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.

 

DHS laying groundwork to arrest sanctuary city leaders..and eventually governors?

page: 3
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

And this is correct but let's not pretend this wasn't benefiting all the states with millions of illegals keeping their labor voids from impacting commerce or growth.

This was first and foremost a way to skirt using visas and paying workers, and second a great voter base rally..

People make it about the illegals but it's bigger than that. Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and Fort Worth could not have grown without them. That is just the state I am from so I know the situation well as a carpenter.

It's now being used again as more propaganda.




posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
The New California declaration might shake things up too. Looks like a majority of the state is about to rebel openly.


Why do you folks think it's better to lie like other states to their voters and do exactly the same thing without making a declaration?



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

What a dog and pony show. Build the wall, round up illegals , deport aliens.
its all a sham to get you to think they are gonna get you back 'er jobs.

What a joke. The mega corporations need that slave labor to maximize profits, they will never allow them to be deported from their mega farm factories.



Every chicken you eat has been plucked and processed by an illegal.

WH playing to it's base and actually just cooking nothing burgers for the faithful. believe me....

www.newyorker.com...


edit on 16-1-2018 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
The New California declaration might shake things up too. Looks like a majority of the state is about to rebel openly.


Majority of counties maybe, but those counties sure as # aren't the majority of the population.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs
good, then the St. Pete mayor can either bite his tongue or bend over and take it. There is a bill in the Florida congress to make sanctuary cities illegal here. Of course it will be challenged, especially by municipalities like St. Petersburg and likely Miami-Dade.

But in the end I am sure adherence to the rule of law will persevere.
Rule of Law Adherence act

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -

The Florida House of Representatives on Friday passed legislation requiring Florida cities to follow federal immigration law or face consequences.

The sponsor of Florida’s bill anticipates legal challenges if it becomes law.

With the passage of HB 9 — the "Rule of Law Adherence Act" — the state is one step closer to requiring cities to cooperate with federal immigration policy.

Immigration activists lined the pathway to the House floor before the debate on a controversial bill to ban sanctuary cities in the state. It would impose fines of up to $5,000 a day on local governments that refuse to cooperate with immigration detainers.
“If government officials and by extension, local government bodies such as a city council is permitted to pick and choose the laws they intend to follow and abide by, our entire system of government crumbles around our feet,” said Rep. Ross Spano, R-Dover.

The bill has been passed the House before, but the Senate has never given it a hearing.

Similar legislation passed in Texas, but was ruled unconstitutional by a federal court.

The sponsor of Florida’s bill anticipates legal challenges if it becomes law.

edit on 1-16-2018 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Can't help it if so many people pack themselves into tiny areas. This is a response to the Calexit thing. At the end of the day, if they try to leave, those are the areas who will stay in the US.
edit on 16-1-2018 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: olaru12
I thought it was the conservative republicans that were all about "states rights"


Yes I support smaller government and states rights.

However, immigration and border control are federal issues, not state.

That why I am against Sessions war on weed, but feel the states should have to obey federal immigration and border laws.

Otherwise California could leave anyone they wanted in, and those immigrants would be welcome in any state.


Well the Feds could 'SEAL' the federal borders (new immigration), but then the people already in there the issue. Which then creates interesting issues for the related state borders around a sanctuary state.

Assuming States Rights... although its funny thing in this case as my impression is liberals tend to be all about super powerful one sized fits all cookie cutter monolithic FEDERAL GOVERNMENT over States Rights...




posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: worldstarcountry

I am well aware St Pete I lived there for quite awhile. Not sure the beach people what it though. It is about votes there....at this time I think Hernando County is the only one to buy in.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:09 PM
link   
would be nice to see



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
I thought it was the conservative republicans that were all about "states rights"


Only when it comes to discriminating against gays and enslaving blacks.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Okay.

You said "majority of the state" which isn't entirely accurate, unless you're talking about lines on a map. In which case, as I said, yes the majority of lines on a map would try to stay in the US.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: xuenchen

And this is correct but let's not pretend this wasn't benefiting all the states with millions of illegals keeping their labor voids from impacting commerce or growth.

This was first and foremost a way to skirt using visas and paying workers, and second a great voter base rally..

People make it about the illegals but it's bigger than that. Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and Fort Worth could not have grown without them. That is just the state I am from so I know the situation well as a carpenter.

It's now being used again as more propaganda.


Perhaps "Growth" would have been better, faster, and had a better impact on real Citizens if the laws had been enforced since day one.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Sanctuary cities / states are a violation of Federal law.

8 USC § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens


There is discussion about creating a law that would make any officials of sanctuary cities / states co-defendants if an illegal alien commits a serious crime (murder / manslaughter / etc).

Considering immigration and border control is reserved exclusively to the federal government I would argue state laws / city ordinances regarding sanctuary status is an infringement on Federal authority and by extension null and void.
edit on 16-1-2018 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I will give you better but not faster, however their simply were not enough Americans with the skills to handle the growth. They needed to have visa programs. I returned to Texas in the late 90's because they were literally putting adds in papers all over the country to bring in work. When I left in the late 80's as a tenneager it was already full in the trades of illegals..

It's been a blind eye by both parties. And busting a dozen people in 24 7 elevens ain't going to do it. But it looks good in the papers.
edit on 16-1-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Nothing will come from this. States (counties, cities, etc) cannot obstruct federal authorities but they are not obligated to enforce federal law.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs


The states that consider themselves "Sanctuary States" have determined that illegal aliens can have sanctuary there.

I see that as an introduction to open borders.

Now a nation can be defined by it's borders.

So I would assume (therefore) that the sanctuary proponents do not want a United States any longer.

Which makes sense from a globalist perspective.



So the sanctuary states proponents are globalists who want to see the dissolution of the US of A.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Dont arrest them, they become martyrs then.

Any state with Sanctuary cities/states declared should lose their Electors for federal elections(Presidential vote in 2020)

You'll see California whip themselves into shape real quick



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Lock them up.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's really not that simple as the states like Texas simply don't make the proclamations but have the same problems.

One lies one says f it. We are telling you how it it is.



posted on Jan, 16 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

It's really not that simple as the states like Texas simply don't make the proclamations but have the same problems.

One lies one says f it. We are telling you how it it is.


Why have borders if you're going to ignore the laws that define them?




top topics



 
45
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join