away).
> 
> As for "the ONLY authority that the federal government has relative to foreigners"...is as Constitution Article 6, Section 2, part 1 says - "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land."
> 
> And one of those "laws of the United States" is US Code 8, Section 1324, which criminalizes sanctuary cities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My "_vested interest_" as you call it has nothing to do with nonexistent "_illegals._"  I do have to commend you for finally asking a pertinent question.  There are three things that you cannot get a handle on:
> 
> 1)  America was founded by white Christians with the prevailing attitude that America was the regathering spot for biblical Israelites.  As such, our laws are built on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence.  In the FIRST naturalization laws, only whites could be citizens of the United States:
> 
> http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1 stat 103.pdf
> 
> There is a sermon, first preached in 1630 by John Winthrop, and portions have been cited by U.S. statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan.  You need to read this as it pertains to our history and destiny:
> 
> https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf
> 
> 2)  Despite the fact that only whites were allowed to become citizens, people poured in from all over the world to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  According to the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life,* Liberty *and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, referred to that document as the "_Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man_."
> 
> You tend to conflate Liberty with the privileges of citizenship; hence, your* bogus* argument about "_legal versus illegal aliens_."  The laws you continue to cite were put into place in order to restrict Liberty and force people to come here and seek citizenship.  Such a strategy meant that people from every corner of the world got to come here equally, displacing the posterity of the founders.  White people only number 1 in 13 of the world's population.
> 
> It is your _"legal_" immigrants that joined forces with Democrats to wage a subtle war of genocide against the posterity of the founders / framers.  You cannot criminalize Liberty
> 
> 3)  Instead of returning to the laws of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, you demand more laws that make government bigger and more intrusive.  You seem to be okay with giving America away provided we do so _"legally_" and, consequently, you demand strict adherence to* unconstitutional laws*, put into place to get rid of white people.  You turn our future over to a Congress that is, has been and will be even more so controlled by Democrats.  You demand more laws and more restrictions and even* more control*, thereby negating any possibility that the constitutionalists can resist tyranny in the future.
> 
> Those are the facts and bad strategies are costing us dearly.  As pointed out to you, there are now pro-gun sanctuary cities popping up everywhere as the government begins to threaten us with Red Flag Gun Laws, confiscations, bans, registration, background checks, etc. on firearms.  You are aiding and abetting criminals, Democrats, and traitors.  I've leveled with you about my "_vested interests_" in this fight.
> 
> You can cite unconstitutional laws until Hell freezes over, but sheriffs had your little statute ruled unconstitutional and they could not be forced to enforce unconstitutional laws.  The courts have ruled consistently for both sides.  And, as someone who wants to retain his Rights, I support sanctuary cities.  Scroll through this link to the section entitled *Second Amendment Sanctuaries*:
> 
> Virginia Citizens Defense League - Home
> 
> There, sir, you have my vested interest in protecting sanctuary cities.  I'm wondering what your excuse is in defending Democrats and their legislation the way you do.  I suspect it's because you do not understand the law, political strategies, political guerrilla warfare, or the psychology of warfare.  I spent decades learning it and realize that most of your criticisms you make, aimed at me, are done so through abject ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At about the same point where I stopped reading your incoherent ravings, I noticed - US Code 8 Section 1324 is neither "little" nor is it mine.  It is US law, belonging to the American people for protection from Loons like you .
> 
> And despite your laughable attempt to justify your defense of sanctuary cities, your vested interest still remains a question.
> 
> Here's a multiple choice, any of which you might be :
> 
> 1.  Illegal alien
> 
> 2.   Illegal employer
> 
> 3.   Spanish media owner/employee
> 
> 4.   Churches needing parishoners$$$
> 
> 5.    Unions needing members$$$
> 
> 6.     Ethnocentrist groups
> 
> 7.     Terrorists looking to commit terrorism.
> 
> 8.  Mexicans seeking remittance$$
> 
> 9.   Democrat seeking votes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, with your limited reading capabilities, you have proven you don't pack the gear to be in a real conversation.  The communists had a term for people that were easily led:  useful idiots.  They have you right where they want you.
> 
> I'm sorry that you didn't make it very far in school.  Others, however, will see that your question was fully answered and IF there were anything to the irrelevant statute you cited (see the court rulings), something would have been over the last three years... unless Trump is playing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My "question" ? What question is that ?
> 
> Pretending that US Code 8, Section 1324 to be irrelevant, reveals something about you.  You're afraid of it.  It is a threat to you.
> 
> You won't reveal which of the items on the list of vested interests correlated with you, but no matter.  You're one of those things, and you can keep blabbering, but it won't save your criminal ass.  They'll get you yet. lol
> 
> As for what has or hasn't happened with 1324, politics is complicated.  Just when you have gotten relaxed about something, the feds will be at your door.
> 
> Poor soul PR thinks he can talk his way out of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you that poor of a troll OR are you really that stupid?
> 
> Let us recap:
> 
> You've made false allegations that were proven to be false according to an attorney who works in the very area of law in dispute.  Of the *1.35 million* lawyers in America, you could not find one, single, solitary lawyer to agree with your position.
> 
> I'm not "_pretending_" a damn thing.  The United States Supreme Court ruled that it is irrelevant for the purposes you stated.  The feds* are not *screwing with the state and local governments on this issue.  Trump has taken the matter to court and is expected to lose.
> 
> The section of law was irrelevant to the original disagreement you had with me.  To continue to argue that point is fruitless for you.  I almost feel sorry for you that you are unable to bullshit your way out of the hole you dug for yourself.
> 
> In post # 196, you opened with a question.  In post # 198 you said you didn't read the answer.  Now, you're asking me which of the points I have a vested interest.Now the answer is, read post # 197.  That is still my answer.
> 
> It's pitiful watching you scramble around, trying to make yourself look good when the *ONLY REPLIES* between you and I are from a poster agreeing with my assessment. The rest is bickering between you and I because you made a challenge that once made, has been accepted and now you don't pack the gear to back up your end with.
Click to expand...

No, there is no need for you to recap anything, because all you could recap is a pathetic display of your massive, mental derangement, and frankly nobody here cares an iota about some loose screw, relative rookie in this forum.

I rarely pull rank, but in your case, I might have to make an exception.  I've been in this forum 6 times as long as you have.   Over the course of those years, I've authored hundreds of OPs, and about 30,000 posts.

Those members of this forum are very familiar with my work, and have
responded with a very large number of positive ratings (Winner, Agree, etc).  Nobody needs or cares one bit about your wild rants or silly character darts.

Regarding my challenge to you, NO, you have NOT accepted it.  You have not admitted what your vested interest in illegal immigration and sanctuary cities is, and instead, you foolishly try to buffalo the members of this forum with a lot of goofy talk about the law, including the assinine comment that the law, US Code 8 Section 1324, is not a law at all.

I think that your vested interest in sanctuary cities, has pushed you over the edge, and you would be wise to seek professional help for your mental abberation.  But then, that's your problem, not mine.

