Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would welcome cutting off federal funding from my state. Then, we would have to learn to live within our means. Of course, a corollary to that would be our state refusal to submit to federal restriction on our ability to generate our own funds, aka: 10th Amendment.The fact is that states and local governments not required to enforce immigration laws. There is such a thing as states rights. Or is it that we believe in states rights only when they do things we like.
You may want to consider the following:
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses | USAM | Department of Justice
If the Federal Government ever decides to enforce the law, a lot of state politicians are in for a rude awaking.
That applies to the entire country--it does NOT define Sanctuary Cities that Trump is threatening to target. I am certain there are illegals in your state, so does that mean Trump can cut off Federal Funding to your state? What about 1 illegal in an entire state, does that mean it is now a Sanctuary City? With no congressional legal definition we cannot LEGALLY determine what a Sanctuary city is.
These are the issues that you would run head on into-- in any Federal District court across this nation. Until Sanctuary cities are defined by congress and signed into law they don't exist. Threatening them or actually withholding funding from them-without a written congressional approved legal definition would result in class action law suits in the billions for damages done--and it wouldn't be a pretty site for the taxpayers of this country.
Well, that would be a detriment to honest taxpayers as many of their services would be restricted if not eliminated. Though I do not agree with much of the federal meddling in the states the security of a nation and as a course of matters, it's borders and extrapolated, it's immigration policies are most surely a federal matter.I would welcome cutting off federal funding from my state. Then, we would have to learn to live within our means. Of course, a corollary to that would be our state refusal to submit to federal restriction on our ability to generate our own funds, aka: 10th Amendment.The fact is that states and local governments not required to enforce immigration laws. There is such a thing as states rights. Or is it that we believe in states rights only when they do things we like.
You may want to consider the following:
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses | USAM | Department of Justice
If the Federal Government ever decides to enforce the law, a lot of state politicians are in for a rude awaking.
That applies to the entire country--it does NOT define Sanctuary Cities that Trump is threatening to target. I am certain there are illegals in your state, so does that mean Trump can cut off Federal Funding to your state? What about 1 illegal in an entire state, does that mean it is now a Sanctuary City? With no congressional legal definition we cannot LEGALLY determine what a Sanctuary city is.
These are the issues that you would run head on into-- in any Federal District court across this nation. Until Sanctuary cities are defined by congress and signed into law they don't exist. Threatening them or actually withholding funding from them-without a written congressional approved legal definition would result in class action law suits in the billions for damages done--and it wouldn't be a pretty site for the taxpayers of this country.
I would welcome cutting off federal funding from my state. Then, we would have to learn to live within our means. Of course, a corollary to that would be our state refusal to submit to federal restriction on our ability to generate our own funds, aka: 10th Amendment.The fact is that states and local governments not required to enforce immigration laws. There is such a thing as states rights. Or is it that we believe in states rights only when they do things we like.
You may want to consider the following:
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses | USAM | Department of Justice
If the Federal Government ever decides to enforce the law, a lot of state politicians are in for a rude awaking.
That applies to the entire country--it does NOT define Sanctuary Cities that Trump is threatening to target. I am certain there are illegals in your state, so does that mean Trump can cut off Federal Funding to your state? What about 1 illegal in an entire state, does that mean it is now a Sanctuary City? With no congressional legal definition we cannot LEGALLY determine what a Sanctuary city is.
These are the issues that you would run head on into-- in any Federal District court across this nation. Until Sanctuary cities are defined by congress and signed into law they don't exist. Threatening them or actually withholding funding from them-without a written congressional approved legal definition would result in class action law suits in the billions for damages done--and it wouldn't be a pretty site for the taxpayers of this country.
They will be destroyed.I would welcome cutting off federal funding from my state. Then, we would have to learn to live within our means. Of course, a corollary to that would be our state refusal to submit to federal restriction on our ability to generate our own funds, aka: 10th Amendment.The fact is that states and local governments not required to enforce immigration laws. There is such a thing as states rights. Or is it that we believe in states rights only when they do things we like.
You may want to consider the following:
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses | USAM | Department of Justice
If the Federal Government ever decides to enforce the law, a lot of state politicians are in for a rude awaking.
That applies to the entire country--it does NOT define Sanctuary Cities that Trump is threatening to target. I am certain there are illegals in your state, so does that mean Trump can cut off Federal Funding to your state? What about 1 illegal in an entire state, does that mean it is now a Sanctuary City? With no congressional legal definition we cannot LEGALLY determine what a Sanctuary city is.
These are the issues that you would run head on into-- in any Federal District court across this nation. Until Sanctuary cities are defined by congress and signed into law they don't exist. Threatening them or actually withholding funding from them-without a written congressional approved legal definition would result in class action law suits in the billions for damages done--and it wouldn't be a pretty site for the taxpayers of this country.
