The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: driftdiver on January 16, 2018, 07:19:59 pm
-
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/16/dhs-asks-prosecutors-charge-sanctuary-city-leaders/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/16/dhs-asks-prosecutors-charge-sanctuary-city-leaders/)
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen confirmed Tuesday that her department has asked federal prosecutors to see if they can lodge criminal charges against sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts.
“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues may be available,†Ms. Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Her confirmation came after California’s new sanctuary law went into effect Jan. 1, severely restricting cooperation the state or any of its localities could offer.
-
It's about time.
The cells they are thrown in should be where some of the illegals are also thrown in, so they can analyze more closely who it is they are defending.
-
It's about time.
The cells they are thrown in should be where some of the illegals are also thrown in, so they can analyze more closely who it is they are defending.
Absolutely! Agree on all counts!
888high58888
-
Not one will spend 24 hours in a jail cell.
-
Not one will spend 24 hours in a jail cell.
Perhaps but I can think of several possible charges.
- obstruction of justice
- conspiracy
- accessory to murder in individual cases
- probably falls under RICO
- since they are taking federal money I'm sure corruption charges are there somewhere
I'm sure a motivated prosecutor could think of plenty more.
-
Not one will spend 24 hours in a jail cell.
It's just as well. If it did happen, I'm sure the idiot left would be accusing Trump of running things like a Nazi would. Much better to levee hefty fines ... hit them where it really hurts... their wallets.
-
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, January 16, 2018
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen confirmed Tuesday that her department has asked federal prosecutors to see if they can lodge criminal charges against sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts.
“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues may be available,†Ms. Nielsen told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Her confirmation came after California’s new sanctuary law went into effect Jan. 1, severely restricting cooperation the state or any of its localities could offer.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Tom Homan says those policies put his officers and local communities at more risk because they have to arrest illegal immigrants out in the community.
more
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/16/dhs-asks-prosecutors-charge-sanctuary-city-leaders/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/16/dhs-asks-prosecutors-charge-sanctuary-city-leaders/)
-
It's just as well. If it did happen, I'm sure the idiot left would be accusing Trump of running things like a Nazi would. Much better to levee hefty fines ... hit them where it really hurts... their wallets.
Any good liberal would go to jail rather than compromise their principles. Lock the bastards up! I wanna see the bitches cry and scream bloody hell.
-
Wouldn't that be something!
-
Topics merged.
-
Any good liberal would go to jail rather than compromise their principles. Lock the bastards up! I wanna see the bitches cry and scream bloody hell.
Too bad they don't have the kind of commitment that Bobby Sands did.
-
Rather than simply saying "It'll never happen" why don't we say "bout dang time" and give our Congressional lazy butts a call. Maybe put it on social media, heck do anything to encourage enforcement of the actual laws.
-
Rather than simply saying "It'll never happen" why don't we say "bout dang time" and give our Congressional lazy butts a call. Maybe put it on social media, heck do anything to encourage enforcement of the actual laws.
It is about time, because this is what we were promised….
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-8lDYrvTILc
-
It is about time, because this is what we were promised….
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-8lDYrvTILc
I try to be realistic, the federal govt moves slow.
I knew a director of an agency at one point. She told me things that took 30 seconds in her prior commercial positions took 6 months working for the feds.
-
I try to be realistic, the federal govt moves slow.
I knew a director of an agency at one point. She told me things that took 30 seconds in her prior commercial positions took 6 months working for the feds.
Too true. Anyone who has been in the military is familiar with the concept of hurry up and wait.
-
Any good liberal would go to jail rather than compromise their principles. Lock the bastards up! I wanna see the bitches cry and scream bloody hell.
My dream is to see Jerry Brown spend his final days on a Metamucil drip in a Lompoc infirmary.
-
The "Judge" doesn't agree:
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/even-judge-napolitano-thinks-trumps-sanctuary-city-policy-is-a-legal-loser/
-
Lock them up!
-
Any good liberal would go to jail rather than compromise their principles. Lock the bastards up! I wanna see the bitches cry and scream bloody hell.
Are you kidding? Half of those jackwagons would enjoy being used like Abdullah's goat.
-
This is a very bad idea and a very bad president if implemented. It baffles me that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would think that its ok for the federal government to bring criminal charges against local officials for failing to enforce federal laws against the citizens of that locality.
I understand the emotional response but think about it, say sometime in the not to distant future, the Feds criminalize ownership of guns by anyone over 65 who cannot prove they do not suffer from dementia. The local officials in retirement communities refuse to enforce the Federal law. Using this precedent a future Dim administration comes in and locks up the local officials...
The way (and I don't like it ) to get local/state governments to comply with Federal law is by withholding Federal funding .. :shrug:
Criminalizing the actions of locally elected officials defying Federal law is not the way to go and is an unconstitutional usurpation of local control by the Feds.....
-
This is a very bad idea and a very bad president if implemented. It baffles me that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would think that its ok for the federal government to bring criminal charges against local officials for failing to enforce federal laws against the citizens of that locality.
I understand the emotional response but think about it, say sometime in the not to distant future, the Feds criminalize ownership of guns by anyone over 65 who cannot prove they do not suffer from dementia. The local officials in retirement communities refuse to enforce the Federal law. Using this precedent a future Dim administration comes in and locks up the local officials...
The way (and I don't like it ) to get local/state governments to comply with Federal law is by withholding Federal funding .. :shrug:
Criminalizing the actions of locally elected officials defying Federal law is not the way to go and is an unconstitutional usurpation of local control by the Feds.....
