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

a reply to: neo96

The only thing I am going to contend:

Since the fundamental basis for American society is LAW,

The fundamental basis for American society is Individual Rights. The law is the opposite. Laws are obstructions to liberty, and should be minimized. For law to be our fundamental basis would be like admitting that our fundamental basis should be nearly nonexistent

The Rights Of The Individual....that is what we are all about. We just forgot all about that back in the 30's and 40's, and especially in the years following WWII (during the "Nazification of DC")

The foundation of America was a balance between:

National and Local Governance
General Welfare and Individual Rights
Taxes with Representation and Taxes Without
Large Populations and Small Populations
(and by extension)
The Majority and the Minority

Read the Constitution again. Everything is a system of checks and balances.

We're just no longer interested in balances in this country.

The Right wants their checks.

The Left wants their checks.

And most of us in the Middle ... just want to live our lives.

Does anyone know of a sanctuary city for undocumented bankers? I want to print my own money.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Wunchville??!1

-- FLASH !!

White House Rejects Sanctuary City Crackdown - Illegal Immigration


Selective enforcement !!!

Obama is going against the majority of Citizens represented by the majority of elected Congressional officials !!

Nope Mclame is going to give his medals to Kerry since he threw his away years ago.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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: notmyrealname
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.

Learn what jurisdiction means. Local cops don't arrest people for federal crimes.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Does anyone know of a sanctuary city for undocumented bankers? I want to print my own money.

Wall St., New York, New York, USA.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: neo96

What about state rights?

Or does that not apply here either.

Yeah what about states rights? Lets ask Arizona how that went, after the feds came knocking.

Human rights trump (sic) states rights.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Arizona tried to make papers checks, something that violated the constitution but nice try.

You can't stop someone and ask to prove they are a citizen, plain and simple.

You have to have reasonable suspicion and being brown isn't that.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Arizona tried to make papers checks, something that violated the constitution but nice try.

You can't stop someone and ask to prove they are a citizen, plain and simple.

You have to have reasonable suspicion and being brown isn't that.

LOL...except every time I get stopped in a Border Patrol checkpoint, the first question I get asked is "Are you an American citizen?" While i typically respond with "Yes", i have to work quickly to shut my youngest son up, who likes to reply with, "Are you?"

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

And I agree those are papers checks.
What is your point?

It is sad the SCOTUS has defended those every time they have been challenged, does that mean we should pile them on since we are already doing it?

a reply to: Sremmos80

My point is that what is considered "lawful" and what isn't is so damned arbitrary as to be laughable.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Ok fair enough, and I would agree.

I just think that if we take the stance that the BoPo's checkpoints are wrong, then not sure how anyone could think what Arizona tried to is right.

Not saying you fall into that category.
How ever arbitrary the laws are being enforced, we shouldn't pile on the bad ones that are not, imho

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Ok fair enough, and I would agree.

I just think that if we take the stance that the BoPo's checkpoints are wrong, then not sure how anyone could think what Arizona tried to is right.

Not saying you fall into that category.
How ever arbitrary the laws are being enforced, we shouldn't pile on the bad ones that are not, imho

My views on law and government align with the opening paragraph of Civil DIsobedience. I don't think a police officer has any reason, ever, to stop you from traveling barring life and death. Especially the BP. If you want to stop "illegals", then police the actual border, and not the law abiding folks living near it.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Arizona tried to make papers checks, something that violated the constitution but nice try.

You can't stop someone and ask to prove they are a citizen, plain and simple.

You have to have reasonable suspicion and being brown isn't that.

So how does NY get away with stop and frisk of black people?

a reply to: guitarplayer

They don't, it has been repealed long ago and people were very against it since day one.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: guitarplayer

They don't, it has been repealed long ago and people were very against it since day one.

I stand corrected thank you.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: guitarplayer

They don't, it has been repealed long ago and people were very against it since day one.

Not so long ago - wiki article - apparently still happening disproportionally in black neighborhoods as of August 2014.

It has been part of common law since before the US existed, so I doubt anyone was against it "from day one" - it was not a specific law, and it was not "introduced"