You are almost old enough to be called a senior citizen, and shouldn't be acting like a silly little boy with ego trouble.  And since you are so interested in law (immigration lawyer perhaps), try looking up Florida statute 825.102, so you can ascertain the 3rd degree Felony that you have been committing, in front of thousands of witnesses, the entire time that you have been throwing your psychological injury, insult darts at me, in this thread.
.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> My "_vested interest_" as you call it has nothing to do with nonexistent "_illegals._"  I do have to commend you for finally asking a pertinent question.  There are three things that you cannot get a handle on:
> 
> 1)  America was founded by white Christians with the prevailing attitude that America was the regathering spot for biblical Israelites.  As such, our laws are built on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence.  In the FIRST naturalization laws, only whites could be citizens of the United States:
> 
> http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1 stat 103.pdf
> 
> There is a sermon, first preached in 1630 by John Winthrop, and portions have been cited by U.S. statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan.  You need to read this as it pertains to our history and destiny:
> 
> https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf
> 
> 2)  Despite the fact that only whites were allowed to become citizens, people poured in from all over the world to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*.  According to the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life,* Liberty *and the pursuit of Happiness_."
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, referred to that document as the "_Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man_."
> 
> You tend to conflate Liberty with the privileges of citizenship; hence, your* bogus* argument about "_legal versus illegal aliens_."  The laws you continue to cite were put into place in order to restrict Liberty and force people to come here and seek citizenship.  Such a strategy meant that people from every corner of the world got to come here equally, displacing the posterity of the founders.  White people only number 1 in 13 of the world's population.
> 
> It is your _"legal_" immigrants that joined forces with Democrats to wage a subtle war of genocide against the posterity of the founders / framers.  You cannot criminalize Liberty
> 
> 3)  Instead of returning to the laws of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, you demand more laws that make government bigger and more intrusive.  You seem to be okay with giving America away provided we do so _"legally_" and, consequently, you demand strict adherence to* unconstitutional laws*, put into place to get rid of white people.  You turn our future over to a Congress that is, has been and will be even more so controlled by Democrats.  You demand more laws and more restrictions and even* more control*, thereby negating any possibility that the constitutionalists can resist tyranny in the future.
> 
> Those are the facts and bad strategies are costing us dearly.  As pointed out to you, there are now pro-gun sanctuary cities popping up everywhere as the government begins to threaten us with Red Flag Gun Laws, confiscations, bans, registration, background checks, etc. on firearms.  You are aiding and abetting criminals, Democrats, and traitors.  I've leveled with you about my "_vested interests_" in this fight.
> 
> You can cite unconstitutional laws until Hell freezes over, but sheriffs had your little statute ruled unconstitutional and they could not be forced to enforce unconstitutional laws.  The courts have ruled consistently for both sides.  And, as someone who wants to retain his Rights, I support sanctuary cities.  Scroll through this link to the section entitled *Second Amendment Sanctuaries*:
> 
> Virginia Citizens Defense League - Home
> 
> There, sir, you have my vested interest in protecting sanctuary cities.  I'm wondering what your excuse is in defending Democrats and their legislation the way you do.  I suspect it's because you do not understand the law, political strategies, political guerrilla warfare, or the psychology of warfare.  I spent decades learning it and realize that most of your criticisms you make, aimed at me, are done so through abject ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> At about the same point where I stopped reading your incoherent ravings, I noticed - US Code 8 Section 1324 is neither "little" nor is it mine.  It is US law, belonging to the American people for protection from Loons like you .
> 
> And despite your laughable attempt to justify your defense of sanctuary cities, your vested interest still remains a question.
> 
> Here's a multiple choice, any of which you might be :
> 
> 1.  Illegal alien
> 
> 2.   Illegal employer
> 
> 3.   Spanish media owner/employee
> 
> 4.   Churches needing parishoners$$$
> 
> 5.    Unions needing members$$$
> 
> 6.     Ethnocentrist groups
> 
> 7.     Terrorists looking to commit terrorism.
> 
> 8.  Mexicans seeking remittance$$
> 
> 9.   Democrat seeking votes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, with your limited reading capabilities, you have proven you don't pack the gear to be in a real conversation.  The communists had a term for people that were easily led:  useful idiots.  They have you right where they want you.
> 
> I'm sorry that you didn't make it very far in school.  Others, however, will see that your question was fully answered and IF there were anything to the irrelevant statute you cited (see the court rulings), something would have been over the last three years... unless Trump is playing you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My "question" ? What question is that ?
> 
> Pretending that US Code 8, Section 1324 to be irrelevant, reveals something about you.  You're afraid of it.  It is a threat to you.
> 
> You won't reveal which of the items on the list of vested interests correlated with you, but no matter.  You're one of those things, and you can keep blabbering, but it won't save your criminal ass.  They'll get you yet. lol
> 
> As for what has or hasn't happened with 1324, politics is complicated.  Just when you have gotten relaxed about something, the feds will be at your door.
> 
> Poor soul PR thinks he can talk his way out of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you that poor of a troll OR are you really that stupid?
> 
> Let us recap:
> 
> You've made false allegations that were proven to be false according to an attorney who works in the very area of law in dispute.  Of the *1.35 million* lawyers in America, you could not find one, single, solitary lawyer to agree with your position.
> 
> I'm not "_pretending_" a damn thing.  The United States Supreme Court ruled that it is irrelevant for the purposes you stated.  The feds* are not *screwing with the state and local governments on this issue.  Trump has taken the matter to court and is expected to lose.
> 
> The section of law was irrelevant to the original disagreement you had with me.  To continue to argue that point is fruitless for you.  I almost feel sorry for you that you are unable to bullshit your way out of the hole you dug for yourself.
> 
> In post # 196, you opened with a question.  In post # 198 you said you didn't read the answer.  Now, you're asking me which of the points I have a vested interest.Now the answer is, read post # 197.  That is still my answer.
> 
> It's pitiful watching you scramble around, trying to make yourself look good when the *ONLY REPLIES* between you and I are from a poster agreeing with my assessment. The rest is bickering between you and I because you made a challenge that once made, has been accepted and now you don't pack the gear to back up your end with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, there is no need for you to recap anything, because all you could recap is a pathetic display of your massive, mental derangement, and frankly nobody here cares an iota about some loose screw, relative rookie in this forum.
> 
> I rarely pull rank, but in your case, I might have to make an exception.  I've been in this forum 6 times as long as you have.   Over the course of those years, I've authored hundreds of OPs, and about 30,000 posts.
> 
> Those members of this forum are very familiar with my work, and have
> responded with a very large number of positive ratings (Winner, Agree, etc).  Nobody needs or cares one bit about your wild rants or silly character darts.
> 
> Regarding my challenge to you, NO, you have NOT accepted it.  You have not admitted what your vested interest in illegal immigration and sanctuary cities is, and instead, you foolishly try to buffalo the members of this forum with a lot of goofy talk about the law, including the assinine comment that the law, US Code 8 Section 1324, is not a law at all.
> 
> I think that your vested interest in sanctuary cities, has pushed you over the edge, and you would be wise to seek professional help for your mental abberation.  But then, that's your problem, not mine.
> 
> You are almost old enough to be called a senior citizen, and shouldn't be acting like a silly little boy with ego trouble.  And since you are so interested in law (immigration lawyer perhaps), try looking up Florida statute 825.102, so you can ascertain the 3rd degree Felony that you have been committing, in front of thousands of witnesses, the entire time that you have been throwing your psychological injury, insult darts at me, in this thread.
> .
Click to expand...


You made a challenge and I gave you an answer.  You called me out and I accepted it.  It's as simple as that.  I've committed no felonies here and if I had, I'm sure you would have reported it.  No sir, you called me a coward and I stood up to you.

*NOBODY *is defending you nor your tactics *on this thread*.  And you are a poster.  Your tenure on this board does not give you any rank.  Your bullshit has proven to be lies and you're trying to put as much space between your allegations and what I said so as to obscure the truth.  You have been proven to LIE and if there is a coward between us, it is you.  You are a legend in your own mind, unable to respond to the answers you were given. That is okay; I'm going to repeat them over and over until you leave me alone or get back on topic.  I'm not even going to ask you a second time if you deny supporting the statements that Bill Clinton made again.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Way back in post # 196, protectionist asked me what my "_vested interest in illegal_ (sic) _immigration_" was.  Here is my response, of which he is unable to do anything except rant and call me names over.

My "_vested interest_" as you call it has nothing to do with nonexistent "_illegals._" I do have to commend you for finally asking a pertinent question. There are three things that you cannot get a handle on:

1) America was founded by white Christians with the prevailing attitude that America was the regathering spot for biblical Israelites. As such, our laws are built on Anglo Saxon jurisprudence. In the FIRST naturalization laws, only whites could be citizens of the United States:

http://library.uwb.edu/Static/USimmigration/1 stat 103.pdf

There is a sermon, first preached in 1630 by John Winthrop, and portions have been cited by U.S. statesmen including, but not limited to JFK and Ronald Reagan. You need to read this as it pertains to our history and destiny:

https://www.casa-arts.org/cms/lib/PA01925203/Centricity/Domain/50/A Model of Christian Charity.pdf

2) Despite the fact that only whites were allowed to become citizens, people poured in from all over the world to take advantage of opportunities *willingly offered*. According to the Declaration of Independence:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life,* Liberty *and the pursuit of Happiness_."

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, referred to that document as the "_Declaratory Charter of the Rights of Man_."

You tend to conflate Liberty with the privileges of citizenship; hence, your* bogus* argument about "_legal versus illegal aliens_." The laws you continue to cite were put into place in order to restrict Liberty and force people to come here and seek citizenship. Such a strategy meant that people from every corner of the world got to come here equally, displacing the posterity of the founders. White people only number 1 in 13 of the world's population.

It is your _"legal_" immigrants that joined forces with Democrats to wage a subtle war of genocide against the posterity of the founders / framers. You cannot criminalize Liberty

3) Instead of returning to the laws of our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, you demand more laws that make government bigger and more intrusive. You seem to be okay with giving America away provided we do so _"legally_" and, consequently, you demand strict adherence to* unconstitutional laws*, put into place to get rid of white people. You turn our future over to a Congress that is, has been and will be even more so controlled by Democrats. You demand more laws and more restrictions and even* more control*, thereby negating any possibility that the constitutionalists can resist tyranny in the future.

