Trump says ‘sanctuary cities’ should lose funding

originally posted by: MEDIKATED
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed at the same time those sanctuary cities also harbor fugitives. Who in their right mind would be FOR asanctuary city much less live in one.

Libralist that's who .. laughs. here's an idea, those liberals can use their own $$$ to send all the illegals back to where they came from and let their own country support them instead.

Not only that , they need to start arresting Mayors. Aiding and abetting in a commission of a Federal offense.Send em to a Federal pen. Let them know that laws will be enforced . Even if they are local or state government

a reply to: reldra

It was your silly statement that needs backing up, not the OP. I think you're the one who needs to provide examples that these cities are havens for the downtrodden, full of charitable and religious selfless protectors....



My two cents...feed your own people before sheltering illegal immigrants.

We could always just stop funding cities at the federal level anyhow, and let the local jurisdictions do it.

Reduce the federal tax rate appropriately for not having to raise the money at the federal level, and then let these more expensive cities raise their local taxes to compensate--I bet these cities' residents realize just how much of a poor ROI they'd be getting from living in those cities if that were done.

Sanctuary cities and, IMO, massive urban sprawls are not worth the funds from the American taxpayer, as most of our nation's problems arise in these settings. Instead, let the locals (and visitors) pay to support them.

Let me guess--they're "too big" to allow to fail? Because you better believe that there would be a massive exodus from these places if this more intelligent approach to city governorship were allowed to pick the winners and losers as far as cities are concerned.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Wait, so all of these crimes are committed by illegal immigrants only?

My point is, if you don't help those who are in need then don't expect crime to lower, in fact, expect it to rise.

Or just send them back to their home country for their government to deal with?

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: M5xaz

Actually nobody can be fined for using the wrong pronoun. The law doesn't state that at all. That was just the conmans sebsationlism. It protects people from being told what bathroom to use or how to dress or whether a landlord can discriminate against them. Reading is good!

Actually, yes that is EXACTLY the case.

LGBT sites even celebrate this fact.

Reading is good,yes.
You clearly can't read....

next week he will remind us this was "just a suggestion"

a reply to: M5xaz

Show me in the law where it says that? Not some political commentator saying it.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: M5xaz

Show me in the law where it says that? Not some political commentator saying it.

"The Gotham mayor’s Commission on Human Rights says entities that fail to address customers by their preferred gender pronouns and titles are in violation of the law and could be subject to penalties of up to $250,000.

The commission issued a “legal enforcement guidance” for the New York City Human Rights Law, which now “requires employers and converted entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification.”
The guidance, issued in December as part of a broader interpretation of the human rights law, notes that some people prefer pronouns that don’t have masculine or feminine forms, including “they/them/theirs or ze/hir.” The former are plurals being drafted for use in the singular, while the latter are among several alternative pronoun systems developed by academics and/or LGBT communities.

It lists several examples of violations that could result in fines, including the “intentional and repeated refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun or title.”

Okay, I'd like the practice of Sanctuary Cities to end, I do. But you need to understand why they exist in the first place. They exist because at the core if the issue is the fact that illegal aliens are literally woven into the fabric of that society. Either they're directly involved via the workforce, relatives and overstating visas or whatever other reason.

Now, tackle this like an adult and come up with a solution to ease the transition and depopulate these cities with illegals.


I've got an idea.


Pay them. Pay those people to leave. What, Tempter? That's crazy!

Here's the decree.

On Jan 1st 2019 our borders will be shoot to kill any intruder. On Jan 1st 2018 all illegals must leave under threat of forced deportation and criminal proceedings. On Jan 1st 2017 an adult illegal can claim a one time payment as assistance to return to the home country. Say, $2k and an additional 500 per child. That's a little more than $30,000,000,000bn.

Is that worth it? To me it is. Hell, I'd be okay with a half a trillion to a trillion if it got the job done.

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
And he's correct. They should.

