Trump Administration to Send Thousands of ICE Agents to Target Sanctuary Cities

[Swordsmyth]

Let me practice my own Christian religion but no other religions allowed (Muslims).

WHAT NO HONOR KILLINGS ALLOWED? CALL THE UN!.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

That covers Republicans too.

Yeah, I just covered that.

Republicans...Less social spending, more police/ military spending.

Democrats have actually jumped on that bandwagon. It started when Clinton beefed up cop spending.

I also just saw a historical trend poll showing that Democrats have increasingly supported the military over the past few decades. You people used to be the vanguard of military criticism. You also used to be the center of free speech at Berkeley, and now you've gotten away from that. What happened?

[Ender]

Increasing enforcement in a neglected area is not creating a police state, unless you are an Anarchist.

Stop with the Anarchist crap- unless, of course, you are a Nazi.

[Swordsmyth]

Stop with the Anarchist crap- unless, of course, you are a Nazi.

I call them like I see them, those who don't think the government should enforce any laws are Anarchists, they are entitled to their opinion but they are wrong.

[nikcers]

The gov also gets to target opposition with their increased law enforcement. You might not be doing anything illegal now, but they can change that. This is not what Ron Paul meant by rolling back our intervention overseas and bringing our troops home to defend our borders. This is introducing an entire new federal entitlement program for nanny state supporters who want to replace the local government with federal government because the local government isn't able to take care of itself.

[Ender]

I call them like I see them, those who don't think the government should enforce any laws are Anarchists, they are entitled to their opinion but they are wrong.

The FEDERAL gov originally had only a few powers- mostly foreign trade and safety from foreign wars.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition. … The States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore … never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market.”

This is NOT anarchy- what you are pushing is fascism:

Fascism
The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.
1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.
The use of militarism was implied only as a means to accomplish one of the three above principles, mainly to keep the people and rest of the world in line. Fascist countries are known for their harmony and lack of internal strife. There are no conflicting parties or elections in fascist countries.

A political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

[Swordsmyth]

The FEDERAL gov originally had only a few powers- mostly foreign trade and safety from foreign wars.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition. … The States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore … never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market.”

This is NOT anarchy- what you are pushing is fascism:

Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.

[PierzStyx]

Nonsense, Illegals have been choosing to stay because conditions in Mexico and other origin countries have gotten worse, as Zippy likes to point out most do not come from Mexico anymore, and border and internal enforcement have been deliberately lax for as long as anyone can remember.

No, illegal immigrants have come to America in the past because it had a better economy. But they always left again as they came here to make money instead of permanently settling. The reason they now come and stay is because when forced to make the choice by an increasingly militarized US border that prevents easy coming and going, they've chosen to stay for higher wages.

And you can call facts "nonsense" as you wish. But that doesn't change that they are facts and your argument is nothing but anti-free market Big Government Progressive babble.

[tod evans]

More federal kops is never a good thing.

Doesn't matter if you want immigrants or not.

Too many foreigners is the result of too much government, thinking more government is going to fix the problem is a fools game.

[PierzStyx]

Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.

You're demonstrating a distinct incomprehension of the US Constitution.

Article 1, Section 9 is an obsolete provision that was designed to protect the slave trade from congressional restriction for a period of time.

Don't take my word for it. Even the Heritage Foundation, an organization well known for its anti-immigration policies, explains that Article 1, Section 9 applies only to the Atlantic Slave Trade. Link: http://www.heritage.org/constitution...60/slave-trade

The only way you could get that Article 1 Section 9 is about immigration is if you either 1) Read it completely out of context and foolishly thought you had found your AHA! moment but didn't actually do any studying about what you were reading, or 2) Believe in the "living Constitution" argument, a Progressive ploy to essentially nullify all meaning in the US Constitution so they can make it mean whatever they want and thereby justify any big government program.

That either of these spawned your erroneous interpretation suggests you might want to reevaluate your other positions for such serious flaw sin judgment.

[phill4paul]

You're demonstrating a distinct incomprehension of the US Constitution.

Article 1, Section 9 is an obsolete provision that was designed to protect the slave trade from congressional restriction for a period of time.

Don't take my word for it. Even the Heritage Foundation, an organization well known for its anti-immigration policies, explains that Article 1, Section 9 applies only to the Atlantic Slave Trade. Link: http://www.heritage.org/constitution...60/slave-trade

The only way you could get that Article 1 Section 9 is about immigration is if you either 1) Read it completely out of context and foolishly thought you had found your AHA! moment but didn't actually do any studying about what you were reading, or 2) Believe in the "living Constitution" argument, a Progressive ploy to essentially nullify all meaning in the US Constitution so they can make it mean whatever they want and thereby justify any big government program.

That either of these spawned your erroneous interpretation suggests you might want to reevaluate your other positions for such serious flaw sin judgment.

Was just about to post this. Sheesh. The Constitution, folks. Read the text, then study it in the context it was written.

[PierzStyx]

The FEDERAL gov originally had only a few powers- mostly foreign trade and safety from foreign wars.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, not longer susceptible of any definition. … The States can best govern our home concerns and the general government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore … never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold at market.”

