Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your question misses the most fundamental point of all: gay marriage is protected by the United States Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. It is binding upon all governments constituted within the United States. Immigration law is a federal regulatory apparatus, created through laws passed by Congress and regulations enacted by federal agencies (like INS).
The federal government cannot force states to enforce federal laws. It can encourage states to enforce them (like it does with highway spending and drinking age--something the federal government has not done in the immigration context), but it cannot require them to. Sanctuary cities are simply refusing to enforce federal law, which is well within their right.
Kim Davis was trying to subvert the Constitution, which is not within her right (or the right of the government she was a part of).
Freedom of religion is also in the Constitution, ya know. Yet the government created a law that prevented Kim Davis from the free exercise of her faith by forcing her to endorse gay marriage.
Basically when it comes to laws that liberals like, they believe the standard is everyone must follow the letter of the law, no exceptions
When it comes to laws liberals don't like, oh well there are loopholes and situations that may not apply.
Republicans historically were the party that favored cheap labor. Still it is Republicans that oppose minimum wage laws. It is amongst the social conservative Republicans that opposition to immigration rests. Democrats use liberal immigration rhetoric as a election strategy.
Yet what economic group is most hurt by illegal immigration? If you said low income and more specifically, low income black Americans, you would be correct.
OK, fine. Why are cities allowed to circumvent federal law?
Cities are not circumventing federal law. But they are not obligated to enforce it (which would require them to allocate limited resources to something they don't want to do).
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Freedom of religion is also in the Constitution, ya know. Yet the government created a law that prevented Kim Davis from the free exercise of her faith by forcing her to endorse gay marriage.
Basically when it comes to laws that liberals like, they believe the standard is everyone must follow the letter of the law, no exceptions
When it comes to laws liberals don't like, oh well there are loopholes and situations that may not apply.
She is a government employee. She takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and she is obligated to do that in her employment. The Freedom of Religion does not allow her to subvert the Constitution in her employment. The Supreme Court said that government cannot allow straight marriages and not gay ones--it violates a protected constitutional right of the citizens. She does not have to be a government employee if she does not want to. But while she is, she is obligated to respect the constitutional rights of the People in her work.
Davis is just a giant sack of stupid, signing your name to a license is not an "endorsement", its simply an acknowledgement that the application was filed properly and that the government is satisfied that the marriage is legal. Cake bakers are also not endorsing gay marriage by making a cake, this argument is just an excuse for stupid bigots to try and force there viewpoints on others.
What justification are you giving for one group being allowed to break the law, but another is not?
The logistics and funding of building a complete wall and deporting all illegal immigrants. Not to mention the social blowback for rounding people up and deporting them.
Freedom of religion is also in the Constitution, ya know. Yet the government created a law that prevented Kim Davis from the free exercise of her faith by forcing her to endorse gay marriage.
Basically when it comes to laws that liberals like, they believe the standard is everyone must follow the letter of the law, no exceptions
When it comes to laws liberals don't like, oh well there are loopholes and situations that may not apply.
So how much money are you willingly to spend to deport all illegals?
When Kim Davis was in the news, Liberals were fuming over her actions. Davis, they said, was not following the rule of law set down by the Supreme Court. She was not, I agree, and she was publicly shamed for it. A new chapter in the story recently emerged: Kentucky Governor-elect Matt Bevin will not require marriage clerks to sign the license, yet gay marriage licenses will still be given out whether or not the clerk has religious objections. He came up with a solution that pleases everyone, so hats off to Governor-elect Bevin!
On the other side of the aisle, Liberals seem hell-bent on preventing the enforcement of illegal immigration laws. Amnesty is often a word that they throw around, which is only rewarding the lawbreakers. How can Liberals, on one hand, bash Davis for not complying with the law, yet they want to reward illegal immigrants for breaking it? Is that not entirely hypocritical?
I would like some left-leaning people to explain their thinking if at all possible.
I think you are taking out your frustration on "liberals" -- whatever that is -- when both parties have repeatedly found it impossible and/or unacceptable to enforce those laws. That certainly didn't start on January 20, 2009. It must mean that such laws are unenforceable and in drastic need of revision.
The logistics and funding of building a complete wall and deporting all illegal immigrants. Not to mention the social blowback for rounding people up and deporting them.
There will be no social blowback and if there is, the people it is coming from don't matter one bit.
When Kim Davis was in the news, Liberals were fuming over her actions. Davis, they said, was not following the rule of law set down by the Supreme Court. She was not, I agree, and she was publicly shamed for it. A new chapter in the story recently emerged: Kentucky Governor-elect Matt Bevin will not require marriage clerks to sign the license, yet gay marriage licenses will still be given out whether or not the clerk has religious objections. He came up with a solution that pleases everyone, so hats off to Governor-elect Bevin!
On the other side of the aisle, Liberals seem hell-bent on preventing the enforcement of illegal immigration laws. Amnesty is often a word that they throw around, which is only rewarding the lawbreakers. How can Liberals, on one hand, bash Davis for not complying with the law, yet they want to reward illegal immigrants for breaking it? Is that not entirely hypocritical?
I would like some left-leaning people to explain their thinking if at all possible.
Silly question is silly.
Current deportation numbers are close to double what they were under Bush.
Deporting these people is expensive and in many cases they just come back.
Guess what it's not working. Time to try a different approach.
Current deportation numbers are close to double what they were under Bush.
Deporting thesepeople is expensive and in many cases they just come back.
Guess what it's not working. Time to try a different approach.
Trump says different......people wonder why he is looking like the candidate to beat Hillary, this is exactly why!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
