Sanctuary cities cave in face of Trump's funding threats

a reply to: angeldoll

Well we don't drive like that.....libs don't drive like that. But OMG when it comes to something a bit more abstract!

a reply to: xuenchen

Like I said last night, EVERYONE, from the National and State level, all the way down to the individual, is starting to realize that President Donald J. Trump is not your typical politician. If he says he'll push for removal of funding, he means it!

As these counties, cities and towns decide to adhere to our country's immigration laws, those that are remaining will panic, in increasing numbers.

City Councilmen to Mayor Emanuel of Chicago: "Mr Mayor.. We believe you should revoke our intention to be a Sanctuary City. President Trump will withhold badly-needed funding, and we'll attract a larger portion of illegal aliens.. These are people who use services, but pay NO income or property taxes. From a financial, crime, and practical standpoint, Chicago as a sanctuary city, is a HORRIBLE idea!"

How did Mayor Emanuel Respond? By meeting with the Mayors of Mexico's 3 largest cities to confirm that he's firmly committed to protecting all immigrants from Mexico.

Story: chicago.suntimes.com...

What does Emanuel and/or Chicago GAIN, by sheltering and protecting people living in the city Illegally!? Any ideas?

-cwm

a reply to: carewemust

What does Emanuel and/or Chicago GAIN, by sheltering and protecting people living in the city Illegally!? Any ideas?

That's the million dollar question, isn't it. It is not out of the goodness of their heart or for some altruistic purpose, imo. Why would they go directly against federal law. Why would they hinder the federal government for enacting enforcement of the laws that are within federal purview? They are benefiting in some way by someone that makes it worth their while. Something stinks.

I hope this doesn't get me in trouble. For many reasons.

I am in Saratoga, NY. I can tell you that the environment is for illegals; it doesn't matter if they're saying on the surface that they'll cooperate. They won't.

originally posted by: angeldoll
I thought Conservatives favored power be with the states, and keeping the Federal Government OUT of their affairs?

How do you justify this intrusion of state's rights?

The last thing we want is for anybody, or any entity such as Congressmen, Senators, Judges, Journalists, or States to feel threatened or bullied into acting against their better judgment.

I frankly find this disturbing.

If they want federal money, they've got to play by federal rules. They can't afford to be trendy sanctuary cities unless they have a sugar daddy paying the bills.

a reply to: carewemust

Your city councilman sounds like a bit of an idiot.

I don't think Chicago has an income tax and anyone paying rent is making possible for the owners of the property to pay said property taxes.

It seems logical that there is something to be gained and whatever it is, neither side is willing to say what that really is.

originally posted by: angeldoll
I thought Conservatives favored power be with the states, and keeping the Federal Government OUT of their affairs?

How do you justify this intrusion of state's rights?

The last thing we want is for anybody, or any entity such as Congressmen, Senators, Judges, Journalists, or States to feel threatened or bullied into acting against their better judgment.

I frankly find this disturbing.

If states do not have the responsibility to enforce immigration laws, they do not have the right interfere with immigration laws.

a reply to: angeldoll

if people don`t like the laws they should lobby their congress critters to change the laws, but ignoring laws you don`t agree with isn`t an option and will never change anything.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

that`s what I believe too, I think the y are just saying they will cooperate to get the money but they won`t cooperate.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: carewemust

What does Emanuel and/or Chicago GAIN, by sheltering and protecting people living in the city Illegally!? Any ideas?

That's the million dollar question, isn't it. It is not out of the goodness of their heart or for some altruistic purpose, imo. Why would they go directly against federal law. Why would they hinder the federal government for enacting enforcement of the laws that are within federal purview? They are benefiting in some way by someone that makes it worth their while. Something stinks.

bribes and pay offs from the drug lords I suspect.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: carewemust

Your city councilman sounds like a bit of an idiot.

I don't think Chicago has an income tax and anyone paying rent is making possible for the owners of the property to pay said property taxes.

It seems logical that there is something to be gained and whatever it is, neither side is willing to say what that really is.

It is obvious what is gained.... votes for Democrats.

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: TarzanBeta

that`s what I believe too, I think the y are just saying they will cooperate to get the money but they won`t cooperate.

Thanks, but I don't just believe it. I know it.

originally posted by: paradoxious

originally posted by: angeldoll
I thought Conservatives favored power be with the states, and keeping the Federal Government OUT of their affairs?

