Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sanctuary Cities

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

  • Sanctuary Cities

    Does a city have the authority to go against federal laws? The best example of this is the numerous 'sanctuary cities' that go against immigration laws; report to ICE.

    My take is that they shouldn't go against the Constitution.
    "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

  • #2
    The day is coming when those Liberal politicians in those cities are going to regret that they ever allowed illegals to settle in their cities. Places like San Francisco are already paying that price in the form of rising violent crime, ramped drug use, and the streets being used as the outhouse.
    “Breaking News,”

    “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Nichols View Post
      Does a city have the authority to go against federal laws? The best example of this is the numerous 'sanctuary cities' that go against immigration laws; report to ICE.

      My take is that they shouldn't go against the Constitution.


      It largely depends on how they do it.
      No State or City has the authority to pass a law attempting to override federal laws.
      The “Supremacy clause” in the Constitution provides that where federal law and State law conflict, Federal law is supreme.
      All those cities and States can do is refuse to cooperate. That does not appear to be a violation of the Supremacy Clause.

      However, Illinois elected a far left billionaire as Governor and it seems that simply refusing to cooperate with ICE isn’t enough. He is attempting to implement policy to compel the courts to be more active in their refusal to cooperate. That may start to cross the line.
      We already have laws that provide that Illinois will no longer recognize what is called an “Ice hold”.
      In the past, a person who met the bail conditions would not be released if ICE informed the jail they had a “hold” on him.
      Now, those requests are ignored. I may comment further later on the new policy as I can’t review it right now.
      So, the short answer to your question is technically, no. It is not a violation of the Constitution.
      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


      • #4
        Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
        The day is coming when those Liberal politicians in those cities are going to regret that they ever allowed illegals to settle in their cities. Places like San Francisco are already paying that price in the form of rising violent crime, ramped drug use, and the streets being used as the outhouse.
        One of the things happening in Illinois is that downstate Counties are taking a page from the Sanctuary state people and declaring themselves “Sanctuary Counties” from the State’s efforts at further gun control.
        Obviously, the dems don’t like that.
        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


        • #5
          Originally posted by Nichols View Post
          Does a city have the authority to go against federal laws? The best example of this is the numerous 'sanctuary cities' that go against immigration laws; report to ICE.

          My take is that they shouldn't go against the Constitution.
          What they cannot do is openly defy Federal law without consequences. It sets an unacceptable precedent. Of curse, the Democrats block any effort at enforcement.
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #6
            How about a city that is a sanctuary from Federal income tax? Sanctuary cities are what happens when the religion of equity, diversity, and inclusion tries to impose it's morality extralegally. What if we had a Muslim dominated city that made homosexuality a crime? While the framers of the constitution may not have envisioned a secular religion they certainly understood how dangerous religion can be.

            What is missing from the conversation is an understanding of how personal and public morality differs. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

            Those that are disportionately effected by chaos are the poor. The very people that the church of equity, diversity, and inclusion profess to represent. Who has been hurt most by illegal immigration if not poor minorities? Who is harmed by "green energy" and sky rocketing utility bills? Certainly not the coastal elites for whom utility bills are an insignificant budgetary item. Who is effected most negatively by a failing educational system? Certainly not the loudest voices from the Church of equity, diversity and inclusion.

            By contrast, the contemporary political-economic system often called “globalism” is reflective of strong individual-level selection, where there exists no spontaneous tendency to prefer binding-type moral behaviors, and where individual moral foundations are better characterized as individualistic, which, going from Haidt’s work, involve preferences for harm reduction, a byproduct of ecological pacification, and egalitarianism, or “fairness,” which is inimical to the existence of hierarchy. Under such conditions individuals sacralize efforts to ameliorate the perceived social ills stemming from inequality, which (ironically) leads them to compete with one another for status through ever more exaggerated displays of commitment to egalitarian pursuits. Sometimes, perhaps often, these displays are profitable for elites—it takes little imagination, for example, to understand how the mainstreaming of lifestyles formerly considered unacceptable creates many opportunities for businesses
            .
            Michael Woodley


