Politicians would face prison, fines for harboring illegal immigrants

[Common]

Politicians would face prison, fines for harboring illegal immigrants under bill to be unveiled today (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/after-steinle-verdict-rep-unveils-bill-to-imprison-officials-who-shelter-illegal-immigrants.html)PASS THIS LAW !!!!!!!!!!!! Enough with democrat run cities and this absurd illegal sanctuary city crap.

A Republican congressman plans to introduce a bill Monday that would threaten huge fines and prison time for elected officials accused of sheltering illegal immigrant criminals from deportation, in the wake of the not-guilty verdict in the Kate Steinle murder trial. Indiana Rep. Todd Rokita’s bill is one of the most aggressive pieces of legislation to date aimed at sanctuary city policies, going beyond the Justice Department’s threat to cut off grants to those jurisdictions.
“Politicians don’t get to pick and choose what laws to comply with,” Rokita told Fox News. “Americans are dying because politicians sworn to uphold the law refuse to do so.”
His “Stopping Lawless Actions of Politicians (SLAP) Act” would hold state and local lawmakers criminally responsible for refusing to comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts. The Republican’s bill would subject violators to a $1 million fine and up to five years in prison if they are convicted.
“It’s time the federal government gets serious about enforcing immigration laws and holding politicians accountable who conspire to break them,” said Rokita.
Rokita also supported “Kate’s Law” – legislation that would boost penalties for illegal immigrants who were previously deported and that was named after Steinle.
On Thursday, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an illegal immigrant who already had been deported back to Mexico five times, was acquitted in the 2015 murder of Steinle on a San Francisco pier.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/after-steinle-verdict-rep-unveils-bill-to-imprison-officials-who-shelter-illegal-immigrants.html Zarate’s attorneys argued Zarate had found a gun that accidentally discharged, and the bullet ricocheted off the ground before hitting Steinle. Prosecutors argued Zarate intentionally shot 32-year-old Steinle.
The killing revived a national debate over sanctuary city policies, as some lawmakers as well as Steinle’s family faulted San Francisco for releasing the suspect from a local jail without notifying federal immigration officials.
President Trump, who frequently cited Steinle’s case on the campaign trail, called the not-guilty verdict “disgraceful” and a “complete travesty of justice.”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions took direct aim at the city, saying San Francisco’s “decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle.”

[barb012]

I support this move.

[Croft]

Congress won't pass it until the electorate gets Trump reps in as a majority. And if it is passed activist judges will try to block it's implementation.

it's going to be a long fight.

[Common]

Congress won't pass it until the electorate gets Trump reps in as a majority. And if it is passed activist judges will try to block it's implementation.

it's going to be a long fight.
Unfortunately thats true

[donttread]

Politicians would face prison, fines for harboring illegal immigrants under bill to be unveiled today (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/after-steinle-verdict-rep-unveils-bill-to-imprison-officials-who-shelter-illegal-immigrants.html)

PASS THIS LAW !!!!!!!!!!!! Enough with democrat run cities and this absurd illegal sanctuary city crap.