We already have San Francisco & Seatlle Washington suing Trump. We have laws in this country--but you sure as hell need a legal definition you can defend in court--LOL There has to be a written law--according to that definition--that has been broken or you'll get laughed out of court or end up paying a lot of money to the plantiff for being stupid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/san-francisco-lawsuit-trump-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0
Here is what the mayor of Seattle is saying. He's saying it's against the Constitution.
"Seattle is suing President Donald Trump over his executive order cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities” for how they handle people living in the United States illegally.
The city is doing nothing wrong by limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement, while Trump is overreaching by trying to make cities do the work of the federal government, Mayor Ed Murray and City Attorney Pete Holmes said Wednesday.
The goal of the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, is to have the executive order declared unconstitutional, Murray said at a news conference, accusing the Trump administration of waging “a war on cities.”
“Our lawsuit is staying true to our values,” the mayor said. “We value civil rights, we value the courts and we value the Constitution.”
Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order
Interesting point of view--so they're apparently attacking the constitutionality of withholding Federal money from Sanctuary cities that haven't been legally defined.
Is there a Constitutional basis for forking over federal money to any state/county/municipal/city government entity, for any purpose?I would welcome cutting off federal funding from my state. Then, we would have to learn to live within our means. Of course, a corollary to that would be our state refusal to submit to federal restriction on our ability to generate our own funds, aka: 10th Amendment.The fact is that states and local governments not required to enforce immigration laws. There is such a thing as states rights. Or is it that we believe in states rights only when they do things we like.
You may want to consider the following:
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses | USAM | Department of Justice
If the Federal Government ever decides to enforce the law, a lot of state politicians are in for a rude awaking.
That applies to the entire country--it does NOT define Sanctuary Cities that Trump is threatening to target. I am certain there are illegals in your state, so does that mean Trump can cut off Federal Funding to your state? What about 1 illegal in an entire state, does that mean it is now a Sanctuary City? With no congressional legal definition we cannot LEGALLY determine what a Sanctuary city is.
These are the issues that you would run head on into-- in any Federal District court across this nation. Until Sanctuary cities are defined by congress and signed into law they don't exist. Threatening them or actually withholding funding from them-without a written congressional approved legal definition would result in class action law suits in the billions for damages done--and it wouldn't be a pretty site for the taxpayers of this country.
We already have San Francisco & Seatlle Washington suing Trump. We have laws in this country--but you sure as hell need a legal definition you can defend in court--LOL There has to be a written law--according to that definition--that has been broken or you'll get laughed out of court or end up paying a lot of money to the plantiff for being stupid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/san-francisco-lawsuit-trump-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0
Here is what the mayor of Seattle is saying. He's saying it's against the Constitution.
"Seattle is suing President Donald Trump over his executive order cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities” for how they handle people living in the United States illegally.
The city is doing nothing wrong by limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement, while Trump is overreaching by trying to make cities do the work of the federal government, Mayor Ed Murray and City Attorney Pete Holmes said Wednesday.
The goal of the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, is to have the executive order declared unconstitutional, Murray said at a news conference, accusing the Trump administration of waging “a war on cities.”
“Our lawsuit is staying true to our values,” the mayor said. “We value civil rights, we value the courts and we value the Constitution.”
Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order
Interesting point of view--so they're apparently attacking the constitutionality of withholding Federal money from Sanctuary cities that haven't even been legally defined.
Yes, Seattle...the Emerald City where their mayor is the Great and Powerful Oz...Immune to all of the laws of the land.I would welcome cutting off federal funding from my state. Then, we would have to learn to live within our means. Of course, a corollary to that would be our state refusal to submit to federal restriction on our ability to generate our own funds, aka: 10th Amendment.The fact is that states and local governments not required to enforce immigration laws. There is such a thing as states rights. Or is it that we believe in states rights only when they do things we like.
You may want to consider the following:
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses | USAM | Department of Justice
If the Federal Government ever decides to enforce the law, a lot of state politicians are in for a rude awaking.
That applies to the entire country--it does NOT define Sanctuary Cities that Trump is threatening to target. I am certain there are illegals in your state, so does that mean Trump can cut off Federal Funding to your state? What about 1 illegal in an entire state, does that mean it is now a Sanctuary City? With no congressional legal definition we cannot LEGALLY determine what a Sanctuary city is.
These are the issues that you would run head on into-- in any Federal District court across this nation. Until Sanctuary cities are defined by congress and signed into law they don't exist. Threatening them or actually withholding funding from them-without a written congressional approved legal definition would result in class action law suits in the billions for damages done--and it wouldn't be a pretty site for the taxpayers of this country.
