Kamala's America: Border Czar Harris Has Lost Track of 290,000 Unaccompanied Minors

[Hellokitty]

Trump himself said he killed the border deal. Lol.


Who said she was unable? I simply stated as VP she doesn't have political power to enact policy.

What do you think VPs usually do?

How can you say as VP she doesn't have any political power to enact policy and at the same time give TRUMP credit for doing just that as a private citizen?

My question was on Harris influencing policy, but I can understand why you don't want to address that.

 

[Catsnmeters]

I guess you missed the whining and moaning from your sanctuary city paradises about those horrible illegs being bussed to the cities they were invited to.

Nope. Didn't miss it.

What other administration gave away pre-paid debit cards?

The new York administration?

Show us a citation in the Constitution protecting sanctuary cities.

You don't have any idea what a sanctuary city is.

I don't? I'm not the one who doesn't know that sanctuary cities are constitutionally protected.

If you knew what sanctuary cities were, and you were familiar with the constitution, you would know better.

All sanctuary cities are is that states are choosing not to use state recourses to enforce federal law. It's called the separation of powers.

Here is an example of this fact in printz vs united states and the argument by the late Justice Scalia.

On this day, the Supreme Court reinforces the 10th Amendment | Constitution Center

Setting a precedent with important implications today, the Supreme Court’s decision from 1997 in Printz v. United States reaffirms states’ rights and the Constitution’s anti-commandeering provisions.

www.google.com

In Printz, Justice Scalia reinforced that concept. “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,” Scalia said. “Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

We obviously do have open borders. Millions of illegals crossing the border should have been a clue.

Are you saying we don't have manned border gates and patrols along the border? People just freely drive over the border whenever and wherever they want? Is that what you are saying?

Illegal immigration is a criminal act. Stop supporting it.

I don't support it.

What I support is congressional legislation to address the issue not EOs.

 

[Catsnmeters]

How can you say as VP she doesn't have any political power to enact policy and at the same time give TRUMP credit for doing just that as a private citizen?

He didn't enact policy. He used the threat of being primaried to compel Republicans in Congress to drop the bill.

My question was on Harris influencing policy, but I can understand why you don't want to address that.

Why do you think a VP can solve the border problem when nobody else has been able too?

All she was asked with was looking into lowering immigration by identifying causes and working to mitigate them from source countries.

Your expectations of that mandate are nonsensical.

 

[Hollie]

Nope. Didn't miss it.



The new York administration?



I don't? I'm not the one who doesn't know that sanctuary cities are constitutionally protected.

If you knew what sanctuary cities were, and you were familiar with the constitution, you would know better.

All sanctuary cities are is that states are choosing not to use state recourses to enforce federal law. It's called the separation of powers.

Here is an example of this fact in printz vs united states and the argument by the late Justice Scalia.

On this day, the Supreme Court reinforces the 10th Amendment | Constitution Center

Setting a precedent with important implications today, the Supreme Court’s decision from 1997 in Printz v. United States reaffirms states’ rights and the Constitution’s anti-commandeering provisions.

www.google.com

In Printz, Justice Scalia reinforced that concept. “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,” Scalia said. “Such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”



Are you saying we don't have manned border gates and patrols along the border? People just freely drive over the border whenever and wherever they want? Is that what you are saying?


I don't support it.

What I support is congressional legislation to address the issue not EOs.

It should be simple enough to cite where in the Constitution, sanctuary cities are protected. It should be easy to provide the citation.

Your pointless. " because I say so" claims are really not funny.

Are you saying that the top of bank of the Rio Grande is a port of entry?

 

[Catsnmeters]

It should be simple enough to cite where in the Constitution, sanctuary cities are protected. It should be easy to provide the citation.

Your pointless. " because I say so" claims are really not funny.

Did you miss it?

I posted it and the link.

It's because the constitution and SCOTUS says so.

Do you think it is constitutional for the federal government to force state agencies to enforce federal laws using state recourses...in this case immigration?

Yes or no?

Are you saying that the top of bank of the Rio Grande is a port of entry?

No. I'm saying we don't have open borders.

 

[Hollie]

Did you miss it?

I posted it and the link.

It's because the constitution and SCOTUS says so.