A Republican congressman plans to introduce a bill Monday that would threaten huge fines and prison time for elected officials accused of sheltering illegal immigrant criminals from deportation, in the wake of the not-guilty verdict in the Kate Steinle murder trial. Indiana Rep. Todd Rokita’s bill is one of the most aggressive pieces of legislation to date aimed at sanctuary city policies, going beyond the Justice Department’s threat to cut off grants to those jurisdictions.
“Politicians don’t get to pick and choose what laws to comply with,” Rokita told Fox News. “Americans are dying because politicians sworn to uphold the law refuse to do so.”
His “Stopping Lawless Actions of Politicians (SLAP) Act” would hold state and local lawmakers criminally responsible for refusing to comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts. The Republican’s bill would subject violators to a $1 million fine and up to five years in prison if they are convicted.
“It’s time the federal government gets serious about enforcing immigration laws and holding politicians accountable who conspire to break them,” said Rokita.
Rokita also supported “Kate’s Law” – legislation that would boost penalties for illegal immigrants who were previously deported and that was named after Steinle.
On Thursday, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, an illegal immigrant who already had been deported back to Mexico five times, was acquitted in the 2015 murder of Steinle on a San Francisco pier.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/after-steinle-verdict-rep-unveils-bill-to-imprison-officials-who-shelter-illegal-immigrants.html Zarate’s attorneys argued Zarate had found a gun that accidentally discharged, and the bullet ricocheted off the ground before hitting Steinle. Prosecutors argued Zarate intentionally shot 32-year-old Steinle.
The killing revived a national debate over sanctuary city policies, as some lawmakers as well as Steinle’s family faulted San Francisco for releasing the suspect from a local jail without notifying federal immigration officials.
President Trump, who frequently cited Steinle’s case on the campaign trail, called the not-guilty verdict “disgraceful” and a “complete travesty of justice.”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions took direct aim at the city, saying San Francisco’s “decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle.”

Think it through. I mean it sounds good, but then there ya go, even more federal control over the states. And then it would be used to squash any kind of nullification.

[Standing Wolf]

Political grandstanding and pandering, and a waste of the taxpayers' money.

Are the same people who want to support this bill prepared to let the federal authorities go after local officials who fail to fully comply with federal laws and regulations dealing with firearms? Drugs? Funny how it's all about "community standards" and local control until somebody's pet issue is at stake.

And no, I'm as ant-illegal as the next guy, within reason...but attempting to federalize how local governments and their police forces do their jobs and criminalize those who don't accept unfunded mandates and policies that actually violate existing law - like expecting jail officials to hold prisoners past their release dates for some federal agency's convenience - is neither reasonable or prudent.

Passing, or even just proposing, something like this is great press, in some quarters, for somebody, but it would be doomed in the courts at even the lowest level. Instead, how about a bill that sanctions and punishes politicians for wasting the taxpayers' money by proposing laws that, even if they're somehow passed, have exactly zero chance of ever being enforced, in order to curry favor with a bunch of clueless, legal know-nothings? I'd support that one in a heartbeat.

[stjames1_53]

Political grandstanding and pandering, and a waste of the taxpayers' money.

Are the same people who want to support this bill prepared to let the federal authorities go after local officials who fail to fully comply with federal laws and regulations dealing with firearms? Drugs? Funny how it's all about "community standards" and local control until somebody's pet issue is at stake.

And no, I'm as ant-illegal as the next guy, within reason...but attempting to federalize how local governments and their police forces do their jobs and criminalize those who don't accept unfunded mandates and policies that actually violate existing law - like expecting jail officials to hold prisoners past their release dates for some federal agency's convenience - is neither reasonable or prudent.

Passing, or even just proposing, something like this is great press, in some quarters, for somebody, but it would be doomed in the courts at even the lowest level. Instead, how about a bill that sanctions and punishes politicians for wasting the taxpayers' money by proposing laws that, even if they're somehow passed, have exactly zero chance of ever being enforced, in order to curry favor with a bunch of clueless, legal know-nothings? I'd support that one in a heartbeat.
with in reason???????????? da hell???????????
whose reason? just yours?

[Standing Wolf]

with in reason???????????? da hell???????????
whose reason? just yours?

I went into that a bit in my post. Read it again, sj...it might make more of an impression the second time.

[stjames1_53]

I went into that a bit in my post. Read it again, sj...it might make more of an impression the second time.

there is no quarter to be given to illegals, at all...............................You want to stay, come through the front door, not the back gate

[Common]

Political grandstanding and pandering, and a waste of the taxpayers' money.

Are the same people who want to support this bill prepared to let the federal authorities go after local officials who fail to fully comply with federal laws and regulations dealing with firearms? Drugs? Funny how it's all about "community standards" and local control until somebody's pet issue is at stake.

