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.
Likewise, the sanctuary city show, a shamelessly sentimental exercise in virtue-signaling at the grand scale, larded with little bits of dishonesty, such as the tag “undocumented” for people here illegally, as though their status was the result of some clerical error. Gov. Brown declared war, more or less, on the federal government last week after a fracas in Oakland where mayor Libby Schaaf rode through town like Paul Revere crying that the ICE teams were coming to make arrests. That riled Attorney General Jeff Sessions enough to start filing lawsuits against this nonsense.
But the Department of Justice faces a big quandary. How are they going to make a big stink over enforcing US immigration laws while they ignore US drug laws vis-à-vis the twenty-nine states that have legalized marijuana use in one way or another? In a number of these states, marijuana production is now a major industry, with substantial political influence. AG Sessions has made noises about cracking down on the marijuana trade, but he hasn’t done a damn thing about it because he can’t. The state tax revenue alone is too large to be meddled with, never mind popular opinion.
originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
Are we a nation that follows laws, or one that ignores them?
Unjust laws are struck down all the time.
I understand people break laws every day, but that is no excuse for not fighting them if they are unjust, or even unpopular.
originally posted by: MisterMcKill
originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
Are we a nation that follows laws, or one that ignores them?
Unjust laws are struck down all the time.
I understand people break laws every day, but that is no excuse for not fighting them if they are unjust, or even unpopular.
But this thread is not about just or unjust. It is about the rights of States vs the authority of the Feds, and how this will all play out. It is about hypocrisy, both in individuals and in government. It is about the position that California, in particular, is taking. And it is ultimately about the future of this country, and which direction it takes.
originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
I've changed my stance on immigration. If you stop the war on drugs, and crack down on violent criminals, immigration would not be such a bad thing.
originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: MisterMcKill
Either you are a defender of state sovereignty or you are not. The GOP has shown time and time again that they are complete hypocrites on the subject. Liberals can be, as well, but they aren't outspoken on the subject as a platform like conservatives are.
I think if it is about giving people more freedom, let the state do it. If it is about removing freedom, enforce federal law on behalf of the citizens. Pretty simple distinction.
- Sanctuary cities? More freedom.
- Legal marijuana? More freedom.
- Making same-sex marriage illegal? Less freedom.
- Forcing churches to perform ceremonies against their beliefs? Less freedom.
- State wants to get rid of seat belts? More freedom.
- State wants to ban all guns? Less freedom.
- Making abortion illegal? Less freedom.
It's pretty easy to make the distinction but people (on both sides) have to swallow some bitter pills in order to avoid being hypocritical about it. For example, I like seat belts and the lower insurance premiums I have as a result of them being required but I don't think a state should be handing out tickets for it if they vote it down.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: mtnshredder
That is one hell of a bastardization of his post. With a few shovels full of words stuffed in his mouth for good measure.
originally posted by: SR1TX
originally posted by: MisterMcKill
originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
Are we a nation that follows laws, or one that ignores them?
Unjust laws are struck down all the time.
I understand people break laws every day, but that is no excuse for not fighting them if they are unjust, or even unpopular.
But this thread is not about just or unjust. It is about the rights of States vs the authority of the Feds, and how this will all play out. It is about hypocrisy, both in individuals and in government. It is about the position that California, in particular, is taking. And it is ultimately about the future of this country, and which direction it takes.
It is not hypocrisy. it is democracy of which is then legislated through the republic voted into power. Thank god for it too, that you even have the luxury of being an observer of it and commenting on it freely without fear of repercussion by either entity you mention.
originally posted by: mtnshredder
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: mtnshredder
That is one hell of a bastardization of his post. With a few shovels full of words stuffed in his mouth for good measure.
Yeah well call it what you want, merely pointy out the fact that just because they're not drug cartel or criminals does not mean that they don't effect this country and it's citizen in a negative way. I lost my business, home and all the baggage that comes with it due to the lack of immigration laws being enforced in the sanctuary state and city I lived in. When I hear people say things like "immigrations not such a bad thing" it's almost always someone that hasn't been directly effected by it. And what do you know, that's apparently the case with Believerpriest. My reality of the situation is about as opposite of that as you can get.
originally posted by: MisterMcKill
originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: MisterMcKill
Either you are a defender of state sovereignty or you are not. The GOP has shown time and time again that they are complete hypocrites on the subject. Liberals can be, as well, but they aren't outspoken on the subject as a platform like conservatives are.
I think if it is about giving people more freedom, let the state do it. If it is about removing freedom, enforce federal law on behalf of the citizens. Pretty simple distinction.
- Sanctuary cities? More freedom.
- Legal marijuana? More freedom.
- Making same-sex marriage illegal? Less freedom.
- Forcing churches to perform ceremonies against their beliefs? Less freedom.
- State wants to get rid of seat belts? More freedom.
- State wants to ban all guns? Less freedom.
- Making abortion illegal? Less freedom.
It's pretty easy to make the distinction but people (on both sides) have to swallow some bitter pills in order to avoid being hypocritical about it. For example, I like seat belts and the lower insurance premiums I have as a result of them being required but I don't think a state should be handing out tickets for it if they vote it down.
Agreed. Except that the Feds will have trouble in court if they enforce federal law in one instance and not the other. I hate federal authority, but they cannot have it both ways. I hate Cali, so I left, but they want it both ways as well. Who wins when everybody wants everything both ways?
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
originally posted by: mtnshredder
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: mtnshredder
That is one hell of a bastardization of his post. With a few shovels full of words stuffed in his mouth for good measure.
Yeah well call it what you want, merely pointy out the fact that just because they're not drug cartel or criminals does not mean that they don't effect this country and it's citizen in a negative way. I lost my business, home and all the baggage that comes with it due to the lack of immigration laws being enforced in the sanctuary state and city I lived in. When I hear people say things like "immigrations not such a bad thing" it's almost always someone that hasn't been directly effected by it. And what do you know, that's apparently the case with Believerpriest. My reality of the situation is about as opposite of that as you can get.
We read about this all the time on these boards, if your job is going to be affected by external sources it's up to you to stay on top of the situation and retrain and or expand your business in a way that you can weather the storm so to speak.
Really your situation is no different to the cab driver that ran out of work because of uber. Soon automation is going to replace all fast food workers, drivers, lawyers etc, the writing is on the wall either change now or become redundant.
As much as it may annoy you immigration whether legal or illegal is changing the world .