How Racist! NYC black Mayor Eric Adams wants to revoke NYC’s ‘sanctuary city’ status amid massive migrant influx

[BackAgain]

Sigh... Two significant cases apply here.

Printz vs united states. Majority opinion from the late justice Scalia.

"We in fact answered the dissent's Necessary and Proper Clause argument in New York: '[E]ven where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts. . . . [T]he Commerce Clause, for example, authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce directly; it does not authorize Congress to regulate state governments' regulation of interstate commerce.' [4]"

^ Doesn’t address the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, itself, you hack.

From New York vs united states...again, Scalia's opinion.

"We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty. [4]"

Printz v. United States

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

Absolutely irrelevant to the question. Maybe you’ve heard the phrase “inapposite?”

 

[Dragonlady]

yep and as i provide the EO revoking the law.

They will no longer be sheltered

The law wasn’t revoked the shelter provision rules were revoked.

You’re either too stupid to be one person or you’re being an asshole. Either way, I think we’re done here

 

[Catsnmeters]

^ Doesn’t address the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, itself, you hack.

Absolutely irrelevant to the question. Maybe you’ve heard the phrase “inapposite?”

So despite those two court cases and the SCOTUS opinions, you think the federal government can dictate and control New York states' agencies to enforce federal immigration laws?

Just to clarify. Is that your opinion?

 

[Catsnmeters]

because you don’t, as the law lays it out. What you know it’s reality

It laid out nothing regarding sanctuary cities.

 

[BackAgain]

So despite those two court cases and the SCOTUS opinions, you think the federal government can dictate and control New York states' agencies to enforce federal immigration laws?

Just to clarify. Is that your opinion?

I already discussed my view. And I refuted your inapposite citations which don’t address the issue at all. Your ignorance is on display.

 

[Catsnmeters]

The law wasn’t revoked the shelter provision rules were revoked.

You’re either too stupid to be one person or you’re being an asshole. Either way, I think we’re done here

It's pretty much trolling at this point.

 

[Catsnmeters]

I already discussed my view. And I refuted your inapposite citations which don’t address the issue at all. Your ignorance is on display.

So denial of judicial precedent regarding the law.

Even Clarance disagrees with you. This must have been before he started taking gift bribes.

"The Court today properly holds that the Brady Act violates the Tenth Amendment in that it compels state law enforcement officers to 'administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.' See ante, at 25. Although I join the Court's opinion in full, I write separately to emphasize that the Tenth Amendment affirms the undeniable notion that under our Constitution, the Federal Government is one of enumerated, hence limited, powers."

(From same link). Of course you can have your own legal opinions. Maybe you are the greatest armchair lawyer ever...but I think I'll stick with the opinions of the SCOTUS.

 

[wamose]

They are next to the clauses that reference presumption of innocence, the right to travel and the right to marriage.

You don't seem to know how the constitution works but hopefully the above clue will lead to a lightbulb moment for you.

The right to travel? The right to marriage? WTF are you talking about? You're pretty uninformed for someone who does so much chirping about our constitution.

 

[Catsnmeters]

The right to travel? The right to marriage? WTF are you talking about? You're pretty uninformed for someone who does so much chirping about our constitution.

Those are constitutional rights...more specifically unenumerated rights based on the 9th amendment...so the point is, just because something isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution does not mean it can't be a constitutional right...like marriage, travel, presumption of innocence and of course the fed taking control of state agencies and recourses.

Do you get it now?

Travel...

The Right to Interstate Travel Under the Fourteenth Amendment - FindLaw

Over the years, the Supreme Court has acknowledged several fundamental rights that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution - such as the right to privacy and the right to vote. Many of these "unenumerated" rights come from the Ninth Amendment, but some, like the right to travel, come from...

constitution.findlaw.com

Marriage...

Right to Marry

www.law.cornell.edu

Presumption of innocence...

What does the Constitution say about the presumption of innocence? | LawInfo

You are presumed to be innocent unless and until your guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. But is this principle in the Constitution? Learn more at LawInfo.

www.lawinfo.com

 

[BackAgain]

So denial of judicial precedent regarding the law.