I understand what you're saying, but look at it this way. If Federal Marshals come to your house to arrest a fugitive and you refuse to comply, you're getting arrested and charged for harboring. That's exactly what they're doing with open defiance like this.....
In Boston, Mayor Marty Walsh called the executive order an attack on "Boston’s people, Boston’s strength and Boston’s values.â€
“If people want to live here, they’ll live here,†Walsh told reporters at a news conference. “They can use my office. They can use any office in this building.â€
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/25/big-us-city-mayors-vow-defy-trump-sanctuary-cities-order/97066272/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/25/big-us-city-mayors-vow-defy-trump-sanctuary-cities-order/97066272/)
-
This is a very bad idea and a very bad president if implemented. It baffles me that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would think that its ok for the federal government to bring criminal charges against local officials for failing to enforce federal laws against the citizens of that locality.
I understand the emotional response but think about it, say sometime in the not to distant future, the Feds criminalize ownership of guns by anyone over 65 who cannot prove they do not suffer from dementia. The local officials in retirement communities refuse to enforce the Federal law. Using this precedent a future Dim administration comes in and locks up the local officials...
The way (and I don't like it ) to get local/state governments to comply with Federal law is by withholding Federal funding .. :shrug:
Criminalizing the actions of locally elected officials defying Federal law is not the way to go and is an unconstitutional usurpation of local control by the Feds.....
To the contrary, such prosecution would be reassuring. Anyone - private citizens, elected officials, fat assed local bureaucrats - ANYONE should be subject to the same penalties for breaking federal laws.
If a private employer thumbs his nose at federal immigration laws he should be punished. Likewise public officials.
-
Too bad they don't have the kind of commitment that Bobby Sands did.
Now there is a guy that did more than beat his gums, over "Principles."
-
It's just as well. If it did happen, I'm sure the idiot left would be accusing Trump of running things like a Nazi would.
Who in the hell cares what the idiot left thinks about it?
Much better to levee hefty fines ... hit them where it really hurts... their wallets.
BS - They would suffer far far more if behind bars. Fines are paid by the political supporters, but those same supporters would not be the ones in jail
-
This is a very bad idea and a very bad president if implemented. It baffles me that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would think that its ok for the federal government to bring criminal charges against local officials for failing to enforce federal laws against the citizens of that locality.
I understand the emotional response but think about it, say sometime in the not to distant future, the Feds criminalize ownership of guns by anyone over 65 who cannot prove they do not suffer from dementia. The local officials in retirement communities refuse to enforce the Federal law. Using this precedent a future Dim administration comes in and locks up the local officials...
The way (and I don't like it ) to get local/state governments to comply with Federal law is by withholding Federal funding .. :shrug:
Criminalizing the actions of locally elected officials defying Federal law is not the way to go and is an unconstitutional usurpation of local control by the Feds.....
Frankly I'm glad my state is refusing to comply with some federal environmental laws.
-
"Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen confirmed Tuesday that her department has asked federal prosecutors to see if they can lodge criminal charges against sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal deportation efforts"
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
This is a very bad idea and a very bad president if implemented. It baffles me that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would think that its ok for the federal government to bring criminal charges against local officials for failing to enforce federal laws against the citizens of that locality.
I understand the emotional response but think about it, say sometime in the not to distant future, the Feds criminalize ownership of guns by anyone over 65 who cannot prove they do not suffer from dementia. The local officials in retirement communities refuse to enforce the Federal law. Using this precedent a future Dim administration comes in and locks up the local officials...
The way (and I don't like it ) to get local/state governments to comply with Federal law is by withholding Federal funding .. :shrug:
Criminalizing the actions of locally elected officials defying Federal law is not the way to go and is an unconstitutional usurpation of local control by the Feds.....
So, basically you're saying it's perfectly alright to disobey a federal law? If they can disobey this law without consequences, why should they obey any federal law?
-
Frankly I'm glad my state is refusing to comply with some federal environmental laws.
Remember how liberals went running to the federal government when California passed prop 187 that blocked public benefits to illegals. They got federal judges to declare it unconstitutional and override the state's voters. That only the federal government had the authority to deal with illegals.
Now California wants to claim the federal government has no role in dealing with illegals and that the state's authority rules the day.
Funny how that works...
-
montanajoe wrote:
"This is a very bad idea and a very bad president if implemented. It baffles me that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would think that its ok for the federal government to bring criminal charges against local officials for failing to enforce federal laws against the citizens of that locality."
Was this a "bad idea", Joe?
(http://media.al.com/live/photo/george-wallact-at-foster-auditoriumjpg-54187e139edb2976jpg-1ee1e3bb75cf6ca0.jpg)
I believe I was the first poster to this forum to call for the arrest of city/state government officials who would not back down from "sanctuary" laws in the face of federal agents. I think I was the first anywhere to suggest using such tactics against the leftist-communists.
I'm glad that the folks at DHS look into here once in a while... and saw it! ;)
-
This is a very bad idea and a very bad president if implemented. It baffles me that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would think that its ok for the federal government to bring criminal charges against local officials for failing to enforce federal laws against the citizens of that locality.
I understand the emotional response but think about it, say sometime in the not to distant future, the Feds criminalize ownership of guns by anyone over 65 who cannot prove they do not suffer from dementia. The local officials in retirement communities refuse to enforce the Federal law. Using this precedent a future Dim administration comes in and locks up the local officials...
The way (and I don't like it ) to get local/state governments to comply with Federal law is by withholding Federal funding .. :shrug:
Criminalizing the actions of locally elected officials defying Federal law is not the way to go and is an unconstitutional usurpation of local control by the Feds.....
