PDA

View Full Version : Sancturary Cities




goldenequity
11-15-2016, 04:27 PM
This is where the MSM is going to dig in.
We'll be watching gasoline thrown on this issue throughout the Holidays.
Merry Christmas. :cool:

(Possible Trump AG) Kris Kobach: "Sanctuary Cities Could Lose Federal Grants If The Mayors Defy Federal Law"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDdbxTAiTno

goldenequity
11-15-2016, 04:31 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mO34DmRiXak

goldenequity
11-15-2016, 04:32 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ttlCYsP7Cc

John F Kennedy III
11-15-2016, 04:35 PM
What does Trump plan to do with sanctuary cities? Personally, I'd bulldoze them.

AuH20
11-15-2016, 04:42 PM
They wanted federalism, so we're going to stuff their backsides like a Turkey!

goldenequity
11-15-2016, 04:49 PM
Trey Gowdy Heart Felt Speech on Sanctuary Cities


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48SOWI9bc8o

http://a57.foxnews.com/media2.foxnews.com/2015/07/09/640/360/070915_out_katie_640.jpg

goldenequity
11-15-2016, 09:42 PM
Sanctuary City New York gets more than $6 billion in federal aid every year (http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160901/POLITICS/160909988/donald-trumps-attack-on-sanctuary-cities-could-cost-new-york-dearly)

goldenequity
11-16-2016, 11:16 PM
Senator proposes bill to eliminate sanctuary cities in Texas (http://www.kltv.com/story/33716866/senator-proposes-bill-to-eliminate-sanctuary-cities-in-texas?utm_content=bufferb565a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)

Among a flurry of legislation filed this week in Texas,
State Sen. Charles Perry (Lubbock) has once again proposed a bill
to eliminate sanctuary cities in Texas.

Senate Bill 4 would require local governments and law enforcement
to uphold the rule of law and enforce immigration laws currently on the books.

oyarde
11-16-2016, 11:37 PM
What does Trump plan to do with sanctuary cities? Personally, I'd bulldoze them.

They should be defunded , immediately . These places are nothing more than an abuse of taxpayers .

Danke
11-16-2016, 11:56 PM
What does Trump plan to do with sanctuary cities? Personally, I'd bulldoze them.

IF you bulldoze Minneapolis, they will come over to Saint Paul. No thanks. Maybe Oyarde has room for them on his reservation.

AuH20
11-17-2016, 12:05 AM
IF you bulldoze Minneapolis, they will come over to Saint Paul. No thanks. Maybe Oyarde has room for them on his reservation.

Oyarde watched Black Hawk Down. He knows how to handle em.

oyarde
11-17-2016, 12:06 AM
IF you bulldoze Minneapolis, they will come over to Saint Paul. No thanks. Maybe Oyarde has room for them on his reservation.

Sorry , it is on the no refugee accepted list along with Chicago , Madison WI , etc

TheCount
11-17-2016, 12:12 AM
I'm going to enjoy watching 1/3rd of the posters here do a complete 180 turn on their opinion of local government defying the federal government. It will be entertaining, to say the least.

Ender
11-17-2016, 12:25 AM
I'm going to enjoy watching 1/3rd of the posters here do a complete 180 turn on their opinion of local government defying the federal government. It will be entertaining, to say the least.

Yep.

Who gives a shit about State's Rights, anyway. ;)

Danke
11-17-2016, 12:36 AM
Yep.

Who gives a shit about State's Rights, anyway. ;)

"States" don't have rights.

Ender
11-17-2016, 12:44 AM
"States" don't have rights.

Not since the "Civil" War.

John F Kennedy III
11-17-2016, 01:41 AM
IF you bulldoze Minneapolis, they will come over to Saint Paul. No thanks. Maybe Oyarde has room for them on his reservation.

We could pull a Hillary in Waco and shoot everyone that tries to leave.

GunnyFreedom
11-17-2016, 02:38 AM
I'm going to enjoy watching 1/3rd of the posters here do a complete 180 turn on their opinion of local government defying the federal government. It will be entertaining, to say the least.

It's not like the position is binary, as if people either believe in federal power or state power. Rather it has to do with Article VI, the 10th Amendment, and the delegation of powers. Anything NOT delegated to the feds belongs to the states. However, the things that ARE delegated to the feds, DO belong to the feds, and so fall under the supremacy clause.

It's certainly nothing like you are presenting, as if someone has to be 100% State power or 100% fed power and that's just it.

If someone believes that the US Constitution delegates the power of immigration to the federal government, then no matter how much of a 'states rights' person they may be, that will not be the principle that they apply.

You can't just over-simplify the Constitutional delegation of powers and claim that anyone who fights for State power on say education is a hypocrite because they support federal power on the regulation of foreign trade. That's not how this works.

Now, as to whether or not the Constitution actually delegates that power, now that may be subject to debate. But you can't just insinuate that someone is automatically a hypocrite because they believe in State delegation on one issue and federal delegation on a different issue. Anybody who actually upholds the Constitution is necessarily going to put some powers at the State level and some powers at the fed level.

On some issues, states not only have a right but indeed a DUTY to defy the feds. On other issues the states are in violation of the Constitution if they defy the feds.

timosman
11-17-2016, 03:07 AM
You guys clearly have not embraced the deeversite mindset. It is 2016 for crying out loud. :rolleyes:

goldenequity
11-17-2016, 04:13 AM
Good point Gunny.
My comment is practical not legal,
more of a 'probability' question for the social engineer/psyop people here.

What would happen if the Federal Govt halted funding to a mega city?
They had no such leverage in the 1860's, but now they do.

