Should santuary cities receives Federal Funding?

[Ravi]

ANy Government entity that ILLEGALLY harbors, protects or supports Illegal ALIENS should be cut off from ANY Federal Funds. They are advocating disobeying federal law, they are thwarting Federal officials and laws. The word for that is insurrection.

They should be cut off from funds and a deadline given to get back into compliance with federal laws. Failure to comply should see elected officials supporting the illegal activity ARREST and jailed for Insurrection.

That's a little severe for a crime that is basically a misdemeanor.

 

[KMAN]

I'm not getting your point.

My bad Ravi. I reposnded to the wrong thing.

I do believe however that the government can help cities with natural disasters since they are doing nothing to break the law. But don't believe we should support cities who break the law?

Don't you agree?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's a little severe for a crime that is basically a misdemeanor.

Wrong. Insurrection is Insurrection. Purposefully violating Federal Law and thwarting the enforcement of said law is just that, Insurrection.

 

[Foxfyre]

Then you must disagree with federal gov. giving disaster relief...

Absolutely I disagree with the federal government giving disaster relief either here or abroad. I have no problem with the federal government coordinating disaster relief efforts in the interest of efficiency and practicality, but the national treasury should not be tapped for the benefit of ANY select group of people. The American people are overwhelmingly generous and will open their hearts and wallets on behalf of others whenever and wherever asked. But it should always be their choice, and not some bureaucrat's decision to use the people's money for such purposes. Why? See below. . .

On the issue of illegal immigration we need a Constitutional amendment that a) moves us from a jus solis system (automatic citizenship if you are born in the USA) to a jus sanguinis system (automatic citizenship if you are the child of a US citizen.) Such amendment should allow cities and states to deny benefits other than immediate humanitarian emergency services to any person in the country illegally. Shut down the 'anchor baby' problem and turn off the spigot to the public treasury as well as financial opportunities, and the illegal immigration problem ceases to exist.

(Note: The reason the federal government should not have the ability to favor or benefit one person or group of people over another is that such a policy violates the principle of property and freedom on which the Constitution was founded. It violates every principle of the Constitution to confiscate property of Citizen A who legally and honorably acquired it and give it to Citizen B who did not. Further, he who robs Peter to pay Paul can count on the support of Paul, so ability to favor one person/group over another is a huge ability to buy votes and thereby enrich ones own fortunes.

Every US President and adminitration understood that principle until FDR who started the snowball rolling to create the huge expensive, inefficient, ineffective big government monster that we now have.

 

[CA95380]

San Francisco, and any other city in the US claiming to be a sanctuary for illegal aliens, should get exactly the same thing for being a "safe harbor".

Nuttin Honey! The whole idea is just plain .....

 

[doeton]

hilarious.

you guys want the local govs to enforce the constitution and federal laws

but don't expect the feds to pay for it?

cracking me up.

 

[doeton]

"Absolutely I disagree with the federal government giving disaster relief either here or abroad. I have no problem with the federal government coordinating disaster relief efforts in the interest of efficiency and practicality, but the national treasury should not be tapped for the benefit of ANY select group of people. The American people are overwhelmingly generous and will open their hearts and wallets on behalf of others whenever and wherever asked. But it should always be their choice, and not some bureaucrat's decision to use the people's money for such purposes. Why? See below. . ."


lol.

so when Hawaii got attacked by the japs.

we should have abandoned the island?

i mean that was just that one special group in hawaii...not all of us.

cracking me up.

and 9-11 fuck new york right?

good grief.

 

[CA95380]

"Absolutely I disagree with the federal government giving disaster relief either here or abroad. I have no problem with the federal government coordinating disaster relief efforts in the interest of efficiency and practicality, but the national treasury should not be tapped for the benefit of ANY select group of people. The American people are overwhelmingly generous and will open their hearts and wallets on behalf of others whenever and wherever asked. But it should always be their choice, and not some bureaucrat's decision to use the people's money for such purposes. Why? See below. . ."


lol.

so when Hawaii got attacked by the japs.

we should have abandoned the island?

i mean that was just that one special group in hawaii...not all of us.

cracking me up.

and 9-11 fuck new york right?

good grief.

"so when Hawaii got attacked by the japs.

we should have abandoned the island?"

