Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 86 of 86

Thread: Trump considers sending illegals to sanctuary cities

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Disagree. 100k indigents showing up on Pelosi's or Shumer's doorstep would be the best thing in the world. The more, the sooner, the better.
    I am sure you could apply for a grant while "processing" them.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62

  4. #63
    Wow, finally something to break Trump's "losing" streak lately, I mean, that whole Russiagate exoneration was so rough.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  5. #64



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/stat...21069648879616

    Why do they find the prospect so frightening?
    Wouldn't the illegals be "safer" and better off in sanctuary cities?
    Don't they want them?
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Well, see. THAT is the solution. How do you destroy a middle class that is conservative in nature? You undercut it.
    What is this so called Middle Class of which you speak?

    ---

    Edit:

    I am also kind of thinking of demanding that Pelosi tear down the walls around her own so called "Private Property" and take her $#@! and give it to the illegals! See how she likes it when it is her $#@! that gets taken away!
    Last edited by DamianTV; 04-14-2019 at 02:44 AM.
    1776 > 1984

    The FAILURE of the United States Government to operate and maintain an
    Honest Money System , which frees the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, is the single largest contributing factor to the World's current Economic Crisis.

    The Elimination of Privacy is the Architecture of Genocide

    Belief, Money, and Violence are the three ways all people are controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Our central bank is not privately owned.

  9. #67

  10. #68
    Why would the rationale behind any policy ever need to exceed however many characters twitter currently allows..
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Why would the rationale behind any policy ever need to exceed however many characters twitter currently allows..
    LOL +rep
    - SUPPORT FREE TRADE, SMUGGLE -

    2 + 2 = 5.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    I am sure you could apply for a grant while "processing" them.
    Hell, I'll fire up my coach and go help transport them just for fuel.

  13. #71
    Why is MAGA cheering for this? Are there walls around these sanctuary cities that would keep these migrants from going anywhere else?

  14. #72
    Sanctuary Cities and the Rule of Law

    by Judge Andrew Napolitano


    Earlier this week, the Trump Department of Justice told the mayor of Chicago that it would cease funding grants to the Chicago Police Department that had been approved in the Obama administration because Chicago city officials were not cooperating with federal immigration officials.


    The DOJ contended that Chicago officials were contributing to lawlessness by refusing to inform the feds of the whereabouts of undocumented foreign-born people, thereby creating what the feds derisively call a "sanctuary city," and Chicago officials have argued that their police officers and clerical folks are not obligated to work for the feds.


    Who is correct?


    The concept of a sanctuary city does not mean it is a place where federal law is unenforced by the feds. Rather, it is a place where local authorities have elected not to spend their tax dollars helping the feds to enforce federal law. The term "sanctuary city" is not a legal term but a political one. The Trump administration has used the term to characterize the governments of towns and cities that have created safe havens for those who have overstayed their visas by refusing to tell the feds who these folks are and where they can be found.


    Can local authorities refuse to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word, yes. There is no legal obligation on the part of local authorities to help the feds with manpower or resources or data to enforce federal law within the jurisdiction of those local authorities.


    During the Clinton administration, when Congress passed legislation that directed local law enforcement to enforce a federal gun registration scheme, the Supreme Court invalidated the statute. It ruled that the feds cannot commandeer local and state officials and compel them to enforce federal laws; the feds can enforce their own laws.


    The federal compulsion, the court held, violated the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, which guarantees a representative form of government in every state. If the feds could enter a state and nullify the will of elected state officials not to spend state tax dollars, that would unconstitutionally impair representative government in those states.


    Can the feds withhold federal funds from cities that refuse to cooperate in the enforcement of federal law? Yes and no. In the post-World War II era, Congress began purchasing state compliance with its wishes in areas that the Constitution did not permit it to regulate. Stated differently, since Congress can spend money on any matter it wishes, as long as it is arguably for the general welfare, but it cannot regulate for the general welfare, it has used its power of the purse as a way around the constitutional limitations on its regulatory powers.


    This is legalized bribery of the states.


    In the Reagan administration, Congress offered hundreds of millions of dollars to the states to repave federal highways if the states lowered their maximum speed limits to 55 miles per hour. South Dakota objected. Its government wanted the federal cash for the highway repaving but did not want to lower its speed limits.


    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the feds. It held that South Dakota is free to reject federal dollars, but if it accepts them, it must accept the strings that accompany them, as long as those strings are clearly spelled out before the cash flows and rationally related to the expenditure of the federal funds. Because repaving highways and the maximum speeds that vehicles would travel on them were rationally related, South Dakota had to choose between its cherished liberal speed limits and federal cash. No surprise, it chose the cash.


    Now back to sanctuary cities. When the Obama administration offered Chicago and other cities cash to purchase new police communication equipment, it attached strings to those offers -- but compliance with federal immigration authorities was not among them. Chicago's complaints about DOJ threats are constitutionally sound because federal strings can be imposed only by Congress and they cannot be imposed retroactively.


