Civil Liberties Groups to Donald Trump: ‘See You in Court’

They know they have no case, this is pure obstructionism.

Why have immigration laws to begin with if they are null when anyone can just walk across the border and enjoy what this country offers?

Just doesn't make sense.

This is one of the main reasons Trump got elected.

Obama should have impeached for dereliction of duty for not enforcing existing laws on immigration and illegals.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: hellobruce

The Supremacy Clause


This was settled when Lincoln freed the slaves: the states cannot violate federal law

BOOM!!!!

There you go, this is a matter of Trump trying to uphold the Law and the Constitution vs Those who have hurt feelings and are angry the rest of us havent bought into their delusions.

It genuinely seems like all these anti Trumpers have lost their minds, their going to say the repercussions of their acting against the constitution are unconstitutional?
Im sure as water is wet that when they lose they will escalate it further in some other form of violence or civil disobedience.

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: hellobruce

The Supremacy Clause


This was settled when Lincoln freed the slaves: the states cannot violate federal law

BOOM!!!!

Again, that has to do with federal law.

It may not apply to federal funds given to states, unless the program that is being funded is dependent upon citizenship status.

originally posted by: Ohanka
They know they have no case, this is pure obstructionism.

Yes. For the same reasons, these same group of people obstruct Voter ID laws ...... they need to pad their voter base.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IkNOwSTuff

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: hellobruce

The Supremacy Clause


This was settled when Lincoln freed the slaves: the states cannot violate federal law

BOOM!!!!

Again, that has to do with federal law.

It may not apply to federal funds given to states, unless the program that is being funded is dependent upon citizenship status.

So what are your thoughts?
You agree that whats being done is against the law and Constitution, you may not agree with it morally but you are consciously aware its against the law.

What do you think should happen when States willfully and flagrantly break Federal Laws?
Doesnt Trumps approach seem to be the most reasonable and rational?

The Constitution does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over naturalization.

This was determined with the Chinese Exclusion Act which was overturned by the SCOTUS.

Reason

Or just google The Chinese Exclusion Act

Those who do not know history are doomed to waste a ton of money and time in courts until precedence comes up.

POTUS < SCOTUS in terms of law

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.


Emma Lazarusa reply to: IkNOwSTuff

Yeah, it would be great if everyone went through Ellis Island again.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.


Emma Lazarusa reply to: IkNOwSTuff

Ummm...that's one of my fave poems...however what you neglected to include with that fine selection...Was the fact that all of those huddled masses...came here Legally through Ellis Island...now...I'm sure a few slipped in through the cracks...but not Waves of humanity overflowing a border...

But thank you for posting that wonderful piece...just remember to be inclusive of...the whole story...next time round...

Thank you for participating...


YouSir

what the federal gov't/trump is doing is griping that the states aren't doing the job of immigration.. and, by what I read, orginaly alot of those states were trying to comply with the law, they would hold those they believed were illegal immigrants and notify immigration, but then that put the ball into the federal gov't's hands and they dropped that ball of course, they were holding those immigrants in their jails far longer than was legal, and they were being sued and losing cases because of it. they just finally said heck with it, it's your job, federal gov't, you do it we ain't!

so, maybe instead of stripping the funding from these cities and states, the federal gov't should be working to get their act together and prove to those cities and states that they can have better response times?

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.


Emma Lazarusa reply to: IkNOwSTuff

What your leaving out of that is immigrants came all over from Europe.

They didn't single out one single group of people from Mexico, and told them they get to cut in front of everyone else, and the LAW doesn't apply to them.

Even at Ellis Island people were turned away.

Where does it state that federal funding can go to supporting and enabling people who have broken the law?

ACLU doesn't have a case.

a reply to: introvert

The economic impact of funds not given to CA is not really the issue.

The issue is that there is a rogue state allowing its cities to thumb their nose at federal law. That is an act of sedition in violation of the 10th Amendment

It violates the Federalist nature of our Constitution (which im not fond of either, honestly) in that it is ignoring the right granted to the federal government in Article 1 to oversee naturalization. The borders and immigration are Federal jobs, and the states acting on those is in violation of their agreement with The Union.

Trump can try to leverage cash. Or he can take them to court and force them to act appropriately. I would hope it doesn't require that.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

an act of sedition

is it an act of sedition when businesses thumb their noses at those laws by hiring and shielding those illegal immigrants, which was going on long before there were really much in the form of sanctuary cities?? heck maybe even trump's businesses are guilty of an act of sedition!

a reply to: JinMI

Are sanctuary cities legal under state and/or federal law?

They are only legal when it comes to immigration LAW.

Now if a bunch of cities started creating Sanctuary cities for gun owners, and from the 'Affordable' Care Act.

Snowflakes heads would explode.

They don't get they are undermining the very foundation of this entire country.

The LAW.

People are not suppose to get to pick and choose when it matters.

a reply to: introvert

Not really. The government withheld highway funding from states in order to force them to adopt a 21 minimum drinking age back in the day.

Carrot and stick philosophy. You don't have to do what we want, but we don't have to fund you.

Easy-peazy.

a reply to: neo96

So they are in fact legal when inside the city boundaries correct?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

an act of sedition

is it an act of sedition when businesses thumb their noses at those laws by hiring and shielding those illegal immigrants, which was going on long before there were really much in the form of sanctuary cities?? heck maybe even trump's businesses are guilty of an act of sedition!

I screen every employee through everify (the DHS tool the US Government provides free to employers to verify I9 information). Anyone not doing so is acting negligently.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

well, it only seems logical that if they are here, stealing our jobs, then there are enough businesses out there willing to ignore the laws and hire them...