It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Civil Liberties Groups to Donald Trump: ‘See You in Court’

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: neo96

So they are in fact legal when inside the city boundaries correct?


No.

When Arizona's Jan Brewer fought the last administration, and tried to enforce it's own border.

The last administration said NO.

State rights means SNIP.

Federal LAW is supreme.

Now we have a STATE saying the should be free from Federal LAW.

There has also been sucession talk in California.

Like 1-3 support it.




posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Its more that people will hire day labor, or hire someone to do lawn care or build a tool shed. That is where illegals work. At least here.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   
The Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act forced the States to enforce a 55 mph maximum speed limit from 1974 until 1995...... at the threat of losing Federal Highway funding.

So it was an ok thing to hold the States hostage back then, and the cited Constitutional clause was the Commerce Clause.

If any illegal aliens are migrant workers that cross state lines.... why couldn't that clause be used in this case?
edit on b000000312017-01-26T09:11:44-06:0009America/ChicagoThu, 26 Jan 2017 09:11:44 -0600900000017 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
If you were to remove the term "illegal immigrant" and insert any other remotely comparable crime, would the story remain the same?

Are sanctuary cities legal under state and/or federal law?

Yes, they're under both. And you're example is hardly comparable. they're assisting people in committing a crime. So, yes, take whatever comparable crime you can imagine and then picture the city enabling the individual so that they can continue committing the crime.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

a shop I worked at awhile back ended up having immigration come and pick up an illegal once. the guy was a great worker, and nice to work with... far better than the one they brought in to replace him. but, that illegal immigrant actually worked longer at the company than the legal one they replaced him with who just worked long enough to be sure that he's get his workman comp and find an icy patch in the parking lot to slip on and "hurt his back". the company kept asking the illegal for the documentation, and it never came, so they finally notified immigration.. and well, it took them quite awhile to get there. so, I imagine that a company could be taking those day laborers on a daily basis for maybe a half a year before immigration catches up to them and ships they back home.
and I also have the feeling that immigration isn't that responsive because they want the businesses taking advantage of those immigrants and cheap labor, or at least are more apt to let them.
I kind of see them getting tough on cities, who have lost lawsuits for illegally detaining these illegal immigrants for far too long waiting on immigration to come along and process them through, as just a look at us, we're doing something!!



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder



Why is the ACLU defending illegal actions? "American" is the first word in ACLU, what do illegal immigrants have to do with AMERICAN civil liberties?

Because the rights of this nation is for everyone in our borders not just citizens.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff



You agree that whats being done is against the law and Constitution, you may not agree with it morally but you are consciously aware its against the law.


Yes, I am aware.



What do you think should happen when States willfully and flagrantly break Federal Laws?


I suppose it depends on which laws they are breaking.



Doesnt Trumps approach seem to be the most reasonable and rational?


Reasonable, yes, compared to what many of his supporters have suggested.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan



The economic impact of funds not given to CA is not really the issue.


I did not say it was an issue. I was only saying that the states may have a case if the federal government withholds funds for any program that does not have a citizenship standard built in to it.



The issue is that there is a rogue state allowing its cities to thumb their nose at federal law. That is an act of sedition in violation of the 10th Amendment


I do not disagree with that.



Trump can try to leverage cash. Or he can take them to court and force them to act appropriately. I would hope it doesn't require that.


Personally, I think there are much better ways to handle it and while the states are in violation and Trump can try to leverage them with money, it does not solve the problem.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: FauxMulder



Why is the ACLU defending illegal actions? "American" is the first word in ACLU, what do illegal immigrants have to do with AMERICAN civil liberties?

Because the rights of this nation is for everyone in our borders not just citizens.

Would this hold true if we were invaded by another country?
If China landed an invasion force, they would be inside our borders. Once inside our borders, we would have to treat them as American citizens?
You did say everyone.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: FauxMulder



Why is the ACLU defending illegal actions? "American" is the first word in ACLU, what do illegal immigrants have to do with AMERICAN civil liberties?

Because the rights of this nation is for everyone in our borders not just citizens.

Would this hold true if we were invaded by another country?
If China landed an invasion force, they would be inside our borders. Once inside our borders, we would have to treat them as American citizens?
You did say everyone.


Not to mention there are gobs of Muslims inside the USA borders that don't like our laws and want their own Sharia laws implemented. How does that work??



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
If you were to remove the term "illegal immigrant" and insert any other remotely comparable crime, would the story remain the same?

Are sanctuary cities legal under state and/or federal law?


Good point(forgive me if its not) instead of Illegal Immigrant, lets get specific to tug the heart strings as the left tries.

Undocumented citizen imposed Rape.
Undocumented citizen imposed Murder.
Undocumented citizen imposed Larceny.
etc.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

It explicitly says citizens in your constitution. Article 14.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I really think the ACLU will lose big-time in this. They just don't really have a case. I like some of the things Trump is doing but I believe there needs to be more done. The 1099 contract labor situation needs to be rectified. As of today there is no obligation to e-verify almost all contract labor employees. The only exception to certain federal projects. The construction and service Industries skirt many laws by using this to their advantage. If Trump is serious about driving illegal immigrants out of the country he should be pushing Congress for a law mandating that all contract labor be subject to the e-verify process as well.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

I dont believe its right to notify the authorities.


I comply with the law.....but im not rabid about doing so.

Best workers i kno are here illegally. I know many illegals that are good people. I just cant hire them.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Illegal is illegal is illegal is illegal

Any questions???




People at state level need to get locked up so this can come to an end.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: TheBulk
a reply to: Profusion

It already went to court when Obama sued Arizona for trying to enforce immigration laws. Obama won with the argument "Immigration is under federal control". So once again we see the left trying to change the rules AGAIN to suit their agenda.


I don't think you are making an apt comparison.

It is true that the federal government's laws on immigration overrule state immigration law, through the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, but I believe the Federal government cannot deny states federal funds unless the program that is being funded specifically states that immigration status is a condition of the program.

If it's not, the states would have a case.


Not to true federal funds can be withheld for almost any reason. For example failure to comply with Obamas education initiatives would have led to a loss of federal funds. This has been the common way Washington has gotten states to bend to there will. The states choice becomes either abide by the mandate or refuse the funds.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
upholding the law is illegal. got it



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Long story short, this sums it up.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

...and car insurance.
...and seat belt laws.

Probably many more if we looked into it to be honest.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
it doesn`t surprise me that liberals believe that enforcing the laws is unconstitutional.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join