Sanctuary City Showdown.

[Tahuyaman]

Donald Trump made it clear that he would do everything within his power to withhold federal funds to any city which refused to enforce immigration laws and or maintain sanctuary city status.

Several cities have come out saying that they will continue to ignore immigration laws and remain a sanctuary city. This might be interesting.

[MisterVeritis]

Charge the mayor with obstruction of justice. Put him or her in jail for a hundred years. Repeat as necessary.

[Green Arrow]

Federal grants-in-aid make for good bargaining chips when the fedgov wants something and states/localities say no.

[Standing Wolf]

Cities, like states, are prohibited by the federal government from "enforc immigration laws".

While I am no fan of the whole "sanctuary city" concept, I find it interesting that many of the same folks who pay continual lip service to the idea of states' rights and local control are, when it's convenient, suddenly in favor of federal oversight, precedence and control when a local jurisdiction adopts a policy that [I]they don't agree with.

[Standing Wolf]

Charge the mayor with obstruction of justice. Put him or her in jail for a hundred years. Repeat as necessary.

Would you advocate that same course of action if a mayor refused to direct his or her police to arrest and jail violators of a federal law against recreational drug use, or a federal law prohibiting ownership of certain types of firearms?

[Cletus]

Cities, like states, are prohibited by the federal government from "enforc immigration laws".

While I am no fan of the whole "sanctuary city" concept, I find it interesting that many of the same folks who pay continual lip service to the idea of states' rights and local control are, when it's convenient, suddenly in favor of federal oversight, precedence and control when a local jurisdiction adopts a policy that [I]they don't agree with.

They are not being asked to enforce them. They are saying they will impede federal enforcement of immigration laws.

That is quite a difference.

[Tahuyaman]

You do have a point about cities and states and the enforcement of federal laws, but that's not the same as making certain types of criminals immune from federal laws.

Establishing borders and securing those borders are indeed federal responsibilities. Cities and states don't have the authority to ignore that.

[del]

i've always admired the rigid consistency of states' rights enthusiasts.

lol

[resister]

Cities, like states, are prohibited by the federal government from "enforc immigration laws".

While I am no fan of the whole "sanctuary city" concept, I find it interesting that many of the same folks who pay continual lip service to the idea of states' rights and local control are, when it's convenient, suddenly in favor of federal oversight, precedence and control when a local jurisdiction adopts a policy that [I]they don't agree with.
This may surprise you, just belonging to a party, doe's not require you to toe the party line.You are allowed to occasionally disagree.Beleive it or not.(A radical, new concept, I know)

[Captain Obvious]

This is awesome.

Pump Chicago full of illegal Mexicans, they can play with the urban thugs there, then pull the teet out of their mouths.

Mom's gonna fix it all soon.

Mom's coming round to put things back the way they ought to be.

:biglaugh:

[Standing Wolf]

This may surprise you, just belonging to a party, doe's not require you to toe the party line.You are allowed to occasionally disagree.Beleive it or not.(A radical, new concept, I know)

Resister, you apparently don't know me all that well, and that's fine - there's no particular reason that you should. I'm not so conceited or self-important that I assume everyone knows my views on everything (or anything), so allow me to sketch out a quick summary. I belong to no political party and haven't for many years. My social views tend toward the Liberal, but only when those views make sense to me - which what seem to be the predominate "Liberal" views on certain topics, like gun control, illegal immigration and reverse discrimination do not. I turned in my ACLU card about five years ago when the percentage of the national office's stances that I agreed with dropped below 75%. I am not advocating for "sanctuary cities" or illegal immigration - I thought I'd already made that clear; what I am doing is simply pointing out that you can't logically have it both ways - empowering and encouraging the federal government to coerce, blackmail and bully local jurisdictions into doing their bidding on the one hand, and then vilifying the feds for doing the same thing in some other matter.

[resister]

Resister, you apparently don't know me all that well, and that's fine - there's no particular reason that you should. I'm not so conceited or self-important that I assume everyone knows my views on everything (or anything), so allow me to sketch out a quick summary. I belong to no political party and haven't for many years. My social views tend toward the Liberal, but only when those views make sense to me - which what seem to be the predominate "Liberal" views on certain topics, like gun control, illegal immigration and reverse discrimination do not. I turned in my ACLU card about five years ago when the percentage of the national office's stances that I agreed with dropped below 75%. I am not advocating for "sanctuary cities" or illegal immigration - I thought I'd already made that clear; what I am doing is simply pointing out that you can't logically have it both ways - empowering and encouraging the federal government to coerce, blackmail and bully local jurisdictions into doing their bidding on the one hand, and then vilifying the feds for doing the same thing in some other matter.

I hear you, Standing Wolf.It seems like people must toe the line(most often, on the left, but not exclusively)I agree on the fed issue.Some times I don't really know what to think, hohnestly.Your, right, I should not assume your views.I'm one of those third party guys(if I thought that was really an option)Till then, I identify as repub.But I will go where the sense goe's on any given day.Thanks for your input

[Standing Wolf]

But I will go where the sense goe's on any given day.

Words to live by.

[Tahuyaman]

i've always admired the rigid consistency of states' rights enthusiasts.

lol

States rights isn't Carte Blanche

[del]

States rights isn't Carte Blanche

oh, of course not

:biglaugh:

[Tahuyaman]

Federal grants-in-aid make for good bargaining chips when the fedgov wants something and states/localities say no.

