DHS preparing to arrest sanctuary city leaders?

[theDoctorisIn]

"Most Americans" don't get a say in California's laws.

Their laws don't have to benefit people in Texas, or be in the interests of Vermont.

They do have to benefit the citizens of the state.....not the non-citizens.

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

Cool I had no idea. So the citizens of any given state can block federal abortion laws? How about not paying federal income taxes? Up to the state citizens?

Their flimsy excuses keep getting shot down.
I cant wait for the next excuse for illegal immigration,I'm sure it'll set well with the voters.

I seem to recall reading about a democrat who tried to block federal civil rights laws by standing on the steps of a schoolhouse. JFK sent in troops.

If the Supreme Court rules that sanctuary policies were unconstitutional, then you'd have a point.

But that's not going to happen.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Most Americans" don't get a say in California's laws.

Their laws don't have to benefit people in Texas, or be in the interests of Vermont.

They do have to benefit the citizens of the state.....not the non-citizens.

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

Cool I had no idea. So the citizens of any given state can block federal abortion laws? How about not paying federal income taxes? Up to the state citizens?

I honestly don't think making the effort to explain it to you will make much of an impact.

I guess we can start with the fact that there are no "federal abortion laws".

There are federal laws. Your claim is that the citizens of states can ignore them.

Wanna try again, or should we dig up George Wallace and ask him about defying federal law?

I did not say anything close to "the citizens of states can ignore them".

This is why I figured it would be an utter waste of time to try and explain it to you.

 

[del]

there are no federal abortion laws.

when the republican controlled scotus ruled that abortion was legal in roe v wade, it obviated the need

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I guess we can start with the fact that there are no "federal abortion laws".

Of course there are. 9 guys in black robes now make law.

 

[Aba Incieni]

They do have to benefit the citizens of the state.....not the non-citizens.

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

Cool I had no idea. So the citizens of any given state can block federal abortion laws? How about not paying federal income taxes? Up to the state citizens?

Their flimsy excuses keep getting shot down.
I cant wait for the next excuse for illegal immigration,I'm sure it'll set well with the voters.

I seem to recall reading about a democrat who tried to block federal civil rights laws by standing on the steps of a schoolhouse. JFK sent in troops.

If the Supreme Court rules that sanctuary policies were unconstitutional, then you'd have a point.

But that's not going to happen.

The SC has ruled on the authority of the POTUS regrading immigration policy. The feds indeed are discussing arresting state politicians who refuse to follow the law. Had Lincoln tried such tactics, he may have avoided the first Civil War.

They do have to benefit the citizens of the state.....not the non-citizens.

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

Cool I had no idea. So the citizens of any given state can block federal abortion laws? How about not paying federal income taxes? Up to the state citizens?

I honestly don't think making the effort to explain it to you will make much of an impact.

I guess we can start with the fact that there are no "federal abortion laws".

There are federal laws. Your claim is that the citizens of states can ignore them.

Wanna try again, or should we dig up George Wallace and ask him about defying federal law?

I did not say anything close to "the citizens of states can ignore them".

This is why I figured it would be an utter waste of time to try and explain it to you.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

You figured right. Getting caught up in your own words makes you look even more foolish than claiming states have no legal requirement to follow federal law.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I guess we can start with the fact that there are no "federal abortion laws".

Of course there are. 9 guys in black robes now make law.

I hate to break it to you, but the entire basis for our legal system, going back hundreds of years into American, colonial and British history, is based on laws made by judges.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

Cool I had no idea. So the citizens of any given state can block federal abortion laws? How about not paying federal income taxes? Up to the state citizens?

Their flimsy excuses keep getting shot down.
I cant wait for the next excuse for illegal immigration,I'm sure it'll set well with the voters.

I seem to recall reading about a democrat who tried to block federal civil rights laws by standing on the steps of a schoolhouse. JFK sent in troops.

If the Supreme Court rules that sanctuary policies were unconstitutional, then you'd have a point.

But that's not going to happen.

The SC has ruled on the authority of the POTUS regrading immigration policy. The feds indeed are discussing arresting state politicians who refuse to follow the law. Had Lincoln tried such tactics, he may have avoided the first Civil War.