Those are the facts and bad strategies are costing us dearly. As pointed out to you, there are now pro-gun sanctuary cities popping up everywhere as the government begins to threaten us with Red Flag Gun Laws, confiscations, bans, registration, background checks, etc. on firearms. You are aiding and abetting criminals, Democrats, and traitors. I've leveled with you about my "_vested interests_" in this fight.

You can cite unconstitutional laws until Hell freezes over, but sheriffs had your little statute ruled unconstitutional and they could not be forced to enforce unconstitutional laws. The courts have ruled consistently for both sides. And, as someone who wants to retain his Rights, I support sanctuary cities. Scroll through this link to the section entitled *Second Amendment Sanctuaries*:

Virginia Citizens Defense League - Home

There, sir, you have my vested interest in protecting sanctuary cities. I'm wondering what your excuse is in defending Democrats and their legislation the way you do. I suspect it's because you do not understand the law, political strategies, political guerrilla warfare, or the psychology of warfare. I spent decades learning it and realize that most of your criticisms you make, aimed at me, are done so through abject ignorance

 - And there you have it.  protectionist is now running around like a scared mouse, afraid of others reading some of his most outrageous comments.  He thought he could troll me and stalk me, but this time it isn't going as he planned.  protectionist is an uneducated bully and I have worked my ass on behalf of the Constitution, not to mention having volunteered to serve it.  So, I know a fake, phony and a poseur when I come across one.  protectionist is an example of what is wrong on these boards and WHY America is becoming a third world cesspool.


----------



## protectionist

I did not read one word of this latest post of yours.  Everything you write is a lie, and as liars go, you're a stupid one.  Your posts are worthless sillieness, and I have no need to bother with you. Shoo fly.

From this point on, I have you on ignore.
  I won't see any of your moronic posts, and I would advise other posters to do the same.

You can now do your mindless babbling at the moon, boy.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> I did not read one word of this latest post of yours.  Everything you write is a lie, and as liars go, you're a stupid one.  Your posts are worthless sillieness, and I have no need to bother with you. Shoo fly.
> 
> From this point on, I have you on ignore.
> I won't see any of your moronic posts, and I would advise other posters to do the same.
> 
> You can now do your mindless babbling at the moon, boy.



I feel blessed that an individual that would call me a liar has put me on ignore.  There IS a God in Heaven and this is an example of how poseurs run when faced with the truth.  protectionist made a hasty retreat rather than to answer the obvious questions.  He falsely accused me and after calling me out, he high tails it out of here.  

Sanctuary cities *are* legal.  Because they are legal, their use is not limited to immigration.  I posted this link and will do so again:

Virginia Citizens Defense League - Home

Currently (if reading this before 20 Jan 2020) you can scroll through that section until you see the heading SECOND AMENDMENT SANCTUARIES.  Please donate to vcdl and if you live in Virginia, support this effort or if you want to make an impact on gun Rights.


----------



## protectionist

As the ROCK of WWE Fame would say, IT DOESN'T MATTER if sanctuary cities are constitutional or not.  Things can be constitutional, but be violations of law.  Example: many things are constitutional free speech, yet are illegal (slander, libel, perjury, threats, verbal abuse of elderly, inciting riot, obscenity laws, sedition.)

Sanctuary cities are illegal under US Code 8 Section 1324, and many illegal aliens themselves are subject to arrest under US Code 8 Section 1325.


----------



## protectionist

A glimpse into the future one year from now, January 22, 2021.​
A complete Roundup of sanctuary City polititian criminals, followed by Operation Wetback II.  Wetbacks will be dumped into the Vera Cruz shallow water shores, just as occurred in Operation Wetback I, in 1954.

The Mexicans protested furiously.  Eisenhower paid no attention to them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> As the ROCK of WWE Fame would say, IT DOESN'T MATTER if sanctuary cities are constitutional or not.  Things can be constitutional, but be violations of law.  Example: many things are constitutional free speech, yet are illegal (slander, libel, perjury, threats, verbal abuse of elderly, inciting riot, obscenity laws, sedition.)
> 
> Sanctuary cities are illegal under US Code 8 Section 1324, and many illegal aliens themselves are subject to arrest under US Code 8 Section 1325.



Such dumbassery!

This point was litigated in the case of Printz v. U.S.  protectionist needs a quick civics lesson.  If the feds went to the state of California and tried to force the state government into enforcing 8 USC 1324, the matter would end up in federal court.  Which prevails? The statute OR the rulings of the courts?:

I'd like to quote something from you and invite all of you to look at the link:

".._.If a federal court in a particular circuit has not ruled on a legal issue, it may be persuaded by a decision from a different federal circuit.

*United States Supreme Court decisions are mandatory on issues of federal law for all state and federal courts*_."

LibGuides: Circuit Riders: Weight of Authority

What the courts say the law IS must be followed by the courts.  The courts have ruled that sanctuary cities ARE legal.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> A glimpse into the future one year from now, January 22, 2021.​
> A complete Roundup of sanctuary City polititian criminals, followed by Operation Wetback II.  Wetbacks will be dumped into the Vera Cruz shallow water shores, just as occurred in Operation Wetback I, in 1954.
> 
> The Mexicans protested furiously.  Eisenhower paid no attention to them.



Eisenhower was not hampered by the United States Supreme Court decision of Printz v U.S. that was issued in 1997.


"_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms."     Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._

Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement


----------



## Jackson

MaryL said:


> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?


I believe that does violate our laws.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Jackson said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that does violate our laws.
Click to expand...


There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?

"_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.

It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.

*The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._

Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement


----------



## danielpalos

MaryL said:


> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?


Try as I might, I cannot seem to find any social Power over the whole and entire concept of Immigration, delegated to our federal Congress.


----------



## MaryL

Porter Rockwell said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that does violate our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
Click to expand...




Porter Rockwell said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that does violate our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
Click to expand...

Actually, you missed the basis of my enquiry. So let me clarify: Local or state officials created "sanctuary" for illegals  even though it wasn't  asked for, without our consent, approval or knowledge. ("our" being local constituency, of course). THAT is the issue here. They (local or state governments) seemed to have overstepped their authority. The constitutionality of THAT is the question. That hasn't been addressed. Can local leaders enact policies that  are so far reaching  and detrimental WITHOUT  consent or accountability? That's Constitutional? That is all I am asking.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that does violate our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe that does violate our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you missed the basis of my enquiry. So let me clarify: Local or state officials created "sanctuary" for illegals  even though it wasn't  asked for, without our consent, approval or knowledge. ("our" being local constituency, of course). THAT is the issue here. They (local or state governments) seemed to have overstepped their authority. The constitutionality of THAT is the question. That hasn't been addressed. Can local leaders enact policies that  are so far reaching  and detrimental WITHOUT  consent or accountability? That's Constitutional? That is all I am asking.
Click to expand...


I have answered you.  Let me put it to you in four easy concepts:

1)  The *ONLY* legal, constitutional, lawful, de jure *AUTHORITY *the federal government has over foreigners is naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  (See Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution

2)  Under the Constitution, it is the *states* who determine who can come and go within a state.  So, how did all this become a "_federal_" matter?  That is answered next

3)  In 1875, the United States Supreme Court gave "_plenary powers_" to Congress over all things to do with foreigners.  *The California state immigration commissioner* did not mount a defense to the case and the court ruled against the *state immigration commissioner
*
4)  The United States Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any *AUTHORITY* to grant to any other branch of government any *POWERS*.  The United States Supreme Court broke the law and nobody wants to hold them accountable on this issue

If you live in a state with sanctuary cities and you don't like it, your beef is with the state NOT the federal government.  America is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.


----------



## MaryL

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that does violate our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe that does violate our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you missed the basis of my enquiry. So let me clarify: Local or state officials created "sanctuary" for illegals  even though it wasn't  asked for, without our consent, approval or knowledge. ("our" being local constituency, of course). THAT is the issue here. They (local or state governments) seemed to have overstepped their authority. The constitutionality of THAT is the question. That hasn't been addressed. Can local leaders enact policies that  are so far reaching  and detrimental WITHOUT  consent or accountability? That's Constitutional? That is all I am asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have answered you.  Let me put it to you in four easy concepts:
> 
> 1)  The *ONLY* legal, constitutional, lawful, de jure *AUTHORITY *the federal government has over foreigners is naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  (See Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> 2)  Under the Constitution, it is the *states* who determine who can come and go within a state.  So, how did all this become a "_federal_" matter?  That is answered next
> 
> 3)  In 1875, the United States Supreme Court gave "_plenary powers_" to Congress over all things to do with foreigners.  *The California state immigration commissioner* did not mount a defense to the case and the court ruled against the *state immigration commissioner
> *
> 4)  The United States Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any *AUTHORITY* to grant to any other branch of government any *POWERS*.  The United States Supreme Court broke the law and nobody wants to hold them accountable on this issue
> 
> If you live in a state with sanctuary cities and you don't like it, your beef is with the state NOT the federal government.  America is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.
Click to expand...

