Tim Kaine Denies Existence Of Sanctuary Cities

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Damn, you are stupid.

This is a request for the federal government to take over enforcement of environmental regulations in WV and Ky. The federal government certainly can enforce immigration laws in every city in this country. That is why the so called "Sanctuary City" is a phantom. The feds simply cannot set the enforcement priorities of local governments.
Click to expand...

Do you always make obvious points like you've recieved some sort of epiphany lol?

The whole point behind sanctuary cities is local governments picking and choosing which federal laws they're going to enforce. It's a 'phantom' only in a legal sense. Illegal immigrants know damn well which cities won't enforce federal laws so they flock to them. So it's not 'phantom' to them or the residents of said city who have to put up with them.

You're as big an idiot as Kaine if you think just because sanctuary cities are legal phantoms that means it has no practical effects. Actually, I'm confident Kaine was being disingenuous for political purposes. As liberals politicians are want to do when votes are at stake.

I'm not sure about you.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Do you always make obvious points like you've recieved some sort of epiphany lol?
Click to expand...

Do you always make points that are so obviously irrelevant to the discussion? If not, then why did you bring this up?

Darth Hussein Omar said:
The whole point behind sanctuary cities is local governments picking and choosing which federal laws they're going to enforce. It's a 'phantom' only in a legal sense. Illegal immigrants know damn well which cities won't enforce federal laws so they flock to them. So it's not 'phantom' to them or the residents of said city who have to put up with them.
Click to expand...

Cities/states can choose their own enforcement priorities. But many conservatives seem to think these cities give immigrants sanctuary from Federal laws. They do not. The federal government can enforce their rules/laws in these cities just as the EPA can enforce it's rules in West Virginia and Kentucky.

Darth Hussein Omar said:
You're as big an idiot as Kaine if you think just because sanctuary cities are legal phantoms that means it has no practical effects. Actually, I'm confident Kaine was being disingenuous for political purposes. As liberals politicians are want to do when votes are at stake.

I'm not sure about you.
Click to expand...

No, Kaine was pointing out just what I have told you over and over again. There is no sanctuary from federal law, not in San Francisco not in WV. That notion is a phantom. However, the locals can set their own enforcement priorities. Kaine was pointing out that people like you are misinformed and/or being disingenuous.
 
evince said:
when you card EVERYONE you make latinos hate the police


you also create a population that will NEVER report a crime


that means criminals can attack people without getting even reported you fucking idiots
Click to expand...

for this reason you fucking liar
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Do you always make points that are so obviously irrelevant to the discussion? If not, then why did you bring this up?



Cities/states can choose their own enforcement priorities. But many conservatives seem to think these cities give immigrants sanctuary from Federal laws. They do not. The federal government can enforce their rules/laws in these cities just as the EPA can enforce it's rules in West Virginia and Kentucky.



No, Kaine was pointing out just what I have told you over and over again. There is no sanctuary from federal law, not in San Francisco not in WV. That notion is a phantom. However, the locals can set their own enforcement priorities. Kaine was pointing out that people like you are misinformed and/or being disingenuous.
Click to expand...

So, I guess someone needs to tell all the illegals in SF there really isn't a sanctuary from federal immigration laws lol.

What do they know, anyway.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
But you don't seem to understand what that means. It means that federal law still applies in so called sanctuary cities.
Click to expand...
Of course law applies -but sanctuary makes it impotent.

No. They can't be forced to use their resources to enforce the Federal governments priorities.
Click to expand...
..in that they cannot be enforced by some federal police action, but they must assuredly can be penalized for not following federal law.


Huh? The Ogden memo has no effect on city or state governments. It explained the Federal government's enforcement priorities to agents of the Federal government not to anyone at the state level. It stated that they would continue to enforce laws against medical marijuana, in certain circumstances. It did not say that the states/cities must continue to enforce laws against medical marijuana or give them leave from that.
Click to expand...
it was a memo of a general priorities/matter of enforcement where individuals in states were in compliance with state medical marijuana laws.
It was telling USDA's not to use federal resources where states medical marijuana laws did not violate certain ( enumerated) characteristics in the memo itself. It was a working relationship with the states where the states found the federal law to be noxious.
To my knowledge there is no such relationship where the states are lax on enforcement on immigration law -this is strictly a county/city decision.