If the Federal Government can suspend its own laws and fight a war to impose its laws on other States, even those who have declared their independence from that same government, To the tune of 600K combatants killed and countless civilians starved after their crops and farms were seized or burned, then it can damnsure shut down an egregious defiance of federal law by those states which want all the benefits of being part of the union but will not comply with the laws thereof.
This can be accomplished without the bloodshed and destruction wreaked the last time, but either have the collective balls to leave the Union (or try to do so), or comply with the compact. In or out, make up your mind.
-
Frankly I'm glad my state is refusing to comply with some federal environmental laws.
Exactly....I find it amusing/amazing that some "Conservatives" want the Fed's out there arresting local officials.
Unfortunately, most on both on the left and right react emotionally to the issues that are important to them. As long as their issue is addressed now, they could care less what the logical extensions of that policy means in the big picture in the future with an opposing administration in place. :shrug:
It's root, IMO, is the kick the can down the road mentality that is pervasive in country...big problems are just to hard to solve so lets just do something now that makes us feel good... :thud:
-
Exactly....I find it amusing/amazing that some "Conservatives" want the Fed's out there arresting local officials.
Unfortunately, most on both on the left and right react emotionally to the issues that are important to them. As long as their issue is addressed now, they could care less what the logical extensions of that policy means in the big picture in the future with an opposing administration in place. :shrug:
It's root, IMO, is the kick the can down the road mentality that is pervasive in country...big problems are just to hard to solve so lets just do something now that makes us feel good... :thud:
If the States were to allow people in despite national immigration policy, the border becomes no stronger than the weakest link. Once in, the Constitution guarantees full faith and credit for whatever documentation they might possess or acquire, and thus, one state can destroy the entire idea of a national border.
In the Preamble, the concept of better providing for common defense was laid out: A national border must be consistent, or it is of no effect. Sanctuary cities and states only provide the gaping pores through which the flow of invaders become harbored and legitimized. There is no way to have National Security, on the border, without National Policy, and enforcing that policy This is a National Issue, not a State one.
-
If the States were to allow people in despite national immigration [policy, the border becomes no stronger than the weakest link. Once in, the Constitution guarantees full faith and credit for whatever documentation they might possess or acquire, and thus, one sstate can destroy the entire idea of a national border.
In the Preamble, the concept of better providing for common defense was laid out: A national border must be consistent, or it is of no effect. Sanctuary cities and states only provide the gaping pores through which the flow of invaders become harbored and legitimized. There is no way to have National Security, on the border, without National Policy, and enforcing that policy This is a National Issue, not a State one.
@Smokin Joe
Securing the border is one of the few jobs of the fed.
-
Exactly....I find it amusing/amazing that some "Conservatives" want the Fed's out there arresting local officials.
Unfortunately, most on both on the left and right react emotionally to the issues that are important to them. As long as their issue is addressed now, they could care less what the logical extensions of that policy means in the big picture in the future with an opposing administration in place. :shrug:
It's root, IMO, is the kick the can down the road mentality that is pervasive in country...big problems are just to hard to solve so lets just do something now that makes us feel good... :thud:
You're not making any kind of coherent argument, and you're being evasive. If state officials are allowed to disobey fed. laws they don't like, what laws, in your opinion, should they obey? I don't get to pick and choose what fed. laws I like or don't like. If I don't pay my fed. taxes, men with guns show up at my door and haul me away in handcuffs.
Do you think it's some kind of joke when state officials refuse to accommodate federal officials in the performance of their jobs in stopping illegal immigration? Tell me what the fed. gov. should do when state officials deliberately try to impede the fed. gov. in stopping illegal immigration.
-
If the States were to allow people in despite national immigration policy, the border becomes no stronger than the weakest link. Once in, the Constitution guarantees full faith and credit for whatever documentation they might possess or acquire, and thus, one state can destroy the entire idea of a national border.
In the Preamble, the concept of better providing for common defense was laid out: A national border must be consistent, or it is of no effect. Sanctuary cities and states only provide the gaping pores through which the flow of invaders become harbored and legitimized. There is no way to have National Security, on the border, without National Policy, and enforcing that policy This is a National Issue, not a State one.
That's a pretty good argument.
-
If the States were to allow people in despite national immigration policy, the border becomes no stronger than the weakest link. Once in, the Constitution guarantees full faith and credit for whatever documentation they might possess or acquire, and thus, one state can destroy the entire idea of a national border.
In the Preamble, the concept of better providing for common defense was laid out: A national border must be consistent, or it is of no effect. Sanctuary cities and states only provide the gaping pores through which the flow of invaders become harbored and legitimized. There is no way to have National Security, on the border, without National Policy, and enforcing that policy This is a National Issue, not a State one.
I agree that this is a Federal and not a State issue.
It needs to be solved at the Federal level and is the job of the Congress critters to do so. The issue of sanctuary cities and the fact that corporate America, as well as a lot of mom and pop businesses, have been responsible for creating the illegal job market over the past few generations. That is the root problem and is what must be dealt with. But we all know as long as the boys on K street make the politicians rich for supporting the cheap labor express nothing will happen.
My argument is this is an idiot, emotionally driven response to the problem and in the end will have no effect other than give the left another tool to use against the right in the next Dim administration and to legitimize even more Federal interference in the lives of ordinary folks .... :shrug:
-
I agree that this is a Federal and not a State issue.
It needs to be solved at the Federal level and is the job of the Congress critters to do so. The issue of sanctuary cities and the fact that corporate America, as well as a lot of mom and pop businesses, have been responsible for creating the illegal job market over the past few generations. That is the root problem and is what must be dealt with. But we all know as long as the boys on K street make the politicians rich for supporting the cheap labor express nothing will happen.