Obama threatened Federal funding being cut to states via the "Department of Energy", because he can.
The "Chief Executive" officer can divert and stop funds at their whim.

So, two will play this game. And rightfully so.

Being that supporting Illegal Immigration by your local representatives inviting them in and refusing to uphold the law, is Taxation Without Representation, and/or placing 'UNDUE BURDEN" on local taxpayers.

Can't wait for him to make that call.

If Trump becomes President, I can't wait to see Democratic heads explode when he does executive orders like President Obama does and hear them scream bloody murder. "Who does he think he is, making law without Congress?" As I often like to point out be very careful in condemning things by the other party that you did while your side was in power. Makes you look like a little crybaby.

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: M5xaz

Show me in the law where it says that? Not some political commentator saying it.

NYC HRC Commission link:
www.nyc.gov...
Text:
Refusal to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun, or title because they
do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, calling a woman “Mr.”
because her appearance is aligned with traditional gender-based stereotypes
of masculinity

Reading and Googling ability is a wonderful thing....

a reply to: M5xaz

Well I'm wrong.

Obama and the elites/Globalist string pullers all orchestrated the leftists-progressive-liberals to the PC stance of declaring their municipality as a Sanctuary City so that the Administration could eventually manipulate policy to cause forced 'Relocation/Resettlement Cities' to spring up like mushrooms all over the USA


All these Resettlement cities are purposed for hiding terrorists under the guise of 'refugees'
the groups of 20 or more soldier aged young men have been purposely assigned to a gridwork of places where recruitment can take place... to swell the ranks of Jihadists to participate in the aftermath of the soon-to-come False-Flag EMP burst to cripple the USA power grid...
(between tomorrow May 2016 and before any Presidential replacement's Inauguration ceremony in Jan 2017)...
but the EMP attack will go off when Obama is off on a Hawaiian Golf Holiday probably this summer or fall...


Sanctuary Cities along with Resettlement tows & cities should go into immediate Marshall Law lock-down until all the 'refugees' are 100% vetted

a reply to: mOjOm

Why do you believe it's discrimination to not assist people who crossed the border illegally?? Why should tax dollars go to someone that broke our laws and performed an illegal act? This isn't discrimination countries have things called borders and countries have ways of allowing people across these borders. These rules they set in place is for the protection of their citizens and their intrests. For example the UK not allowing in the refugees in france. That is there right and in the US they have rules in place on how to become a citizen.

Deciding you want to get around those laws and just enter illegally is no different then some guy deciding he wants to live in your house so gets a ladder and climbs through the window. I'm sure if you came home and some guy was in your house you would call the police to have him removed. But wait this is discrimination isn't it?

a reply to: St Udio

Right. And monkeys fly !!!

Trump says ‘sanctuary cities’ should lose funding

So people should those cities get tax payer money for WILLFULLY violating US LAW ?

Nope they shouldn't.

And since US laws are so 'meaningless' that sanctuary cities are created.

I say it's way past time we create some sanctuary cities for gun owners.

Since we get to pick and choose what laws are to be obeyed.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
It's all part of an ongoing global conflict.
The US Mexican illegal immigrant onslaught is just one front in the battle. The Syrian Civil War that has been allowed to fester is another one.

The US is coming out of its slumber, Trump is just a sign of the awakening.

Trump is a sign of idiocy. He is not part of any awakening.

Hillary and bill are a sign of serial rape, pedophilia, corruption, and murder. They are a part of burying what Isis general king obozo hasn't already killed in this country.

And trump hurts peoples feelings......

Now which sounds like idiocy?

a reply to: xuenchen

I thought this would be a good thread to address this little tidbit in.

thinkprogress.org...

The politician who sponsoered this bill is born from an illegal, oh wait, I'm sorry, "undocumented" immigrant himself. Come to the US, change the laws in your favor, garner votes for your party. Win for the democrats!!!

a reply to: xuenchen

Trump says a lot of things, then says other things completely contradictory.

I am amazed by those still listening to an obvious quack