And no, I'm as ant-illegal as the next guy, within reason...but attempting to federalize how local governments and their police forces do their jobs and criminalize those who don't accept unfunded mandates and policies that actually violate existing law - like expecting jail officials to hold prisoners past their release dates for some federal agency's convenience - is neither reasonable or prudent.

Passing, or even just proposing, something like this is great press, in some quarters, for somebody, but it would be doomed in the courts at even the lowest level. Instead, how about a bill that sanctions and punishes politicians for wasting the taxpayers' money by proposing laws that, even if they're somehow passed, have exactly zero chance of ever being enforced, in order to curry favor with a bunch of clueless, legal know-nothings? I'd support that one in a heartbeat.
Fair enough, but what you are saying is if state and local politicians break the law we shouldnt go after them;

There has to be controls up the ladder, just like local and state politicians make laws that are enforced on all citizens. States do go after local politicians that break the law, if they didnt everyone would break the law at will.
Its absolutely necessary for the Federal Govt to do the same thing the states and locals do if laws are broken.

Sanctuary cities are illegal they are ridiculous and an affront to all immigrants that bust their ass to come here legally and every citizen of the United States and especially this countries homeless, someone has to do something to stop it.

No one seemed to mind with the Federal Govt via the DOJ went after Police Depts and there was no outrage when the IRS went after just conservatives.

Enforcing laws is a local, state and federal obligation, if people dont like the law, lobby your politicians to change it.

[Abby08]

I don't see how it would NOT pass, it's about forcing city officials to OBEY THE LAW, shit, why should they get away with it? Hell, if they don't have to, why do I? Why do you?

It should be a slam dunk......when did legal citizens have to stand in line behind illegals and, it be ok!? How, can it be deemed unconstitutional, or, inhumane or, whatever else they're gonna call it?

[Abby08]

there is no quarter to be given to illegals, at all...............................You want to stay, come through the front door, not the back gate

I'll go a little further. Evey illegal, currently residing in a sanctuary city, who has been deported even once before, is not eligible for citizenship, even going through proper channels.

[Tahuyaman]

Politicians should be bound by the same laws as the rest of society. Period.

[Common]

I don't see how it would NOT pass, it's about forcing city officials to OBEY THE LAW, shit, why should they get away with it? Hell, if they don't have to, why do I? Why do you?

It should be a slam dunk......when did legal citizens have to stand in line behind illegals and, it be ok!? How, can it be deemed unconstitutional, or, inhumane or, whatever else they're gonna call it?
It wont pass and if it does liberal judges will hold it up as long as possible.

Everyone EVERYONE knows Sanctuary cities are illegal and absurd but if you need the votes to get elected well Politicians are known to break the law

[Standing Wolf]

Fair enough, but what you are saying is if state and local politicians break the law we shouldnt go after them;

There has to be controls up the ladder, just like local and state politicians make laws that are enforced on all citizens. States do go after local politicians that break the law, if they didnt everyone would break the law at will.
Its absolutely necessary for the Federal Govt to do the same thing the states and locals do if laws are broken.

Sanctuary cities are illegal they are ridiculous and an affront to all immigrants that bust their ass to come here legally and every citizen of the United States and especially this countries homeless, someone has to do something to stop it.

No one seemed to mind with the Federal Govt via the DOJ went after Police Depts and there was no outrage when the IRS went after just conservatives.

Enforcing laws is a local, state and federal obligation, if people dont like the law, lobby your politicians to change it.

When the Federal government attempted to force states to enforce certain provisions of the Brady Act, the United States Supreme Court in Printz v. United States (1997) rejected the idea that federal agencies can, in effect, commandeer local law enforcement to enforce most federal laws. The principle is exactly the same in this case.

[resister]

I don't see how it would NOT pass, it's about forcing city officials to OBEY THE LAW, shit, why should they get away with it? Hell, if they don't have to, why do I? Why do you?

It should be a slam dunk......when did legal citizens have to stand in line behind illegals and, it be ok!? How, can it be deemed unconstitutional, or, inhumane or, whatever else they're gonna call it?
People of power follow what laws they choose to. Only us plebes are held to account.