My argument is this is an idiot, emotionally driven response to the problem and in the end will have no effect other than give the left another tool to use against the right in the next Dim administration and to legitimize even more Federal interference in the lives of ordinary folks .... :shrug:
And Trump has made it very clear that he has no intent of upsetting the donor class. When he commuted the sentence of a major offender a couple weeks back, Trump's cheerleaders here declared it OK because it might bring a few more Jewish votes.
-
I agree that this is a Federal and not a State issue.
It needs to be solved at the Federal level and is the job of the Congress critters to do so. The issue of sanctuary cities and the fact that corporate America, as well as a lot of mom and pop businesses, have been responsible for creating the illegal job market over the past few generations. That is the root problem and is what must be dealt with. But we all know as long as the boys on K street make the politicians rich for supporting the cheap labor express nothing will happen.
My argument is this is an idiot, emotionally driven response to the problem and in the end will have no effect other than give the left another tool to use against the right in the next Dim administration and to legitimize even more Federal interference in the lives of ordinary folks .... :shrug:
Simply enough, the folks on K street aren't paying the price. It is the rest of the country who lose work/jobs, who take up the slack in tax revenues (or debt), who suffer the injuries perpetrated by criminal elements, whose very voice is muted and distorted by the influx of voices which should have no presence, much less say in how things are done, who are not of this country. That the greed of a few, whether they be billionaires or not influences those who are making policy contrary to law is allowed to supersede the law the rest of us must abide by IS the problem. If those policies were not implemented whether for pecuniary or political gain (same thing in the long run), then someone is defying the law which the rest of us must abide by, at our expense.
Yep, We, The People, have a dog in this fight. Our safety, security, and ultimately, our prosperity depend on enforcing those laws, and if those entrusted with doing so practice willful nonfeasance, they should be removed from office; if they are defiant accessories to breaking those laws and announce such, then removed in handcuffs if necessary.
For those who consider their acts to be "Civil Disobedience", they should go check their Little Red Book (Mao's Revolutionary Handbook). Prison time is a real risk of such disobedience, and if it is at all morally or legally justified, the place to address that opinion is in the courts, and ultimately the Congress where such law is made for the security of this Nation; the nation our countrymen (and women) and even ourselves, have paid a price (sometimes the ultimate price) to secure for generations. What is the point of having our military around the world to 'make the Homeland safe', if we leave the doors and windows open to invasion at home?
Who among us would routinely be able to announce in national or international media that we would suborn and assist through nonfeasance countless felonies and not suffer any consequences for that action?
The K Street crowd and those they represent aren't the ones who suffer the depredations of their influence, and perhaps they should, could the general public boycott their wares produced with illegal labor.
-
Simply enough, the folks on K street aren't paying the price. It is the rest of the country who lose work/jobs, who take up the slack in tax revenues (or debt), who suffer the injuries perpetrated by criminal elements, whose very voice is muted and distorted by the influx of voices which should have no presence, much less say in how things are done, who are not of this country. That the greed of a few, whether they be billionaires or not influences those who are making policy contrary to law is allowed to supersede the law the rest of us must abide by IS the problem. If those policies were not implemented whether for pecuniary or political gain (same thing in the long run), then someone is defying the law which the rest of us must abide by, at our expense.
Yep, We, The People, have a dog in this fight. Our safety, security, and ultimately, our prosperity depend on enforcing those laws, and if those entrusted with doing so practice willful nonfeasance, they should be removed from office; if they are defiant accessories to breaking those laws and announce such, then removed in handcuffs if necessary.
For those who consider their acts to be "Civil Disobedience", they should go check their Little Red Book (Mao's Revolutionary Handbook). Prison time is a real risk of such disobedience, and if it is at all morally or legally justified, the place to address that opinion is in the courts, and ultimately the Congress where such law is made for the security of this Nation; the nation our countrymen (and women) and even ourselves, have paid a price (sometimes the ultimate price) to secure for generations. What is the point of having our military around the world to 'make the Homeland safe', if we leave the doors and windows open to invasion at home?
Who among us would routinely be able to announce in national or international media that we would suborn and assist through nonfeasance countless felonies and not suffer any consequences for that action?
The K Street crowd and those they represent aren't the ones who suffer the depredations of their influence, and perhaps they should, could the general public boycott their wares produced with illegal labor.
Very well said and 100% true! 888high58888 :beer:
-
I agree that this is a Federal and not a State issue.
It needs to be solved at the Federal level and is the job of the Congress critters to do so. The issue of sanctuary cities and the fact that corporate America, as well as a lot of mom and pop businesses, have been responsible for creating the illegal job market over the past few generations. That is the root problem and is what must be dealt with. But we all know as long as the boys on K street make the politicians rich for supporting the cheap labor express nothing will happen.
My argument is this is an idiot, emotionally driven response to the problem and in the end will have no effect other than give the left another tool to use against the right in the next Dim administration and to legitimize even more Federal interference in the lives of ordinary folks .... :shrug:
It is being solved. Arresting those impeding the arrest of those who have broken federal laws will solve it.
Why in the world would Congress need to be involved? We already have laws on the books and need to simply execute them.
-
If the States were to allow people in despite national immigration policy, the border becomes no stronger than the weakest link. Once in, the Constitution guarantees full faith and credit for whatever documentation they might possess or acquire, and thus, one state can destroy the entire idea of a national border.
In the Preamble, the concept of better providing for common defense was laid out: A national border must be consistent, or it is of no effect. Sanctuary cities and states only provide the gaping pores through which the flow of invaders become harbored and legitimized. There is no way to have National Security, on the border, without National Policy, and enforcing that policy This is a National Issue, not a State one.
