Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

House passes 'Kate's Law' and bill targeting sanctuary cities

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • House passes 'Kate's Law' and bill targeting sanctuary cities

    The House passed legislation on Thursday to crack down on illegal immigration and enact a key priority of President Trump’s known as "Kate's Law."

    In largely party line votes, the House approved two bills. One would cut off some federal grants from so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with immigration authorities; the other would impose tougher sentences on criminals who have entered the U.S. illegally multiple times.

    “For years, the lack of immigration enforcement and spread of sanctuary policies have cost too many lives,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the author of both bills.

    The sanctuary city bill passed 228-195, while the sentencing bill passed 257-167.
    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...nctuary-cities

  • #2
    I'm reading articles that the Democrats are very upset about this...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
      I'm reading articles that the Democrats are very upset about this...
      It was a near straight party vote. More Republicans defected than Democrats, but there are more Republicans. And it's easy to understand why certain politicians crossed the aisle - they're mostly in either purple states, or are in opposing color states (a Democrat in Texas; a Republican in New York).

      Immigration is an area the GOP and Trump are at least in alignment on, and it has been one of his few areas of success on his agenda.

      Also, what articles?

      Comment


      • #4
        Democrats criticized the measures for cutting critical funding for law enforcement and demonizing immigrants.
        “This bill perpetuates the fiction that immigrants are inherently criminal,” said Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
        Note how Conyers left off the "illegal" part of that....

        http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...cid=spartanntp

        CNN says Republicans are "declaring war" on sanctuary cities.

        http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/politi...ion/index.html

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          Note how Conyers left off the "illegal" part of that....

          http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...cid=spartanntp

          CNN says Republicans are "declaring war" on sanctuary cities.

          http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/29/politi...ion/index.html
          The only emotions I'm seeing from the parties are the same party rhetoric they normally give. No gnashing of teeth or tearing of hair. This was pretty much a guarantee pass; both sides just doing their song and dance about it. Don't see anyone of importance being very upset about this.

          Immigration is a solid category for the GOP with broad appeal. It's a no brainer and one area where they are very united. The Dems just can't resist them on it.

          Comment


          • #6
            Well, at least the Republicant's got something done, for a change.

            As has been already said, they will get voted out if they don't. THis has become one issue that the establishment can't ignore the will of the people on anymore.
            So, the Left will call the common mad an irresponsible scumbucket AGAIN and do everything they can to subvert the law, AGAIN.
            Hold their feet to the fire.
            Whole cities are engaging in illegal behavior that threatens us all.
            Enough is enough.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
              Well, at least the Republicant's got something done, for a change.

              As has been already said, they will get voted out if they don't. THis has become one issue that the establishment can't ignore the will of the people on anymore.
              So, the Left will call the common mad an irresponsible scumbucket AGAIN and do everything they can to subvert the law, AGAIN.
              Hold their feet to the fire.
              Whole cities are engaging in illegal behavior that threatens us all.
              Enough is enough.
              Point of order - if they're letting them in to their city, why not let them? It's their problem, they can deal with it. I don't get affected by a stabbing in New York. It was their choice to let them in.

              Seems the best solution would be to just let each community decide for themselves who they want to let in, and have them enforce it. Rather than relying on big government to step in and do the business for them, using the authority of the central government to enforce their will on the minority in the name of the majority.

              But the statists wouldn't like that, since they want the Feds to be in charge.

              But yeah, immigration is one of the few places Trump has had success, and it's no wonder the GOP is pushing it hard. It resonates well with their voters and was a key reason for why they flipped so many Dem districts.

              Or at least would be, if the GOP had message control. The Dems used to be the worst at staying on message, but this administration has flipped that around because they can't keep focused. The deflection strategy works when trying to avoid criticism and hide failure, but it can also mask success as well.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                Point of order - if they're letting them in to their city, why not let them? It's their problem, they can deal with it. I don't get affected by a stabbing in New York. It was their choice to let them in.

                Seems the best solution would be to just let each community decide for themselves who they want to let in, and have them enforce it. Rather than relying on big government to step in and do the business for them, using the authority of the central government to enforce their will on the minority in the name of the majority.

                But the statists wouldn't like that, since they want the Feds to be in charge.

                But yeah, immigration is one of the few places Trump has had success, and it's no wonder the GOP is pushing it hard. It resonates well with their voters and was a key reason for why they flipped so many Dem districts.

                Or at least would be, if the GOP had message control. The Dems used to be the worst at staying on message, but this administration has flipped that around because they can't keep focused. The deflection strategy works when trying to avoid criticism and hide failure, but it can also mask success as well.


                Cities don't get to decide for themselves what Federal laws to enforce.
                The "Supremacy Clause" provides that where any law conflicts with federal law, federal law is supreme.

                If we allow each city or town to pick or chose what laws to enforce, what laws are the democrats willing to allow the right to ignore?
                Abortion rights perhaps?
                Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                  Cities don't get to decide for themselves what Federal laws to enforce.
                  The "Supremacy Clause" provides that where any law conflicts with federal law, federal law is supreme.

                  If we allow each city or town to pick or chose what laws to enforce, what laws are the democrats willing to allow the right to ignore?
                  Abortion rights perhaps?
                  That part was just my wishful thinking. After all, what is more liberating than simply removing the federal and state model and allowing each community (freely associated with, of course) to make their own laws rather than being tyrannized by our current model where the majority oppress the minority?

                  But of course, that would offend the statist defenders of the nanny state who still believe the federal government is essential. Can't take responsibility for themselves but have to force others to feed the machine. Don't want the local community to be free to govern themselves - then they might offend the mighty gods in Washington who demand the right to control things like defense and immigration.

                  Because if we don't have lines on a map, we would all resort to pillage and rape in an instant.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    About time.
                    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                      Cities don't get to decide for themselves what Federal laws to enforce.
                      The "Supremacy Clause" provides that where any law conflicts with federal law, federal law is supreme.

                      If we allow each city or town to pick or chose what laws to enforce, what laws are the democrats willing to allow the right to ignore?
                      Abortion rights perhaps?
                      Well...given that our government cherry picks what laws to enforce...
                      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The law does not cut off all Federal Aid. The funds lost are quite limited. Congress at work! The same guys who brought you Sequestron are still passing law.

                        Pruitt
                        Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                        Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                        by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          I'm reading articles that the Democrats are very upset about this...
                          Takes away all those potential voters...
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                            The law does not cut off all Federal Aid. The funds lost are quite limited. Congress at work! The same guys who brought you Sequestron are still passing law.

                            Pruitt
                            It's still a start in the right direction.
                            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Article I. Section. 10. Prohibits States from entering treaties with foreign nations. Ignoring Federal Immigration Laws and accepting improperly and illegally documented aliens is a default "foreign treaty". Santuray States/Cities are illegal and unConstitutional and it is within Federal authority to cut Federal funds to such. QED
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X