We already have San Francisco & Seatlle Washington suing Trump. We have laws in this country--but you sure as hell need a legal definition you can defend in court--LOL There has to be a written law--according to that definition--that has been broken or you'll get laughed out of court or end up paying a lot of money to the plantiff for being stupid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/san-francisco-lawsuit-trump-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0
Here is what the mayor of Seattle is saying. He's saying it's against the Constitution.
"Seattle is suing President Donald Trump over his executive order cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities” for how they handle people living in the United States illegally.
The city is doing nothing wrong by limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement, while Trump is overreaching by trying to make cities do the work of the federal government, Mayor Ed Murray and City Attorney Pete Holmes said Wednesday.
The goal of the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, is to have the executive order declared unconstitutional, Murray said at a news conference, accusing the Trump administration of waging “a war on cities.”
“Our lawsuit is staying true to our values,” the mayor said. “We value civil rights, we value the courts and we value the Constitution.”
Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order
Interesting point of view--so they're apparently attacking the constitutionality of withholding Federal money from Sanctuary cities that haven't even been legally defined.
I would welcome cutting off federal funding from my state. Then, we would have to learn to live within our means. Of course, a corollary to that would be our state refusal to submit to federal restriction on our ability to generate our own funds, aka: 10th Amendment.The fact is that states and local governments not required to enforce immigration laws. There is such a thing as states rights. Or is it that we believe in states rights only when they do things we like.
You may want to consider the following:
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses | USAM | Department of Justice
If the Federal Government ever decides to enforce the law, a lot of state politicians are in for a rude awaking.
That applies to the entire country--it does NOT define Sanctuary Cities that Trump is threatening to target. I am certain there are illegals in your state, so does that mean Trump can cut off Federal Funding to your state? What about 1 illegal in an entire state, does that mean it is now a Sanctuary City? With no congressional legal definition we cannot LEGALLY determine what a Sanctuary city is.
These are the issues that you would run head on into-- in any Federal District court across this nation. Until Sanctuary cities are defined by congress and signed into law they don't exist. Threatening them or actually withholding funding from them-without a written congressional approved legal definition would result in class action law suits in the billions for damages done--and it wouldn't be a pretty site for the taxpayers of this country.
We already have San Francisco & Seatlle Washington suing Trump. We have laws in this country--but you sure as hell need a legal definition you can defend in court--LOL There has to be a written law--according to that definition--that has been broken or you'll get laughed out of court or end up paying a lot of money to the plantiff for being stupid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/san-francisco-lawsuit-trump-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0
Here is what the mayor of Seattle is saying. He's saying it's against the Constitution.
"Seattle is suing President Donald Trump over his executive order cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities” for how they handle people living in the United States illegally.
The city is doing nothing wrong by limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement, while Trump is overreaching by trying to make cities do the work of the federal government, Mayor Ed Murray and City Attorney Pete Holmes said Wednesday.
The goal of the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, is to have the executive order declared unconstitutional, Murray said at a news conference, accusing the Trump administration of waging “a war on cities.”
“Our lawsuit is staying true to our values,” the mayor said. “We value civil rights, we value the courts and we value the Constitution.”
Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order
Interesting point of view--so they're apparently attacking the constitutionality of withholding Federal money from Sanctuary cities that haven't even been legally defined.
They will be destroyed.I would welcome cutting off federal funding from my state. Then, we would have to learn to live within our means. Of course, a corollary to that would be our state refusal to submit to federal restriction on our ability to generate our own funds, aka: 10th Amendment.The fact is that states and local governments not required to enforce immigration laws. There is such a thing as states rights. Or is it that we believe in states rights only when they do things we like.
You may want to consider the following:
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses | USAM | Department of Justice
If the Federal Government ever decides to enforce the law, a lot of state politicians are in for a rude awaking.
That applies to the entire country--it does NOT define Sanctuary Cities that Trump is threatening to target. I am certain there are illegals in your state, so does that mean Trump can cut off Federal Funding to your state? What about 1 illegal in an entire state, does that mean it is now a Sanctuary City? With no congressional legal definition we cannot LEGALLY determine what a Sanctuary city is.
These are the issues that you would run head on into-- in any Federal District court across this nation. Until Sanctuary cities are defined by congress and signed into law they don't exist. Threatening them or actually withholding funding from them-without a written congressional approved legal definition would result in class action law suits in the billions for damages done--and it wouldn't be a pretty site for the taxpayers of this country.
We already have San Francisco & Seatlle Washington suing Trump. We have laws in this country--but you sure as hell need a legal definition you can defend in court--LOL There has to be a written law--according to that definition--that has been broken or you'll get laughed out of court or end up paying a lot of money to the plantiff for being stupid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/san-francisco-lawsuit-trump-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0
Here is what the mayor of Seattle is saying. He's saying it's against the Constitution.
"Seattle is suing President Donald Trump over his executive order cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities” for how they handle people living in the United States illegally.
