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.

 

SLAP-ping Down Sanctuary Cities. This is Getting Real.

page: 2
120
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not sure it was meant to pass. Not the Senate anyway. The House passage will be pretty easy; the vast majority of the GOP supports such legislation, and I believe a minority of the DNC does too. But the Senate needs 60 votes to invoke cloture and force a vote. That's going to be very tough.

But... that vote will likely happen in a couple months, which will place it right on the front page of every news source in the middle of an election. There is so little in this bill, one paragraph, that it will clearly show the Democrats in the Senate for being anti-law and pro-illegal immigration.

Like everything else in politics, this too is just a tool to sway public opinion. It would be wonderful if it could pass, though. Allow me that little glimmer of hope?

TheRedneck




posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

Now see? That is a legitimate argument. You don't agree with building a wall; I do agree with building a wall. No law is being broken either way. We can hash out our reasoning like adults, and the country can make a choice. That's how it's supposed to work. Sometimes you will win; sometimes I will win. No matter what that issue is, we can still respect each other.

When it comes to leaders violating law to press personal agendas, however, the country is at great risk. This issue is not just about endangering the population, but it is also about upholding the integrity of whatever office is being used as a sanctuary for lawlessness. The release of criminals into society needlessly is dangerous for the people in the short term; the lawlessness is dangerous to the very country in the longer term.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 08:43 AM
link   
I'm not going to take a stance either way in this post and reserve it for future use.

I would like to point out one problem that's been brought up a few times. There's debate about whether or not state funding can be held. There are precedents stating that federal government cannot withhold state funding based on compliance.

This kind of thing really muddies the waters on that front. I think if that's the route they take, it may take years to settle that question alone. So for now, I'd say let's put that on the back burner and find other ways to deal with the issue at hand. This bill may be the right course, we'll have to wait and see.

Either way this goes, it's going to end in problems. I don't see a win/win for anyone in this situation right now. This division among us is worrisome.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Halle-frickin-lujah!!! It's about time these vigilantes get SLAPped back into reality. They've gone further and further off their rocker in an attempt to both thwart the current presidency at every turn, and to get all the votes they can. It's highly uncalled for, it's childish, it's bullyish, and it's way past time to nip it in the bud.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Fret not fellow Patriots. With the number of weapons we own and the sheer amount of self-annointed "Rebels" in this country, government tyranny and corruption doesn't stand a chance!
When the going gets tough - the tough rise from behind the keyboard, from the recliner in front of Prime-Time WWF specials and from the double-camo deer-piss-scent tree-stand in their kill zone to tackle this and all other pressing matters at hand being brought down on us by the evil liberals, conservatives and snowflakes.
Rise up fellow ammosexuals, put down that copy of Biguns, proofread that manifesto and lets go show these politicians exactly who's boss.
First though be sure to check your Facebook and Instagram feeds so this coordinated effort can go off as planned. Oh look, an" infant with a puppy" video. Awwwe. [LIKE]. I wonder what Bob is up to this weekend.
[Post] Hey Bob - want 2 go 2 teh gun range this weekend? I got some new ammoz. well go 4 beers after.

...



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Generally speaking, this is quite reasonable and appropriate... but there's a part of me that has to ask why isn't it already illegal??? Obstruction of justice? Aiding and abetting and giving comfort to criminals? There's gotta be something!!! So maybe what would be even better is if a law were introduced that made it worse for any politician -- i.e., elected or non-elected government official/employee -- who violates an existing law, as they are simultaneously violating the public trust of their position.

And I can't help but note how times change... under the last administration -- yes, Obama, I'm looking at you -- Arizona was bullied and beaten and sued by the Feds for daring to enforce the same immigration laws the Feds then refused to enforce... and all with the roaring cheers and applause of the same sanctuary advocates who are now facing the same federal wrath. Ya just can't make this stuff up, eh???



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


It appears the Federal government has had enough.

Well, at least one Congressman and a few co-signers. The bill was entered, then shuffled off to committee, possibly to die.

Perhaps some people on ATS may be familiar with the name Andrew P. Napolitano, aka Judge Napolitano, senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He's made a few observations:
"The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over naturalization."