 And? you are only fooling yourself. Nobody wanted or asked for sanctuary cities. Funny this was never on a ballot initiative to give illegals aliens sanctuary  nor did we the PEOPLE ask for IT. So from where did that come from?  Hmmm. There  is the deeper question.


----------



## MaryL

It stretches credibility that American leadership would give sanctuary to illegal aliens...and then let our own  poor and needy  languish in the streets... and supersede our will, but that IS exactly what's happening right now.


----------



## MaryL

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that does violate our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe that does violate our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you missed the basis of my enquiry. So let me clarify: Local or state officials created "sanctuary" for illegals  even though it wasn't  asked for, without our consent, approval or knowledge. ("our" being local constituency, of course). THAT is the issue here. They (local or state governments) seemed to have overstepped their authority. The constitutionality of THAT is the question. That hasn't been addressed. Can local leaders enact policies that  are so far reaching  and detrimental WITHOUT  consent or accountability? That's Constitutional? That is all I am asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have answered you.  Let me put it to you in four easy concepts:
> 
> 1)  The *ONLY* legal, constitutional, lawful, de jure *AUTHORITY *the federal government has over foreigners is naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  (See Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> 2)  Under the Constitution, it is the *states* who determine who can come and go within a state.  So, how did all this become a "_federal_" matter?  That is answered next
> 
> 3)  In 1875, the United States Supreme Court gave "_plenary powers_" to Congress over all things to do with foreigners.  *The California state immigration commissioner* did not mount a defense to the case and the court ruled against the *state immigration commissioner
> *
> 4)  The United States Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any *AUTHORITY* to grant to any other branch of government any *POWERS*.  The United States Supreme Court broke the law and nobody wants to hold them accountable on this issue
> 
> If you live in a state with sanctuary cities and you don't like it, your beef is with the state NOT the federal government.  America is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.
Click to expand...

So this isn't a democratic republic?  What is it then?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that does violate our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe that does violate our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you missed the basis of my enquiry. So let me clarify: Local or state officials created "sanctuary" for illegals  even though it wasn't  asked for, without our consent, approval or knowledge. ("our" being local constituency, of course). THAT is the issue here. They (local or state governments) seemed to have overstepped their authority. The constitutionality of THAT is the question. That hasn't been addressed. Can local leaders enact policies that  are so far reaching  and detrimental WITHOUT  consent or accountability? That's Constitutional? That is all I am asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have answered you.  Let me put it to you in four easy concepts:
> 
> 1)  The *ONLY* legal, constitutional, lawful, de jure *AUTHORITY *the federal government has over foreigners is naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  (See Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> 2)  Under the Constitution, it is the *states* who determine who can come and go within a state.  So, how did all this become a "_federal_" matter?  That is answered next
> 
> 3)  In 1875, the United States Supreme Court gave "_plenary powers_" to Congress over all things to do with foreigners.  *The California state immigration commissioner* did not mount a defense to the case and the court ruled against the *state immigration commissioner
> *
> 4)  The United States Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any *AUTHORITY* to grant to any other branch of government any *POWERS*.  The United States Supreme Court broke the law and nobody wants to hold them accountable on this issue
> 
> If you live in a state with sanctuary cities and you don't like it, your beef is with the state NOT the federal government.  America is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And? you are only fooling yourself. Nobody wanted or asked for sanctuary cities. Funny this was never on a ballot initiative to give illegals aliens sanctuary  nor did we the PEOPLE ask for IT. So from where did that come from?  Hmmm. There  is the deeper question.
Click to expand...


How am I fooling myself?  The *government of California *allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.  The* people of the state of California* voted for the politicians who allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.  

The *United States Supreme Court* ruled that the federal government *cannot* force states and local governments to enforce federal laws.  How am I fooling myself?  What in the Hell makes you think the people get a vote on everything?

Are you so ignorant to suggest that it's my fault the United States Supreme Court makes a ruling and the people cannot outvote the high Court?  Not even Jesus Christ himself has over-ruled the United States Supreme Court in my lifetime.

I only support sanctuary cities because* they are not only about immigration*.  They have sanctuary cities for gun owners and now some states and local governments have vowed never to allow the federal government to come in infringe on our gun Rights.  I'm not in favor of you being able to take that away.  You keep babbling on about voting.  The people of California DID vote.  Your best option is to make sure Trump cuts off sending federal money into any state that helps undocumented foreigners.  Giving the feds control over the state and local governments - not a good idea.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that does violate our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> An honest question.  I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment  kerfuffle) then it begs the question.  When local authorities  give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal  law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't  that violate  our compact with our elected government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe that does violate our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you missed the basis of my enquiry. So let me clarify: Local or state officials created "sanctuary" for illegals  even though it wasn't  asked for, without our consent, approval or knowledge. ("our" being local constituency, of course). THAT is the issue here. They (local or state governments) seemed to have overstepped their authority. The constitutionality of THAT is the question. That hasn't been addressed. Can local leaders enact policies that  are so far reaching  and detrimental WITHOUT  consent or accountability? That's Constitutional? That is all I am asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have answered you.  Let me put it to you in four easy concepts:
> 
> 1)  The *ONLY* legal, constitutional, lawful, de jure *AUTHORITY *the federal government has over foreigners is naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  (See Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> 2)  Under the Constitution, it is the *states* who determine who can come and go within a state.  So, how did all this become a "_federal_" matter?  That is answered next
> 
> 3)  In 1875, the United States Supreme Court gave "_plenary powers_" to Congress over all things to do with foreigners.  *The California state immigration commissioner* did not mount a defense to the case and the court ruled against the *state immigration commissioner
> *
> 4)  The United States Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any *AUTHORITY* to grant to any other branch of government any *POWERS*.  The United States Supreme Court broke the law and nobody wants to hold them accountable on this issue
> 
> If you live in a state with sanctuary cities and you don't like it, your beef is with the state NOT the federal government.  America is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So this isn't a democratic republic?  What is it then?
Click to expand...



The United States Constitution in Article 4  Section 4 states:

"_The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a *republican form of government*_..."

The term "_democratic republic_" NOR ANY word related to democracy appears in the Constitution.  Thank God that the federal government cannot let the people outside of California rule their internal politics.  We are either a Democracy or a Republic.  A Republic protects the weak against the strong and prohibits the majority from infringing on our Liberties.


----------



## MaryL

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that does violate our laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that does violate our laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you missed the basis of my enquiry. So let me clarify: Local or state officials created "sanctuary" for illegals  even though it wasn't  asked for, without our consent, approval or knowledge. ("our" being local constituency, of course). THAT is the issue here. They (local or state governments) seemed to have overstepped their authority. The constitutionality of THAT is the question. That hasn't been addressed. Can local leaders enact policies that  are so far reaching  and detrimental WITHOUT  consent or accountability? That's Constitutional? That is all I am asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have answered you.  Let me put it to you in four easy concepts:
> 
> 1)  The *ONLY* legal, constitutional, lawful, de jure *AUTHORITY *the federal government has over foreigners is naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  (See Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> 2)  Under the Constitution, it is the *states* who determine who can come and go within a state.  So, how did all this become a "_federal_" matter?  That is answered next
> 
> 3)  In 1875, the United States Supreme Court gave "_plenary powers_" to Congress over all things to do with foreigners.  *The California state immigration commissioner* did not mount a defense to the case and the court ruled against the *state immigration commissioner
> *
> 4)  The United States Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any *AUTHORITY* to grant to any other branch of government any *POWERS*.  The United States Supreme Court broke the law and nobody wants to hold them accountable on this issue
> 
> If you live in a state with sanctuary cities and you don't like it, your beef is with the state NOT the federal government.  America is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And? you are only fooling yourself. Nobody wanted or asked for sanctuary cities. Funny this was never on a ballot initiative to give illegals aliens sanctuary  nor did we the PEOPLE ask for IT. So from where did that come from?  Hmmm. There  is the deeper question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I fooling myself?  The *government of California *allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.  The* people of the state of California* voted for the politicians who allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.
> 
> The *United States Supreme Court* ruled that the federal government *cannot* force states and local governments to enforce federal laws.  How am I fooling myself?  What in the Hell makes you think the people get a vote on everything?
> 
> Are you so ignorant to suggest that it's my fault the United States Supreme Court makes a ruling and the people cannot outvote the high Court?  Not even Jesus Christ himself has over-ruled the United States Supreme Court in my lifetime.
> 
> I only support sanctuary cities because* they are not only about immigration*.  They have sanctuary cities for gun owners and now some states and local governments have vowed never to allow the federal government to come in infringe on our gun Rights.  I'm not in favor of you being able to take that away.  You keep babbling on about voting.  The people of California DID vote.  Your best option is to make sure Trump cuts off sending federal money into any state that helps undocumented foreigners.  Giving the feds control over the state and local governments - not a good idea.
Click to expand...

Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration  law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and  persons involved...we would all like know that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are 213 posts here on this already.  It was proven that the federal laws DO protect sanctuary cities.  Would you like to read the thread or shall I cut and paste some of the posts proving the point?
> 
> "_In fact, the question was decisively answered by the Supreme Court in 1997 in a case called Printz v. United States. That case involved a challenge to the federal Brady Act, which required local sheriffs to conduct background checks for gun purchasers. Some sheriffs resisted because they objected to the federal regulation of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, made clear that the sheriffs, and states generally, have a right to abstain from federal law enforcement schemes with which they disagreed.
> 
> It is this principle that distinguishes California’s decision to opt out of deportation efforts from Arizona’s decision to opt in.
> 
> *The Justice Department is correct that the regulation of immigration is a federal matter. That’s why the Supreme Court made clear in the Arizona case that states may not insert themselves into immigration enforcement by directing its officers to arrest people on immigration charges. California, far from inserting itself, has extracted itself from federal immigration enforcement efforts in precisely the same way that the sheriffs in Printz extracted themselves from the federal effort to regulate the purchase of firearms*." Peter L. Markowitz is a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law._
> 
> Fresh Printz: Why Trump and Sessions Can't Stop the Sanctuary Movement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you missed the basis of my enquiry. So let me clarify: Local or state officials created "sanctuary" for illegals  even though it wasn't  asked for, without our consent, approval or knowledge. ("our" being local constituency, of course). THAT is the issue here. They (local or state governments) seemed to have overstepped their authority. The constitutionality of THAT is the question. That hasn't been addressed. Can local leaders enact policies that  are so far reaching  and detrimental WITHOUT  consent or accountability? That's Constitutional? That is all I am asking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have answered you.  Let me put it to you in four easy concepts:
> 
> 1)  The *ONLY* legal, constitutional, lawful, de jure *AUTHORITY *the federal government has over foreigners is naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  (See Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> 2)  Under the Constitution, it is the *states* who determine who can come and go within a state.  So, how did all this become a "_federal_" matter?  That is answered next
> 
> 3)  In 1875, the United States Supreme Court gave "_plenary powers_" to Congress over all things to do with foreigners.  *The California state immigration commissioner* did not mount a defense to the case and the court ruled against the *state immigration commissioner
> *
> 4)  The United States Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any *AUTHORITY* to grant to any other branch of government any *POWERS*.  The United States Supreme Court broke the law and nobody wants to hold them accountable on this issue
> 
> If you live in a state with sanctuary cities and you don't like it, your beef is with the state NOT the federal government.  America is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And? you are only fooling yourself. Nobody wanted or asked for sanctuary cities. Funny this was never on a ballot initiative to give illegals aliens sanctuary  nor did we the PEOPLE ask for IT. So from where did that come from?  Hmmm. There  is the deeper question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I fooling myself?  The *government of California *allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.  The* people of the state of California* voted for the politicians who allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.
> 
> The *United States Supreme Court* ruled that the federal government *cannot* force states and local governments to enforce federal laws.  How am I fooling myself?  What in the Hell makes you think the people get a vote on everything?
> 
> Are you so ignorant to suggest that it's my fault the United States Supreme Court makes a ruling and the people cannot outvote the high Court?  Not even Jesus Christ himself has over-ruled the United States Supreme Court in my lifetime.
> 
> I only support sanctuary cities because* they are not only about immigration*.  They have sanctuary cities for gun owners and now some states and local governments have vowed never to allow the federal government to come in infringe on our gun Rights.  I'm not in favor of you being able to take that away.  You keep babbling on about voting.  The people of California DID vote.  Your best option is to make sure Trump cuts off sending federal money into any state that helps undocumented foreigners.  Giving the feds control over the state and local governments - not a good idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration  law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and  persons involved...we would all like know that.
Click to expand...


YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE.  YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU.  In the case of "_immigration law_," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.

WTF is this "_nice try_?"  Are you illiterate?  It wasn't a try (sic.)  It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm.  Civics 101 is non-partisan.


----------



## MaryL

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you missed the basis of my enquiry. So let me clarify: Local or state officials created "sanctuary" for illegals  even though it wasn't  asked for, without our consent, approval or knowledge. ("our" being local constituency, of course). THAT is the issue here. They (local or state governments) seemed to have overstepped their authority. The constitutionality of THAT is the question. That hasn't been addressed. Can local leaders enact policies that  are so far reaching  and detrimental WITHOUT  consent or accountability? That's Constitutional? That is all I am asking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you.  Let me put it to you in four easy concepts:
> 
> 1)  The *ONLY* legal, constitutional, lawful, de jure *AUTHORITY *the federal government has over foreigners is naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  (See Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> 2)  Under the Constitution, it is the *states* who determine who can come and go within a state.  So, how did all this become a "_federal_" matter?  That is answered next
> 
> 3)  In 1875, the United States Supreme Court gave "_plenary powers_" to Congress over all things to do with foreigners.  *The California state immigration commissioner* did not mount a defense to the case and the court ruled against the *state immigration commissioner
> *
> 4)  The United States Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any *AUTHORITY* to grant to any other branch of government any *POWERS*.  The United States Supreme Court broke the law and nobody wants to hold them accountable on this issue
> 
> If you live in a state with sanctuary cities and you don't like it, your beef is with the state NOT the federal government.  America is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And? you are only fooling yourself. Nobody wanted or asked for sanctuary cities. Funny this was never on a ballot initiative to give illegals aliens sanctuary  nor did we the PEOPLE ask for IT. So from where did that come from?  Hmmm. There  is the deeper question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I fooling myself?  The *government of California *allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.  The* people of the state of California* voted for the politicians who allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.
> 
> The *United States Supreme Court* ruled that the federal government *cannot* force states and local governments to enforce federal laws.  How am I fooling myself?  What in the Hell makes you think the people get a vote on everything?
> 
> Are you so ignorant to suggest that it's my fault the United States Supreme Court makes a ruling and the people cannot outvote the high Court?  Not even Jesus Christ himself has over-ruled the United States Supreme Court in my lifetime.
> 
> I only support sanctuary cities because* they are not only about immigration*.  They have sanctuary cities for gun owners and now some states and local governments have vowed never to allow the federal government to come in infringe on our gun Rights.  I'm not in favor of you being able to take that away.  You keep babbling on about voting.  The people of California DID vote.  Your best option is to make sure Trump cuts off sending federal money into any state that helps undocumented foreigners.  Giving the feds control over the state and local governments - not a good idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration  law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and  persons involved...we would all like know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE.  YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU.  In the case of "_immigration law_," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.
> 
> WTF is this "_nice try_?"  Are you illiterate?  It wasn't a try (sic.)  It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm.  Civics 101 is non-partisan.
Click to expand...

'
I mean, nice try. This supposedly is  STILL a Democratic republic.  We, "the people" never actually proposed allowing illegal aliens sanctuary from federal immigration laws.  it was imposed on us, we never asked for it...Did you? Remember when? The exact time?  What  exact time was it  when you where  asked when you wanted to give sanctuary to illegal aliens?