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

Cool I had no idea. So the citizens of any given state can block federal abortion laws? How about not paying federal income taxes? Up to the state citizens?

I honestly don't think making the effort to explain it to you will make much of an impact.

I guess we can start with the fact that there are no "federal abortion laws".

There are federal laws. Your claim is that the citizens of states can ignore them.

Wanna try again, or should we dig up George Wallace and ask him about defying federal law?

I did not say anything close to "the citizens of states can ignore them".

This is why I figured it would be an utter waste of time to try and explain it to you.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

You figured right. Getting caught up in your own words makes you look even more foolish than claiming states have no legal requirement to follow federal law.

Aha. Not so good with reading in context, are you?

I did not claim that states have no legal requirement to follow federal law. What you're not understanding is that sanctuary cities don't violate federal law.

I'll let Fox News and Judge Napolitano explain it to you.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Are sanctuary cities legal?

 

[Aba Incieni]

Cool I had no idea. So the citizens of any given state can block federal abortion laws? How about not paying federal income taxes? Up to the state citizens?

Their flimsy excuses keep getting shot down.
I cant wait for the next excuse for illegal immigration,I'm sure it'll set well with the voters.

I seem to recall reading about a democrat who tried to block federal civil rights laws by standing on the steps of a schoolhouse. JFK sent in troops.

If the Supreme Court rules that sanctuary policies were unconstitutional, then you'd have a point.

But that's not going to happen.

The SC has ruled on the authority of the POTUS regrading immigration policy. The feds indeed are discussing arresting state politicians who refuse to follow the law. Had Lincoln tried such tactics, he may have avoided the first Civil War.

Cool I had no idea. So the citizens of any given state can block federal abortion laws? How about not paying federal income taxes? Up to the state citizens?

I honestly don't think making the effort to explain it to you will make much of an impact.

I guess we can start with the fact that there are no "federal abortion laws".

There are federal laws. Your claim is that the citizens of states can ignore them.

Wanna try again, or should we dig up George Wallace and ask him about defying federal law?

I did not say anything close to "the citizens of states can ignore them".

This is why I figured it would be an utter waste of time to try and explain it to you.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

You figured right. Getting caught up in your own words makes you look even more foolish than claiming states have no legal requirement to follow federal law.

Aha. Not so good with reading in context, are you?

I did not claim that states have no legal requirement to follow federal law. What you're not understanding is that sanctuary cities don't violate federal law.

I'll let Fox News and Judge Napolitano explain it to you.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Are sanctuary cities legal?

Forward their opinions to the federales who are discussing arresting those who refuse to comply with federal law.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

Cool I had no idea. So the citizens of any given state can block federal abortion laws? How about not paying federal income taxes? Up to the state citizens?

Their flimsy excuses keep getting shot down.
I cant wait for the next excuse for illegal immigration,I'm sure it'll set well with the voters.

I seem to recall reading about a democrat who tried to block federal civil rights laws by standing on the steps of a schoolhouse. JFK sent in troops.

If the Supreme Court rules that sanctuary policies were unconstitutional, then you'd have a point.

But that's not going to happen.

The SC has ruled on the authority of the POTUS regrading immigration policy. The feds indeed are discussing arresting state politicians who refuse to follow the law. Had Lincoln tried such tactics, he may have avoided the first Civil War.

No, "the feds" aren't discussing it. Read the whole article in the OP, not just the headline.

The head of DHS was asked if they were considering arresting sanctuary city leaders, and she responded "We're looking into all avenues".

That's a non-answer to a reporter, not a statement that it's actually being discussed.

But that's beside the point. The SCOTUS has also ruled, numerous times, that local law enforcement is not subordinate to federal law enforcement.

If ICE asks the SFPD to hold someone, without a warrant, the SFPD can tell them to go fuck themselves.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Their flimsy excuses keep getting shot down.
I cant wait for the next excuse for illegal immigration,I'm sure it'll set well with the voters.

I seem to recall reading about a democrat who tried to block federal civil rights laws by standing on the steps of a schoolhouse. JFK sent in troops.

If the Supreme Court rules that sanctuary policies were unconstitutional, then you'd have a point.