A very forceful point. If any state allows non-citizens into its state not approved by the federal government, then any other state should have the right to stop anybody else from outside the state from entering the state to ensure its citizens remain safe from lawbreakers.
The agreement made by signing off on the entry of that state into the Union is otherwise compromised, and vetting at the state border is not only called for, but required.
-
It is being solved. Arresting those impeding the arrest of those who have broken federal laws will solve it.
Why in the world would Congress need to be involved? We already have laws on the books and need to simply execute them.
Depending on POV, there are two ways to eliminate illegal immigration (although only one would work, really).
The first is to emplace a physical barrier and enforce the law. There will always be that small group who make it across, so this would never be 100% effective, only a question of massive reduction, increasing with efficacy.
The second is to eliminate the law against illegal immigration, which would be more effective legally because with the stroke of a pen there would be no illegals at all, but which would be the national suicide the globalists crave.
-
A very forceful point. If any state allows non-citizens into its state not approved by the federal government, then any other state should have the right to stop anybody else from outside the state from entering the state to ensure its citizens remain safe from lawbreakers.
The agreement made by signing off on the entry of that state into the Union is otherwise compromised, and vetting at the state border is not only called for, but required.
But at that point any credentials acquired while resident in the sanctuary state such as a driver's license, would no longer receive full faith and credit under the Constitution, and that could be used to legitimize (universally) the illegals' documentation and status through a Constitutional challenge, much like the legal cascade that occurred over homosexual unions. (but, for some reason, not CCW permits).
-
Depending on POV, there are two ways to eliminate illegal immigration (although only one would work, really).
The first is to emplace a physical barrier and enforce the law. There will always be that small group who make it across, so this would never be 100% effective, only a question of massive reduction, increasing with efficacy.
The second is to eliminate the law against illegal immigration, which would be more effective legally because with the stroke of a pen there would be no illegals at all, but which would be the national suicide the globalists crave.
I'm assuming that your first option includes enforcing current laws that remove the magnets - as in, make it much less attractive to come into the country illegally.
-
Not one will spend 24 hours in a jail cell.
@Cripplecreek
Maybe not a local or state jail,but a federal detention center may be a lot harder for them to get out of.
-
This is a very bad idea and a very bad president if implemented. It baffles me that anyone who calls themselves a conservative would think that its ok for the federal government to bring criminal charges against local officials for failing to enforce federal laws against the citizens of that locality.
I understand the emotional response but think about it, say sometime in the not to distant future, the Feds criminalize ownership of guns by anyone over 65 who cannot prove they do not suffer from dementia. The local officials in retirement communities refuse to enforce the Federal law. Using this precedent a future Dim administration comes in and locks up the local officials...
The way (and I don't like it ) to get local/state governments to comply with Federal law is by withholding Federal funding .. :shrug:
@montanajoe
I would agree with you if this were a States Rights Issue and the people being locked up were citizens,but it's not. Immigration is a federal issue from the word "go",and by definition the people they are after are either foreigners,citizens helping foreigners to break the law,or both. This is the sort of thing the federal government is obligated to do by our laws.
Criminalizing the actions of locally elected officials defying Federal law is not the way to go and is an unconstitutional usurpation of local control by the Feds.....
-
@Cripplecreek
Maybe not a local or state jail,but a federal detention center may be a lot harder for them to get out of.
Rendition
-
I'm assuming that your first option includes enforcing current laws that remove the magnets - as in, make it much less attractive to come into the country illegally.
Yep. There are two ways to rid your home of unwelcome 'guests' (and I am making an analogy, but not a metaphor). One involves using poisoned bait. The problem with that is that bait is bait, and poisoned or not, it attracts the very thing you don't want, or it would not be effective at all.
The other is to trap them into extinction--elimination.
I favor the latter approach, as it gets rid of the problem without attracting more.
Unfortunately, that simile breaks down in that the only poison in this bait is the chance to develop obesity and heart problems from eating fast food. Yes, incentives such as welfare need to be eliminated. Why spend millions on programs to teach English as a second language when it isn't adequately being taught as a first language in many areas? Time to get our priorities straight and look after our own. If people from elsewhere wnat to join up and become Americans, let them do it right.
-
I'm assuming that your first option includes enforcing current laws that remove the magnets - as in, make it much less attractive to come into the country illegally.
@sanquine
I'm not the guy you asked the question of, but I will tell you that if I were in charge anyone here illegally would not be getting any government benefits at all and, in addation to that, would not be able to get a job, rent a place to live, or obtain anything else that would aid their illegal presence here.
-
But at that point any credentials acquired while resident in the sanctuary state such as a driver's license, would no longer receive full faith and credit under the Constitution, and that could be used to legitimize (universally) the illegals' documentation and status through a Constitutional challenge, much like the legal cascade that occurred over homosexual unions. (but, for some reason, not CCW permits).
One must either adher to the entire Constitution or none of it. There is no in-between.
I say all bets are off if one state refuses to abide by it, so others must be able to protect themselves.
-
@sanquine
I'm not the guy you asked the question of, but I will tell you that if I were in charge anyone here illegally would not be getting any government benefits at all and, in addation to that, would not be able to get a job, rent a place to live, or obtain anything else that would aid their illegal presence here.
Exactly what I meant by "removing the magnets".
-
Exactly what I meant by "removing the magnets".
@sanquine
I have frequently used that phrase myself. 888high58888
-
This link https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269051/making-california-mexico-again-lloyd-billingsley (https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/269051/making-california-mexico-again-lloyd-billingsley)
MAKING CALIFORNIA MEXICO AGAIN
“No barriers between California and Mexico†for leftist Democrats.
from article "California resists isolation and is willing to step up and work with Mexico if the federal administration abdicates that responsibility.â€
Show how alien to our Constitution one state has chose to be.