The natural rights of all persons consist of areas of human behavior for which we do not need and will not accept the need for a government permission slip. We all expect that the government will leave us alone when we think, speak, publish, worship, defend ourselves, enter our homes, choose our mates, or travel. The list of natural rights is endless.
...
Today, the potential victims of public indifference and government repression are Hispanics in America. Hispanics here without documentation are being demonized because of the politics of nativism. Nativism—we are exceptional; we are better people than they are; we were here first—is very dangerous and leads to ugly results.
...
The court protects natural rights by imposing a very high bar for the government to meet before it can interfere with them, absent due process.

The high bar is called strict scrutiny. It requires that the government demonstrate an articulated area of jurisdiction and a compelling state interest served by the least restrictive alternative before it can treat a person differently or uniquely because of his or her place of birth. A compelling state interest is one that is necessary to preserve life or the state's existence, and it must be addressed using the least force and causing the least interference with personal liberty possible. This test was written so as to give the government wiggle room in a crisis and to make it intentionally difficult—nearly impossible—to write laws that apply only to discrete groups when membership in them is determined by birth.

This may not be the Judge's final opinion on the matter, given in 2015. I don't normally tune in to Fox News. Something to think about though. The whole article makes a fairly coherent argument. The quotes don't make as much sense out of context.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Eshel

As I understand the legaleeze, the issue is that there is no precedent for the courts to follow wherein a local government actually violates Federal law to this extent. Thus, there is no precedent to withholding funding and no legislation to address that issue. Trump's administration is pushing for such legislation in the new budget, which would give the courts some guidelines to go by in making a decision. It's not unconstitutional to withhold funding based on compliance, but neither is it legal.

The issue there is that this will slow down the budget process, which is already woefully behind schedule and heavily contested in many other respects. It also would not directly punish those directly responsible for violating law; it would simply force economic pressure on the average people to then place political pressure on the out-of-control politicians. I don't like that solution. Average people are not the issue and should not be punished because their leaders are criminal. In this case especially, when it is quite possible that the political races are skewed from the high number of illegal immigrants living in an area, it would seem to me to be a poor solution.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: pthena

There are, in my opinion, some very hazardous assumptions in that article. The first one that glared out at me was the definition of naturalism. I do not hold myself to be superior to a Mexican who crosses the border illegally, but I do hold myself to be a citizen and he not. I therefore expect my government to put my interests ahead of his, just as I expect his government to put his interests ahead of mine. To think differently is to deny the very reasons for existence of government and civil rights.

Another is the long line of court precedents that include immigration control as a necessary part of the naturalization process. Without some basis for establishing requirements for naturalization, the naturalization rights of the Federal government become a rubber stamp. There can be no reason to deny naturalization if there cannot be any restrictions on who can be naturalized.

That said, I would expect some legal wrangling over the issue of sanctuary cities; that's just what lawyers do. Over the HR4526 bill, however, I see no room for wrangling if it becomes law. The Congress is explicitly charged in the Constitution with making the laws of the United States, and a court decision blocking that charge, save in cases where the law itself directly violates the Constitution, would be tantamount to an overthrow of Congress.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: poncho1982
Something needs to be done. We have cities, states and politicians openly defying federal immigration law.

Either you are a US citizen holding public office, and subject to US laws or your are not. It is that cut and dry.

Any law passed by any city or state that disregards US immigration laws, or any other federal law, should immediately be considered null and void. It simply cannot exist.



The trouble is, the legal immigrant and illegal immigrant population in those cities built up to such high levels, that it became a vote winner for the Democrats to make public officials ignore the problem. Especially since the more poor people the city had, the more federal funds they would get. Since the federal government took more in taxes that California got in hand-outs it seemed only fair. Once Trump cut back on the handouts, then everything is going to have to rebalance.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell


Since the federal government took more in taxes that California got in hand-outs it seemed only fair.

I find that highly ironic and hypocritical... not your post, but the likely appropriate description of the thought processes that led to the problem.

