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.
The fact is, that there was support for slavery in the US Constitution (it referenced it albeit limited it by stopping in the shipping in of new slaves after a certain date and using the 3/5 thing to keep the South's electoral representation lower so that they couldn't use slaves to get higher electoral votes and Congressional seats.) There were federal laws like the Fugitive Slave Act and Supreme Court rulings like Dredd Scott.
Lincoln didn't get involved in a civil war because of slavery but because of secession. Earlier, the South, particularly South Carolina, had issues with nullification.
Now, it seems, the Left talks about nullification (AKA that's what sanctuary cities are!) and even secession (like California) and have the gall to bash the Confederates as traitors for leaving the Union and supporting secession, etc. Especially as their sanctuary city, pro-illegal, out of control immigration policies are basically modern day slavery as they drive down wages of all sectors (illegals drive down construction, agriculture, restaurants) and H1Bs drive down white collar wages and only benefit a small rich business upper class, just like slavery did in the Confederacy, etc. (Granted, I don't hold the Republican Party guiltless on border security or H1Bs either.)
The legal basis for sanctuary cities lies in the 10th Amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
In the past, this has been interpreted to mean that the Federal government can't make local authorities enforce Federal statutes. This is different from nullification. Nullification is an attempt to invalidate a Federal law. Exercising the 10th Amendment doesn't declare the law invalid, just that you can't compel local authorities to enforce it.
For instance, in Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court shot down the provision of the Brady Bill that required state and local law enforcement to perform background checks when purchasing firearms. The parallel here is the belief that the Federal government cannot compel state and local authorities to enforce Federal immigration statutes.
FYI, Scalia was the Justice who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.
The fact is, that there was support for slavery in the US Constitution (it referenced it albeit limited it by stopping in the shipping in of new slaves after a certain date and using the 3/5 thing to keep the South's electoral representation lower so that they couldn't use slaves to get higher electoral votes and Congressional seats.) There were federal laws like the Fugitive Slave Act and Supreme Court rulings like Dredd Scott.
Lincoln didn't get involved in a civil war because of slavery but because of secession. Earlier, the South, particularly South Carolina, had issues with nullification.
Now, it seems, the Left talks about nullification (AKA that's what sanctuary cities are!) and even secession (like California) and have the gall to bash the Confederates as traitors for leaving the Union and supporting secession, etc. Especially as their sanctuary city, pro-illegal, out of control immigration policies are basically modern day slavery as they drive down wages of all sectors (illegals drive down construction, agriculture, restaurants) and H1Bs drive down white collar wages and only benefit a small rich business upper class, just like slavery did in the Confederacy, etc. (Granted, I don't hold the Republican Party guiltless on border security or H1Bs either.)
All you have is nothing but right-wing talking points that have no basis in reality.
I live in a blue city. Yeah sure, the H1Bs and their six-figure salaries are driving down wages. LOL.
Now, it's very possible that the red state you're living in is abusing the H1B program; but you don't know what's happening in the blue states.
.
The fact is, that there was support for slavery in the US Constitution (it referenced it albeit limited it by stopping in the shipping in of new slaves after a certain date and using the 3/5 thing to keep the South's electoral representation lower so that they couldn't use slaves to get higher electoral votes and Congressional seats.) There were federal laws like the Fugitive Slave Act and Supreme Court rulings like Dredd Scott.
Lincoln didn't get involved in a civil war because of slavery but because of secession. Earlier, the South, particularly South Carolina, had issues with nullification.
Now, it seems, the Left talks about nullification (AKA that's what sanctuary cities are!) and even secession (like California) and have the gall to bash the Confederates as traitors for leaving the Union and supporting secession, etc. Especially as their sanctuary city, pro-illegal, out of control immigration policies are basically modern day slavery as they drive down wages of all sectors (illegals drive down construction, agriculture, restaurants) and H1Bs drive down white collar wages and only benefit a small rich business upper class, just like slavery did in the Confederacy, etc. (Granted, I don't hold the Republican Party guiltless on border security or H1Bs either.)
Let me know once these sanctuary cities, states and/or counties start taking up arms against the federal government. Then maybe you'd have a point.
Also, you lost all credibility when you compare "modern day slavery" to "driving down wages." It ain't slavery if 1. it's voluntary on the part of the "victim," 2. there is a wage paid for services rendered, and 3. there's voluntary agreement between the 2 parties on the wage. Just because a 3rd party doesn't like it does not make it "slavery."
Do I support illegal immigration? NO. But at least make a logical argument against it... there are plenty; you don't need to make some forced association with the confederacy.
The Confederates owned the slaves and provided for their housing, feeding, healthcare, etc., in exchange for their work. The elite liberals get the illegals to do their domestic chores for $2.65 an hour under the table. And the U.S.. taxpayer gets to feed and house them. And cover their healthcare, breeding, etc. Amounts to the same difference.
The Confederates owned the slaves and provided for their housing, feeding, healthcare, etc., in exchange for their work. The elite liberals get the illegals to do their domestic chores for $2.65 an hour under the table. And the U.S.. taxpayer gets to feed and house them. And cover their healthcare, breeding, etc. Amounts to the same difference.
Illegal immigrants are ineligible for most federal welfare programs. There's probably some fraud, but that could be risky since getting caught with that will result in pretty serious consequences that I'm sure many would not view as being worth it. Some have kids that might be eligible. To my knowledge, there's no statistic that shows that illegal immigrants or their children are a terribly significant drain on tax payer money. I'll give you that it's more than it would be if there was no illegal immigration, but the amount is still small.
The Confederacy, having succeeded which lead to a war, cost Americans 620,000 lives. Since we're apparently comparing the Confederacy to sanctuary cities (which, I forgot to mention, is completely stupid), we should consider the fact that the Confederacy cost the US quite a bit in terms of human lives. Just for reference, 200,000 more Americans died fighting in the Civil War than in WWII.
Let me know once these sanctuary cities, states and/or counties start taking up arms against the federal government. Then maybe you'd have a point.
Also, you lost all credibility when you compare "modern day slavery" to "driving down wages." It ain't slavery if 1. it's voluntary on the part of the "victim," 2. there is a wage paid for services rendered, and 3. there's voluntary agreement between the 2 parties on the wage. Just because a 3rd party doesn't like it does not make it "slavery."
Do I support illegal immigration? NO. But at least make a logical argument against it... there are plenty; you don't need to make some forced association with the confederacy.
The Confederates owned the slaves and provided for their housing, feeding, healthcare, etc., in exchange for their work. The elite liberals get the illegals to do their domestic chores for $2.65 an hour under the table. And the U.S.. taxpayer gets to feed and house them. And cover their healthcare, breeding, etc. Amounts to the same difference.
I didn't realize that slaves had come here and volunteered for those positions. Thanks for the cool history lesson.
I'll say it again, black folks should be the most conservative, independent, non trusting of government citizens we have. How the Democrats have bamboozled them for so long is beyond me.
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.