----------



## MaryL

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you missed the basis of my enquiry. So let me clarify: Local or state officials created "sanctuary" for illegals  even though it wasn't  asked for, without our consent, approval or knowledge. ("our" being local constituency, of course). THAT is the issue here. They (local or state governments) seemed to have overstepped their authority. The constitutionality of THAT is the question. That hasn't been addressed. Can local leaders enact policies that  are so far reaching  and detrimental WITHOUT  consent or accountability? That's Constitutional? That is all I am asking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you.  Let me put it to you in four easy concepts:
> 
> 1)  The *ONLY* legal, constitutional, lawful, de jure *AUTHORITY *the federal government has over foreigners is naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  (See Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> 2)  Under the Constitution, it is the *states* who determine who can come and go within a state.  So, how did all this become a "_federal_" matter?  That is answered next
> 
> 3)  In 1875, the United States Supreme Court gave "_plenary powers_" to Congress over all things to do with foreigners.  *The California state immigration commissioner* did not mount a defense to the case and the court ruled against the *state immigration commissioner
> *
> 4)  The United States Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any *AUTHORITY* to grant to any other branch of government any *POWERS*.  The United States Supreme Court broke the law and nobody wants to hold them accountable on this issue
> 
> If you live in a state with sanctuary cities and you don't like it, your beef is with the state NOT the federal government.  America is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And? you are only fooling yourself. Nobody wanted or asked for sanctuary cities. Funny this was never on a ballot initiative to give illegals aliens sanctuary  nor did we the PEOPLE ask for IT. So from where did that come from?  Hmmm. There  is the deeper question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I fooling myself?  The *government of California *allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.  The* people of the state of California* voted for the politicians who allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.
> 
> The *United States Supreme Court* ruled that the federal government *cannot* force states and local governments to enforce federal laws.  How am I fooling myself?  What in the Hell makes you think the people get a vote on everything?
> 
> Are you so ignorant to suggest that it's my fault the United States Supreme Court makes a ruling and the people cannot outvote the high Court?  Not even Jesus Christ himself has over-ruled the United States Supreme Court in my lifetime.
> 
> I only support sanctuary cities because* they are not only about immigration*.  They have sanctuary cities for gun owners and now some states and local governments have vowed never to allow the federal government to come in infringe on our gun Rights.  I'm not in favor of you being able to take that away.  You keep babbling on about voting.  The people of California DID vote.  Your best option is to make sure Trump cuts off sending federal money into any state that helps undocumented foreigners.  Giving the feds control over the state and local governments - not a good idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration  law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and  persons involved...we would all like know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE.  YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU.  In the case of "_immigration law_," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.
> 
> WTF is this "_nice try_?"  Are you illiterate?  It wasn't a try (sic.)  It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm.  Civics 101 is non-partisan.
Click to expand...

I like that. I don't vote on every mill levy or minor issue...district judges...but we were NEVER  EVER given a choice on sanctuary for illegals, kiddo. It was  mandatory. That fine point you miss...And to who's befit, the larger question.


----------



## danielpalos

MaryL said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you.  Let me put it to you in four easy concepts:
> 
> 1)  The *ONLY* legal, constitutional, lawful, de jure *AUTHORITY *the federal government has over foreigners is naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  (See Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> 2)  Under the Constitution, it is the *states* who determine who can come and go within a state.  So, how did all this become a "_federal_" matter?  That is answered next
> 
> 3)  In 1875, the United States Supreme Court gave "_plenary powers_" to Congress over all things to do with foreigners.  *The California state immigration commissioner* did not mount a defense to the case and the court ruled against the *state immigration commissioner
> *
> 4)  The United States Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any *AUTHORITY* to grant to any other branch of government any *POWERS*.  The United States Supreme Court broke the law and nobody wants to hold them accountable on this issue
> 
> If you live in a state with sanctuary cities and you don't like it, your beef is with the state NOT the federal government.  America is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> And? you are only fooling yourself. Nobody wanted or asked for sanctuary cities. Funny this was never on a ballot initiative to give illegals aliens sanctuary  nor did we the PEOPLE ask for IT. So from where did that come from?  Hmmm. There  is the deeper question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I fooling myself?  The *government of California *allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.  The* people of the state of California* voted for the politicians who allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.
> 
> The *United States Supreme Court* ruled that the federal government *cannot* force states and local governments to enforce federal laws.  How am I fooling myself?  What in the Hell makes you think the people get a vote on everything?
> 
> Are you so ignorant to suggest that it's my fault the United States Supreme Court makes a ruling and the people cannot outvote the high Court?  Not even Jesus Christ himself has over-ruled the United States Supreme Court in my lifetime.
> 
> I only support sanctuary cities because* they are not only about immigration*.  They have sanctuary cities for gun owners and now some states and local governments have vowed never to allow the federal government to come in infringe on our gun Rights.  I'm not in favor of you being able to take that away.  You keep babbling on about voting.  The people of California DID vote.  Your best option is to make sure Trump cuts off sending federal money into any state that helps undocumented foreigners.  Giving the feds control over the state and local governments - not a good idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration  law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and  persons involved...we would all like know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE.  YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU.  In the case of "_immigration law_," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.
> 
> WTF is this "_nice try_?"  Are you illiterate?  It wasn't a try (sic.)  It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm.  Civics 101 is non-partisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like that. I don't vote on every mill levy or minor issue...district judges...but we were NEVER  EVER given a choice on sanctuary for illegals, kiddo. It was  mandatory. That fine point you miss...And to who's befit, the larger question.
Click to expand...

Because it has to do with natural rights outside of abortion threads.  Only the right wing, doesn't really really care about natural rights if Government can solve all of their problems.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you.  Let me put it to you in four easy concepts:
> 
> 1)  The *ONLY* legal, constitutional, lawful, de jure *AUTHORITY *the federal government has over foreigners is naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  (See Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> 2)  Under the Constitution, it is the *states* who determine who can come and go within a state.  So, how did all this become a "_federal_" matter?  That is answered next
> 
> 3)  In 1875, the United States Supreme Court gave "_plenary powers_" to Congress over all things to do with foreigners.  *The California state immigration commissioner* did not mount a defense to the case and the court ruled against the *state immigration commissioner
> *
> 4)  The United States Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any *AUTHORITY* to grant to any other branch of government any *POWERS*.  The United States Supreme Court broke the law and nobody wants to hold them accountable on this issue
> 
> If you live in a state with sanctuary cities and you don't like it, your beef is with the state NOT the federal government.  America is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> And? you are only fooling yourself. Nobody wanted or asked for sanctuary cities. Funny this was never on a ballot initiative to give illegals aliens sanctuary  nor did we the PEOPLE ask for IT. So from where did that come from?  Hmmm. There  is the deeper question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I fooling myself?  The *government of California *allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.  The* people of the state of California* voted for the politicians who allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.
> 
> The *United States Supreme Court* ruled that the federal government *cannot* force states and local governments to enforce federal laws.  How am I fooling myself?  What in the Hell makes you think the people get a vote on everything?
> 
> Are you so ignorant to suggest that it's my fault the United States Supreme Court makes a ruling and the people cannot outvote the high Court?  Not even Jesus Christ himself has over-ruled the United States Supreme Court in my lifetime.
> 
> I only support sanctuary cities because* they are not only about immigration*.  They have sanctuary cities for gun owners and now some states and local governments have vowed never to allow the federal government to come in infringe on our gun Rights.  I'm not in favor of you being able to take that away.  You keep babbling on about voting.  The people of California DID vote.  Your best option is to make sure Trump cuts off sending federal money into any state that helps undocumented foreigners.  Giving the feds control over the state and local governments - not a good idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration  law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and  persons involved...we would all like know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE.  YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU.  In the case of "_immigration law_," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.
> 
> WTF is this "_nice try_?"  Are you illiterate?  It wasn't a try (sic.)  It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm.  Civics 101 is non-partisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> '
> I mean, nice try. This supposedly is  STILL a Democratic republic.  We, "the people" never actually proposed allowing illegal aliens sanctuary from federal immigration laws.  it was imposed on us, we never asked for it...Did you? Remember when? The exact time?  What  exact time was it  when you where  asked when you wanted to give sanctuary to illegal aliens?
Click to expand...


Are you dense or just trolling?  Show us the term democratic republic or democracy in the Constitution.  If you can't do that, you're trolling me.

Furthermore, I wasn't asked anything about sanctuary cities in Georgia.  As far as I know we don't have them and I don't get a vote in California politics.

You don't get a vote on every damn thing.  This is a REPUBLIC.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have answered you.  Let me put it to you in four easy concepts:
> 
> 1)  The *ONLY* legal, constitutional, lawful, de jure *AUTHORITY *the federal government has over foreigners is naturalization.  Naturalization = citizenship.  (See Article I  Section 8 of the United States Constitution
> 
> 2)  Under the Constitution, it is the *states* who determine who can come and go within a state.  So, how did all this become a "_federal_" matter?  That is answered next
> 
> 3)  In 1875, the United States Supreme Court gave "_plenary powers_" to Congress over all things to do with foreigners.  *The California state immigration commissioner* did not mount a defense to the case and the court ruled against the *state immigration commissioner
> *
> 4)  The United States Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any *AUTHORITY* to grant to any other branch of government any *POWERS*.  The United States Supreme Court broke the law and nobody wants to hold them accountable on this issue
> 
> If you live in a state with sanctuary cities and you don't like it, your beef is with the state NOT the federal government.  America is a constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> And? you are only fooling yourself. Nobody wanted or asked for sanctuary cities. Funny this was never on a ballot initiative to give illegals aliens sanctuary  nor did we the PEOPLE ask for IT. So from where did that come from?  Hmmm. There  is the deeper question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How am I fooling myself?  The *government of California *allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.  The* people of the state of California* voted for the politicians who allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.
> 
> The *United States Supreme Court* ruled that the federal government *cannot* force states and local governments to enforce federal laws.  How am I fooling myself?  What in the Hell makes you think the people get a vote on everything?
> 
> Are you so ignorant to suggest that it's my fault the United States Supreme Court makes a ruling and the people cannot outvote the high Court?  Not even Jesus Christ himself has over-ruled the United States Supreme Court in my lifetime.
> 
> I only support sanctuary cities because* they are not only about immigration*.  They have sanctuary cities for gun owners and now some states and local governments have vowed never to allow the federal government to come in infringe on our gun Rights.  I'm not in favor of you being able to take that away.  You keep babbling on about voting.  The people of California DID vote.  Your best option is to make sure Trump cuts off sending federal money into any state that helps undocumented foreigners.  Giving the feds control over the state and local governments - not a good idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration  law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and  persons involved...we would all like know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE.  YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU.  In the case of "_immigration law_," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.
> 
> WTF is this "_nice try_?"  Are you illiterate?  It wasn't a try (sic.)  It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm.  Civics 101 is non-partisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like that. I don't vote on every mill levy or minor issue...district judges...but we were NEVER  EVER given a choice on sanctuary for illegals, kiddo. It was  mandatory. That fine point you miss...And to who's befit, the larger question.
Click to expand...