The city is doing nothing wrong by limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement, while Trump is overreaching by trying to make cities do the work of the federal government, Mayor Ed Murray and City Attorney Pete Holmes said Wednesday.
The goal of the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, is to have the executive order declared unconstitutional, Murray said at a news conference, accusing the Trump administration of waging “a war on cities.”
“Our lawsuit is staying true to our values,” the mayor said. “We value civil rights, we value the courts and we value the Constitution.”
Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order
Interesting point of view--so they're apparently attacking the constitutionality of withholding Federal money from Sanctuary cities that haven't been legally defined.
This is the end of the Democrat party.
Democrats will barely win anything in 2018, and that includes blue state elections.They will be destroyed.I would welcome cutting off federal funding from my state. Then, we would have to learn to live within our means. Of course, a corollary to that would be our state refusal to submit to federal restriction on our ability to generate our own funds, aka: 10th Amendment.You may want to consider the following:
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses | USAM | Department of Justice
If the Federal Government ever decides to enforce the law, a lot of state politicians are in for a rude awaking.
That applies to the entire country--it does NOT define Sanctuary Cities that Trump is threatening to target. I am certain there are illegals in your state, so does that mean Trump can cut off Federal Funding to your state? What about 1 illegal in an entire state, does that mean it is now a Sanctuary City? With no congressional legal definition we cannot LEGALLY determine what a Sanctuary city is.
These are the issues that you would run head on into-- in any Federal District court across this nation. Until Sanctuary cities are defined by congress and signed into law they don't exist. Threatening them or actually withholding funding from them-without a written congressional approved legal definition would result in class action law suits in the billions for damages done--and it wouldn't be a pretty site for the taxpayers of this country.
We already have San Francisco & Seatlle Washington suing Trump. We have laws in this country--but you sure as hell need a legal definition you can defend in court--LOL There has to be a written law--according to that definition--that has been broken or you'll get laughed out of court or end up paying a lot of money to the plantiff for being stupid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/san-francisco-lawsuit-trump-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0
Here is what the mayor of Seattle is saying. He's saying it's against the Constitution.
"Seattle is suing President Donald Trump over his executive order cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities” for how they handle people living in the United States illegally.
The city is doing nothing wrong by limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement, while Trump is overreaching by trying to make cities do the work of the federal government, Mayor Ed Murray and City Attorney Pete Holmes said Wednesday.
The goal of the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, is to have the executive order declared unconstitutional, Murray said at a news conference, accusing the Trump administration of waging “a war on cities.”
“Our lawsuit is staying true to our values,” the mayor said. “We value civil rights, we value the courts and we value the Constitution.”
Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order
Interesting point of view--so they're apparently attacking the constitutionality of withholding Federal money from Sanctuary cities that haven't been legally defined.
This is the end of the Democrat party.
I doubt that. Lets face it, if Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi--it's not real hard to imagine what Democrats will do with Treason, Obstruction & lies when they take over in 2018. You'll probably also get a clear understanding of what the Emoluments clause in the Constitution means at that time also.
The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump | Brookings Institution
Immigration is not Democrats fault, it is fault of congress for never writing a Sanctuary city definition--and Republicans have owned both houses for the last 7 years and they've done nothing. They could have come up with a definition and had it on Trump's desk as soon as he was sworn in--they didn't.
Like Obamacare, it sounds great on the campaign trail--something else they have campaigned on for the last 7 years, but the rubber never meets the road when it comes to reality.
True! The sad part is that the Dems have doubled down on black (pardon the pun). They have gone further left after Shitlery was banished back to her Hell pit.Democrats will barely win anything in 2018, and that includes blue state elections.They will be destroyed.I would welcome cutting off federal funding from my state. Then, we would have to learn to live within our means. Of course, a corollary to that would be our state refusal to submit to federal restriction on our ability to generate our own funds, aka: 10th Amendment.That applies to the entire country--it does NOT define Sanctuary Cities that Trump is threatening to target. I am certain there are illegals in your state, so does that mean Trump can cut off Federal Funding to your state? What about 1 illegal in an entire state, does that mean it is now a Sanctuary City? With no congressional legal definition we cannot LEGALLY determine what a Sanctuary city is.
These are the issues that you would run head on into-- in any Federal District court across this nation. Until Sanctuary cities are defined by congress and signed into law they don't exist. Threatening them or actually withholding funding from them-without a written congressional approved legal definition would result in class action law suits in the billions for damages done--and it wouldn't be a pretty site for the taxpayers of this country.
We already have San Francisco & Seatlle Washington suing Trump. We have laws in this country--but you sure as hell need a legal definition you can defend in court--LOL There has to be a written law--according to that definition--that has been broken or you'll get laughed out of court or end up paying a lot of money to the plantiff for being stupid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/san-francisco-lawsuit-trump-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0
Here is what the mayor of Seattle is saying. He's saying it's against the Constitution.