Obama did change enforcement priorities on immigration but that has nothing to do with the cities and they certainly do not need his approval.
Click to expand...
some of those were rolled back by SCOTUS. DAPA being the prime example of executive over-reach.
The cities are subject to immigration law if the feds chose to impose sanctions for sanctuary cities-which is what Trump is talking about.


Trump/The President is impotent in this matter.
Click to expand...
reduction of funding -much like was used for seatbelt laws - to cities is hardly impotent.


I am sure. You need the third grade language of Trump.
Click to expand...
I don't need snarky repetitive put downs by some one who calls sanctuary cities a fiction.
The fine legal points are debatable -the consequences of not honoring ICE detainers are not.
It's why Kate's law was proposed, until blocked by Democrats ..the reasoning was as facetious as the fiction of sanctuary cities

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said they put presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s “ant-immigration rhetoric into action.”
“These bills follow Trump’s lead in demonizing, criminalizing immigrant, Latino families,” the Nevada Democrat said before the votes.
Click to expand...
Reid is full of shite. It only goes after criminal illegals with detainers by ICE, not "demonizing Latino families"
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Kaine is being disingenuous. Sanctuary city may not be a legal term and so non-existent in a legal sense; but we all know some cities won't enforce federal laws or allocate resources to enforce them.

Illegal aliens know they aren't phantom and they know where to go. And they're criminal alien magnets.
Click to expand...

Is it the responsibility of cities to do the job of the Feds? I think not. They need to develop relationships in the community and being an ICE enforcer is not the way to do that.
 
domer76 said:
Is it the responsibility of cities to do the job of the Feds? I think not. They need to develop relationships in the community and being an ICE enforcer is not the way to do that.
Click to expand...
a lot of people would think that not letting criminals loose on the streets IS a responsibility of cities......but then, maybe liberals see things differently........
 
anatta said:
Of course law applies -but sanctuary makes it impotent.
Click to expand...

Not really. It just places the burden on the federal government where it belongs.

anatta said:
..in that they cannot be enforced by some federal police action, but they must assuredly can be penalized for not following federal law.
Click to expand...

What is the difference?

anatta said:
it was a memo of a general priorities/matter of enforcement where individuals in states were in compliance with state medical marijuana laws.
It was telling USDA's not to use federal resources where states medical marijuana laws did not violate certain ( enumerated) characteristics in the memo itself. It was a working relationship with the states where the states found the federal law to be noxious.
To my knowledge there is no such relationship where the states are lax on enforcement on immigration law -this is strictly a county/city decision.
Click to expand...

It created no relationship with the states. It was a memo from the federal government to the federal government. Besides that it was set aside by Cole.

There are several states that anti immigration forces refer to as sanctuary states.

http://cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map

anatta said:
some of those were rolled back by SCOTUS. DAPA being the prime example of executive over-reach.
The cities are subject to immigration law if the feds chose to impose sanctions for sanctuary cities-which is what Trump is talking about.

reduction of funding -much like was used for seatbelt laws - to cities is hardly impotent.

I don't need snarky repetitive put downs by some one who calls sanctuary cities a fiction.
The fine legal points are debatable -the consequences of not honoring ICE detainers are not.
It's why Kate's law was proposed, until blocked by Democrats ..the reasoning was as facetious as the fiction of sanctuary cities
Click to expand...

Trump cannot reduce funding. Congress' power to do so is limited according to South Dakota vs Dole.

1. The spending must promote "the general welfare."
2. The condition must be unambiguous.
3. The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs."
4. The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional.
5. The condition must not be coercive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole

Condition three means that they can probably only cut funding for some sort of immigration related program. Do they give cities funding for immigration related programs? They certainly cannot cut all funding as that would violate 3 and 5.


This position on immigration is a reversal of Republican stands on the tenth amendment and even the ACA. But then Republicans are without any principles other than bigotry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top