            It is a great irony that the Church of equity, diversity and inclusion which purports to serve the interests of certain identity groups is in fact characterized by extreme individual selection. While it demands absolute conformity and uses authoritarian means to enforce it it seems oblivious to group selection. It displays self hatred to the degree that it is suicidal. Similarly to the cults of Jimmy Jones and heavens gate. It's fuel is the lack of meaning that extreme individualism always devolves into.
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



              It largely depends on how they do it.
              No State or City has the authority to pass a law attempting to override federal laws.
              The “Supremacy clause” in the Constitution provides that where federal law and State law conflict, Federal law is supreme.
              All those cities and States can do is refuse to cooperate. That does not appear to be a violation of the Supremacy Clause.
              But it obviously is, because disobeying Federal law is the essential element, not how or why it is done. What happens if you and 300 million others in America "refuse to cooperate" when it comes to paying your income taxes? Or obeying any of the thousands of laws that govern everything you do?

              How about if the military decides to "refuse to cooperate" when ordered to deploy?

              We are a nation of laws. That's the bottom line. When cities and counties are allowed to refuse to follow the law, then citizens themselves also have that right, since we are "a government of the people". When that ceases, we will become a nation of lawlessness and anarchy.

              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                One of the things happening in Illinois is that downstate Counties are taking a page from the Sanctuary state people and declaring themselves “Sanctuary Counties” from the State’s efforts at further gun control.
                Obviously, the dems don’t like that.
                Some of my closest friends live in Illinois, and we've often discussed how nice it would be if the state kicked Chicago out and let it become it's own rotten entity. That city wields so much power over the rest of the state.

                I realize there are laws against succession put into place since the end of the ACW...but what about rejection ? If the rest of the state banded together and told Chicago to GTFO?
                You'll live, only the best get killed.

                -General Charles de Gaulle

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                  One of the things happening in Illinois is that downstate Counties are taking a page from the Sanctuary state people and declaring themselves “Sanctuary Counties” from the State’s efforts at further gun control.
                  Obviously, the dems don’t like that.
                  The opposition to the red flag laws and other demands for more and more gun control is different. That openly violates both the 2nd and the 4th amendments of the Constitution. The Federal government cannot order anyone to violate the Constitution.
                  Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by asterix View Post

                    Some of my closest friends live in Illinois, and we've often discussed how nice it would be if the state kicked Chicago out and let it become it's own rotten entity. That city wields so much power over the rest of the state.

                    I realize there are laws against succession put into place since the end of the ACW...but what about rejection ? If the rest of the state banded together and told Chicago to GTFO?
                    That would be wonderful.
                    There are periodic proposals at having Illinois split off from Chicago but they go nowhere. Unfortunately.
                    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


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                      But it obviously is, because disobeying Federal law is the essential element, not how or why it is done. What happens if you and 300 million others in America "refuse to cooperate" when it comes to paying your income taxes? Or obeying any of the thousands of laws that govern everything you do?

                      How about if the military decides to "refuse to cooperate" when ordered to deploy?

                      We are a nation of laws. That's the bottom line. When cities and counties are allowed to refuse to follow the law, then citizens themselves also have that right, since we are "a government of the people". When that ceases, we will become a nation of lawlessness and anarchy.
                      We are bound by law to pay our taxes.
                      So we cannot refuse to pay them without consequences.

                      There is no law (as far as I know) that compels States to cooperate with ICE. They always did so because it was obviously in their own best intersts. Now that illegals are the most important people (after transgenders) States no longer think that way.
                      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


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                        How about a city that is a sanctuary from Federal income tax? Sanctuary cities are what happens when the religion of equity, diversity, and inclusion tries to impose it's morality extralegally. What if we had a Muslim dominated city that made homosexuality a crime? While the framers of the constitution may not have envisioned a secular religion they certainly understood how dangerous religion can be.