"Seattle is suing President Donald Trump over his executive order cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities” for how they handle people living in the United States illegally.
The city is doing nothing wrong by limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement, while Trump is overreaching by trying to make cities do the work of the federal government, Mayor Ed Murray and City Attorney Pete Holmes said Wednesday.
The goal of the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, is to have the executive order declared unconstitutional, Murray said at a news conference, accusing the Trump administration of waging “a war on cities.”
“Our lawsuit is staying true to our values,” the mayor said. “We value civil rights, we value the courts and we value the Constitution.”
Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order
Interesting point of view--so they're apparently attacking the constitutionality of withholding Federal money from Sanctuary cities that haven't been legally defined.
This is the end of the Democrat party.
I doubt that. Lets face it, if Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi--it's not real hard to imagine what Democrats will do with Treason, Obstruction & lies when they take over in 2018. You'll probably also get a clear understanding of what the Emoluments clause in the Constitution means at that time also.
The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump | Brookings Institution
Immigration is not Democrats fault, it is fault of congress for never writing a Sanctuary city definition--and Republicans have owned both houses for the last 7 years and they've done nothing. They could have come up with a definition and had it on Trump's desk as soon as he was sworn in--they didn't.
Like Obamacare, it sounds great on the campaign trail--something else they have campaigned on for the last 7 years, but the rubber never meets the road when it comes to reality.
Republicans win because Democrats are no longer a viable American political party, not because they are an outstanding choice.
Democrats are finished.True! The sad part is that the Dems have doubled down on black (pardon the pun). They have gone further left after Shitlery was banished back to her Hell pit.Democrats will barely win anything in 2018, and that includes blue state elections.They will be destroyed.I would welcome cutting off federal funding from my state. Then, we would have to learn to live within our means. Of course, a corollary to that would be our state refusal to submit to federal restriction on our ability to generate our own funds, aka: 10th Amendment.
We already have San Francisco & Seatlle Washington suing Trump. We have laws in this country--but you sure as hell need a legal definition you can defend in court--LOL There has to be a written law--according to that definition--that has been broken or you'll get laughed out of court or end up paying a lot of money to the plantiff for being stupid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/san-francisco-lawsuit-trump-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0
Here is what the mayor of Seattle is saying. He's saying it's against the Constitution.
"Seattle is suing President Donald Trump over his executive order cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities” for how they handle people living in the United States illegally.
The city is doing nothing wrong by limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement, while Trump is overreaching by trying to make cities do the work of the federal government, Mayor Ed Murray and City Attorney Pete Holmes said Wednesday.
The goal of the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, is to have the executive order declared unconstitutional, Murray said at a news conference, accusing the Trump administration of waging “a war on cities.”
“Our lawsuit is staying true to our values,” the mayor said. “We value civil rights, we value the courts and we value the Constitution.”
Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order
Interesting point of view--so they're apparently attacking the constitutionality of withholding Federal money from Sanctuary cities that haven't been legally defined.
This is the end of the Democrat party.
I doubt that. Lets face it, if Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi--it's not real hard to imagine what Democrats will do with Treason, Obstruction & lies when they take over in 2018. You'll probably also get a clear understanding of what the Emoluments clause in the Constitution means at that time also.
The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump | Brookings Institution
Immigration is not Democrats fault, it is fault of congress for never writing a Sanctuary city definition--and Republicans have owned both houses for the last 7 years and they've done nothing. They could have come up with a definition and had it on Trump's desk as soon as he was sworn in--they didn't.
Like Obamacare, it sounds great on the campaign trail--something else they have campaigned on for the last 7 years, but the rubber never meets the road when it comes to reality.
Republicans win because Democrats are no longer a viable American political party, not because they are an outstanding choice.
Democrats will barely win anything in 2018, and that includes blue state elections.They will be destroyed.I would welcome cutting off federal funding from my state. Then, we would have to learn to live within our means. Of course, a corollary to that would be our state refusal to submit to federal restriction on our ability to generate our own funds, aka: 10th Amendment.That applies to the entire country--it does NOT define Sanctuary Cities that Trump is threatening to target. I am certain there are illegals in your state, so does that mean Trump can cut off Federal Funding to your state? What about 1 illegal in an entire state, does that mean it is now a Sanctuary City? With no congressional legal definition we cannot LEGALLY determine what a Sanctuary city is.
These are the issues that you would run head on into-- in any Federal District court across this nation. Until Sanctuary cities are defined by congress and signed into law they don't exist. Threatening them or actually withholding funding from them-without a written congressional approved legal definition would result in class action law suits in the billions for damages done--and it wouldn't be a pretty site for the taxpayers of this country.