This is NOT anarchy- what you are pushing is fascism:

Fascism
The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.
1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.
The use of militarism was implied only as a means to accomplish one of the three above principles, mainly to keep the people and rest of the world in line. Fascist countries are known for their harmony and lack of internal strife. There are no conflicting parties or elections in fascist countries.
A political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Well said. It is sad that so many have such a basic misapprehension of liberty that they cannot even understand the difference between the Constitution and fascism. They think slavery is liberty. It is a vicious form of groupthink collectivism.

[PierzStyx]

I call them like I see them, those who don't think the government should enforce any laws are Anarchists, they are entitled to their opinion but they are wrong.

Well, you've demonstrated that you don't understand the Constitution, anarchy, fascism, or liberty. So perhaps you should just stop calling them "like [you] see them," because that hasn't been working out for you so far.

[Swordsmyth]

You're demonstrating a distinct incomprehension of the US Constitution.

Article 1, Section 9 is an obsolete provision that was designed to protect the slave trade from congressional restriction for a period of time.

Don't take my word for it. Even the Heritage Foundation, an organization well known for its anti-immigration policies, explains that Article 1, Section 9 applies only to the Atlantic Slave Trade. Link: http://www.heritage.org/constitution...60/slave-trade

The only way you could get that Article 1 Section 9 is about immigration is if you either 1) Read it completely out of context and foolishly thought you had found your AHA! moment but didn't actually do any studying about what you were reading, or 2) Believe in the "living Constitution" argument, a Progressive ploy to essentially nullify all meaning in the US Constitution so they can make it mean whatever they want and thereby justify any big government program.

That either of these spawned your erroneous interpretation suggests you might want to reevaluate your other positions for such serious flaw sin judgment.

Slaves do not MIGRATE, Migration is mentioned before Importation.

[PierzStyx]

Are sanctuary cities violating the constitution ? If so then all federal tax dollars withe the exception of social security , medicare and military pensions should be eliminated completely from those zip codes .

Nope. But Social Security, Medicare, and military pensions are all violations of the Constitution.

[Ender]

Slaves do not MIGRATE, Migration is mentioned before Importation.

Oh meh gerd- reading is your friend:

http://www.heritage.org/constitution...60/slave-trade

[oyarde]

Nope. But Social Security, Medicare, and military pensions are all violations of the Constitution.

I understand that social security and medicare are violations , unlike all the other welfare though they were pd into .

[Swordsmyth]

Nope. But Social Security, Medicare, and military pensions are all violations of the Constitution.

His point is that those go to individuals not the city, getting rid of them would require a different action.
In point of fact NO Federal money should go to ANY city.

[PierzStyx]

Slaves do not MIGRATE, Migration is mentioned before Importation.

It is the Atlantic Slave Trade, you know when Africans were taken from Africa and forced to migrate to America in order to be slaves?

Now I'm beginning to think you don't have a basic grasp on history either.

Or maybe you don't understand the definition of the word migrate?

Migrate: (of a person) movement from one area or country to settle in another.

The slaves migrated because they were brought to the US form other countries and they were imported because the states imported them to be used for work.

Maybe its both history and the US Constitution you don't understand. That would explain a few things on this thread. That in and of itself is no sin. But refusing to do your research, to double down on ignorance when it has been demonstrated that you're in error? That is a fatal flaw.

[oyarde]

Do you realize that currently "on the borders" means within 100 miles of the US border?



So there's your Constitution-free zone.

Ya , I try and stay out of that . I always wondered how Florida is even a state , should it not be just a territory ?

[Swordsmyth]

Oh meh gerd- reading is your friend:

http://www.heritage.org/constitution...60/slave-trade

Nothing there explains away Migration, slaves were imported, the founders would not have mentioned migration if this provision was only about slaves.

[timosman]

Nope. But Social Security, Medicare, and military pensions are all violations of the Constitution.

Your point is moot. Everybody knows government makes no mistakes. /s

[oyarde]

His point is that those go to individuals not the city, getting rid of them would require a different action.
In point of fact NO Federal money should go to ANY city.

That is true , no Fed tax dollars should go to cities or universities .

[Swordsmyth]

It is the Atlantic Slave Trade, you know when Africans were taken from Africa and forced to migrate to America in order to be slaves?

Now I'm beginning to think you don't have a basic grasp on history either.

Or maybe you don't understand the definition of the word migrate?

Migrate: (of a person) movement from one area or country to settle in another.

The slaves migrated because they were brought to the US form other countries and they were imported because the states imported them to be used for work.

Maybe its both history and the US Constitution you don't understand. That would explain a few things on this thread. That in and of itself is no sin. But refusing to do your research, to double down on ignorance when it has been demonstrated that you're in error? That is a fatal flaw.

It says Migration OR Importation, recognizing them as two different things.
Slaves are imported, migration is voluntary.

[Ender]

Nothing there explains away Migration, slaves were imported, the founders would not have mentioned migration if this provision was only about slaves.