                        What is missing from the conversation is an understanding of how personal and public morality differs. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

                        Those that are disportionately effected by chaos are the poor. The very people that the church of equity, diversity, and inclusion profess to represent. Who has been hurt most by illegal immigration if not poor minorities? Who is harmed by "green energy" and sky rocketing utility bills? Certainly not the coastal elites for whom utility bills are an insignificant budgetary item. Who is effected most negatively by a failing educational system? Certainly not the loudest voices from the Church of equity, diversity and inclusion.

                        .
                        Michael Woodley


                        It is a great irony that the Church of equity, diversity and inclusion which purports to serve the interests of certain identity groups is in fact characterized by extreme individual selection. While it demands absolute conformity and uses authoritarian means to enforce it it seems oblivious to group selection. It displays self hatred to the degree that it is suicidal. Similarly to the cults of Jimmy Jones and heavens gate. It's fuel is the lack of meaning that extreme individualism always devolves into.


                        I recently read an article that described the behavior in question as something along the lines of the "Luxury of wokeness" or something like that.
                        Apparently, the people who demand strict enforcement of their beliefs are the ones who will not suffer any consequences.

                        Consider Nancy Pelosi's attendance at an international conference in Madrid, Spain where the UN wants to make air travel too expensive for anyone to fly.
                        Nancy and her entourage flew there rather than use new fangled Skype technology.

                        The people who demand that the police not do anything about homeless people aren't the ones who have to deal with them.
                        (See Seattle and San Francisco)
                        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


                        • #13
                          This is the potential outcome of this stupidity. A Colorado sheriff released an illegal with an ICE hold because Colorado is a sanctuary state now. The guy committed like half a dozen felonies including attempted murder within a week.

                          https://www.thedenverchannel.com/new...tempted-murder

                          https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...er/4322011002/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            2nd Amendment sanctuary counties are popping up all over the western states, Washington, Oregon and in Colorado, they are supported by many sheriffs.
                            They are largely in response to the red flag laws which are in the opinion of many sherrifs unconstitutional and as they are elected by county citizens and are sworn to protect the citizens and the constitution, they are refusing to send deputies out to potentially violate the rights granted under the constitution, .
                            So there are a few elected officials who are still dedicated to the constitution and their oath to it.
                            Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                            Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



                              I recently read an article that described the behavior in question as something along the lines of the "Luxury of wokeness" or something like that.
                              Apparently, the people who demand strict enforcement of their beliefs are the ones who will not suffer any consequences.

                              Consider Nancy Pelosi's attendance at an international conference in Madrid, Spain where the UN wants to make air travel too expensive for anyone to fly.
                              Nancy and her entourage flew there rather than use new fangled Skype technology.

                              The people who demand that the police not do anything about homeless people aren't the ones who have to deal with them.
                              (See Seattle and San Francisco)
                              I have been telling people for years that racial slavery is about class, especially in the U.S. When the landed aristocracy of the southern U.S. found that their deplorables could just wander off into the wilderness race based slavery was the solution.

                              It's no coincidence that the southern aristocracy looked so much like a second rate imitation of European nobility. Their European counterparts had the huge advantage of a captive work force. Freedom and opportunity are intricately linked thus the metaphor of the inner cities being Democratic plantations. In today's world a vote is worth more than a slave. Especially when you can import an infinite number of slaves through open boarders.

                              Poor whites were never the beneficiaries of racial slavery. Similarly minorities are not the beneficiaries of globalization. Keeping people divided is one of the oldest political tricks. The coastal elites are the new masters and they have an interest in making today's deplorables their slaves and minorities their political allies.

                              I'm not sure that the above even rises to the level of conscientiousness for the elites. It is simply the way class has worked out everywhere at every time.

                              Don't get me wrong the deplorables are deplorable. It comes back to opportunity. Luxus is not just about excess it creates the environment for nobles to be noble. Similarly it creates the environment for deplorables to be deplorable. No matter how much bread and circus you provide Luxus creates the luxury to protest the elites. You can write hate laws to enforce your "noble" edicate but don't be surprised that the underclass sees it only as enslavement.

                              As to our comrades. The petty nobility has never loved the poor they just hate anyone better off than they are


                              We hunt the hunters

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X