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

a reply to: theantediluvian

But this is not a Conservative Republican Issue. Both sides of the aisle including the last 3 sitting presidents all rallied against illegal immigration. it was to get the votes. Now, that the immigrants know they were used the politicians are protecting their next round of voters. Why else would they be arguing ID requirements for voting.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Why focus on words when the actions are so obvious. Sanctuary cities are all over whether they say they are tough on immigration or let them all in.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: DBCowboy

Why focus on words when the actions are so obvious. Sanctuary cities are all over whether they say they are tough on immigration or let them all in.

So why bother with borders or a nation?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Why not go after the reality,..10 million illegals working under the table being employed by cheaters, providing labor for boom towns?

Ahhh because it's better to use talking points then fix the problem. That way it divides us into points that aren't based on any sort of reality.

Like Texas has probably as many illegals as a state saying come on in.


Edit.

Do you think puposely avoiding a better visa program for labor shortage was to protect the American worker or to allow cheaters to produce things faster and with more profits?

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.

States dont have to enforce FEDERAL law. This is the reason we have some states that have legal mj but still banned federally.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.

So all '57' states can ignore gun control laws if they so chose?

a reply to: luthier

I agree with your assessment, but that's why many/most laws use the language "willfully and knowingly" in order to convict someone. In this instance, TX could claim plausible deniability, whereas California is just willfully and knowingly shooting itself in the foot.

And I'd go even further and say that they're acting like toddlers, trying to push the parent as hard as they can before they react. This is purposefully being done in the face of Trump's administration to see what they'll do, and honestly, I hope that they call California's bluff.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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.

So all '57' states can ignore gun control laws if they so chose?

Well no, because whatever country has 57 states isnt bound by US law.

a reply to: Shamrock6

No, admittedly I have not read the law (it's not a bill anymore, I guess), and admittedly, that's inappropriate on my part and unusual for me to spout off before doing so.

What really bothered me, though, was that I remember seeing that it was noted that this law bars local law enforcement from forming 'immigration units,' or something to that effect. Now it's telling municipal and county LEOffices how to do business, and doing so in a direct effort to allow more illegal immigrants to roam freely and without much fear at all from local authorities?

I'm not okay with that. I'll have to do a little better research before I lose too much of my sh*t over it, though.

"License and registration, please...CHICKEN F**KER!"

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Sure, but it's also how people hide behind their real intentions.

The result is the result. If you allow 2 million laborers to work 7 days a week and say you are tough on immigration it's even worse IMO.

The sanctuary city stuff is political gamesmanship on both sides. The federal government knows full well who is where.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I took a gander at it.

To be honest, a phrase that gets used a lot is "limit to the fullest extent possible." I didn't see much in the way of "you are, by law, not allowed to do X, Y, and Z" except for a few instances, one of which you mentioned.

The others were things like not using funds for immigration enforcement, not reporting an illegal that's a witness to ICE, etc.

Even the "safe zones" thing that I was talking about is a "limit cooperation to the fullest extent possible" type of deal. To me that reads that they're not telling counties to actively stop ICE from showing up somewhere, they're just not going to help them when they show up.

Of course, that's dependent on what a given locality tells it's PD/SO it's allowed to do and not allowed to do within the framework of the law.

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.

Nah, the Granola state is sinking below a tide of foreign demographic. Unless a quake separates it from the continent and it slides into the sea...

a reply to: olaru12

I believe you, see Food, Inc and Fast Food Nation.

a reply to: luthier

Yes, it's arguing semantics, I guess, but again, California is taking it to a new level, and I think that it might end up being a criminal one.

Maybe it being criminal might make other places actually walk the walk while they're talking the talk.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It sounds like a wag the dog to me.

Like let's go after these dirty libs we would never do such a thing.

Or look we are doing something we arrested a dozen people in a massive seven eleven raid.

Yeah I am that cynical.

a reply to: neo96

Sanctuary City?

a reply to: luthier


Personally, I'm for a strong border and then amnesty.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: matafuchs

This would open a huge can of worms that I'm afraid this country is not in a position to handle. THIS IS NOT A STATE'S RIGHT ISSUE. The borders of the US has always been a federal issue. Immigration is one of the few issues that must be addressed on a federal level.

We know that following orders, if they are illegal, is not a defense to a crime. So not only mayors but police chiefs and officers could also be charged. Then there are the local prison/jail officials who fail to cooperate with the Feds, and so on.

Also, pot is still illegal federally, so this would open the door to fed prosecution of state officials in states that have legalized pot as well.

Immigration is such a difficult issue with no easy answers unless you are on the extreme left (let everyone in) or extreme right (kick everyone out). To handle this issue in this manner is, IMHO, simply the wrong way to go about things. As a nation we do not have a consensus as to how this issue should be handled. We've had really poor leadership in both parties in the effort to resolve this issue. Bullying and using the full power of the federal gov't to lock people up in this circumstance would be an overwhelming abuse of power.

Not if they are breaking the law it isn't.

Start by arresting the activist Judges that are making law from their bench.

originally posted by: Pyle

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.

States dont have to enforce FEDERAL law. This is the reason we have some states that have legal mj but still banned federally.

Then they should lose funds that are tied to the Federal law they decline to enforce.