But that's not going to happen.

The SC has ruled on the authority of the POTUS regrading immigration policy. The feds indeed are discussing arresting state politicians who refuse to follow the law. Had Lincoln tried such tactics, he may have avoided the first Civil War.

I honestly don't think making the effort to explain it to you will make much of an impact.

I guess we can start with the fact that there are no "federal abortion laws".

There are federal laws. Your claim is that the citizens of states can ignore them.

Wanna try again, or should we dig up George Wallace and ask him about defying federal law?

I did not say anything close to "the citizens of states can ignore them".

This is why I figured it would be an utter waste of time to try and explain it to you.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

You figured right. Getting caught up in your own words makes you look even more foolish than claiming states have no legal requirement to follow federal law.

Aha. Not so good with reading in context, are you?

I did not claim that states have no legal requirement to follow federal law. What you're not understanding is that sanctuary cities don't violate federal law.

I'll let Fox News and Judge Napolitano explain it to you.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Are sanctuary cities legal?

Forward their opinions to the federales who are discussing arresting those who refuse to comply with federal law.

No "federales" are seriously discussing that.

 

[bodecea]

I guess we can start with the fact that there are no "federal abortion laws".

Of course there are. 9 guys in black robes now make law.

Nope...they interpret the law. Read the Constitution and case law sometime.

 

[jknowgood]

Not gonna happen.

But keep your hopes up, it's fun to watch.

That's sorta why I ended the OP heading with a question mark. I don't know but to me it seems like they are breaking fed laws by helping illegals.

Well, that's the thing. Sanctuary city policies don't "help" illegal immigrants - they just don't help the feds.

There's no law that says states or cities have to actively help the federal government against their own interests.

I see your point, but they are harboring illegals, some which are very bad people, and most Americans don't want them here. So their interest isn't the interest of most Americans. In which in one way or the other, if will effect all of us, and not in a good way.

"Most Americans" don't get a say in California's laws.

Their laws don't have to benefit people in Texas, or be in the interests of Vermont.

Immigration laws are federal, keeping everyone safe is about the only few things they should do. Letting dangerous criminals in and harboring them. Is a danger to us all.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Cool I had no idea. So the citizens of any given state can block federal abortion laws? How about not paying federal income taxes? Up to the state citizens?

Their flimsy excuses keep getting shot down.
I cant wait for the next excuse for illegal immigration,I'm sure it'll set well with the voters.

I seem to recall reading about a democrat who tried to block federal civil rights laws by standing on the steps of a schoolhouse. JFK sent in troops.

If the Supreme Court rules that sanctuary policies were unconstitutional, then you'd have a point.

But that's not going to happen.

The SC has ruled on the authority of the POTUS regrading immigration policy. The feds indeed are discussing arresting state politicians who refuse to follow the law. Had Lincoln tried such tactics, he may have avoided the first Civil War.

No, "the feds" aren't discussing it. Read the whole article in the OP, not just the headline.

The head of DHS was asked if they were considering arresting sanctuary city leaders, and she responded "We're looking into all avenues".

That's a non-answer to a reporter, not a statement that it's actually being discussed.

But that's beside the point. The SCOTUS has also ruled, numerous times, that local law enforcement is not subordinate to federal law enforcement.

If ICE asks the SFPD to hold someone, without a warrant, the SFPD can tell them to go fuck themselves.

Cha I just watched a segment on Fox about it.

But you're big on links. Read all about if from Newsweek:

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

 

[Aba Incieni]

I seem to recall reading about a democrat who tried to block federal civil rights laws by standing on the steps of a schoolhouse. JFK sent in troops.

If the Supreme Court rules that sanctuary policies were unconstitutional, then you'd have a point.

But that's not going to happen.

The SC has ruled on the authority of the POTUS regrading immigration policy. The feds indeed are discussing arresting state politicians who refuse to follow the law. Had Lincoln tried such tactics, he may have avoided the first Civil War.

There are federal laws. Your claim is that the citizens of states can ignore them.

Wanna try again, or should we dig up George Wallace and ask him about defying federal law?

I did not say anything close to "the citizens of states can ignore them".