Other states must be able to defend themselves against an unscrupulous state as California has become if the federal govt chooses not to.
-
Shame, at TOS, a lot of those folks imply a lot of California's votes for the Senate, Presidency, etc. are illegally done and those residents of that state think things might go differently if there were a clampdown. I have no idea myself. It sounds possible.
-
Shame, at TOS, a lot of those folks imply a lot of California's votes for the Senate, Presidency, etc. are illegally done and those residents of that state think things might go differently if there were a clampdown. I have no idea myself. It sounds possible.
I agree with you, Tom, except that I think it's probable.
-
Shame, at TOS, a lot of those folks imply a lot of California's votes for the Senate, Presidency, etc. are illegally done and those residents of that state think things might go differently if there were a clampdown. I have no idea myself. It sounds possible.
So all those millions of liberals aren't voting liberal?
-
So all those millions of liberals aren't voting liberal?
Where did he say that?
-
Where did he say that?
The clear implication is that voter fraud is why the Dems have such a stranglehold on California. While I would agree there is significant voter fraud there, as in many other places, I doubt it is the sole reason for the stranglehold. Else why would some of the recent conservative movements have been voted in.
No there is voter fraud but much more clearly there is fraud within the Executive and Legislative branches of CA govt. They have sold the population on socialist policies and have been working to undercut American law for decades. The activists are in control and working to make southern california part of mexico.
-
So all those millions of liberals aren't voting liberal?
I think the question might be one of whether some significant part of that contingent isn't eligible by the standards of the other states to vote at all. Clean up the voter rolls and only let citizens vote and the results might be different (even if that does not so heavily favor the Democrat/Communist/Liberal agenda).
Let people in from elsewhere to vote for people from elsewhere to loot the treasury, not only of one state, but by extension, all of them (via the Federal Government) and you have a formula for economic destruction.
Not that California has demonstrated a great deal of fiscal wisdom, anyway, but if the State goes bankrupt, should the rest be required to bail it out if it will not follow the same laws as the rest?
Oh, Hell no.
-
No there is voter fraud but much more clearly there is fraud within the Executive and Legislative branches of CA govt. They have sold the population on socialist policies and have been working to undercut American law for decades. The activists are in control and working to make southern california part of mexico.
@driftdiver
Close,but no cigar. Politicians are too greedy and power-mad for that to be possible. Not to mention egotistical.
IMNSHO,the Ca politicians have been working hard to make MEXICO A PART OF CALIFORNIA so they have even more parasites to steal money from. Of course,they plan on using US Federal grant and tax money to buy all the Mexican votes in what is now Mexico,just like they have been using it to buy Mexican votes from illegals in Ca.
Ain't nothing a couple of hundred hangings after treason trials won't fix,though.
-
I think the question might be one of whether some significant part of that contingent isn't eligible by the standards of the other states to vote at all. Clean up the voter rolls and only let citizens vote and the results might be different (even if that does not so heavily favor the Democrat/Communist/Liberal agenda).
Let people in from elsewhere to vote for people from elsewhere to loot the treasury, not only of one state, but by extension, all of them (via the Federal Government) and you have a formula for economic destruction.
Not that California has demonstrated a great deal of fiscal wisdom, anyway, but if the State goes bankrupt, should the rest be required to bail it out if it will not follow the same laws as the rest?
Oh, Hell no.
@Smokin Joe
Go back to a system where only property owners are allowed to vote,and require English literacy tests. No speaka de lingo,no pulla in welfare checks.
-
@driftdiver
Close,but no cigar. Politicians are too greedy and power-mad for that to be possible. Not to mention egotistical.
IMNSHO,the Ca politicians have been working hard to make MEXICO A PART OF CALIFORNIA so they have even more parasites to steal money from. Of course,they plan on using US Federal grant and tax money to buy all the Mexican votes in what is now Mexico,just like they have been using it to buy Mexican votes from illegals in Ca.
Ain't nothing a couple of hundred hangings after treason trials won't fix,though.
@sneakypete
I thought that as well at one point. However in all their mechanizations they seek to undercut American nationality. So while they love our benefits and dollars they consider the Mexican people to be superior (i.e. La Raza). Because of that i don't see them submitting to the US.
-
@sneakypete
I thought that as well at one point. However in all their mechanizations they seek to undercut American nationality. So while they love our benefits and dollars they consider the Mexican people to be superior (i.e. La Raza). Because of that i don't see them submitting to the US.
@driftdiver
Look at Mexico. It has been ran by white people ever since the Spanish landed,and even today they still live like royalty since the laws don't apply to them. They run it and use the national treasury like a personal slush fund,and nobody seems to really give a damn. The two brothers that were (1 is dead now) Bush Crime Family friends that JEB and his Mexican wife vacationed with stole Billions from the Mexican treasury before fleeing to exile in France. That was the one JEB's wife was visiting when she was arrested for smuggling jewelry and furs past customs without paying customs fees on while JEB was still the Governor of Fla.
-
The clear implication is that voter fraud is why the Dems have such a stranglehold on California. While I would agree there is significant voter fraud there, as in many other places, I doubt it is the sole reason for the stranglehold. Else why would some of the recent conservative movements have been voted in.
No there is voter fraud but much more clearly there is fraud within the Executive and Legislative branches of CA govt. They have sold the population on socialist policies and have been working to undercut American law for decades. The activists are in control and working to make southern california part of mexico.
OK, I didn't see it that way, but obviously you did. And, I agree with the points in your second paragraph.