Who is befit for what???

In what language do you have to be told that you don't get a vote on every damn thing?  The United States Supreme Court decided women have a "right" to an abortion.  Did you vote on that?  The United States Supreme Court made Freedom of Association a privilege instead of a "right."  Did you vote on that?

If you live in a sanctuary state and you oppose it, the feds cannot help you.  If you think you were entitled a vote (and you were not) then the STATE is where your remedy is.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

danielpalos said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? you are only fooling yourself. Nobody wanted or asked for sanctuary cities. Funny this was never on a ballot initiative to give illegals aliens sanctuary  nor did we the PEOPLE ask for IT. So from where did that come from?  Hmmm. There  is the deeper question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I fooling myself?  The *government of California *allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.  The* people of the state of California* voted for the politicians who allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.
> 
> The *United States Supreme Court* ruled that the federal government *cannot* force states and local governments to enforce federal laws.  How am I fooling myself?  What in the Hell makes you think the people get a vote on everything?
> 
> Are you so ignorant to suggest that it's my fault the United States Supreme Court makes a ruling and the people cannot outvote the high Court?  Not even Jesus Christ himself has over-ruled the United States Supreme Court in my lifetime.
> 
> I only support sanctuary cities because* they are not only about immigration*.  They have sanctuary cities for gun owners and now some states and local governments have vowed never to allow the federal government to come in infringe on our gun Rights.  I'm not in favor of you being able to take that away.  You keep babbling on about voting.  The people of California DID vote.  Your best option is to make sure Trump cuts off sending federal money into any state that helps undocumented foreigners.  Giving the feds control over the state and local governments - not a good idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration  law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and  persons involved...we would all like know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE.  YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU.  In the case of "_immigration law_," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.
> 
> WTF is this "_nice try_?"  Are you illiterate?  It wasn't a try (sic.)  It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm.  Civics 101 is non-partisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like that. I don't vote on every mill levy or minor issue...district judges...but we were NEVER  EVER given a choice on sanctuary for illegals, kiddo. It was  mandatory. That fine point you miss...And to who's befit, the larger question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it has to do with natural rights outside of abortion threads.  Only the right wing, doesn't really really care about natural rights if Government can solve all of their problems.
Click to expand...


The left relies on a government God as well.  Other than that, I can stipulate to the rest of your post.


----------



## danielpalos

Porter Rockwell said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I fooling myself?  The *government of California *allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.  The* people of the state of California* voted for the politicians who allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.
> 
> The *United States Supreme Court* ruled that the federal government *cannot* force states and local governments to enforce federal laws.  How am I fooling myself?  What in the Hell makes you think the people get a vote on everything?
> 
> Are you so ignorant to suggest that it's my fault the United States Supreme Court makes a ruling and the people cannot outvote the high Court?  Not even Jesus Christ himself has over-ruled the United States Supreme Court in my lifetime.
> 
> I only support sanctuary cities because* they are not only about immigration*.  They have sanctuary cities for gun owners and now some states and local governments have vowed never to allow the federal government to come in infringe on our gun Rights.  I'm not in favor of you being able to take that away.  You keep babbling on about voting.  The people of California DID vote.  Your best option is to make sure Trump cuts off sending federal money into any state that helps undocumented foreigners.  Giving the feds control over the state and local governments - not a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration  law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and  persons involved...we would all like know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE.  YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU.  In the case of "_immigration law_," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.
> 
> WTF is this "_nice try_?"  Are you illiterate?  It wasn't a try (sic.)  It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm.  Civics 101 is non-partisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like that. I don't vote on every mill levy or minor issue...district judges...but we were NEVER  EVER given a choice on sanctuary for illegals, kiddo. It was  mandatory. That fine point you miss...And to who's befit, the larger question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it has to do with natural rights outside of abortion threads.  Only the right wing, doesn't really really care about natural rights if Government can solve all of their problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left relies on a government God as well.  Other than that, I can stipulate to the rest of your post.
Click to expand...

The left is willing to learn how merely Use capitalism for _All_ of its capital worth in modern economic times.


----------



## MaryL

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And? you are only fooling yourself. Nobody wanted or asked for sanctuary cities. Funny this was never on a ballot initiative to give illegals aliens sanctuary  nor did we the PEOPLE ask for IT. So from where did that come from?  Hmmm. There  is the deeper question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How am I fooling myself?  The *government of California *allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.  The* people of the state of California* voted for the politicians who allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.
> 
> The *United States Supreme Court* ruled that the federal government *cannot* force states and local governments to enforce federal laws.  How am I fooling myself?  What in the Hell makes you think the people get a vote on everything?
> 
> Are you so ignorant to suggest that it's my fault the United States Supreme Court makes a ruling and the people cannot outvote the high Court?  Not even Jesus Christ himself has over-ruled the United States Supreme Court in my lifetime.
> 
> I only support sanctuary cities because* they are not only about immigration*.  They have sanctuary cities for gun owners and now some states and local governments have vowed never to allow the federal government to come in infringe on our gun Rights.  I'm not in favor of you being able to take that away.  You keep babbling on about voting.  The people of California DID vote.  Your best option is to make sure Trump cuts off sending federal money into any state that helps undocumented foreigners.  Giving the feds control over the state and local governments - not a good idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration  law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and  persons involved...we would all like know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE.  YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU.  In the case of "_immigration law_," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.
> 
> WTF is this "_nice try_?"  Are you illiterate?  It wasn't a try (sic.)  It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm.  Civics 101 is non-partisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like that. I don't vote on every mill levy or minor issue...district judges...but we were NEVER  EVER given a choice on sanctuary for illegals, kiddo. It was  mandatory. That fine point you miss...And to who's befit, the larger question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is befit for what???
> 
> In what language do you have to be told that you don't get a vote on every damn thing?  The United States Supreme Court decided women have a "right" to an abortion.  Did you vote on that?  The United States Supreme Court made Freedom of Association a privilege instead of a "right."  Did you vote on that?
> 
> If you live in a sanctuary state and you oppose it, the feds cannot help you.  If you think you were entitled a vote (and you were not) then the STATE is where your remedy is.
Click to expand...