[stjames1_53]

People of power follow what laws they choose to. Only us plebes are held to account.

you misspelled peasants

[Kacper]

Congress won't pass it until the electorate gets Trump reps in as a majority. And if it is passed activist judges will try to block it's implementation.

it's going to be a long fight.

For good reason. It is not the duty of your local dog catcher to enforce federal immigration law.

[resister]

For good reason. It is not the duty of your local dog catcher to enforce federal immigration law.
So why do states enforce drug laws?

[Kalkin]

Congress won't pass it until the electorate gets Trump reps in as a majority. And if it is passed activist judges will try to block it's implementation.

it's going to be a long fight.
True, but the judiciary is changing back to a sane body as Trump appoints new federal judges in record numbers.
Next we will have to root out the moonbat marxists that have infiltrated the education system.

[Grokmaster]

It is a great idea....

[stjames1_53]

It is a great idea....

now, maybe, we can start locking them up............lol

[donttread]

Fair enough, but what you are saying is if state and local politicians break the law we shouldnt go after them;

There has to be controls up the ladder, just like local and state politicians make laws that are enforced on all citizens. States do go after local politicians that break the law, if they didnt everyone would break the law at will.
Its absolutely necessary for the Federal Govt to do the same thing the states and locals do if laws are broken.

Sanctuary cities are illegal they are ridiculous and an affront to all immigrants that bust their ass to come here legally and every citizen of the United States and especially this countries homeless, someone has to do something to stop it.

No one seemed to mind with the Federal Govt via the DOJ went after Police Depts and there was no outrage when the IRS went after just conservatives.

Enforcing laws is a local, state and federal obligation, if people dont like the law, lobby your politicians to change it.

That would depend on the law's Constitutionality

[Standing Wolf]

So why do states enforce drug laws?

The states that do so are actually enforcing state laws that mirror (or in some way reflect) federal law. The states that have legalized medical and/or recreational use of marijuana do not enforce federal law.

[donttread]

The states that do so are actually enforcing state laws that mirror (or in some way reflect) federal law. The states that have legalized medical and/or recreational use of marijuana do not enforce federal law.

"Do not enforce unconstitutional federal law"

[resister]

The states that do so are actually enforcing state laws that mirror (or in some way reflect) federal law. The states that have legalized medical and/or recreational use of marijuana do not enforce federal law.
We have immigration laws for a reason, I can't understand why people think we should just let anyone mosy right on in. What do you think 40 years of unchecked immigration will look like? Kiss America as you knew it, by by.

[Standing Wolf]

We have immigration laws for a reason, I can't understand why people think we should just let anyone mosy right on in. What do you think 40 years of unchecked immigration will look like? Kiss America as you knew it, by by.

But, r, virtually no one is saying that. People who are against letting the federal government dictate local policies in some areas, and against permitting them to commandeer local and state police forces to enforce federal immigration law, are not for "open borders"...any more than the folks who oppose federal efforts to override and, in effect, negate state laws protecting the privacy rights of firearms owners or marijuana users are in favor of issuing handguns and pot brownies to every schoolchild. Legal principles often apply to disparate situations, and in this case the established principle is that state and local police forces, prosecutors and judges do not work for the federal government. You can't reverse that or pretend it doesn't exist without opening up seven other cans of worms.

[resister]

But, r, virtually no one is saying that. People who are against letting the federal government dictate local policies in some areas, and against permitting them to commandeer local and state police forces to enforce federal immigration law, are not for "open borders"...any more than the folks who oppose federal efforts to override and, in effect, negate state laws protecting the privacy rights of firearms owners or marijuana users are in favor of issuing handguns and pot brownies to every schoolchild. Legal principles often apply to disparate situations, and in this case the established principle is that state and local police forces, prosecutors and judges do not work for the federal government. You can't reverse that or pretend it doesn't exist without opening up seven other cans of worms.
Send in whole armies of ICE agents into sanctuary cities, deport every last illegal.