WOULD they (actually) ever do it?
My answer is yes.

It won't be a 'halt'.
It will be 'line items' or a 'percentage'.

Then simply watch as the 'local' mayors and bureaucrats
commit political suicide with the budgetary vice they put themselves in...
"Gee.. what services do I cut first??"

The trouble comes when it becomes tit-for-tat...
When the CITIES start to withhold submitting the collected taxes to the State collectors
to forward on to the Federal collection.

It then becomes the Cities defying their own States.

Would the Governor of Illinois allow Chicago Mayor Rahm Immanuel to put all the other Mayors and Cities 'at risk' economically?
Would the Governor of California allow San Francisco to put all the other Mayors and Cities 'at risk' economically?

This could trigger a political bloodbath at ALL levels.

anaconda
11-17-2016, 05:06 AM
What does Trump plan to do with sanctuary cities? Personally, I'd bulldoze them.

I heard a mayor of a Minnesota city give an interview and she made good sense to me. She simply said that it wasn't in the best interest of her city or use of resources to be doing the federal government's job for them. I tend to agree.

TheCount
11-17-2016, 08:00 AM
What would happen if the Federal Govt halted funding to a mega city?
They had no such leverage in the 1860's, but now they do..

In an interview yesterday, the mayor of Santa Fe, which is a sanctuary city, said that only 2℅ of the city's budget comes from federal funding.

Also, the states that contain the sanctuary cities are mostly those which contribute more money to the federal government than they receive back. These are not poor areas.

The federal government does not have as much financial leverage as you are suggesting.

goldenequity
11-17-2016, 08:22 AM
In an interview yesterday, the mayor of Santa Fe, which is a sanctuary city, said that only 2℅ of the city's budget comes from federal funding.

Also, the states that contain the sanctuary cities are mostly those which contribute more money to the federal government than they receive back. These are not poor areas.

The federal government does not have as much financial leverage as you are suggesting.

Good to know.

Todd
11-17-2016, 10:32 AM
I'm going to enjoy watching 1/3rd of the posters here do a complete 180 turn on their opinion of local government defying the federal government. It will be entertaining, to say the least.

They shouldn't be forced to listen to the federal government at all. That being said, the Fed shouldn't be sending them goodies to take care of their wild ass ideas about sanctuaries either.

goldenequity
11-18-2016, 06:11 PM
In an interview yesterday, the mayor of Santa Fe, which is a sanctuary city, said that only 2℅ of the city's budget comes from federal funding.

Also, the states that contain the sanctuary cities are mostly those which contribute more money to the federal government than they receive back. These are not poor areas.

The federal government does not have as much financial leverage as you are suggesting.


Good to know.

================

Update:

President Elect Trump Threatens The Lawless Mayor's Of Sanctuary Cities With A $650 Billion Haircut


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVzKejsIcNg

AuH20
11-18-2016, 06:17 PM
================

Update:

President Elect Trump Threatens The Lawless Mayor's Of Sanctuary Cities With A $650 Billion Haircut


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVzKejsIcNg

Good luck with the mayor finding that shortfall in his budget.

euphemia
11-18-2016, 06:21 PM
Start with San Francisco. The mayor declared it a sanctuary city. And there was Kate Steinle.

goldenequity
11-22-2016, 10:36 PM
Sanctuary Campuses


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVhwbzAbius

Seraphim
11-22-2016, 10:49 PM
Sanctuary cities are defying a Federal Law that is very much in line with legit Federal jurisdistiction, immigration.

These cities cannot harbor known federal fugitives while receiving enormous Federal grants.

Within these cities legal immigrants are MOST likely to want to have the violentl criminal elements of illegal immigration DEPORTED NOW.

If Congress is onboard with not dispensing huge money to these cities, they simply won't. Then the cities will beg for ICE to come in and clean up their streets.

Or they could just allow the Federal Govt to actually do something that is within it's scope and aggressively target known violent criminals and felons and get them the hell out.

Jesse James
11-23-2016, 06:30 AM
Not since the "Civil" War.
or ever. state don't have rights, people do

Jesse James
11-23-2016, 06:32 AM
Good point Gunny.
My comment is practical not legal,
more of a 'probability' question for the social engineer/psyop people here.

What would happen if the Federal Govt halted funding to a mega city?
They had no such leverage in the 1860's, but now they do.

WOULD they (actually) ever do it?
My answer is yes.

It won't be a 'halt'.
It will be 'line items' or a 'percentage'.

Then simply watch as the 'local' mayors and bureaucrats
commit political suicide with the budgetary vice they put themselves in...
"Gee.. what services do I cut first??"

The trouble comes when it becomes tit-for-tat...
When the CITIES start to withhold submitting the collected taxes to the State collectors
to forward on to the Federal collection.

It then becomes the Cities defying their own States.

Would the Governor of Illinois allow Chicago Mayor Rahm Immanuel to put all the other Mayors and Cities 'at risk' economically?
Would the Governor of California allow San Francisco to put all the other Mayors and Cities 'at risk' economically?

This could trigger a political bloodbath at ALL levels.
there was no income tax in the 1860s so there wasn't much funding to go around regardless

goldenequity
11-23-2016, 10:03 PM
"All it needs is a signature."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mmNl227L6M

goldenequity
12-20-2016, 03:26 AM
I hope Gowdy never leaves the House. He's RIGHT where he should be.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQb6KW-0tjY





and this one.. NOT to do w/ immigration
but this one busting slack oversight against racketeering bureaucrats abusing access and use of power...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWdMYjmAR9A