No you bombastic ignorant nitwit. For example, citing a case that reverses another case on abortion doesn’t address a legal issue involving freedom of speech.

I can’t force you to understand basic concepts, you moron.

What I posted earlier has exactly nothing to do with “requiring” States to enforce any federal laws. You could be dumber, perhaps, but it would take effort.

 

[wamose]

Those are constitutional rights...more specifically unenumerated rights based on the 9th amendment...so the point is, just because something isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution does not mean it can't be a constitutional right...like marriage, travel, presumption of innocence and of course the fed taking control of state agencies and recourses.

Do you get it now?

Travel...

The Right to Interstate Travel Under the Fourteenth Amendment - FindLaw

Over the years, the Supreme Court has acknowledged several fundamental rights that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution - such as the right to privacy and the right to vote. Many of these "unenumerated" rights come from the Ninth Amendment, but some, like the right to travel, come from...

constitution.findlaw.com

Marriage...

Right to Marry

www.law.cornell.edu

Presumption of innocence...

What does the Constitution say about the presumption of innocence? | LawInfo

You are presumed to be innocent unless and until your guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. But is this principle in the Constitution? Learn more at LawInfo.

www.lawinfo.com

Try to marry your 12 year old daughter. And lets see how well you travel with your ankle bracelet activated.

 

[Catsnmeters]

No you bombastic ignorant nitwit. For example, citing a case that reverses another case on abortion doesn’t address a legal issue involving freedom of speech.

I can’t force you to understand basic concepts, you moron.

What I posted earlier has exactly nothing to do with “requiring” States to enforce any federal laws. You could be dumber, perhaps, but it would take effort.

Do you know what sanctuary are? They are simply areas where the state and local governments do not try to enforce federal immigration law.

Those cases are exactly what supports the idea of a sanctuary city.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Try to marry your 12 year old daughter. And lets see how well you travel with your ankle bracelet activated.

What does that have to with anything?

What are you blabbing about?

You can't carry a gun while in jail too but that isn't what we are talking about.

 

[wamose]

What does that have to with anything?

What are you blabbing about?

You can't carry a gun while in jail too but that isn't what we are talking about.

You lose many rights in jail, bubblehead. You Democrats infer a lot and most of it is agenda reinforcing jive.

 

[BackAgain]

Do you know what sanctuary are?

You need to learn basic rules of grammar. I do in fact know what sanctuary laws are in the instance of immigration locations. It appears you do not.

They are simply areas where the state and local governments do not try to enforce federal immigration law.

Wrong. They are areas where the local government actively interferes with the ability of federal immigration authorities from doing their jobs.

They effectively tell illegal immigrants, “we here in this city don’t give a rat’s ass if you violate federal laws to come here or remain illegally here. We will give you a safe haven from federal immigration authorities as best we can.”

And now that the flood of illegals is becoming a bigger problem, governments at the border have chosen not to bear the burden all on their own. So they send the illegals to sanctuary cities. And lo and behold. Suddenly the irrational liberal cities have discovered that there IS a Price to pay for a flood of illegals; and they don’t like it. Not. One. Little. Bit.

Those cases are exactly what supports the idea of a sanctuary city.

False. No; They don’t. Your ignorance remains crystal clear.

 

[Dragonlady]

That's a peculiar thing to admit.

You make a good Trump supporter.

She said I’m an idiot because I have no patience with liars.

She’s a product of home schooling.

The Progressive Socialist Party is the real cult. People are used and thrown away for their agendas. Millions of immigrants let in as potential votes. And to change areas from red.

Except that’s not why immigrants are being let in.

Immigrants are being let in because your population is aging and young people are not reproducing themselves.

Your labour and economic policies are not in any way family friendly, nor do they encourage people to have children. No paid maternity leave, no subsidized childcare, no universal healthcare, no job security for pregnant women, no family leave, student debt.

The US chamber of commerce is begging for immigration reform to help them import workers to fill the 11 million job openings in the USA right now that they cannot find workers to fill.

White first world citizens are not moving to the United States of America. No universal healthcare, guns, daily mass, shootings, political, instability, high crime rates. The only people interested in moving to the USA, are people who live in countries that are worse than you are, or whose countries have completely collapsed.