[Abby08]

We have immigration laws for a reason, I can't understand why people think we should just let anyone mosy right on in. What do you think 40 years of unchecked immigration will look like? Kiss America as you knew it, by by.

A lot of people have already said, "bye bye," to their neighborhoods....my mom did, where I spent a big portion of my life, looks like a slum, thanks to the Mexicans that moved in, then, brought over all of their relatives, illegally......call me anything you want ( not you, resister ) generally speaking....but, I saw it myself, many friends and relatives have seen the same thing, when illegal Mexicans moved into their neighborhoods.

My mom sold her house, just before it got too bad, now, you enter that neighborhood at your own risk.

There is nothing that can make me believe illegals bring anything positive to this country.

[Kacper]

So why do states enforce drug laws?
Because states have their own drug laws. Immigration is a federal enforcement issue. Many localities do not even have the legal right to enforce immigration law if they were not granted authority by the state due to the Dylan Rule.

[resister]

Because states have their own drug laws. Immigration is a federal enforcement issue. Many localities do not even have the legal right to enforce immigration law if they were not granted authority by the state due to the Dylan Rule.
Then we need more federal immigration officers or changes in the law. Changing the laws is cheaper. One thing we cant afford is to let illegal immigration, go unchecked.

[Kacper]

Then we need more federal immigration officers or changes in the law. Changing the laws is cheaper. One thing we cant afford is to let illegal immigration, go unchecked.

Our last presidential election cost like $5B. I am not sure changing the law is as cheap as you think.

[Peter1469]

If ICE would get warrants instead of using detainers, much of the problem would go away. You would still have localities giving illegals driver's licenses, but with a warrant they have to detain them until ICE can scoop them up.

[Croft]

True, but the judiciary is changing back to a sane body as Trump appoints new federal judges in record numbers.
Next we will have to root out the moonbat marxists that have infiltrated the education system.
I couldn't agree more. Getting the commissar profs out and ending the commissar campuses altogether is something I've been saying for ages. If/when Trump starts to restore freedom to universities it will end the SJW scourge and end the whole awful cult like brain washing that passes for a public education system.

[Dr. Who]

Political grandstanding and pandering, and a waste of the taxpayers' money.

Are the same people who want to support this bill prepared to let the federal authorities go after local officials who fail to fully comply with federal laws and regulations dealing with firearms? Drugs? Funny how it's all about "community standards" and local control until somebody's pet issue is at stake.

And no, I'm as ant-illegal as the next guy, within reason...but attempting to federalize how local governments and their police forces do their jobs and criminalize those who don't accept unfunded mandates and policies that actually violate existing law - like expecting jail officials to hold prisoners past their release dates for some federal agency's convenience - is neither reasonable or prudent.

Passing, or even just proposing, something like this is great press, in some quarters, for somebody, but it would be doomed in the courts at even the lowest level. Instead, how about a bill that sanctions and punishes politicians for wasting the taxpayers' money by proposing laws that, even if they're somehow passed, have exactly zero chance of ever being enforced, in order to curry favor with a bunch of clueless, legal know-nothings? I'd support that one in a heartbeat.

Couldn't such a law be used as precedent to require states to enforce all federal laws, not just the ones with which the states agree? This isn't my area of expertise, but it seems that it would further diminish state autonomy.

[Standing Wolf]

Couldn't such a law be used as precedent to require states to enforce all federal laws, not just the ones with which the states agree? This isn't my area of expertise, but it seems that it would further diminish state autonomy.

Exactly the case, yes. However there is exactly zero chance, as I stated before, that this sort of legislation would ever survive in the courts long enough to be enforced or establish a precedent. A major bit of irony is that many of the same folks whose kneejerk reaction is that this is a great idea are the same people who rail about federal intervention and overreach, while extolling the importance of local control and "community standards". Apparently some communities are, in the view of some, entitled to their standards and others are not.

