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

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes please.

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

Why don't they SLAP them with treason?

Willfully violating US law to gain FOREIGN influence in our political process.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: TheRedneck

Seems to me the United States of America could be renamed the fractured states of America.

Why and how is there such division among citizens..... It's truly mind boggling.

I don't know but I blame drugs. I am 100% certain that we have a large number of elected officials that are regular drug users. On top of that we now have a huge number of what I call first gen Americans that are now adults. First gens are people who were born here but their parents are illegals. I for one don't believe that being born here should be the only thing needed. In my view if your parents are illegals so are you. I live in Tucson Arizona and I know that we have a large number of first gens with kids living at home with the parents and collecting welfare. Then you check the driveway and see a couple BMWs..

You're funding this crap with your tax dollars. If that doesn't piss you off every time you go to work and bust your a$$ to see the government take half your check. Then all I can say is maybe you should leave too!

Read the bill, and the lawmakers reasons and the following can be stated:

If this bill passes, as those who would support it, never again complain about martial law, never hold up the cry of States rights, never again complain about the Federal government and its overreach.

This law is fraught with the potential for abuse, it is not even funny. It would give the federal government the legal door to abuse and go after anyone or any town, county, city or state at will. And like all laws with good ideas, they often are abused. And those who would support such laws, are often the first ones to cry foul with it is used against them.

In the past, if we look at history, while the states did defy federal law, it never went to that extreme, and the federal government was very cautious on how it proceeded, going to the barest minimum, but nothing like that.

If this is done, then it will be a wild fire where it goes tit for tat from one state to the next.

originally posted by: neo96
SLAP-ping Down Sanctuary Cities. This is Getting Real.

Why don't they SLAP them with treason?

Willfully violating US law to gain FOREIGN influence in our political process.

We have a system of checks and balances. When there's an issue that effects the country as a whole it is drawen up and put to a vote. However that vote turns out that becomes the law of the land. You may disagree with it that is your right. You don't however have the right to violate it. Why? Because you are then violating my right to agree with said law.

As an example only to show what that means I will use the loud music or so-called thumper music. A law was passed that bans you from playing your music at a level that can be heard from 50 feet away. They still do it because and I quote "I have the right to listen to whatever music I want". That's true you do, but so do I. You are in effect forcing me to listen to your choice of music.

If you don't like the laws currently in affect change them. But you do it with the vote of the people. No one person, regardless of tittle has the right to make a decision that effects the rest of us on their own. I would agree, that is treason, and I don't think 5 years would pay for it.

Anyone who would stand behind a public official that would simply make a decision without consulting the rest of us is a fool. If allowed to continue sooner or later someone will decide to do something you DON'T LIKE. Now what?

You then propose a fictional scenario as a basis for your supposition of a possible over reach ? And by default encourage breaking the law and amnesty for Felons and illegals ?




a reply to: sdcigarpig

originally posted by: sdcigarpig

If this bill passes, as those who would support it, never again complain about martial law, never hold up the cry of States rights, never again complain about the Federal government and its overreach.

Wrong, this bill just specifies that elected officials are not exempt from being tried under immigration laws that already affect them, but to which they seem to think that they are immune.

This is not federal overreach, it's about punishing those who willfully break federal law or purposefully impede due process concerning federal immigration laws. Again, there are laws that already do this, this just makes it more specific as a means to remind elected officials that they will not be immune to such laws. I have not, however, compared the punishments to see if this bill makes them harsher--it should.

This law is fraught with the potential for abuse, it is not even funny. It would give the federal government the legal door to abuse and go after anyone or any town, county, city or state at will. And like all laws with good ideas, they often are abused. And those who would support such laws, are often the first ones to cry foul with it is used against them.

Or, there would have to be good reason to go after the individuals, such as, say, the individual committing offenses against elements of laws already on the books. But as to what you're claiming, all federal, state, and municipal laws have massive potential for abuse. This is no different, for sure, but there are still elements that need met before someone can be found guilty, just like with any other law.

As with all laws, this is supposed to be a means of deterrence for these lawless elected officials who blatantly act in defiance of federal laws as a means to solidify their political ideology with their constituents. Don't act like lawless jackasses and there wouldn't be a need for such proposals in the House.

In the past, if we look at history, while the states did defy federal law, it never went to that extreme, and the federal government was very cautious on how it proceeded, going to the barest minimum, but nothing like that.

If this is done, then it will be a wild fire where it goes tit for tat from one state to the next.

What "extreme?" You mean passing a law telling public officials that they can't willingly break federal law?

Here is the exact text of HR 4526:

Whoever, being a State or local official having custody of an individual, knowingly ignores a request from the Federal Government for the custody of that individual, if the requesting authority has designated that individual as a violator of the immigration laws, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Please note that this specifies that it only applies to state and local officials who knowingly refuses to pass custody of illegal immigrants over to federal authorities if they (feds) have designated the individual as violating immigration laws.

