Texas governor says he will ban sanctuary cities

Rune said:
Pretty conservatard thing to say bud.
Click to expand...

No one is above the law. What do you call any civil servant (i.e., mayor, judge, law enforcement officer...etc.,) that harbors, conceals, assists, or otherwise aids any known criminal in the commission of a federal crime considered a felony (18 U.S.C. 2)?

A "criminal" subject to arrest by the FBI.

If I was Mr. Trump.....my first act as Commander in Chief....would be the execution of federal law to the letter in relation to "illegal immigration" especially those laws in relation to harboring known illegal migrant felons....those crimes not considered civil in nature...i.e., felonies that are specifically related to "illegal immigration".

That would paint a pretty picture....going to NY CITY HALL, having the press corp there, media and newsprint...throw the hand cuffs on Bill de Blaso while dragging his ass out in front of world view. Let's see how many Sanctuary Cities would be standing within a week. I know this would not happen....the first thing the press would do is compare Mr. Trump to Hitler....while defending the criminal actions of the corrupt.

But that would be entertaining.....calling the bluff of these pompous asshole elite leftists.
 
I'm actually ok with providing amnesty for all illegals currently in the country and in sanctuary cities and then after that increasing border security and increasing the enforcement of immigration law. I think that's the most reasonable, caring, and practical way of handling it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
any city that harbors illegal aliens should have their mayors and entire city council arrested for harboring fugitives from justice.
Click to expand...

how national and how social of you. don't believe in our federal form of government with our doctrine of separation of powers?

immigration into the Union is a federal power since 1808. The several States have no power over immigration into a State, since 1808.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
As always, the board has no idea what you are babbling about.
Click to expand...

it is why some on the left, don't take the right wing seriously; due to their custom and habit until it is indistinguishable from a moral, of simply being, clueless and Causeless.

We have a Commerce Clause not any form of right wing, Orwellian clause.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Is this what you are referring to

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

So up to 1808, the states are free to admit any immigrant they wish. What happens after 1808? It doesn't say so what are you talking about.?
Click to expand...

Just clueless and Causeless? Not being a State power makes it exclusively a federal power. Slavery was supposed to start to end in 1808.
 
Ralph said:
No one is above the law. What do you call any civil servant (i.e., mayor, judge, law enforcement officer...etc.,) that harbors, conceals, assists, or otherwise aids any known criminal in the commission of a federal crime considered a felony (18 U.S.C. 2)?

A "criminal" subject to arrest by the FBI.

If I was Mr. Trump.....my first act as Commander in Chief....would be the execution of federal law to the letter in relation to "illegal immigration" especially those laws in relation to harboring known illegal migrant felons....those crimes not considered civil in nature...i.e., felonies that are specifically related to "illegal immigration".

That would paint a pretty picture....going to NY CITY HALL, having the press corp there, media and newsprint...throw the hand cuffs on Bill de Blaso while dragging his ass out in front of world view. Let's see how many Sanctuary Cities would be standing within a week. I know this would not happen....the first thing the press would do is compare Mr. Trump to Hitler....while defending the criminal actions of the corrupt.

But that would be entertaining.....calling the bluff of these pompous asshole elite leftists.
Click to expand...

how nationalist and how socialist of you. just throw capitalism, under the bus when it is not about a bonus?
 
danielpalos said:
how national and how social of you. don't believe in our federal form of government with our doctrine of separation of powers?

immigration into the Union is a federal power since 1808. The several States have no power over immigration into a State, since 1808.
Click to expand...

so we've established that the law prevents states from doing what the federal government tells them not to do.......do you have something that says the states can avoid doing what the federal government TELLS them to do?.....
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Lots of conservatives would disagree. The states are supposed to be sovereign countries. The federal govt exists alongside them, not above them. The Supremacy Clause in the constitution is often quoted as saying federal laws are above state laws but that's not what it says.
Click to expand...

^Back to first place in the stupid race.

Sovereign countries?
 
Ralph said:
So....by this logic....if a criminal robs a federally insured bank (an illegal)....the states and local police have no authority to arrest that criminal because its the fed's responsibility? Really? FYI: A law is a law...regardless of its source of origin, if any certified law enforcement officer confronts a federally pursued criminal, regardless of jurisdiction...its a public and civil duty to arrest that known and identified criminal. Do not confuse the language concerning "probable cause" and jurisdiction. Its the duty of any law enforcement agency to arrest any criminal....its the duty of the Judicial branch to litigate circumstances of that arrest.

If the states have no authority of arrest....why the federal law suit against the state of Az.? To prove that you're further full of BS. What exactly did the court rule when Az. sued over the federal v. states in relation to enforcing immigration law? 567 US. The court ruled that sections 3, 5(C) and 6 of S.B. 1070 of that state law preempted federal law....BUT......left other parts of the law intact. Among those parts? A provision of that STATE LAW that allows state agencies to investigate a person's "immigration status". If any criminal crosses a state line....a sovereign border protected by both a Constitution and Common Law....that state has the inherent right of self protection to confront that criminal element.

There is no such thing as "choosing" which laws to enforce and which one's not to enforce. That's what the Constitution did.....it made ONE UNION from the many states for one specific and primary reason....NATIONAL DEFENSE and the COMMON WELFARE (common among the states). In other words the UNION was designed to do those things that each individual state was incapable of doing alone...first and foremost that Union was designed for DEFENSE against any and all common threats.


FYI: The executive offices duty (POTUS) is to ENFORCE LAW...not make new law, tweak law, or pick and chose which law they "feel" is good and which one they "feel" is not good and therefore not worth enforcing. Executive...literally means TO EXECUTE a DUTY. The only place laws can be tweaked or drafted in not in the WHITE HOUSE but in Congress. In this nation all laws, both state and federal must be representative of the PEOPLE'S will not the Presidents...unilateral will.

A federal law does one thing...it makes the criminal OPEN GAME for any and all law enforcement agencies regardless of what state line that criminal might navigate. No law enforcement agency has to concern themselves with "JURISDICTION"....that is unless you opine that some states are not part of that UNION the constitution was designed to protect.
Click to expand...

Ralphie, are you intentionally trying to compete for first place stupid with Text?
 
danielpalos said:
how national and how social of you. don't believe in our federal form of government with our doctrine of separation of powers?

immigration into the Union is a federal power since 1808. The several States have no power over immigration into a State, since 1808.
Click to expand...

let me see if I have your position correctly......your opinion is that if the federal government is the sole authority over a certain 'policy', then the states not only have no power to enforce it, but can choose to deny federal enforcement as well?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so we've established that the law prevents states from doing what the federal government tells them not to do.......do you have something that says the states can avoid doing what the federal government TELLS them to do?.....
Click to expand...

Yes we have dumbass.
The states cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
let me see if I have your position correctly......your opinion is that if the federal government is the sole authority over a certain 'policy', then the states not only have no power to enforce it, but can choose to deny federal enforcement as well?
Click to expand...

No. The Feds can enforce their own laws obviouly but CANNOT compell the states to enforce federal laws.
The anti-commandeering principle of the 10th.
 
Rune said:
No. The Feds can enforce their own laws obviouly but CANNOT compell the states to enforce federal laws.
The anti-commandeering principle of the 10th.
Click to expand...

so if a state decides that federal gun laws are unconstitutional, they can allow their people to make and own machine guns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top