[Common]

Exactly the case, yes. However there is exactly zero chance, as I stated before, that this sort of legislation would ever survive in the courts long enough to be enforced or establish a precedent. A major bit of irony is that many of the same folks whose kneejerk reaction is that this is a great idea are the same people who rail about federal intervention and overreach, while extolling the importance of local control and "community standards". Apparently some communities are, in the view of some, entitled to their standards and others are not.

Local control is NOT breaking the law but you seem to not want to grasp that.

[Common]

Couldn't such a law be used as precedent to require states to enforce all federal laws, not just the ones with which the states agree? This isn't my area of expertise, but it seems that it would further diminish state autonomy.
The law is the law, no one should be allowed to break the law.

States control does not mean a state can do whatever they want when they want.

For example Florida saying there will be no same sex marriage here. Or a state passing a law gay couples kissing in public will be arrested. Or Blacks cant drink out of public water fountains.

Do you want me to go on ??? the list is endless of things that cant be allowed and Sanctuary cities for those who came here and stay here illegally is one of them. Standing Wolf have a response for that ?

[stjames1_53]

Our last presidential election cost like $5B. I am not sure changing the law is as cheap as you think.

"His campaign committee spent about $238.9 million through mid-October, compared with $450.6 million by Clinton's. That equals about $859,538 spent per Trump electoral vote, versus about $1.97 million spent per Clinton electoral vote.
Those numbers do not include spending from Oct. 20 to Election Day.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/trump-spent-about-half-of-what-clinton-did-on-his-way-to-the-presidency.html

5 billion seems a bit steep, don't you think?

[countryboy]

there is no quarter to be given to illegals, at all...............................You want to stay, come through the front door, not the back gate
Period, end of story. Well said.

[Standing Wolf]

Local control is NOT breaking the law but you seem to not want to grasp that.

Grasp this. There are now dozens of medical marijuana dispensaries in my town, including a recently opened drive-through cleverly named "All Greens". Every one is openly defying federal law, which classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug. Should the local and state police be sanctioned and their commanders jailed, along with the mayor and city council, because they're refusing to enforce federal law?

Even state laws are routinely ignored by local officials if their enforcement is sufficiently problematic. New York state and Connecticut have had an "assault weapons" ban in effect for several years, and the public's compliance with the ban is about five and fifteen percent, respectively. Why aren't the police out rounding up those firearms, and why aren't the politicians insisting that they do so?

[Standing Wolf]

The law is the law, no one should be allowed to break the law.

States control does not mean a state can do whatever they want when they want.

For example Florida saying there will be no same sex marriage here. Or a state passing a law gay couples kissing in public will be arrested. Or Blacks cant drink out of public water fountains.

Do you want me to go on ??? the list is endless of things that cant be allowed and Sanctuary cities for those who came here and stay here illegally is one of them. @Standing Wolf (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1791) have a response for that ?

First, let's talk about the law. The highest court in the land has stated that local and state authorities are not only not obligated to enforce most federal laws, they are in some cases prohibited from attempting to do so. That is the law.

Second, you are comparing, with your list, state actions that violate the Constitutional rights of American citizens to equal treatment under the law and due process, with locally approved enforcement priorities based on real world needs and judgments on the part of law enforcement and other public officials. In effect, you're attempting to conflate a state or local government's attempts to treat American citizen's differently without a compelling public interest in doing so, with state and local officials actually following the law that prohibits them from acting as police enforcement agents of the federal government.

[Common]

Grasp this. There are now dozens of medical marijuana dispensaries in my town, including a recently opened drive-through cleverly named "All Greens". Every one is openly defying federal law, which classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug. Should the local and state police be sanctioned and their commanders jailed, along with the mayor and city council, because they're refusing to enforce federal law?

Even state laws are routinely ignored by local officials if their enforcement is sufficiently problematic. New York state and Connecticut have had an "assault weapons" ban in effect for several years, and the public's compliance with the ban is about five and fifteen percent, respectively. Why aren't the police out rounding up those firearms, and why aren't the politicians insisting that they do so?

[Common]

First, let's talk about the law. The highest court in the land has stated that local and state authorities are not only not obligated to enforce most federal laws, they are in some cases prohibited from attempting to do so. That is the law.

