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.

 

Sanctuary cities, are they above the law?

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: network dude


Shouldn't these things be decided at a state by state level?

If California wants an open door policy then
maybe we should let it issue State Only visa/permit and take in everybody that it wants. And if somebody is found in another state with a California only permit they you deport them to their country of origin, as an illegal to that state. If California wants them back, then charge a processing and handling fee.

That way the entire population of Mexico can relocate to California, and if they try to leave California gets to pay for them.

No, it shouldn't. It is a federal right, not a state right.




posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: network dude




Sanctuary cities, are they above the law?


Some aren't.

They're adhering to the highest law in the land.

reason.com...

Shall not be infringed,denied or disparaged.


But let someone in a MAGA hat walk through and watch what happens to their rights...



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: network dude




Sanctuary cities, are they above the law?


Some aren't.

They're adhering to the highest law in the land.

reason.com...

Shall not be infringed,denied or disparaged.


But let someone in a MAGA hat walk through and watch what happens to their rights...


Same thing that happens to their rights on Fascist book?




posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Sanctuary cities, are they above the law?

the cult like thinking of the rogue leadership of the Sanctuary City is suffering from irrational, cult like thinking

the idea that 'Not in my backyard' (NIMBY) is a viable strategy is absurd in this Practical Republic

declaring a City as being a 'Sanctuary' is a fuzzy remnant from Old World Catholicism, derived from the Roman occupation forces in foreign lands who, for example, offered the choice of freedom between the Jewish Zealot warrior Barabbas OR Jesus and the crowd chose death for Jesus and freedom for the killer of Roman Soldiers

see:

Barabbas - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org...

Barabbas (/ b ə ˈ r æ b ə s /; Aramaic: ישוע בר אבא ‎ Yeshua Bar ʾAbbaʾ, literally "son of the father" or "son of the teacher") is a figure mentioned in the New Testament, in which he is an insurrectionary held by the Roman governor at the same time as Jesus, and whom Pontius Pilate freed at the Passover feast in Jerusalem, while keeping Jesus as a prisoner.



imho.... a Sanctuary city or any community should automatically fall under the same Sanctions that are currently leveled against such political entities as Iran & North Korea who defy the Federal USA government

including, things like returning all federal prisoners that were residents of the sanctuary city to that home town
suspending all federal courts in that jurisdiction, suspending the population count from the census and the resulting legal representation by seats in Congress, et al...

make the sanctuary city a non-entity to all other citizens, until the city reapplies to be embraced as part of the USA community



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Sanctuary laws for illegal immigrants is the same as aiding and abetting criminals. People go to prison for that kind of stuff, unless it's a democrat pushing the sick "woke" agenda down your throat.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: AaarghZombies

I like that. I wonder how long it would be before those prudes - who welcome everyone not sane - would start begging for law and order. Especially the rich people who favor sanctuary cities until those illegal aliens start taking over the rich neighborhoods.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Close... You can't swing a lead pipe or pad lock at a MAGA hat through farcebook.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: LSU2018

Geaux Tigers!!

Ok, back to the discussion....



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
What about states rights? Or as usual is that just forgotten when it comes to something you all disagree with?

What about the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution, making all (legitimate, Constitutional) federal laws supreme over the States?

And you wonder why no one take you guys seriously, and treats you like the alcoholic uncle at Thanksgiving.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Oh no nononono. States rights to refuse federal laws vanished when Lincoln decided to force the south to remain with the union and rewrote the 10th amendment.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: elDooberino
a reply to: underwerks

States rights?

I don't think states have a right to actively subvert federal law.

Trump is the most lawless POTUS since Nixon?

Kind of funny they keep repeating the "no one is above the law" mantra but didn't even accuse him of breaking any laws in their articles of impeachment.

Either they're the most incompetent congress ever, completely forgetting to include all those crimes you speak of, or maybe when it comes to brass tax they didn't include all those accusations because they're not real. They're just propaganda for people such as yourself.

"Most lawless president since nixon" but don't ask me what laws he broke.
"guilty as sin" but don't ask me what crimes he has committed.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

You rather send your pulse up in a rage about DT than see what is wrong with your own double standards?

Is there a name or term for this already?



