Sanctuary cities cave in face of Trump's funding threats

a reply to: angeldoll

When state cause a threat to national security,then they are breaking the law,it's ok to look out for your state,but not at the price of rest of the country,typical liberals,all about them,some have no control,use their emotions,and see what that brings

a reply to: xuenchen

Typical Socialists , they Cannot Exist Without Other Peoples Money .

originally posted by: xuenchen

Trump and the Justice Dept need to get going with appointing more immigration judges because the last Administration has left some empty chairs that are clogging the system. Too many "detainees" could be let loose again never to return to court.

That fight has already begun.

Mr. Castaneda and others want Mexico’s government to endorse a tough and perhaps risky strategy to battle an expected increase in deportations of their undocumented compatriots in the U.S. by underwriting the migrants’ legal struggle in the U.S. court system. By overwhelming already heavily burdened immigration courts, Mr. Castaneda hopes the legal system would break down, bringing deportations to a halt.

Mexico’s government hasn’t endorsed the strategy, but President Enrique Peña Nieto recently budgeted about $50 million to the country’s 50 consulates to help pay the costs of defending migrants who are in the U.S. illegally and facing deportation. WSJ

Jamming The Courts

Investors, late last year speculated this coming. TS

During a CBS "60 Minutes" interview on Sunday, Trump said he would look to deport, or incarcerate, up to 3 million illegal immigrants. CNN

60 Mins

Really, in my point of view, it is Mexico that has failed its' own people and lived off it's neighbor for way, way too long. Time for them to get their collective asses together because pressure is now coming their way.

Mexico is going to have to learn to deal with its' own people and its' own crisis before any long term solution with come to fruition. Mexico is rife with corruption down to the most basic of layers.

And Mexico, although the largest by far contributor to illegal immigrants inside the United States, is NOT the only culprit. That said, illegal immigration from multiple nations occurs crossing the Mexican border and NOT just from over staying visas etc...WP

The mood here in the south is "enough is enough"

More and more articles such as this one will appear much more frequently and soon...

This will be one fight to watch, that much is for sure...

mg

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: xuenchen
That will condense and corral the problem.

"That will condense and corral the problem." - A. Hitler 1934

I wonder if "Hitler" actually said that.

a reply to: jellyrev

Ah Yes Vermont, the state that has been least affected by immigration in the United States, 94% non-hispanic white, and likely one of the most homogenous cultures in the country. I give them a pass for being oblivious.

Very well-said. Vermont is also known for lots of "handouts" and government assistance programs. Immigrants receive a lot of support.

Meanwhile, for folks who have paid into the system for their entire lives (if their income is too high) receive absolutely nothing for support, and have to deal with very high cost of living and no breaks whatsoever

a reply to: angeldoll

States have the right to break federal law? Since when?

The Feds need to follow every dime, considering the reluctance of these officials/cities to comply.

Here in Austin, TX, the governor is working on legislation that removes officials from office who refuse to promote sanctuary cities.

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.

They can break from the federal government, and in doing so they will forfeit funding.

Simple concept.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yep those liberal's saw vision's of their entitlment checks disappearing,when the word Federal funding came into the equation,funny they can't add any other time

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: xuenchen

Yep those liberal's saw vision's of their entitlment checks disappearing,when the word Federal funding came into the equation,funny they can't add any other time

In their own minds it seems they are worth every nickel they can get.

a reply to: xuenchen

Not long ago the average conspiracy theorist was saying the same about the feds. All of a sudden they are the good guys?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: xuenchen

Not long ago the average conspiracy theorist was saying the same about the feds. All of a sudden they are the good guys?

The "Feds" a few months ago are not the same "Feds" as today.

Policies and agendas are not the same.

I know it's confusing.



Operation Gladio is underway

a reply to: xuenchen

Only to those who believe in Hope and Change 2.0.

Gladio is always in effect. It is what keeps deep policies and agendas moving forward.

Is this real?




Also...




In his best chant voice: "ROUND THEM UP"

a reply to: FlyingFox

sure is

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: xuenchen
That will condense and corral the problem.

"That will condense and corral the problem." - A. Hitler 1934

I wonder if "Hitler" actually said that.

Then my job is finished here! *__-

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.

What state right is being intruded upon? State's don't decide FEDERAL immigration. State's have no right to FEDERAL funds.

Is the thief bullied when he is put in jail? Is the person harboring a known criminal bullied when they are charged with harboring?

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.

It's pretty simple.

Because, *only* the Federal government can realistically establish and enforce immigration policy otherwise you'd have 50 different laws in 50 different states, and the notion of national security is not even an afterthought. It be would be chaos at a minimum. The entire notion is absurd.

There are some things that need to be handled at the federal level for common sense reasons. This is one of them.

Thanks to Sactuary Cities for setting up filters, and gathering illegals like moths to a flame. Its easy fishing in a fish trap!


Catching illegals; the stone age solution

a reply to: Butterfinger

Guess you found the silver lining.

So, what's all the bitchin' about?