Second, you are comparing, with your list, state actions that violate the Constitutional rights of American citizens to equal treatment under the law and due process, with locally approved enforcement priorities based on real world needs and judgments on the part of law enforcement and other public officials. In effect, you're attempting to conflate a state or local government's attempts to treat American citizen's differently without a compelling public interest in doing so, with state and local officials actually following the law that prohibits them from acting as police enforcement agents of the federal government.

If it goes to the supreme court they will hear it and end it. Pass this law let it go to the courts.
Just like Trumps Travel ban

[Common]

Grasp this. There are now dozens of medical marijuana dispensaries in my town, including a recently opened drive-through cleverly named "All Greens". Every one is openly defying federal law, which classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug. Should the local and state police be sanctioned and their commanders jailed, along with the mayor and city council, because they're refusing to enforce federal law?

Even state laws are routinely ignored by local officials if their enforcement is sufficiently problematic. New York state and Connecticut have had an "assault weapons" ban in effect for several years, and the public's compliance with the ban is about five and fifteen percent, respectively. Why aren't the police out rounding up those firearms, and why aren't the politicians insisting that they do so?
Marihuana laws were refused to be heard by the supreme court which allowed them to continue.
I wasnt questioning the merit of civil rights laws. I used them as an example of LAWS forced upheld by state and local govts by the federal govt.

There are more Federal laws enforced than not. There are some laws that cannot be enforced for a variety of reasons. Like the blood bath of trying to take individual gun owners guns across the country.

You keep saying state laws over and over. Sanctuary cities are not State law they are local city law.
Using your thoughts if a city decided to pass a law that people can legally purchase machine guns, rocket launchers etc that would unenforceable by the federal govt

Illegal immigrants have broken our laws the first step they put on american soil. So not only does cities want to ignore all immgration laws they want to create their own immigration laws and they are supposed to over ride all other law. NONESENSE.

If that were to be allowed across the board then every city every town in america can write a law to over ride all laws and we would be lawless. No it wont happen but no one thought idiot politicians would start sanctuary cities and protect even those that commit crimes have records and have been deported time and time again.

There is no justification for sanctuary cities. Write the law take the challenges to court and lets see how it works out in the Supreme court if necessary

[Kacper]

"His campaign committee spent about $238.9 million through mid-October, compared with $450.6 million by Clinton's. That equals about $859,538 spent per Trump electoral vote, versus about $1.97 million spent per Clinton electoral vote.
Those numbers do not include spending from Oct. 20 to Election Day.

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/trump-spent-about-half-of-what-clinton-did-on-his-way-to-the-presidency.html

5 billion seems a bit steep, don't you think?
I stand corrected. It was $6.8 billion total, but only $2.65 billion on the Presidential side https://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016s-price-tag-6-8-billion/

[Standing Wolf]

If it goes to the supreme court they will hear it and end it.

End what, exactly? What conduct or policy gets someplace labeled a "sanctuary city"? There is no standard definition or description. Some folks began calling Phoenix a 'sanctuary city" some months back when the City Attorney advised the Sheriff - who runs the jails here - that the former Sheriff's policy of keeping individuals in custody without a warrant past their release date was unlawful. Following the law should be a crime, then?

[Standing Wolf]

Using your thoughts if a city decided to pass a law that people can legally purchase machine guns, rocket launchers etc that would unenforceable by the federal govt

My "thoughts" would support nothing of the kind. The federal government could - and no doubt would - send agents in to put an end to such sales and to arrest violators of such federal laws and regulations as applied. Local law enforcement officers could not, however, be tasked with initiating such arrests and conducting operations to enforce federal firearms statutes.

