Sanctuary cities

[renard_ruse]

How can cities decide on their own immigration policies in defiance of federal law?

 

[NOIRTRASH]

They elect to enforce laws or ignore them.

But The Don aint gotta send them any money.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

How can cities decide on their own immigration policies in defiance of federal law?

They don't.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

How can cities decide on their own immigration policies in defiance of federal law?

Because the Federal Government approves of it.

 

[Christobal]

Maybe just like states ignore the federal marijuana laws? I have no idea how it works. I really don't.

 

[Conager]

How can cities decide on their own immigration policies in defiance of federal law?

Depending on their state constitution they should be able to. Same as they should be able to have their own gun laws assuming their state doesn't have a state Second Amendment.

Federal government doesn't get a say in who becomes a citizen of any of the several States. The problem is federal government decided to expand the intent of the incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment as result progressives are now fuck because they have to incorporate everything if you're going to start incorporating "stuff."

Constitution supposed to be about what the government cannot do to you the individual citizen or to the states. Not giving it authority to tell the states what to do and not to do.

The reality is now of course the federal government can tell it what to do it just doesn't. Because Big Blocks of democrat voters.

 

[patient1]

Constitution supposed to be about what the government cannot do to you the individual citizen or to the states. Not giving it authority to tell the states what to do and not to do.

Exactly.

 

[Noor]

We are a sanctuary city! I thought that was normal until this week.

Hi pateint1!

 

[Christobal]

We are a sanctuary city! I thought that was normal until this week.

Hi pateint1!

Is a sanctuary city willing to pay the costs all on there own or do they want state and federal money to help to prop it up?

 

[Conager]

Is a sanctuary city willing to pay the costs all on there own or do they want state and federal money to help to prop it up?

The latter. Definately the latter.

Aside from legitimate, human compassion, the driver is that more "clients" (they call them that) means moooar federal dollars, mooooar staff, moooar promotions to supervisory positions, bigger offices and budgets, and more AFSME union members voting for and benefiting from the government benefit industrial complex.

I find myself awkwardly benefiting financially from some spill-over into what I do.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Depending on their state constitution they should be able to. Same as they should be able to have their own gun laws assuming their state doesn't have a state Second Amendment.

Federal government doesn't get a say in who becomes a citizen of any of the several States. The problem is federal government decided to expand the intent of the incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment as result progressives are now fuck because they have to incorporate everything if you're going to start incorporating "stuff."

Constitution supposed to be about what the government cannot do to you the individual citizen or to the states. Not giving it authority to tell the states what to do and not to do.

The reality is now of course the federal government can tell it what to do it just doesn't. Because Big Blocks of democrat voters.

Gross Conceptual Error.

 

[Conager]

Gross Conceptual Error.

Nope.

Instead of the incorporation clause, they simply should have demanded every state include the 14th amendment's language and intent into their soverign state's constitution.

Then absolutely nothing in the Constitution would be incorporated, as it always had been previously. Or add a few words to indicate that the 14th amendment is about incorporating those concepts and absolutely nothing else. Then DC could have all of the gun control it wants. As localities had from the very beginning; there's been gun control in this country since its inception.

Mind you, I love Heller. Heller is wrong. It is, however, a necessary end result of the Fed misconstruing the incorporation clause to create the incorportion doctrine. If you use it to construe that states must accept Federal supremacy in ways never intended, it has to go both ways. Hence, Heller.

 

[JohnnySavage]

You're such a bullshitter.

But I've had too much to drink and don't feel like schooling you on the Constitution. Maybe Hogan will be up soon and he can conduct the class.

 

[Conager]

You're such a bullshitter.

But I've had too much to drink and don't feel like schooling you on the Constitution. Maybe Hogan will be up soon and he can conduct the class.

Hogan will chide me on the fact tbat the incorporation doctrine is (now) the law of the land. I go so far as to reject Marbury v. Madison where SCOTUS gave itself the authority to come up with such outlandish ideas as incorporation of other portions that have no such incorporation language (purposefully) in them.

The good Colonel likes the case and argues it had to be because without it we endlessly have circular arguments with no authority to decide anything. I say, good!