Article 1 Section 9 is about....wait for it..........SLAVERY.

The migration provision of the Migration or Importation Clause therefore was likely either a euphemism intended to avoid referring to slaves, or a tool for preventing Congress from using the Foreign Commerce Clause to ban or heavily tax the in-migration of indentured servants until 1808. .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.18ea3dd5bda1

Section 9 - The Meaning
Article I, Section 9 specifically prohibits Congress from legislating in certain areas. In the first clause, the Constitution bars Congress from banning the importation of slaves before 1808.

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-9

Although the first debate over slavery at the Constitutional Convention concerned representation (see Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), the second debate arose when Southern delegates objected that an unrestricted congressional power to regulate commerce could be used against Southern commercial interests to restrict or outlaw the slave trade. That the resulting provision was an important compromise is underscored by the fact that the clause stands as the first independent restraint on congressional powers, prior even to the restriction on the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution...60/slave-trade

Clause 1. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

This is another euphemistic nod to America's dark history of slavery. "Such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" is a really long-winded way of saying "slaves" without actually saying "slaves." The Constitution barred any attempt to outlaw the slave trade before 1808. As soon as that date rolled around, Congress did vote to block the international slave trade, although slaves continued to be sold within the country and slavery itself lasted for almost another 60 years.

http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/a...section-9.html

[Swordsmyth]

Article 1 Section 9 is about....wait for it..........SLAVERY.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.18ea3dd5bda1


http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-9


http://www.heritage.org/constitution...60/slave-trade


http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/a...section-9.html

No matter how many times an untruth is repeated it does not become true.

It says Migration OR Importation, recognizing them as two different things.
Slaves are imported, migration is voluntary.

[Swordsmyth]

Article 1 Section 9 is about....wait for it..........SLAVERY.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.18ea3dd5bda1


http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pa...le-i-section-9


http://www.heritage.org/constitution...60/slave-trade


http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/a...section-9.html

The migration provision of the Migration or Importation Clause therefore was likely either a euphemism intended to avoid referring to slaves, or a tool for preventing Congress from using the Foreign Commerce Clause to ban or heavily tax the in-migration of indentured servants until 1808. .

Indentured servants came voluntarily, and were therefore not legally distinguishable from any other immigrant, congress has the power to restrict immigration since 1808.

[Ender]

The migration provision of the Migration or Importation Clause therefore was likely either a euphemism intended to avoid referring to slaves, or a tool for preventing Congress from using the Foreign Commerce Clause to ban or heavily tax the in-migration of indentured servants until 1808. .

Indentured servants came voluntarily, and were therefore not legally distinguishable from any other immigrant, congress has the power to restrict immigration since 1808.

Many indentured servants did NOT come voluntarily and many were treated worse than slaves. This is not popular a popular PC POV right now because all white men are racists so there could not possibly have been any white slaves- but there were.

Colonel William Brayne wrote to English authorities in 1656 urging the importation of Negro slaves on the grounds that, “as the planters would have to pay much more for them, they would have an interest in preserving their lives, which was wanting in the case of (Irish)….” many of whom, he charged, were killed by overwork and cruel treatment. African Negroes cost generally about 20 to 50 pounds Sterling, compared to 900 pounds of cotton (about 5 pounds Sterling) for an Irish. They were also more durable in the hot climate, and caused fewer problems. The biggest bonus with the Africans though, was they were NOT Catholic, and any heathen pagan was better than an Irish Papist.

It’s impossible to estimate the exact number of Irish sold into slavery during this period. More Irish slaves were sold in the American colonies between 1651 and 1660 than the entire free population of those colonies. In fact, more Irish were sold as slaves in the America’s during the 17th Century than Africans.

The typical death rate on the slave ships was around 37%. The Irish did often have one advantage over African slaves – most of the time their time in slavery was limited. They were often sold into slavery from 7 to 20 years, while the only way Africans could get out of slavery was to buy their freedom.

Interesting historical note: the last person killed at the Salem Witch Trials was Ann Glover. She and her husband had been shipped to Barbados as a slave in the 1650’s. Her husband was killed there for refusing to renounce catholicism.

In the 1680’s she was working as a housekeeper in Salem. After some of the children she was caring for got sick she was accused of being a witch. At the trial they demanded she say the Lord’s Prayer. She did so, but in Gaelic, because she didn’t know English. She was then hung.

http://www.thenewportbuzz.com/the-ir...me-forgot/7191

[Swordsmyth]

Many indentured servants did NOT come voluntarily and many were treated worse than slaves. This is not popular a popular PC POV right now because all white men are racists so there could not possibly have been any white slaves- but there were.



http://www.thenewportbuzz.com/the-ir...me-forgot/7191

Many as in not all, those who were not voluntary were imported they did not migrate, those who were voluntary migrated.

[Swordsmyth]

Many indentured servants did NOT come voluntarily and many were treated worse than slaves. This is not popular a popular PC POV right now because all white men are racists so there could not possibly have been any white slaves- but there were.



http://www.thenewportbuzz.com/the-ir...me-forgot/7191

Also this provision was not written in the 1600s.