-
I think the question might be one of whether some significant part of that contingent isn't eligible by the standards of the other states to vote at all. Clean up the voter rolls and only let citizens vote and the results might be different (even if that does not so heavily favor the Democrat/Communist/Liberal agenda).
Let people in from elsewhere to vote for people from elsewhere to loot the treasury, not only of one state, but by extension, all of them (via the Federal Government) and you have a formula for economic destruction.
Not that California has demonstrated a great deal of fiscal wisdom, anyway, but if the State goes bankrupt, should the rest be required to bail it out if it will not follow the same laws as the rest?
Oh, Hell no.
The state technically went bankrupt a number of years ago when it was issuing IOU's as payments.
When the tech bubble bursts, California's going to go with it.
Regarding lefties in CA, back when prop 187 was passed by the voters blocking public benefits to illegals the lefties went federal judge shopping finding one who said it was unconstitutional because only the federal government has the authority to deal with illegals and states have to treat everyone equally regardless of citizenship.
Now fast forward a couple decades and we have these same lefties demanding that the federal government has no authority over illegals in their states demanding states have the right to give special rights to illegals...
And there it is... Lefties don't care about state rights or federal authority. The ends justify the means always with them no matter how contrary. And the ends is more dependent people to empower their masters ensnaring all of us.
-
Just do it. It is a clear violation of federal law.
The sooner we see these people in chains, the sooner we get rid of the problem.
These people think they are untouchable.
They are wrong.
-
Just do it. It is a clear violation of federal law.
The sooner we see these people in chains, the sooner we get rid of the problem.
These people think they are untouchable.
They are wrong.
Well, they have spent decades building and nurturing the mob they think will protect them (in order to keep their freebies). They have just multiculturalized that mob. I had never thought it before, but it possible that CWII could be fought over people thinking that the rest of the country owes them a living, even if they aren't Americans.
-
@Smokin Joe
Go back to a system where only property owners are allowed to vote,and require English literacy tests. No speaka de lingo,no pulla in welfare checks.
If you can't understand the language, you can't understand the seminal documents which lay out how this is all supposed to work. If you can't do that, you can't possibly make an informed decision as to what is or isn't good for the country. While people do, it is akin to operating a complex piece of machinery without even being able to read the directions when all else fails.
-
Why spend millions on programs to teach English as a second language when it isn't adequately being taught as a first language in many areas? Time to get our priorities straight and look after our own. If people from elsewhere wnat to join up and become Americans, let them do it right.
Just look at the comments on any youtube video.
It's become a Contest to see how Badly you can mangle English. The worse you abuse it, the Cooler you are.
Gonna require, at some point, the elimination of tenure for Teachers, and all their siphoned off Union Dues.
-
Just look at the comments on any youtube video.
It's become a Contest to see how Badly you can mangle English. The worse you abuse it, the Cooler you are.
Gonna require, at some point, the elimination of tenure for Teachers, and all their siphoned off Union Dues.
I concur. For the schools we have, and the amount spent, we have a less literate population than we did 50 years ago.
-
If you can't understand the language, you can't understand the seminal documents which lay out how this is all supposed to work. If you can't do that, you can't possibly make an informed decision as to what is or isn't good for the country. While people do, it is akin to operating a complex piece of machinery without even being able to read the directions when all else fails.
And therein exists the lies that 'Diversity' is so good and necessary for us all.
Imagine fighting a war where the soldiers cannot communicate because they lack a common language.
-
The activists are in control and working to make southern california part of mexico.
@driftdiver
Close,but no cigar. The activist leadership think they are the reincarnation of Karl Marx,and are going to establish a worldwide communist government WITH THEM RUNNING THE POLITBURO.
In other words,they see Mexico coming under THEIR domain,not the other way around. Mexico is already pretty much a police state,so they see it and access to the Mexican treasury and military as easy pickings. Hell,Mexicans are even used to having white masters.
A good rule to follow is that anytime you think a leftist is willing to share anything,that is a good first clue you need to rethink it. They are about domination,not sharing. After all,they are the smartest,most competent,and the fairest people in the world and their only concern is about the good of the common man,so who else would be better qualified to establish the dictatorship the whole world needs in order to become a loving and fair family with a firm "Daddy" in charge to make sure things were fair?
-
So when are these supposed arrests happening? or is this another conservative media BS story?
-
So when are these supposed arrests happening? or is this another conservative media BS story?
DC is still recovering from that withering shutdown. They were deemed non-essential arrests.
-
DC is still recovering from that withering shutdown. They were deemed non-essential arrests.
:laugh:
So, I clicked on a federal website yesterday to look something up, and there in big text was a long explanation as to how because of the shutdown the website was unavailable.
They really do think we are idiots.
-
:laugh:
So, I clicked on a federal website yesterday to look something up, and there in big text was a long explanation as to how because of the shutdown the website was unavailable.
They really do think we are idiots.
Obviously. Due to the Govt Shutdown we can no longer afford to keep you on hold, play annoying music for you, and have a robot ask if you would like to be insulted, bored and infuriated by this menu again, press ANY button.
-
:laugh:
So, I clicked on a federal website yesterday to look something up, and there in big text was a long explanation as to how because of the shutdown the website was unavailable.
They really do think we are idiots.
But what is irritating those bureaucrats will STILL get their salaries and benefits in spite of NOT working during that time.
Next shutdown needs to save that money by not paying any not working during shutdowns. Won't affect military as they are ALWAYS working on our behalf.
-
But what is irritating those bureaucrats will STILL get their salaries and benefits in spite of NOT working during that time.