We already have San Francisco & Seatlle Washington suing Trump. We have laws in this country--but you sure as hell need a legal definition you can defend in court--LOL There has to be a written law--according to that definition--that has been broken or you'll get laughed out of court or end up paying a lot of money to the plantiff for being stupid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/san-francisco-lawsuit-trump-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0
Here is what the mayor of Seattle is saying. He's saying it's against the Constitution.
"Seattle is suing President Donald Trump over his executive order cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities” for how they handle people living in the United States illegally.
The city is doing nothing wrong by limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement, while Trump is overreaching by trying to make cities do the work of the federal government, Mayor Ed Murray and City Attorney Pete Holmes said Wednesday.
The goal of the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, is to have the executive order declared unconstitutional, Murray said at a news conference, accusing the Trump administration of waging “a war on cities.”
“Our lawsuit is staying true to our values,” the mayor said. “We value civil rights, we value the courts and we value the Constitution.”
Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order
Interesting point of view--so they're apparently attacking the constitutionality of withholding Federal money from Sanctuary cities that haven't been legally defined.
This is the end of the Democrat party.
I doubt that. Lets face it, if Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi--it's not real hard to imagine what Democrats will do with Treason, Obstruction & lies when they take over in 2018. You'll probably also get a clear understanding of what the Emoluments clause in the Constitution means at that time also.
The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump | Brookings Institution
Immigration is not Democrats fault, it is fault of congress for never writing a Sanctuary city definition--and Republicans have owned both houses for the last 7 years and they've done nothing. They could have come up with a definition and had it on Trump's desk as soon as he was sworn in--they didn't.
Like Obamacare, it sounds great on the campaign trail--something else they have campaigned on for the last 7 years, but the rubber never meets the road when it comes to reality.
Republicans win because Democrats are no longer a viable American political party, not because they are an outstanding choice.
No...never ever underestimate the stupidity of the average man. Sadly, our national IQ has been declining for some time.Democrats are finished.True! The sad part is that the Dems have doubled down on black (pardon the pun). They have gone further left after Shitlery was banished back to her Hell pit.Democrats will barely win anything in 2018, and that includes blue state elections.They will be destroyed.We already have San Francisco & Seatlle Washington suing Trump. We have laws in this country--but you sure as hell need a legal definition you can defend in court--LOL There has to be a written law--according to that definition--that has been broken or you'll get laughed out of court or end up paying a lot of money to the plantiff for being stupid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/san-francisco-lawsuit-trump-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0
Here is what the mayor of Seattle is saying. He's saying it's against the Constitution.
"Seattle is suing President Donald Trump over his executive order cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities” for how they handle people living in the United States illegally.
The city is doing nothing wrong by limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement, while Trump is overreaching by trying to make cities do the work of the federal government, Mayor Ed Murray and City Attorney Pete Holmes said Wednesday.
The goal of the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, is to have the executive order declared unconstitutional, Murray said at a news conference, accusing the Trump administration of waging “a war on cities.”
“Our lawsuit is staying true to our values,” the mayor said. “We value civil rights, we value the courts and we value the Constitution.”
Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order
Interesting point of view--so they're apparently attacking the constitutionality of withholding Federal money from Sanctuary cities that haven't been legally defined.
This is the end of the Democrat party.
I doubt that. Lets face it, if Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi--it's not real hard to imagine what Democrats will do with Treason, Obstruction & lies when they take over in 2018. You'll probably also get a clear understanding of what the Emoluments clause in the Constitution means at that time also.
The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump | Brookings Institution
Immigration is not Democrats fault, it is fault of congress for never writing a Sanctuary city definition--and Republicans have owned both houses for the last 7 years and they've done nothing. They could have come up with a definition and had it on Trump's desk as soon as he was sworn in--they didn't.
Like Obamacare, it sounds great on the campaign trail--something else they have campaigned on for the last 7 years, but the rubber never meets the road when it comes to reality.
Republicans win because Democrats are no longer a viable American political party, not because they are an outstanding choice.
This push to make every city a sanctuary city is not only an act of desperation, it is also a perpetual noose around their neck.
These idiots thought Obamacare was an albatross in 2010 and 2014, but 2018 will make those years look like blowout wins for Democrats thanks to sanctuary cities.
Democrats will barely win anything in 2018, and that includes blue state elections.They will be destroyed.I would welcome cutting off federal funding from my state. Then, we would have to learn to live within our means. Of course, a corollary to that would be our state refusal to submit to federal restriction on our ability to generate our own funds, aka: 10th Amendment.
We already have San Francisco & Seatlle Washington suing Trump. We have laws in this country--but you sure as hell need a legal definition you can defend in court--LOL There has to be a written law--according to that definition--that has been broken or you'll get laughed out of court or end up paying a lot of money to the plantiff for being stupid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/san-francisco-lawsuit-trump-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0
Here is what the mayor of Seattle is saying. He's saying it's against the Constitution.