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude



I've heard that NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW!!! and it's said with conviction. The top idiot left has been screaming it. But what of the immigration stance?


Asylum

Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

Meet the definition of refugee
Are already in the United States
Are seeking admission at a port of entry

You may apply for asylum in the United States regardless of your country of origin or your current immigration status. For more information about asylum status, see the Asylum section.




If you want to challenge the validity of our border security laws, that's cool and all, but you don't get to ignore the laws that exist now because you don't like them. Just as the rest of us who aren't above the law, have to follow rules we may not like, because if you disregard the rules that govern society, you risk the breakdown of that very society. Text

You should take your own advice - along with your criminal POTUS



(tiny minds)

Indeed

Sometimes one has to do what their conscience tells them to do. Sanctuary cities provide protection for people until they can be afforded due process. If you'd rather round them up and treat them like criminals before they can be processed - it says more about you than it does the lawless cities trying to make sure people's rights are protected first
edit on 12/11/2019 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Asylum has nothing to do with sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities harbor illegals that do NOT qualify for asylum, including criminals charged with crimes such as DUI, and rape.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Sanctuary city

The movement that established sanctuary cities in the United States began in the early 1980s. The movement traces its roots to religious philosophy, as well as the histories of resistance movements to perceived state injustices.[18] The sanctuary city movement took place in the 1980s to challenge the US government's refusal to grant asylum to certain Central American refugees.[19] These asylum seekers were arriving from countries in Central America like El Salvador and Guatemala that were politically unstable. More than 75,000 Salvadoreans and 200,000 Guatemalans were killed by their governments in efforts to suppress the communist movement in those countries at the time.[20] Faith based groups in the US Southwest initially drove the movement of the 1980s, with eight churches publicly declaring to be sanctuaries in March 1982.[21] John Fife, a minister and movement leader, famously wrote in a letter to Attorney General William Smith; "the South-side United Presbyterian Church will publicly violate the Immigration and Nationality Act by allowing sanctuary in its church for those from Central America."[22]

A milestone in the U.S. sanctuary city movement occurred in 1985 in San Francisco, which passed the largely symbolic “City of Refuge” resolution. The resolution was followed the same year by an ordinance which prohibited the use of city funds and resources to assist federal immigration enforcement–the defining characteristic of a sanctuary city in the U.S.[23] As of 2018 more than 560 cities, states and counties considered themselves sanctuaries.[4]


Here’s where we get to important legal point #1: being undocumented is not a crime. It’s a civil violation. Undocumented immigrants have rights under the U.S. Constitution. And according to due process, the police cannot detain anyone who hasn’t at least been suspected of a crime. If a police officer encounters someone walking down the street who turns out to be undocumented, they cannot arrest that person because that person has not committed a crime (ICE, however, can). Similarly, if the police arrest someone undocumented – for example, someone suspected of committing a crime, who is then cleared, they must let that person go.

Important legal point #2: holding an immigrant past the point when they should be released, just so that ICE can pick them up, is unconstitutional. Multiple courts have said so, and immigrants can sue the police for unlawful holding.

Here we get back to the point of sanctuary cities: in a sanctuary city, the police will release an arrested immigrant after he’s been cleared of charges, posted bail, or completed jail time for whatever he was arrested for. A non-sanctuary city will hold that person until ICE can come pick them up – even though that extra holding is not constitutional.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Go peddle your lies to someone who will believe them.


ICE captures illegal alien released from Philadelphia custody despite detainer for criminal offenses in rape, unlawful contact with a minor

www.ice.gov...

Yeah, just a civil offense.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Good comeback


I wonder what it would be like if you took some time and put some thought into it? Or is that not something you can do?

:-)



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

It does not take much thought to dispel the lie that sanctuary cities are only protecting illegals who are only guilty of a civil offense.

1st offense illegal entry into the US carries a 6 month criminal prison sentence.

Stop lying.



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm referencing actual information. Why does this make you angry? Can you refute it?

Or are you only here to troll? :-)



posted on Dec, 11 2019 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm referencing actual information. Why does this make you angry? Can you refute it?

Or are you only here to troll? :-)

You referenced a stupid source that posts lies. Here is the actual law.


8 U.S. Code § 1325.Improper entry by alien
(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

www.law.cornell.edu...
edit on 11-12-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join