Do you think it is constitutional for the federal government to force state agencies to enforce federal laws using state recourses...in this case immigration?

Yes or no?


No. I'm saying we don't have open borders.

How did you think such a phony mistepresentation was valid. Not a single reference to sanctuary city was in your link. You claimed sanctuary cities were protected in the Constitution yet you cannot provide a citation

Of course we do have open borders. Thst why millions of illegals are allowed to walk across the border.

 

[Catsnmeters]

How did you think such a phony mistepresentation was valid. Not a single reference to sanctuary city was in your link. You claimed sanctuary cities were protected in the Constitution yet you cannot provide a citation

Can you answer my simple question please?

Do you think it is constitutional for the federal government to force state agencies to enforce federal laws using state recourses...in this case immigration?

Yes or no?

Of course we do have open borders. Thst why millions of illegals are allowed to walk across the border.

Can you answer my simple question please.

Are you saying we don't have manned border gates and patrols along the border? People just freely drive over the border whenever and wherever they want? Is that what you are saying?

Yes or no?

 

[Hollie]

Can you answer my simple question please?

Do you think it is constitutional for the federal government to force state agencies to enforce federal laws using state recourses...in this case immigration?

Yes or no?


Can you answer my simple question please.

Are you saying we don't have manned border gates and patrols along the border? People just freely drive over the border whenever and wherever they want? Is that what you are saying?

Yes or no?

Can you male a attempt to support your argument?

Can you provide a citation in the Constitution supporting sanctuary cities?

Yes or no?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Can you male a attempt to support your argument?

Yes. I did.

Can you provide a citation in the Constitution supporting sanctuary cities?

Yes or no?

So you refuse to answer the questions.

Then you ignore my citations.

It's pretty scary that some people believe the federal government can commandeer state recourses to enforce federal law.

This from the party that presumably supports small federal government and states rights.

Here is some more information from the same link.

The 10th Amendment says that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In New York v. United States, Justice O’Connor wrote that a federal waste-management law “would ‘commandeer’ state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes, and would for this reason be inconsistent with the Constitution’s division of authority between federal and state governments.”

Again from the same link.

Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in the recent Murphy v. NCAA case emphatically restated the ideas expressed by O’Connor and Scalia as the Court settled a controversy about New Jersey’s desires to start legal sports betting despite a federal law that prohibited such actions.

“The anti-commandeering doctrine may sound arcane, but it is simply the expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, i.e., the decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States,” Alito wrote. “Conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anti-commandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority,” he added.

 

[Hollie]

Yes. I did.



So you refuse to answer the questions.

Then you ignore my citations.

It's pretty scary that some people believe the federal government can commandeer state recourses to enforce federal law.

This from the party that presumably supports small federal government and states rights.

Here is some more information from the same link.

The 10th Amendment says that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In New York v. United States, Justice O’Connor wrote that a federal waste-management law “would ‘commandeer’ state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes, and would for this reason be inconsistent with the Constitution’s division of authority between federal and state governments.”

Again from the same link.

Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion in the recent Murphy v. NCAA case emphatically restated the ideas expressed by O’Connor and Scalia as the Court settled a controversy about New Jersey’s desires to start legal sports betting despite a federal law that prohibited such actions.

“The anti-commandeering doctrine may sound arcane, but it is simply the expression of a fundamental structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, i.e., the decision to withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the States,” Alito wrote. “Conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anti-commandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority,” he added.

So no. Nothing in the Constiution about a sanctuary city. It would have been easier for you if you had a bit of honesty and integrity not to make specious claims.

 

[Catsnmeters]

So no. Nothing in the Constiution about a sanctuary city. It would have been easier for you if you had a bit of honesty and integrity not to make specious claims.

Lol. Your ignorance of the constitution is appalling.

Here is another question. Maybe you will answer it.

From the above link...

The 10th Amendment says that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In New York v. United States, Justice O’Connor wrote that a federal waste-management law “would ‘commandeer’ state governments into the service of federal regulatory purposes, and would for this reason be inconsistent with the Constitution’s division of authority between federal and state governments.”

The above is a SCOTUS decision supporting constitutional law.

Is federal waste management in the constitution?