You are the richest nation on earth. You have the highest average income of any country in the world. The USA has taken a lot of wealth out of Central and South America via the IMF and the Workd Bank, from the very countries whose refugees are now at your door.

You owe them. Bigly.

 

[Catsnmeters]

You lose many rights in jail, bubblehead. You Democrats infer a lot and most of it is agenda reinforcing jive.

Yeah. No kidding. So what was your point in post 131?

 

[Catsnmeters]

You need to learn basic rules of grammar. I do in fact know what sanctuary laws are in the instance of immigration locations. It appears you do not.

Yeah my grammar sucks. Partly because I post from my phone and don't take time to carefully proof read before I post...and because grammar isn't really one my strong points.

Wrong. They are areas where the local government actively interferes with the ability of federal immigration authorities from doing their jobs.

No. That is not what they are.

"A sanctuary city has limited the extent to which it will volunteer resources in support of federal immigration enforcement agents’ responsibility to enforce federal immigration law. These limits can take many forms: saying no to federal requests (known as “detainers”) to conduct joint patrols, refusing to jail an individual who has posted bond and a judge has said can be released, or refusing to gather more information—such as immigration status—than is needed to determine if an individual is eligible to receive services."

Log in | Learning for Justice

Learning for Justice provides free resources to educators—teachers, administrators, counselors and other practitioners—who work with children from kindergarten through high school.

www.learningforjustice.org

They effectively tell illegal immigrants, “we here in this city don’t give a rat’s ass if you violate federal laws to come here or remain illegally here. We will give you a safe haven from federal immigration authorities as best we can.”

I can agree with this assessment.

While I don't agree with sanctuary cities, I still support states rights to not be compelled by the fed to use state recourses to enforce federal law.

And now that the flood of illegals is becoming a bigger problem, governments at the border have chosen not to bear the burden all on their own. So they send the illegals to sanctuary cities. And lo and behold. Suddenly the irrational liberal cities have discovered that there IS a Price to pay for a flood of illegals; and they don’t like it. Not. One. Little. Bit.

Yeah. I get the point from border states, I just don't like how they go about.

Instead of spending tax dollars to transport illegals, why not just make it a job fair. Have farmers, food processing plants, construction leaders etc etc come down, pick the illegals they want then they can pay to transport them to where they will work.

Hell, in the red AG area I live in, they build housing for illegal workers in the back side of their crop circles...and have Trump signs on the interstate side.

If we are going to let employers hire them, we might as well make them pay for transport.

False. No; They don’t. Your ignorance remains crystal clear.

I'm not sure how you are making the distinction that the fed can't force state agencies to support federal law except when it comes to immigration.

Can you expand on that please?

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

What I posted earlier has exactly nothing to do with “requiring” States to enforce any federal laws.

There is no single definition of “sanctuary city” or “sanctuary state.” But you are being disingenuous here. The main controversy centers precisely on state and city agencies helping — or refusing to help — administer and cooperate with Federal agencies like ICE.

For example if a teacher, counselor or nurse learns from a traumatized born-in-the-U.S. student at a public school that one of his parents was seized and deported, the public school administration under state & city “sanctuary” policies will usually refuse to inform on the remaining undocumented parent … as ICE wishes. There are many similar cases in public hospitals, and of others involving the criminal Justice system where most of us would probably not be so sympathetic.

Most so-called “sanctuary cities” or states certainly do not provide long-term free housing, food or medical care for undocumented immigrants (or for those with documents). Without citizenship papers or some sort of “legal resident status” life is very difficult and many services available to citizens are simply not available.

By the way, the earlier link to a Manhattan District 10 Community Board’s resolution supporting “sanctuary status” to undocumented immigrants (comment #116) was in no way whatever a law or policy with executive force. It was just words on paper written by a virtually powerless local community board.

A complicated issue, though Catsnmeters did an admirable job of explaining the legal basis allowing for the existence of “sanctuary policies” of states (and cities) under our federal system of government.

 

[Dragonlady]

My grammar and spelling sucks because after I hit send and Siri changes everything before it hits the screen.