How do you justify this intrusion of state's rights?

The last thing we want is for anybody, or any entity such as Congressmen, Senators, Judges, Journalists, or States to feel threatened or bullied into acting against their better judgment.

I frankly find this disturbing.

If states do not have the responsibility to enforce immigration laws, they do not have the right interfere with immigration laws.

The Arizona case set a precedent on this matter did it not?

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: xuenchen

Just because you CAN bully, threaten, intimidate, manipulate, and Blackmail someone, (or state) doesn't mean you should. Americans are used to freedom. This doesn't sound much like freedom.

Key word:

Americans

Sorry to have had to point out the obvious.

# 668

originally posted by: angeldoll
I thought Conservatives favored power be with the states, and keeping the Federal Government OUT of their affairs?

How do you justify this intrusion of state's rights?

This isn't a state's rights issue, illegal immigration is a national security threat. If there's one thing the Federal Government should be doing, it's providing for the defense of the nation. Also it's the law, if you don't like the law, have it changed, until then, it needs to be upheld. Just because Obama and other Presidents were lawless, doesn't mean Trump should be too.

a reply to: xuenchen

Here in Texas, 'Sanctuary Cities' will also be losing State funding to the police force(s) of said city. But even further...

A bill has passed the Senate, heading to the House, which allows the victims of crimes committed by the release of an illegal alien(s) to sue the State/Local official(s) that released them, without consulting or turning the over to ICE, and/or...

.. should the illegal which was released after sentencing for a crime and commits a felony within ten years of being released the official that released the illegal alien, without consulting or turning them over to ICE, which committed the crime(s) may also be sued by the victim(s) present and past.

But no one I know here is complaining, in fact in public conversations the general air is "Finally!!"

mg

Finally, someone who understands why we are the United States of America.

Response to Tru. Don't know why quoted aspect was not preserved.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: xuenchen


What does Emanuel and/or Chicago GAIN, by sheltering and protecting people living in the city Illegally!? Any ideas?

-cwm

well he set up a legal fund that will generate all kinds of money that can be skimmed and bribed back from the lawyers

I also know the politicians are getting big protection racket kickback money.

Also possible is the fact that many illegals here have anchor kids that qualify for assistance money.

But outside of that, one big reason is future votes.

I'm sure there's a lot more to the whole mess.

Lots of people make money off of the population like rents and general sales taxes.

Wow, aren't you a busy beaver

Wouldn't dare know what to think without a law,
clearly in black and white, or otherwise lost, so LOST!

a reply to: angeldoll



Gnaw on this won't you:

More chaos equals more laws. Works every time.

Or, if it offends you that other. countries are manufacturing more crime,
and better criminals..., but I digress.

Say, I was wondering if you could help me. Someone has been using my social security card,
and I was sure wondering if perhaps, this someone was lost. So.
When you waltz into another country or sovereign state, having skipped customs, of course,
why not see how far you get without a hot new set of fake IDs, then get back to us with your progress.
I'm pretty sure the person whose identity you borrowed will thank you, probably set you up with some fat stacks.

# 669

originally posted by: jellyrev

The Arizona case set a precedent on this matter did it not?

It did, but not what many people think.

Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court

On December 12, 2011, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case. The court heard oral arguments for this case on April 25, 2012. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because while she was the United States Solicitor General, she defended the federal government's position in this case under the Obama administration.[33]

On June 25, 2012, the Court struck down three of the four provisions of S.B. 1070. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor.[34] Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito each concurred in part and dissented in part in separate opinions joined by no other justice.

Justice Kennedy's majority opinion held that Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 were preempted by federal law.[34][35][36] The three provisions struck down: required legal immigrants to carry registration documents at all times; allowed state police to arrest any individual for suspicion of being an illegal immigrant; and made it a crime for an illegal immigrant to search for a job (or to hold one) in the state.[37][38][39]

All justices agreed to uphold the provision of the law allowing Arizona state police to investigate the immigration status of an individual stopped, detained, or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that individual is in the country illegally. However, Justice Kennedy specified in the majority opinion that state police may not detain the individual for a prolonged amount of time for not carrying immigration documents; and that cases of racial profiling are allowed to proceed through the courts, if such cases happen to arise later on.[33]