Democrats slam sanctuary city legislation, labeling it 'The Donald Trump Act'

Well now go figure you know who is 'slamming' sanctuary city legislation, and I think TWO can play this game. Now since a sanctuary city can succintly be defined as an area EXEMPT from federal law. The Rest of the country needs to follow suit.

The 'reason' we have sanctuary cities is that some people who shall remain nameless thing that a law is 'unjust', and since it is perfectly acceptable to ignore laws we don't like. I would like the republicans to create their own sanctuary cities.

They certainly don't like the 'Affordable Care Act'. Create a sanctuary city. I certainly don't like gun control. Create a sanctuary city. I think it should be named 'The Freedom Act'.

House Democratic leaders are slamming GOP legislation aimed at discouraging sanctuary cities, characterizing the proposal as "The Donald Trump Act" in a bid to embarrass the Republicans bringing the measure to the floor this week.

We Love Sanctuary Cities!

The Left would never stand for it if the right did create their own sanctuary cities, and yet the Right should just let the Left do as they please.

Since the fundamental basis for American society is LAW, and we have an entire body of government committed, and think that is their only job is to write laws. They need to show us all they are not above the laws they create.

They the Democrats defended sanctuary cities are undermining the entire legislative process.

a reply to: neo96

Shame your premise isn't true - otherwise it might be an interesting concept.

"Sanctuary" cities are not exempt from Federal Law.

Try again.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Hows that ?

The law says that a person can not be here illegally.

Sanctuary cities IGNORE that law.

What happened to "the Supreme Law of the Land" ??

Only applies to certain laws I guess.

If the Republican Congress is running to keep up with Trump ... what's next?

Taking John McCain's medals away from him?

EDIT: Corrected spelling.

originally posted by: xuenchen
What happened to "the Supreme Law of the Land" ??

Only applies to certain laws I guess.

RIght!

ACA the 'supreme' law of the land.

Gun control the 'supreme' law of the land.

Immigration law 'Crickets'.

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Exactly, people need a better understanding of what exactly those cities are able to do.

The incident in San Fran was a case of man falling through cracks due to either human error or negligence.
They could have gotten him back if ICE had the proper paper work on him.

They knew where he was going, and knew what would happen to him if he wasn't charged by the city.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

If the Republican Congress is running to keep up with Trump ... what's next?

Taking John McCain's metals away from him?

He might have metal magnets in his head,

But the Medals he keeps in a glass display case.

a reply to: neo96

What about state rights?

Or does that not apply here either.

a reply to: xuenchen

After three years of desperately trying, you finally caught me in a mistake!

Good show (and thanks for the correction!)

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: neo96

What about state rights?

Or does that not apply here either.

What about em?


Funny thing there was a state tried to enforce immigration law. The FEDS says no they can't do that.

Then turned around, shoved the ACA down their throats.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
Sanctuary cities IGNORE that law.

No they don't.

They just don't look into the matter, if it comes up, they report the individual to the feds. The only 'sanctuary' is that they don't go rounding people up and holding them waiting for deportation. They actually treat them like humans, it's disgusting, I know.

a reply to: neo96

Deflection as usual.

I was asking about the states rights that I am sure you are for.

If the state wants to ignore requests,not warrants, from the federal gov then should they not be able to?

And arizona didn't just try to enforce laws, they tried to pass unconstitutional papers check.

I know you are all about those god given rights and would never want paper checks.

As much as you reference the Nazis.

a reply to: neo96

Two cities in my home State of Washington have declared themselves to be sanctuary cities, and now citizens from Spokane are petitioning to rescind that moniker. The initiative seeks to repeal legislation that bans LE from inquiries on suspect's legal immigration status, thus opening lines of communication with ICE in an effort to enhance public safety.
www.khq.com...

How can the City Councils of Seattle and Spokane enact legislation that violates federal immigration laws? With the good comes the bad, and without utilizing vetting procedures, can locals expect more negative impact, and strain on infrastructure?

universalfreepress.com...
www.judicialwatch.org...
www.breitbart.com...

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

Hows that ?

The law says that a person can not be here illegally.

Sanctuary cities IGNORE that law.

Indeed - but cities ignoring the law does not make the city areas EXEMPT from it....this is just grade 10 English language comprehension stuff.....

It's quite simple really.

The Federal law still applies, and any LEO or agency that is legally able to enforce can do so.

the cities have instructed their own LEO's and agencies to not enforce it - that doesn't stop Federal Agencies from enforcing it tho.

Hence the city area is not exempt from the law at all.....Federal officials can and will still enforce which ever law is the issue even though local LEO's and agencies are not.

originally posted by: links234

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul
Sanctuary cities IGNORE that law.

No they don't.

They just don't look into the matter, if it comes up, they report the individual to the feds. The only 'sanctuary' is that they don't go rounding people up and holding them waiting for deportation. They actually treat them like humans, it's disgusting, I know.

Law enforcement do not get to be selective in the laws that they uphold; if it is the law, it should be enforced as it is the LAW.

a reply to: notmyrealname

apparently you are wrong

ETA:

LEO's and agencies have always had some discretion and always need to prioritize their resources....what is happening here is that local civic authorities are telling their own LE agencies how to use that discretion and that some Federal laws are such a low priority for them that they need not bother with them.

IF someone can show that such direction is itself unlawful then that is a case that can be made.

otherwise.......there is no case.

originally posted by: Boscowashisnamo
a reply to: neo96

How can the City Councils of Seattle and Spokane enact legislation that violates federal immigration laws?

the whole point is that it does NOT "violate" the law - that is a misnomer being spread around by people trying to make one side of the argument.

a reply to: neo96

I thought the fundemental basis of America was freedom?

a reply to: crazyewok

And undocumented immigration - don't forget that