Are "Sanctuary cities" constitutional?

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"liberal 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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"liberal 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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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"liberal 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.

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"?

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]

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[Porter Rockwell]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[protectionist]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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.