I believe it would be appropriate to say that California is a wealthy state, as it has boasted that it alone has the 4th largest economy in the world. It is also the state which sends lawmakers to Washington DC who regularly cry for higher taxation on wealthy individuals and more wealth redistribution to the poor. The argument oft specified is that if the poor are not aided through wealth redistribution, the wealthy will have no one left to sell their wares to. The same argument would apply to California, which benefits greatly by its unionization with 49 other states, none of which have the authority to restrict trade with California. California can sell its wares, which include both semi-tropical fruits and Asian imports, to Alabama without concern for how an imbalance in trade might affect Alabama.

Thus, the same people who propose one thing when it suits a particular agenda are trying to deny the same principle when it causes them distress. That is the definition of hypocrisy.

The very ideas in your post, however, that propose taxation as an unequal institution, are the (oft-forgotten) basis of the conservative ideal of lower taxation. The concept itself is inherently unfair to the successful; it is inconceivable that a poor person could be expected to pay as much as someone who is wealthy. There is a strong argument, that I am absolutely in agreement with, that the concept of taxation is an imperative for a civilized society, regardless of its necessarily unfair effect. There is also a strong argument, again which I agree with, that it behooves and advances a society as a whole when there is a social safety net to combat poverty. The whole issue is a balancing act.

The point, IMO, where the train wheels cease to make contact with the track, comes when illegality is used to compensate for legal actions.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I think that the crux of the issue is the separation of federal and state executives--while state and local agencies must comply with federal law, that does not mean that they must actively aid federal law enforcement with enforcing said federal laws. The same goes for federal LEOs, where it's not their job to have to aid in enforcement of state and local laws.

It's a jurisdictional issue, amongst other things.

But I wholeheartedly agree with this law, because similar laws already exist on the books, and IMO, like what happened recently on the West Coast, some of these state and local executives are openly and purposefully obstructing justice and aiding/abetting (alleged) felonious criminals.

It's disgusting that laws like this need to be considered, but you're correct when you note that elected officials think that their ideologies supersede criminal accountability on their behalf. But, if we go ahead and directly cite them in law, there's no more grey area, or at least there is less grey area.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

This has much in common with the years before the War of Northern Aggression.



What war was that?

Never heard of it.


Yes you have. Yankees were the aggressors so most people knowledgeable about the Civil War will call it the War of Northern Aggression.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I listened to Libby Schaaf when she responded to Sessions' accusations of endangering the public. One thing that stood out to me was when she said that Sessions was “trying to distract the American people from a failed immigration system by painting a racist broad-brush of our immigrant community as dangerous criminals.”

Now, realizing that the issue is centered around the retention of and advising of ICE as to held criminals, I am concerned why she is allowing non-criminals to be incarcerated in her jails. It seems to me by her own admission that she is either purposely releasing dangerous criminals or incarcerating innocent people.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Good to see this

Time to reign in the socialists who think it is OK to put our LE and citizens' lives on the line so they can score brownie points with illegals.



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: TheRedneck


Good to see this

Time to reign in the socialists who think it is OK to put our LE and citizens' lives on the line so they can score brownie points with illegals.


Pun intended?



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 10:38 AM
link   
As predicted months ago, the many fans of local determination and the Tenth Amendment are now all in favor of Federal overreach when it suits their political whims.

Most peculiar.






posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


That was a good one!



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Thank you!

Sometimes I find it amazing how easy it is to take the words of certain politicians and realize they just implicated themselves in something. Then I realize just how sad that really is, especially since she probably paid someone using California taxpayer dollars to write that statement.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 15 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Here, and then understand that it's not a 10th-amendment issue when enforcing federal law is appropriate.

This bill isn't trying to force any state to do anything, but it is saying that states can NOT defy federal law and cause problems without those in charge having appropriate consequences for doing so.

If you think that this is a 10th Amendment issue, then you are failing to comprehend the issue in its totality.

What you are implying is that if someone (like me) champions the 10th Amendment, that we must be okay with these sanctuary cities and states giving federal law and authority the middle finger. That's a false premise, and I think that you know that.

This is about the rule of law, not political whims.



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join