[Don]

The federal government has no business making any gun laws or "controlled substances" laws. The states do as long as it doesn't violate the 2nd amendment. The federal government can stop drugs from entering the country and the federal government has the constitutional power to control immigration. When someone immigrates to this country they enter to become a U.S. citizen. Choosing what state they will live in is up to them then just as any of us has a choice. Stopping people from illegally entering the country is the responsibility of the federal government as is deporting those caught inside U.S. borders. If precedent is so important in law I'm wondering if at some future point states will decide who can or can't live in their states. Maybe California will say people from Arizona can't move there.

[Cletus]

Grasp this. There are now dozens of medical marijuana dispensaries in my town, including a recently opened drive-through cleverly named "All Greens". Every one is openly defying federal law, which classifies marijuana as a dangerous drug. Should the local and state police be sanctioned and their commanders jailed, along with the mayor and city council, because they're refusing to enforce federal law?

Yes.


Even state laws are routinely ignored by local officials if their enforcement is sufficiently problematic. New York state and Connecticut have had an "assault weapons" ban in effect for several years, and the public's compliance with the ban is about five and fifteen percent, respectively. Why aren't the police out rounding up those firearms, and why aren't the politicians insisting that they do so?

Because the Constitution, even though it has taken a severe beating, remains the supreme law of the land. Any cops who do enforce those laws should be hanged.

[MisterVeritis]

Think it through. I mean it sounds good, but then there ya go, even more federal control over the states. And then it would be used to squash any kind of nullification.
Is it your belief that the states may lawfully pick and choose which federal laws and regulations it will follow and which it will reject?

Wouldn't it be better to decide to end the Federal leviathan and return to federalism? Why not return to the Constitution as the limit to federal power?

[Grokmaster]

If the officials of cities and counties choose to engage in criminal acts, which harboring other criminals absolutely is, they should be locked up, too...

[Common]

End what, exactly? What conduct or policy gets someplace labeled a "sanctuary city"? There is no standard definition or description. Some folks began calling Phoenix a 'sanctuary city" some months back when the City Attorney advised the Sheriff - who runs the jails here - that the former Sheriff's policy of keeping individuals in custody without a warrant past their release date was unlawful. Following the law should be a crime, then?

Sanctuary cities do not cooperate with ICE, for example an illegal gets arrested, they are supposed to by federal law report that hes being released and ice picks them up and decides whether to deport them or not. Sanctuary cities just release them, thats how american citizens become victims..

[Common]

My "thoughts" would support nothing of the kind. The federal government could - and no doubt would - send agents in to put an end to such sales and to arrest violators of such federal laws and regulations as applied. Local law enforcement officers could not, however, be tasked with initiating such arrests and conducting operations to enforce federal firearms statutes.

I didnt say you would "support" your thoughts meaning cities can do what they want and break federal law.

[Grokmaster]

Rokita is brilliant, BTW. He is the former Indiana Secretary of State who successfully defended the Indiana Voter ID law, in the state Supreme Court, and it has been upheld by the USSC , as well.

The lyingass Fraudocrats brought in their "disenfranchised" elderly black voter, who they declared would not be able to vote under the new law.

When Rokita had his chance to cross, he simply asked the man, "How did you get here today?", to which the poor, disenfranchised voter replied, " I drove."

Rokita then asked to see his driver's license, then,as the lying sleazocrat lawyers fell all over themselves trying to stop him, he handed Rokita his driver's license .

Rokita ended the case with "That's all you would have to do to vote."

Boom. Case over; lies exposed.

The court agreed. He is a sharp character.

[leekohler2]

Unfortunately thats true

Get back to me when Trump goes after employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Then we'll talk. Until then, my police department has better things to do than doing the fed's job for them.

[Don]

They are going after employers (https://www.rt.com/usa/411102-chicago-bakery-loses-third-staff/)

[Grokmaster]

Get back to me when Trump goes after employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Then we'll talk. Until then, my police department has better things to do than doing the fed's job for them.

Already happening. Holding criminals IS your police department's job.

[Abby08]

Is it Trump's job, to go after employers who hire illegals?

Remember what happened when Sheriff Joe tried to do his job and, go after them?

Apparently, a lot of bleeding heart liberals, don't want anyone doing their job, when it comes to illegals.