So, no, this bill does not give the federal government...how alarmist did you state it?...oh yeah, "It would give the federal government the legal door to abuse and go after anyone or any town, county, city or state at will." No, it will do no such thing, and if you truly believe that, you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of law.

And like I had to explain to another woefully incorrect person, this has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment, as the constitution give the authority to the federal government to write (and enforce) immigration laws.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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

I lived there for a while, and it seems there were different groups all wanting different things. You had the early settlers who were now retirees, people who had moved in during the 1960's, had bought a plot of land and a small house. They had watched as the country roads became freeways. They didn't want property taxes to rise but they wanted more services. That led to Proposition 13, becaue they didn't want property taxes to rise and be priced out of their homes. Their homes weren't worth much, but the land was worth a fortune. They were starting to move out.

There were the tech workers, some H1B who would share a house in various cities. USA graduates would do the same but share a house in Menlo Park or Palo Alto. They just wanted affordable homes. Many dreamed of living in San Francisco, but itwas "too dangerous" because of the gangs and crazies. They were also competing against South Korean millionares who would buy up homes at any price so they could send their children to a private school. Entire streets would be empty except for maids and school buses.

There were the CEO's and executive level people who were earning millions and paid 50%+ tax. They actually got paid in stock-options and lived off loans since inflation reduces debt and stock options would increase due to splits, buyouts and layoffs. They were moving out of state because of the high taxes that were constantly increasing due to the various pressure groups. That was leading to a budget deficit.

On the lowest income, there were the various groups from Mexico and South America who were there legally and illegally, who worked on farms and as gardners and other minimum wage jobs. Other groups were asylum seekers and refugees from Korea, Vietnam and South American countries. After the wars against Communism in those countries, many illegals were offered sanctuary by church aid organisations. All these groups were needing financial assistance so taxes were rising.

Add to that private health insurance, and everyone gets very sensitive to "just raising taxes by one cent in the dollar would solve everything".

a reply to: TheRedneck

Funny thing is, none of these mayors/governors would risk going to jail for illegals.. They take these "hard" stances based off the idea that they'd never go to jail, even if charged... Time to send one away, and then watch them all bow down from these hard stances protecting illegals.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I like the idea, it's great when our laws are enforced but it's pretty bad when we have to make new laws in order to enforce ones that are already on the books. Sad that this is necessary, now if only this kind of thing could spread to politicians lying to their constituents. Being honest should be made into law, at least when it comes to politicians because they affect everyone else with their choices. Threaten jail time to politicians who are blatantly caught lying.

Here's the broken record BFFT again...


....it used to be illegal for them to lie to us. Then in 2004 Bush repealed Smith Mundt.

I would love to see that fixed. It would fix much of what is destroying us as a nation.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Hilarious!!!!

I remember when the right wing used to hate big government and defend states rights!

How ridiculous the right wing has become!

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Read the bill, and the lawmakers reasons and the following can be stated:

No you didn't. If you did, you didn't understand a simple paragraph.

It would give the federal government the legal door to abuse and go after anyone or any town, county, city or state at will.

It specifies that elected officials cannot ignore requests from ICE to turn over illegal immigrants. Period. That's all.

In the past, if we look at history, while the states did defy federal law, it never went to that extreme, and the federal government was very cautious on how it proceeded, going to the barest minimum, but nothing like that.

You call the burning of Atlanta "cautious"?

You know, we had a nice little discussion going on here. Thanks for bringing in some of the most ignorant, alarmist, partisan rhetoric I have seen in a while. How you could get one simple paragraph so wrong is far beyond me. Shame on you.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheRedneck

It'll never pass.


Politicians never punish themselves.

Sadly.

you are such a realist

a reply to: jhn7537

It is likely that this law, if passed, will never even need to be used in a courtroom. Simply knowing that there are consequences for actions would bring about an immediate change.

Hopefully, just knowing that there may be consequences will help to some extent.

TheRedneck

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I think your broken record is broken, BFFT. I had never heard of the Smith Mundt Act until now. I'll check it out, thank you.

TheRedneck

a reply to: soberbacchus

I remember when the right wing used to hate big government and defend states rights!

Who has been protecting states rights to harbor and protect known criminals? I missed that one.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think this is a slippery slope issue. First this and then they can go after state officials who disregard federal marijuana law etc. It's a blow to states rights and more power to the federal government. It's going to make people afraid to implement any law that the people of a state or city vote on.

I don't think this is a danger/crime issue. Pretty much every single fight, crime, intimidation, car wreck fraud ever perpetrated on me, was by a US citizen. Recent studies show that less than 5% of crimes are commited by illegal aliens.

This is a power grab by the federal govnerment. Make no mistake.

Bout time.

Suck on that.

hahaha

a reply to: TheRedneck

NDAA updated it in 2012....and essentially didn't change anything that matters.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: TheRedneck

OOOOHHH YES!
MAGA!
MAGA!
MAGA!