    Again missing the point. Giving aid to people violating (any) law is not within local or state leaders purview. Certainly such a thing shouldn't be done surreptitiously like thieves in the night. Agree? This ain't  exactly a .01 percent increase on a mill levy we are talking about here. The shady nature of  implementing  such a  profound measure is mind boggling. Lets say: transparency is lacking. Not to mention the ethics...
    Ironically, you mention the supreme court, which is a branch of the federal government. The states are violating federal government law. The same government that enforces the right to free association or allows women the right to abortion, is now the "boogie man" when that same federal government wants "immigrants" to go through the legal process. Oh, and to whos benefit? That's speculative. Illegal aliens  are the "untouchables", a new  cheap exploitable class flooding the labor pool for business willing to cut corners, THAT is WHO.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> How am I fooling myself?  The *government of California *allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.  The* people of the state of California* voted for the politicians who allowed the sanctuary cities to be built.
> 
> The *United States Supreme Court* ruled that the federal government *cannot* force states and local governments to enforce federal laws.  How am I fooling myself?  What in the Hell makes you think the people get a vote on everything?
> 
> Are you so ignorant to suggest that it's my fault the United States Supreme Court makes a ruling and the people cannot outvote the high Court?  Not even Jesus Christ himself has over-ruled the United States Supreme Court in my lifetime.
> 
> I only support sanctuary cities because* they are not only about immigration*.  They have sanctuary cities for gun owners and now some states and local governments have vowed never to allow the federal government to come in infringe on our gun Rights.  I'm not in favor of you being able to take that away.  You keep babbling on about voting.  The people of California DID vote.  Your best option is to make sure Trump cuts off sending federal money into any state that helps undocumented foreigners.  Giving the feds control over the state and local governments - not a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try. I will hand you that. What ballot measures, what exact initiative(s) was it we asked democratically to allow violating federal immigration  law? I missed that. The date the measures the exact time and  persons involved...we would all like know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU WERE NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE ON EVERY ISSUE.  YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND JUDGES DECIDED FOR YOU.  In the case of "_immigration law_," the United States Supreme Court illegally usurped states rights.
> 
> WTF is this "_nice try_?"  Are you illiterate?  It wasn't a try (sic.)  It was an explanation that you can take to your family attorney and have him or her confirm.  Civics 101 is non-partisan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like that. I don't vote on every mill levy or minor issue...district judges...but we were NEVER  EVER given a choice on sanctuary for illegals, kiddo. It was  mandatory. That fine point you miss...And to who's befit, the larger question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is befit for what???
> 
> In what language do you have to be told that you don't get a vote on every damn thing?  The United States Supreme Court decided women have a "right" to an abortion.  Did you vote on that?  The United States Supreme Court made Freedom of Association a privilege instead of a "right."  Did you vote on that?
> 
> If you live in a sanctuary state and you oppose it, the feds cannot help you.  If you think you were entitled a vote (and you were not) then the STATE is where your remedy is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again missing the point. Giving aid to people violating (any) law is not within local or state leaders purview. Certainly such a thing shouldn't be done surreptitiously like thieves in the night. Agree? This ain't  exactly a .01 percent increase on a mill levy we are talking about here. The shady nature of  implementing  such a  profound measure is mind boggling. Lets say: transparency is lacking. Not to mention the ethics...
> Ironically, you mention the supreme court, which is a branch of the federal government. The states are violating federal government law. The same government that enforces the right to free association or allows women the right to abortion, is now the "boogie man" when that same federal government wants "immigrants" to go through the legal process. Oh, and to whos benefit? That's speculative. Illegal aliens  are the "untouchables", a new  cheap exploitable class flooding the labor pool for business willing to cut corners, THAT is WHO.
Click to expand...


No YOU ARE WRONG.  The United States Supreme Court said so.  If you are entitled to vote on revenue bills then* cite the state statute*.

You know damn well that the federal government has no de jure / constitutional / *LEGAL* jurisdiction over foreigners save of naturalization.  You keep talking about the United States Supreme Court doing things that are illegal; however, *IF IT BENEFITS YOU OR STROKES YOUR EGO, YOU ARE ALLOWING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO VIOLATE THE LAW.  *


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Federal Magistrate And State Legislature Providences Over Local Jurisdiction "*

** Federal Registrar Legal Process Defines A Migrant Subject **


Porter Rockwell said:


> No YOU ARE WRONG.  The United States Supreme Court said so.  If you are entitled to vote on revenue bills then* cite the state statute*.
> 
> You know damn well that the federal government has no de jure / constitutional / *LEGAL* jurisdiction over foreigners save of naturalization.  You keep talking about the United States Supreme Court doing things that are illegal; however, IF IT BENEFITS YOU OR STROKES YOUR EGO, YOU ARE ALLOWING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO VIOLATE THE LAW.


States are entitled to deny residency to individuals without a state citizenship , which means that a state legislature maintains jurisdiction over local ordinance and a state could legislate that sanctuary cities be illegal .

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
_*Section 1.* All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, *are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.* No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
_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.[5]_


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Monk-Eye said:


> *" Federal Magistrate And State Legislature Providences Over Local Jurisdiction "*
> 
> ** Federal Registrar Legal Process Defines A Migrant Subject **
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> No YOU ARE WRONG.  The United States Supreme Court said so.  If you are entitled to vote on revenue bills then* cite the state statute*.
> 
> You know damn well that the federal government has no de jure / constitutional / *LEGAL* jurisdiction over foreigners save of naturalization.  You keep talking about the United States Supreme Court doing things that are illegal; however, IF IT BENEFITS YOU OR STROKES YOUR EGO, YOU ARE ALLOWING THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TO VIOLATE THE LAW.
> 
> 
> 
> States are entitled to deny residency to individuals without a state citizenship , which means that a state legislature maintains jurisdiction over local ordinance and a state could legislate that sanctuary cities be illegal .
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> _*Section 1.* All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, *are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.* No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._
> 
> Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> _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.[5]_
Click to expand...


I know you think you made a point, but you did not. You cancelled out your premise when you quoted the Tenth Amendment.


----------



## eagle1462010

This issue will be decided this year in the Supreme Court.  Then there will be a new case showing the old decisions being overturned.

This is gonna happen.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> This issue will be decided this year in the Supreme Court.  Then there will be a new case showing the old decisions being overturned.
> 
> This is gonna happen.




When?


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This issue will be decided this year in the Supreme Court.  Then there will be a new case showing the old decisions being overturned.
> 
> This is gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When?
Click to expand...

Early in this thread I posted the case going there...........That article said within the next nine months.


----------



## Unkotare

eagle1462010 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This issue will be decided this year in the Supreme Court.  Then there will be a new case showing the old decisions being overturned.
> 
> This is gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Early in this thread I posted the case going there...........That article said within the next nine months.
Click to expand...


So, if nothing has changed in 9 months, you’ll come back here and admit you were wrong?


----------



## eagle1462010

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This issue will be decided this year in the Supreme Court.  Then there will be a new case showing the old decisions being overturned.
> 
> This is gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Early in this thread I posted the case going there...........That article said within the next nine months.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if nothing has changed in 9 months, you’ll come back here and about you were wrong?
Click to expand...

I stated that it is a pending case in the Supreme Court...............and that case is going to be within the next 9 months.........

I believe the 3 laws in question will be overturned and that Sanctuary Cities will be addressed............


It WILL BE ADDRESSED............and the left doesn't have the judges there......so we will see.


----------



## Death Angel

bluzman61 said:


> My liberal friend is hopelessly brainwashed. We had agreed some time ago that we would NOT talk politics


And yet he did, while he expects you to bite your tongue. I have "friends" like that too.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

eagle1462010 said:


> This issue will be decided this year in the Supreme Court.  Then there will be a new case showing the old decisions being overturned.
> 
> This is gonna happen.



If sanctuary cities are not upheld, there will be no Second Amendment sanctuary cities and many states, like Virginia,firearm confiscations can begin.  Your are advocating for a One World Government and opposing states rights.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Unkotare said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This issue will be decided this year in the Supreme Court.  Then there will be a new case showing the old decisions being overturned.
> 
> This is gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Early in this thread I posted the case going there...........That article said within the next nine months.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, if nothing has changed in 9 months, you’ll come back here and admit you were wrong?
Click to expand...


Surely you jest.  Trumpsters never apologize and never admit they're wrong about anything.


----------



## MaryL

I bothers me  immensely when Democrats want to "Impeach" a standing president  on grounds he did something illegal, when they (democrats)  have done far worse. If anything the Democratic party needs to be investigated for that, aiding  and abetting criminals. Without the voters consent or knowledge...This isn't what a Democratic Republic is about, kids.


----------



## MaryL

Sanctuary cities. Anybody remember the exactly when that happened? Where we asked? No?  It was instead done SHH superstitiously without our permission. Democrats it seems, don't like democracy when it means we disagree. What does it mean?


----------



## sparky

Porter Rockwell said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This issue will be decided this year in the Supreme Court.  Then there will be a new case showing the old decisions being overturned.
> 
> This is gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If sanctuary cities are not upheld, there will be no Second Amendment sanctuary cities and many states, like Virginia,firearm confiscations can begin.  Your are advocating for a One World Government and opposing states rights.
Click to expand...



14th again Porter?

~S~


----------



## sparky

MaryL said:


> Sanctuary cities. Anybody remember the exactly when that happened? Where we asked? No?  It was instead done SHH superstitiously without our permission. Democrats it seems, don't like democracy when it means we disagree. What does it mean?



_dunno_...what i do know is, we used to be a _sanctuary country._...

~S~


----------



## MaryL

A local judge deems local laws against  the camping ban unconstitutional . Yes.  The level of  disconnect. The hygienic issues  the fact  the judge here was elected by a tiny minority.


----------



## Unkotare

MaryL said:


> Sanctuary cities. Anybody remember the exactly when that happened? Where we asked? No?  It was instead done SHH superstitiously without our permission. Democrats it seems, don't like democracy when it means we disagree. What does it mean?






You realize you have posted this exact same thing hundreds and hundreds of times, right?


----------