Next shutdown needs to save that money by not paying any not working during shutdowns. Won't affect military as they are ALWAYS working on our behalf.
Nope. It's Congress responsibility to enact a budget.
Reneg, shut down stuff, and Every cent they Cost the Treasury needs to be taken out of Their personal pockets.
-
But what is irritating those bureaucrats will STILL get their salaries and benefits in spite of NOT working during that time.
Next shutdown needs to save that money by not paying any not working during shutdowns. Won't affect military as they are ALWAYS working on our behalf.
While i think we need to cut the # of federal employees by 75% this is not the right way. If you hire someone and make promises of work then you have a responsibility to pay them for it. If you screw up and they can't work its on you.
-
Nope. It's Congress responsibility to enact a budget.
Reneg, shut down stuff, and Every cent they Cost the Treasury needs to be taken out of Their personal pockets.
If your 'Nope' means no more shutdowns, I agree that is the best course, as it needs a budget, not can-kicking.
However, there will surely be more shutdowns(anybody count how many have occurred in the past 25 years?), and there are certainly better ways to address them.
-
While i think we need to cut the # of federal employees by 75% this is not the right way. If you hire someone and make promises of work then you have a responsibility to pay them for it. If you screw up and they can't work its on you.
All federal employees are hired knowing full well that they are working for a PUBLIC entity, not a private one.
Both public and private sectors have varying ways to adjust their budgets as situations dictate, and human payroll is the biggest way.
Where was the responsibility to pay me when I was cut after 27 years working for a company?
-
All federal employees are hired knowing full well that they are working for a PUBLIC entity, not a private one.
Both public and private sectors have varying ways to adjust their budgets as situations dictate, and human payroll is the biggest way.
Where was the responsibility to pay me when I was cut after 27 years working for a company?
Silly Private Sector Serf.
Being Laid Off is only for people who actually Produce anything of Value.
You and I don't have the Federal Reserve to print up pallets of new $100 bills, to keep paying us, no Matter How Useless we are, because that would be Counterfeiting.
You and I can't just Vote to keep taking out new credit cards, maxing them out, and tossing them on the pile.
Only the Moby Dick of Government can operate on Keynesian Economics that would get You and I arrested in a heartbeat if we tried it.
-
All federal employees are hired knowing full well that they are working for a PUBLIC entity, not a private one.
Both public and private sectors have varying ways to adjust their budgets as situations dictate, and human payroll is the biggest way.
Where was the responsibility to pay me when I was cut after 27 years working for a company?
@IsailedawayfromFR
Been there and that's how I ended up with my own company. Boss is still a jerk.
I'm surprised employment law hasn't been invoked. It's illegal to require people to work for no pay. The only legal option is to furlough salaried employees. Large employers have very complicated laws to comply with.
-
@driftdiver
Close,but no cigar. The activist leadership think they are the reincarnation of Karl Marx,and are going to establish a worldwide communist government WITH THEM RUNNING THE POLITBURO.
In other words,they see Mexico coming under THEIR domain,not the other way around. Mexico is already pretty much a police state,so they see it and access to the Mexican treasury and military as easy pickings. Hell,Mexicans are even used to having white masters.
A good rule to follow is that anytime you think a leftist is willing to share anything,that is a good first clue you need to rethink it. They are about domination,not sharing. After all,they are the smartest,most competent,and the fairest people in the world and their only concern is about the good of the common man,so who else would be better qualified to establish the dictatorship the whole world needs in order to become a loving and fair family with a firm "Daddy" in charge to make sure things were fair?
I think all those red diaper babies and their ilk grossly underestimate the ruthlessness inherent in the population they seem to think they will dominate. Hollywood plays at such, perhaps dreams of it, but they don't line heads up on the border.
-
:laugh:
So, I clicked on a federal website yesterday to look something up, and there in big text was a long explanation as to how because of the shutdown the website was unavailable.
They really do think we are idiots.
The public employee unions want you to know how important they are. They probably got paid overtime to create and upload all the "unavailable" messages... And then paid overtime again to restore the original Web pages...
-
:laugh:
So, I clicked on a federal website yesterday to look something up, and there in big text was a long explanation as to how because of the shutdown the website was unavailable.
They really do think we are idiots.
@Sanguine
Obama did the same thing. It's petty but I put it on the dems. They wanted the shutdown.
-
@Sanguine
Obama did the same thing. It's petty but I put it on the dems. They wanted the shutdown.
I know, but I expected better now. Oh, well.
-
I know, but I expected better now. Oh, well.
We did get better.
Zinke: Parks shouldn't be bargaining chip in shutdown showdown
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/21/politics/zinke-national-parks-shutdown/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/21/politics/zinke-national-parks-shutdown/index.html)
-
We did get better.
Zinke: Parks shouldn't be bargaining chip in shutdown showdown
http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/21/politics/zinke-national-parks-shutdown/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/21/politics/zinke-national-parks-shutdown/index.html)
True.
-
If the States were to allow people in despite national immigration policy, the border becomes no stronger than the weakest link. Once in, the Constitution guarantees full faith and credit for whatever documentation they might possess or acquire, and thus, one state can destroy the entire idea of a national border.
In the Preamble, the concept of better providing for common defense was laid out: A national border must be consistent, or it is of no effect. Sanctuary cities and states only provide the gaping pores through which the flow of invaders become harbored and legitimized. There is no way to have National Security, on the border, without National Policy, and enforcing that policy This is a National Issue, not a State one.
@Smokin Joe ordinarily I am against the imposition of federal laws on localities, but you have a made a solid argument.
-
So when are the leaders of these cities going to be arrested? I'm smelling bullshit here.
-
Me to.