This is why I figured it would be an utter waste of time to try and explain it to you.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

You figured right. Getting caught up in your own words makes you look even more foolish than claiming states have no legal requirement to follow federal law.

Aha. Not so good with reading in context, are you?

I did not claim that states have no legal requirement to follow federal law. What you're not understanding is that sanctuary cities don't violate federal law.

I'll let Fox News and Judge Napolitano explain it to you.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Are sanctuary cities legal?

Forward their opinions to the federales who are discussing arresting those who refuse to comply with federal law.

No "federales" are seriously discussing that.

Oh, but they are. For the safety of their officers.

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

 

[del]

No, "the feds" aren't discussing it. Read the whole article in the OP, not just the headline.

The head of DHS was asked if they were considering arresting sanctuary city leaders, and she responded "We're looking into all avenues".

That's a non-answer to a reporter, not a statement that it's actually being discussed.

But that's beside the point. The SCOTUS has also ruled, numerous times, that local law enforcement is not subordinate to federal law enforcement.

If ICE asks the SFPD to hold someone, without a warrant, the SFPD can tell them to go fuck themselves.

indeed, it's incumbent on them to tell them to go fuck themselves or they'll be held liable.

Mass. High Court: Local Authorities Can't Detain People Without Charges For ICE

Federal judge prohibits ICE detainers in Marion County

 

[del]

[
Cha I just watched a segment on Fox about it.

But you're big on links. Read all about if from Newsweek:

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

watched a segment on fox...

want in one hand, then shit in the other

which one fills up first?

trump wanted his inauguration to be the biggest evah!

how'd that work out for the buffoon-in-chief?

 

[jknowgood]

That's sorta why I ended the OP heading with a question mark. I don't know but to me it seems like they are breaking fed laws by helping illegals.

Well, that's the thing. Sanctuary city policies don't "help" illegal immigrants - they just don't help the feds.

There's no law that says states or cities have to actively help the federal government against their own interests.

I see your point, but they are harboring illegals, some which are very bad people, and most Americans don't want them here. So their interest isn't the interest of most Americans. In which in one way or the other, if will effect all of us, and not in a good way.

"Most Americans" don't get a say in California's laws.

Their laws don't have to benefit people in Texas, or be in the interests of Vermont.

They do have to benefit the citizens of the state.....not the non-citizens.

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

So you think the same about gay marriage and abortion? Or maybe federal law on a murderer?

 

[jknowgood]

Well, that's the thing. Sanctuary city policies don't "help" illegal immigrants - they just don't help the feds.

There's no law that says states or cities have to actively help the federal government against their own interests.

I see your point, but they are harboring illegals, some which are very bad people, and most Americans don't want them here. So their interest isn't the interest of most Americans. In which in one way or the other, if will effect all of us, and not in a good way.

"Most Americans" don't get a say in California's laws.

Their laws don't have to benefit people in Texas, or be in the interests of Vermont.

They do have to benefit the citizens of the state.....not the non-citizens.

I can make a strong argument that they do benefit the citizens of the state, but this isn't the thread for it. It's a different topic.

Either way, it's up to the citizens of the state to make that decision, not you.

Cool I had no idea. So the citizens of any given state can block federal abortion laws? How about not paying federal income taxes? Up to the state citizens?

You beat me to it.

 

[Aba Incieni]

[
Cha I just watched a segment on Fox about it.

But you're big on links. Read all about if from Newsweek:

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

watched a segment on fox...

want in one hand, then shit in the other

which one fills up first?

trump wanted his inauguration to be the biggest evah!

how'd that work out for the buffoon-in-chief?

The...doctor...guy said the feds weren't talking about it. He was wrong about that, too.

 

[del]

[
Cha I just watched a segment on Fox about it.

But you're big on links. Read all about if from Newsweek:

Trump administration wants to arrest elected officials in so-called sanctuary cities

watched a segment on fox...

want in one hand, then shit in the other

which one fills up first?

trump wanted his inauguration to be the biggest evah!

how'd that work out for the buffoon-in-chief?

The...doctor...guy said the feds weren't talking about it. He was wrong about that, too.

sure, pal

run along now, it's adult time