The States created the federal government. It had then, and has now, only the powers and authority that the States voluntarily ceded to this entity that they created.

When they created it, they gave it no power to dictate the States do or not do anything except as things they agreed to alllow it to decide.

Definitly do not get me started at this late hour on a phrase in a preamble about promoting the general welfare (through and ONLY through the later specifically enumerated powrrs) conveys no authority for the Feds to do anything.

One of the few things I agree with from the constitutional lecturer's prepared notes is that the constituition is a charter of negative liberties. It is there to say what the Government can not do to you, (or in actuality, the States.)

The reality is the US is now a nation, not a federation of States. Partly by Lincolns coersive and illegal acts, partlly bad, but long settled SCOTUS decisions and bad case law.

None of that is supported by the black letter law contained in our founding document.

 

[water505]

Regardless of whether or not cities are bound by federal immigration law they are still harboring criminals, which is illegal in any jurisdiction.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Depending on their state constitution they should be able to. Same as they should be able to have their own gun laws assuming their state doesn't have a state Second Amendment.

Federal government doesn't get a say in who becomes a citizen of any of the several States. The problem is federal government decided to expand the intent of the incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment as result progressives are now fuck because they have to incorporate everything if you're going to start incorporating "stuff."

Constitution supposed to be about what the government cannot do to you the individual citizen or to the states. Not giving it authority to tell the states what to do and not to do.

The reality is now of course the federal government can tell it what to do it just doesn't. Because Big Blocks of democrat voters.

Exactly.

When Colonel Hogan gets here he will patiently explain to you that by force of precedent, the Tenth Amendment has been rendered null and void.

The economic activity of these people, for example (and maybe not perfect) puts them under the jurisdiction of interstate commerce.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Is a sanctuary city willing to pay the costs all on there own or do they want state and federal money to help to prop it up?

Of course they expect Federal Spending to follow those new citizens of their communities, especially infrastructure and education spending.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Gross Conceptual Error.

You're such a bullshitter.

But I've had too much to drink and don't feel like schooling you on the Constitution. Maybe Hogan will be up soon and he can conduct the class.

Clearly you should have waited until your wits were about you before you barged drunkenly into the conversation like "that" Uncle at Thanksgiving...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I do wonder, following Conager's argument, that the Federal Government cannot tell the states what to do, can they tell the Feds that "their" legalized citizens can vote in Federal elections...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Regardless of whether or not cities are bound by federal immigration law they are still harboring criminals, which is illegal in any jurisdiction.

And the rejoinder form the Left is not just prosecutorial discretion, but by treating them as "illegal" then they won't report crime...

Sort of a Catch-22.

 

[water505]

Ask this moron how resisiting the federal government worked out for him.

http://brainrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/george_wallace_blocking_the_school.jpg

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Depending on their state constitution they should be able to. Same as they should be able to have their own gun laws assuming their state doesn't have a state Second Amendment.

Federal government doesn't get a say in who becomes a citizen of any of the several States. The problem is federal government decided to expand the intent of the incorporation Clause of the 14th Amendment as result progressives are now fuck because they have to incorporate everything if you're going to start incorporating "stuff."

Constitution supposed to be about what the government cannot do to you the individual citizen or to the states. Not giving it authority to tell the states what to do and not to do.

The reality is now of course the federal government can tell it what to do it just doesn't. Because Big Blocks of democrat voters.

People aren't citizens of a state, people are citizens of the country.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

And the rejoinder form the Left is not just prosecutorial discretion, but by treating them as "illegal" then they won't report crime...

Sort of a Catch-22.

It's not discretion. What are you expecting cities to do?

 

[Noor]

""Sanctuary city is a name given to a city in the United States that follows certain procedures that shelters illegal immigrants. These procedures can be by law (de jure) or they can be by action (de facto). The term most commonly is used for cities that do not permit municipal funds or resources to be applied in furtherance of enforcement of federal immigration laws. These cities normally do not permit police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status. The designation of Sanctuary City” has no legal meaning. "

 

[sr71plt]

How can cities decide on their own immigration policies in defiance of federal law?

Sort of like failing to do your job in going through the process of advising/consenting on a Supreme Court judge as the Constitution specifies, eh?

Tit or tat.