"Seattle is suing President Donald Trump over his executive order cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities” for how they handle people living in the United States illegally.
The city is doing nothing wrong by limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement, while Trump is overreaching by trying to make cities do the work of the federal government, Mayor Ed Murray and City Attorney Pete Holmes said Wednesday.
The goal of the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, is to have the executive order declared unconstitutional, Murray said at a news conference, accusing the Trump administration of waging “a war on cities.”
“Our lawsuit is staying true to our values,” the mayor said. “We value civil rights, we value the courts and we value the Constitution.”
Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order
Interesting point of view--so they're apparently attacking the constitutionality of withholding Federal money from Sanctuary cities that haven't been legally defined.
This is the end of the Democrat party.
I doubt that. Lets face it, if Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi--it's not real hard to imagine what Democrats will do with Treason, Obstruction & lies when they take over in 2018. You'll probably also get a clear understanding of what the Emoluments clause in the Constitution means at that time also.
The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump | Brookings Institution
Immigration is not Democrats fault, it is fault of congress for never writing a Sanctuary city definition--and Republicans have owned both houses for the last 7 years and they've done nothing. They could have come up with a definition and had it on Trump's desk as soon as he was sworn in--they didn't.
Like Obamacare, it sounds great on the campaign trail--something else they have campaigned on for the last 7 years, but the rubber never meets the road when it comes to reality.
Republicans win because Democrats are no longer a viable American political party, not because they are an outstanding choice.
Trump has got the lowest approval rating of any President in the history of this nation right now. With these 3 ongoing Russian investigations it's only going to go downhill from here.
There has never been a President elect that had to barricade himself inside the Trump tower upon the announcement that he won, and his communication with the outside world was reduced to a Tweeter account.
These protests are massive--and this has never been seen before in this country. You have elected someone that more than half this country can actually hate. And it's been one failure after another.
By making Trump the poster boy of the Republican party you have put a target on every Republicans back--and they already know it.
Analysis | 5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia
The national IQ of the Democrats can't get any lower.No...never ever underestimate the stupidity of the average man. Sadly, our national IQ has been declining for some time.Democrats are finished.True! The sad part is that the Dems have doubled down on black (pardon the pun). They have gone further left after Shitlery was banished back to her Hell pit.Democrats will barely win anything in 2018, and that includes blue state elections.They will be destroyed.
This is the end of the Democrat party.
I doubt that. Lets face it, if Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi--it's not real hard to imagine what Democrats will do with Treason, Obstruction & lies when they take over in 2018. You'll probably also get a clear understanding of what the Emoluments clause in the Constitution means at that time also.
The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump | Brookings Institution
Immigration is not Democrats fault, it is fault of congress for never writing a Sanctuary city definition--and Republicans have owned both houses for the last 7 years and they've done nothing. They could have come up with a definition and had it on Trump's desk as soon as he was sworn in--they didn't.
Like Obamacare, it sounds great on the campaign trail--something else they have campaigned on for the last 7 years, but the rubber never meets the road when it comes to reality.
Republicans win because Democrats are no longer a viable American political party, not because they are an outstanding choice.
This push to make every city a sanctuary city is not only an act of desperation, it is also a perpetual noose around their neck.
These idiots thought Obamacare was an albatross in 2010 and 2014, but 2018 will make those years look like blowout wins for Democrats thanks to sanctuary cities.
Ever been to the Middle East? Well they want lots of those people...trust me...the IQ can get much lower.The national IQ of the Democrats can't get any lower.No...never ever underestimate the stupidity of the average man. Sadly, our national IQ has been declining for some time.Democrats are finished.True! The sad part is that the Dems have doubled down on black (pardon the pun). They have gone further left after Shitlery was banished back to her Hell pit.Democrats will barely win anything in 2018, and that includes blue state elections.I doubt that. Lets face it, if Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi--it's not real hard to imagine what Democrats will do with Treason, Obstruction & lies when they take over in 2018. You'll probably also get a clear understanding of what the Emoluments clause in the Constitution means at that time also.
The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump | Brookings Institution
Immigration is not Democrats fault, it is fault of congress for never writing a Sanctuary city definition--and Republicans have owned both houses for the last 7 years and they've done nothing. They could have come up with a definition and had it on Trump's desk as soon as he was sworn in--they didn't.
Like Obamacare, it sounds great on the campaign trail--something else they have campaigned on for the last 7 years, but the rubber never meets the road when it comes to reality.
Republicans win because Democrats are no longer a viable American political party, not because they are an outstanding choice.
This push to make every city a sanctuary city is not only an act of desperation, it is also a perpetual noose around their neck.