Federal funds were threatened to be withheld for states which resisted creating laws about the wearing of seat belts or lowering the BA level for DUI. I'll bet the same people who supported that oppose withholding federal funds for flaunting immigration laws.

[Common]

Federal grants-in-aid make for good bargaining chips when the fedgov wants something and states/localities say no.
Yep Starve them

[Common]

Cities, like states, are prohibited by the federal government from "enforc immigration laws".
While I am no fan of the whole "sanctuary city" concept, I find it interesting that many of the same folks who pay continual lip service to the idea of states' rights and local control are, when it's convenient, suddenly in favor of federal oversight, precedence and control when a local jurisdiction adopts a policy that [I]they don't agree with.

Its not a policy, there is a difference between setting a policy at a local level and breaking federal law. Thats what they are doing with sanctuary cities. They were allowed to flourish because of Obama. Obama is gone now they are told they must conform to the law

Much the same as the bundys they broke federal law Obama went after them

[patrickt]

Federal funds were threatened to be withheld for states which resisted creating laws about the wearing of seat belts or lowering the BA level for DUI. I'll bet the same people who supported that oppose withholding federal funds for flaunting immigration laws.

Extortion has always been popular with criminals. Look at what unions have done in partnership with the government with a basic concept of extortion.

Most of the illegal aliens in the U.S. simply want to work. Something an amazing number of U.S. citizens don't want to do and something the Democrats don't think their voters should have to do.

I don't really care if sinkholes like Chicago and Los Angeles don't want to cooperate in deporting illegal aliens. If they want to keep them that's their business. Why would someone in Terre Haute care is Los Angeles wants to shelter illegal aliens or Chicago wants to allow murderers to run rampant?

I do support resistance to the federal government when it's appropriat. If the citizens of Los Angeles and San Francisco and Chicago aren't happy being sanctuary cities they can always vote the scum that have been running the cities for decades out.

[Standing Wolf]

States rights isn't Carte Blanche

No, apparently it's a smorgasbord.

[GrassrootsConservative]

This is awesome.

Pump Chicago full of illegal Mexicans, they can play with the urban thugs there, then pull the teet out of their mouths.

Mom's gonna fix it all soon.

Mom's coming round to put things back the way they ought to be.

:biglaugh:
So glad I live in a Conservative state.

[Standing Wolf]

Its not a policy, there is a difference between setting a policy at a local level and breaking federal law.

Sorry, but there isn't, in this case. What those opposed to the sanctuary cities concept are doing is condemning cities for having policies, whether codified or informal, that ostensibly break federal law.


Thats what they are doing with sanctuary cities. They were allowed to flourish because of Obama. Obama is gone now they are told they must conform to the law

The question remains unanswered: would you, then, support the federal government's threat or effort to force municipalities to devote police resources to the enforcement of any and all federal statutes - laws affecting gun ownership or drug possession, for instance - or only the ones you approve of?

[MMC]

Resister, you apparently don't know me all that well, and that's fine - there's no particular reason that you should. I'm not so conceited or self-important that I assume everyone knows my views on everything (or anything), so allow me to sketch out a quick summary. I belong to no political party and haven't for many years. My social views tend toward the Liberal, but only when those views make sense to me - which what seem to be the predominate "Liberal" views on certain topics, like gun control, illegal immigration and reverse discrimination do not. I turned in my ACLU card about five years ago when the percentage of the national office's stances that I agreed with dropped below 75%. I am not advocating for "sanctuary cities" or illegal immigration - I thought I'd already made that clear; what I am doing is simply pointing out that you can't logically have it both ways - empowering and encouraging the federal government to coerce, blackmail and bully local jurisdictions into doing their bidding on the one hand, and then vilifying the feds for doing the same thing in some other matter.

Alright WolfMan......a Liberal with intelligence. Way to engage and for showing the illiberals around here what smart powers are all about. Kudos to you bro. http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/New_Smilies/bravo.gif

We need more of your kind from the left. Those that have a brain and not just a mouth and disrespect.

Naturally there are some grey areas with States Rights vs the Fed.

Yet do you think those from Major Cities should be broadcasting that they won't enforce State or Federal Law? Or better yet.....should these Sanctuary cities be enabling those to seek sanctuary in their cities? What measures should be taken against those Politicians that publicly announce they wont enforce State or Federal Law? How can they be made to pay for announcing they aren't for the rule of Law?

[Tahuyaman]

States rights isn't Carte Blanche


No, apparently it's a smorgasbord.

Can you explain that one?

[donttread]

Donald Trump made it clear that he would do everything within his power to withhold federal funds to any city which refused to enforce immigration laws and or maintain sanctuary city status.



Several cities have come out saying that they will continue to ignore immigration laws and remain a sanctuary city. This might be interesting.

If anyone is to nullify it should be states not cities. If we return the feds to their Constitutional Limitations then the states will keep a far greater portion of tax payer money than they now do and could fund sanctuary. But they must also be accountable. If illegals cross state lines and cause trouble the neighboring state might require check points like enetering another country.

[Tahuyaman]

i've always admired the rigid consistency of states' rights enthusiasts.

lol

What does a city designating itself as a "sanctuary city" have to do with states rights?