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.
Don't be daft. Individual city officials are not "breaking the law." You either have a profound misunderstanding of what a "sanctuary city" is or a profound misunderstanding of the law. Or both.
Harboring criminals is not breaking the law? Warning these criminals about law enforcement activities is not breaking the law? Are you dense?
That's what the "sanctuary" means in those cities. Sanctuary from law enforcement.
Harboring criminals is not breaking the law? Warning these criminals about law enforcement activities is not breaking the laws? Are you dense?
Sanctuary cities do not "harbor" criminals, nor is it their policy to warn them about law enforcement activities. I am also unfamiliar with the laws you think are being broken. Can you identify them?
Like I said, it appears that you have a profound misunderstanding of what a "sanctuary city" is and a concomitant misunderstanding of the law.
So now we have a SCOTUS-approved policy that allows the US President to selectively target and financially damage cities he does not like. This is no longer functioning at the federal level; it's down to specific cities. He can pick and choose which city he attacks. What is to stop him from applying this for leverage on other policies? Or just targeting cities that didn't vote for him? The guy was already impeached for abuse of power.
So during the Obama years, AZ attempted to deal with the growing problem of illegal immigration in their state. Obama's Justice department went to SCOTUS to block that action. They stated that this function is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government.
What Trump is doing is taking that responsibility seriously. It is the duty and right of the Federal Government to deal with the issue of illegal immigration. Those who refuse to comply with lawful and constitutional actions by the federal government should fact swift and harsh repercussions.
"they guy was impeached" is no more an argument than "the guy ate a peach last week"
Sanctuary cities do not "harbor" criminals, nor is it their policy to warn them about law enforcement activities. I am also unfamiliar with the laws you think are being broken. Can you identify them?
Like I said, it appears that you have a profound misunderstanding of what a "sanctuary city" is and a concomitant misunderstanding of the law.
Yes they do. Illegal immigrants. Illegal. These are people who have broken federal law. Sanctuary cities are harboring them and are actively blocking law enforcement activities designed to bring these illegals to justice.
Everyone knows what leftists in charge of a city are saying when they declare it a sanctuary. It's not hard to discern.
No federal funding for them. Don't like it? Vote the people who support sanctuary policies out. They are toxic to the rule of law.
Don't be daft. Individual city officials are not "breaking the law." You either have a profound misunderstanding of what a "sanctuary city" is or a profound misunderstanding of the law. Or both.
Not complying with the federal government while the federal government is acting within the law and in direct compliance with the constitution is in fact breaking the law.
it may not be felonious action by an individual that can directly ascribed to an individual, but that does not mean the action is legal and without consequence.
you are attempting to obfuscate when you suggest the notion of what a sanctuary city is.
The FACT is ICE has placed holds on individuals in custody for felonies. These so called sanctuary cities are refusing to honor those holds on these felons.
Yes they do. Illegal immigrants. Illegal. These are people who have broken federal law. Sanctuary cities are harboring them and are actively blocking law enforcement activities designed to bring these illegals to justice.
Everyone knows what leftists in charge of a city are saying when they declare it a sanctuary. It's not hard to discern.
No federal funding for them. Don't like it? Vote the people who support sanctuary policies out. They are toxic to the rule of law.
You have no clue what you are talking about. You are just picking out adjectives and ascribing your own inaccurate meaning to them. The core tenet of a sanctuary city is that they do not report immigration status to the Federal Government. They neither "harbor" them nor actively do anything with them insofar as immigration is concerned. They simply take the position that dealing with immigration status is not their job, which it isn't.
Also, the overwhelming majority of "illegal" immigrants have not violated any Federal criminal law.
Not complying with the federal government while the federal government is acting within the law and in direct compliance with the constitution is in fact breaking the law.
it may not be felonious action by an individual that can directly ascribed to an individual, but that does not mean the action is legal and without consequence.
you are attempting to obfuscate when you suggest the notion of what a sanctuary city is.
The FACT is ICE has placed holds on individuals in custody for felonies. These so called sanctuary cities are refusing to honor those holds on these felons.
that is outrageous.
In most states, it is unconstitutional to hold an individual beyond their custodial remit. Put differently, it is actually illegal for them to comply with an ICE detainder requests. If ICE wants to show up and pick them up at the end of their sentences, sanctuary cities will neither stop them nor hold individuals beyond their sentences based on an ICE request because... wait for it... it is illegal to do so.
A lot of posters like to masquerade as authorities on this subject yet appear to lack a grasp of the core facts.
So now we have a SCOTUS-approved policy that allows the US President to selectively target and financially damage cities he does not like. This is no longer functioning at the federal level; it's down to specific cities. He can pick and choose which city he attacks. What is to stop him from applying this for leverage on other policies? Or just targeting cities that didn't vote for him? The guy was already impeached for abuse of power.
Who's responsibility is it to secure the nation’s borders and immigration? If you give an answer other than the federal government’s you would be wrong.
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.