These idiots thought Obamacare was an albatross in 2010 and 2014, but 2018 will make those years look like blowout wins for Democrats thanks to sanctuary cities.
The gap between the parties is absolutely massive.
People in the Middle East are much more intelligent than Democrats.Ever been to the Middle East? Well they want lots of those people...trust me...the IQ can get much lower.The national IQ of the Democrats can't get any lower.No...never ever underestimate the stupidity of the average man. Sadly, our national IQ has been declining for some time.Democrats are finished.True! The sad part is that the Dems have doubled down on black (pardon the pun). They have gone further left after Shitlery was banished back to her Hell pit.Democrats will barely win anything in 2018, and that includes blue state elections.
Republicans win because Democrats are no longer a viable American political party, not because they are an outstanding choice.
This push to make every city a sanctuary city is not only an act of desperation, it is also a perpetual noose around their neck.
These idiots thought Obamacare was an albatross in 2010 and 2014, but 2018 will make those years look like blowout wins for Democrats thanks to sanctuary cities.
The gap between the parties is absolutely massive.
Trump has only been president for 73 days .. his supporters didn't expect all his campaign ideas would immediately and without issue or obstruction from the Democratic Party. There's a lot of time to win ahead of us . Have your ever had a trump supporter agree with you ??They will be destroyed.I would welcome cutting off federal funding from my state. Then, we would have to learn to live within our means. Of course, a corollary to that would be our state refusal to submit to federal restriction on our ability to generate our own funds, aka: 10th Amendment.You may want to consider the following:
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses | USAM | Department of Justice
If the Federal Government ever decides to enforce the law, a lot of state politicians are in for a rude awaking.
That applies to the entire country--it does NOT define Sanctuary Cities that Trump is threatening to target. I am certain there are illegals in your state, so does that mean Trump can cut off Federal Funding to your state? What about 1 illegal in an entire state, does that mean it is now a Sanctuary City? With no congressional legal definition we cannot LEGALLY determine what a Sanctuary city is.
These are the issues that you would run head on into-- in any Federal District court across this nation. Until Sanctuary cities are defined by congress and signed into law they don't exist. Threatening them or actually withholding funding from them-without a written congressional approved legal definition would result in class action law suits in the billions for damages done--and it wouldn't be a pretty site for the taxpayers of this country.
We already have San Francisco & Seatlle Washington suing Trump. We have laws in this country--but you sure as hell need a legal definition you can defend in court--LOL There has to be a written law--according to that definition--that has been broken or you'll get laughed out of court or end up paying a lot of money to the plantiff for being stupid.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/san-francisco-lawsuit-trump-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0
Here is what the mayor of Seattle is saying. He's saying it's against the Constitution.
"Seattle is suing President Donald Trump over his executive order cracking down on so-called “sanctuary cities” for how they handle people living in the United States illegally.
The city is doing nothing wrong by limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement, while Trump is overreaching by trying to make cities do the work of the federal government, Mayor Ed Murray and City Attorney Pete Holmes said Wednesday.
The goal of the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle, is to have the executive order declared unconstitutional, Murray said at a news conference, accusing the Trump administration of waging “a war on cities.”
“Our lawsuit is staying true to our values,” the mayor said. “We value civil rights, we value the courts and we value the Constitution.”
Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order
Interesting point of view--so they're apparently attacking the constitutionality of withholding Federal money from Sanctuary cities that haven't been legally defined.
This is the end of the Democrat party.
I doubt that. Lets face it, if Republicans can do 8 investigations into Benghazi--it's not real hard to imagine what Democrats will do with Treason, Obstruction & lies when they take over in 2018. You'll probably also get a clear understanding of what the Emoluments clause in the Constitution means at that time also.
The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump | Brookings Institution
Immigration is not Democrats fault, it is fault of congress for never writing a Sanctuary city definition--and Republicans have owned both houses for the last 7 years and they've done nothing. They could have come up with a definition and had it on Trump's desk as soon as he was sworn in--they didn't.
Like Obamacare, it sounds great on the campaign trail--something else they have campaigned on for the last 7 years, but the rubber never meets the road when it comes to reality.
Here is what the mayor of Seattle is saying. He's saying it's against the Constitution.
The city is doing nothing wrong by limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement, while Trump is overreaching by trying to make cities do the work of the federal government, Mayor Ed Murray and City Attorney Pete Holmes said Wednesday.
Here is what the mayor of Seattle is saying. He's saying it's against the Constitution.
The city is doing nothing wrong by limiting its own involvement in immigration enforcement, while Trump is overreaching by trying to make cities do the work of the federal government, Mayor Ed Murray and City Attorney Pete Holmes said Wednesday.
Doing nothing wrong??? Section 1324 of title 8 of the US code makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live in america and outlaw cities are certainly doing that.