Nope. We didn't abandon it - but they sure as hell own it! Been there lately? They own EVERYTHING on those islands!

 

[KMAN]

hilarious.

you guys want the local govs to enforce the constitution and federal laws

but don't expect the feds to pay for it?

cracking me up.

Either you aren't reading the posts correctly or just don't understand... We are for the feds paying for and enforcing federal law but not for the fed paying cities to break the law.... I just assumed that was common sense for eveyone but evidentally that is not the case.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"Absolutely I disagree with the federal government giving disaster relief either here or abroad. I have no problem with the federal government coordinating disaster relief efforts in the interest of efficiency and practicality, but the national treasury should not be tapped for the benefit of ANY select group of people. The American people are overwhelmingly generous and will open their hearts and wallets on behalf of others whenever and wherever asked. But it should always be their choice, and not some bureaucrat's decision to use the people's money for such purposes. Why? See below. . ."


lol.

so when Hawaii got attacked by the japs.

we should have abandoned the island?

i mean that was just that one special group in hawaii...not all of us.

cracking me up.

and 9-11 fuck new york right?

good grief.

You are a retard, those were acts of War not Natural disasters. But then if you did not already know that, you are amazingly stupid.

 

[Charles_Main]

Cities who offer sanctuary to Illegals and refuse to comply with Federal law, should not get one penny of Federal money.

 

[Ravi]

Technically, acts of war are natural disasters.

 

[Ravi]

Cities who offer sanctuary to Illegals and refuse to comply with Federal law, should not get one penny of Federal money.

Why? What if they comply with every other federal law?

 

[Charles_Main]

Why? What if they comply with every other federal law?

lol, because they are not complying with ALL THE LAWS, and with holding funding is the one way to force them to do it.

San Fran is by far the worst offender, a least 3 peoples blood is on their hands because they refused to turn in a known felon illegal immigrant, and allowed him to stay free so he could kill a man and his 2 kids.

 

[BillyBob]

Sanctuary cities should be carpet bombed.

 

[Charles_Main]

I think it is funny some people do not think it would be right to with hold funding from sanctuary cities. Has not this very tactic been used in the past to force states to comply with highway safety and speed limit laws?? Is not complying with immigration laws at least as important as complying with Traffic laws?

 

[Ravi]

I think it is funny some people do not think it would be right to with hold funding from sanctuary cities. Has not this very tactic been used in the past to force states to comply with highway safety and speed limit laws?? Is not complying with immigration laws at least as important as complying with Traffic laws?

They don't withhold all federal funding...just the portion to do with roads, etc.

I have no problem withholding any monies related to immigration. But I'd also like to see them pay for the cities that cooperate with Federal laws...do they? Methink not.

 

[doeton]

the point of the war analogy was that using foxfyre's logic bout robing peter to pay could lead to the idea that one state being attacked isn't an issue of the other states.

glad to explain for ya guys.

 

[editec]

Wrong. Insurrection is Insurrection. Purposefully violating Federal Law and thwarting the enforcement of said law is just that, Insurrection.

Bit of an overstatement, don't you think?

Insurrection?

Insurrection \In`sur*rec"tion\, n. [L. insurrectio, fr.
insurgere, insurrectum: cf. F. insurrection. See
Insurgent.]
1. A rising against civil or political authority, or the
established government; open and active opposition to the
execution of law in a city or state.

It is found that this city of old time hath made
insurrection against kings, and that rebellion and
sedition have been made therein. --Ezra iv. 19.

2. A rising in mass to oppose an enemy. [Obs.]

Well then again, maybe not.

I always assumed insurrection took a more active meaning, but apparently you are right.

What the city in question seems to be doing is passive aggression which could be construed or intpreted as a low level insurrection.

 

[nukeman]

No city should receive ANY federal funds if they are a "sanctuary city". By not allowing the local government employee to help in the apprehension of KNOWN criminals (illegal aliens)they are aiding and abetting a criminal and as such should be brought up on appropriate charges.

The cities are breaking the law plain and simple.

The constitution calls for the federal government to PROTECT the states and if the states are letting illegal activity take place by setting up "sanctuary" than they are endangering the other states surrounding them.

THEY ARE BREAKING THE LAW SIMPLE AS THAT.