    Thus, federal funds awarded in the Obama administration without the string of cooperation with immigration authorities attached may not be interfered with by the Trump administration. If the feds do withhold committed funds that lack a cooperation condition attached, a court will invalidate that withholding.


    Is the refusal to cooperate with the feds a form of nullification? In a word, yes. Federal law is superior to local law in areas that are primarily or exclusively federal, and immigration is unambiguously federal. Yet having pockets throughout the country without local cooperation with the feds fosters what the courts have called "laboratories of democracy."


    Stated differently, if the local government in Manhattan or Chicago or Seattle aggressively protects undocumented immigrants who live there in return for the purchasing power and cultural diversity that immigrants bring, that may relieve social and legal pressure on governments elsewhere and will be a social experiment -- a laboratory of democracy -- worthy of cultural and political scrutiny and perhaps even indifference when it comes to the feds.


    Many Trump supporters see in the president a champion who will rid the country of those they see as unlawfully here, and they also see in liberal big-city mayors politicians pandering to interest groups. But there is a rich history to federalism, and there are two sides to its coin. The rich history is that of state and local resistance to the tyranny of the majority in Washington -- a resistance as old as the country itself. The refusal of Massachusetts authorities to cooperate with the feds in the enforcement of the federal Fugitive Slave Act comes to mind.


    The other side of the coin is unthinkable to my conservative brethren. If Hillary Clinton had been elected president along with a Democratic Congress and it had offered state and local governments federal funds with strings attached requiring cities to make abortions available on demand, they all would be whistling a very different and very federalism-based tune.



    https://townhall.com/columnists/judg...f-law-n2366474
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    Why is MAGA cheering for this? Are there walls around these sanctuary cities that would keep these migrants from going anywhere else?
    They're cheering for it because Trump's doing it. The same reason Pelosi, et al, are criticizing it.

    It has nothing to do with any actual reasons or ideologies, just one team versus the other.

    You're talking about the same people who mindlessly shouted, "Mexico!" when Trump asked who would pay for the wall in his campaign speeches, and then who to a man were totally fine later on when he said that his renegotiated trade agreement with Mexico counts as keeping that promise.

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    They're cheering for it because Trump's doing it. The same reason Pelosi, et al, are criticizing it.

    It has nothing to do with any actual reasons or ideologies, just one team versus the other.

    You're talking about the same people who mindlessly shouted, "Mexico!" when Trump asked who would pay for the wall in his campaign speeches, and then who to a man were totally fine later on when he said that his renegotiated trade agreement with Mexico counts as keeping that promise.
    I thought MAGA was Trump. Plus this was all Schifference's idea

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    I thought MAGA was Trump. Plus this was all Schifference's idea
    In that case, why is Trump cheering for his idea of doing this? It's hard to say, but for starters, who knows what his own position really is on this issue? He's contradicted himself multiple times on whether or not he wants more or less immigration, both legal and illegal. He's more driven by winning, which to him simply means beating the people who criticize him, than he is by any actual outcome or ideology.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They can only do that if the labor market is manipulated.
    None of us alive have experienced a free market economy in the US.

    We learn in Econ 101 that the general Adam Smith / Alfred Marshall standard free market stuff only works under certain free market conditions, and they spend 30 seconds explaining that yes, it's entirely true that we don't have those conditions don't apply, so what we're all going to learn is wrong, and they plow ahead, ignoring that they briefly mentioned there real quick that we're learning a bunch of wrong stuff, and we then then learn what would happen if we lived in the 18th or 19th centuries, or fantasy-land. When there are oligopolies and monopolies, there are not free market conditions. When the government takes huge chunks of your money, not free market conditions. We're nowhere near free markets these days.

    So, yeah, they'll be able to raise their prices.

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    Why is MAGA cheering for this? Are there walls around these sanctuary cities that would keep these migrants from going anywhere else?
    There is welfare and sanctuary policies and we are talking about people who will be dumped in other places anyway.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by PAF View Post
    Sanctuary Cities and the Rule of Law

    by Judge Andrew Napolitano


    Earlier this week, the Trump Department of Justice told the mayor of Chicago that it would cease funding grants to the Chicago Police Department that had been approved in the Obama administration because Chicago city officials were not cooperating with federal immigration officials.


    The DOJ contended that Chicago officials were contributing to lawlessness by refusing to inform the feds of the whereabouts of undocumented foreign-born people, thereby creating what the feds derisively call a "sanctuary city," and Chicago officials have argued that their police officers and clerical folks are not obligated to work for the feds.


    Who is correct?


    The concept of a sanctuary city does not mean it is a place where federal law is unenforced by the feds. Rather, it is a place where local authorities have elected not to spend their tax dollars helping the feds to enforce federal law. The term "sanctuary city" is not a legal term but a political one. The Trump administration has used the term to characterize the governments of towns and cities that have created safe havens for those who have overstayed their visas by refusing to tell the feds who these folks are and where they can be found.


    Can local authorities refuse to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word, yes. There is no legal obligation on the part of local authorities to help the feds with manpower or resources or data to enforce federal law within the jurisdiction of those local authorities.


    During the Clinton administration, when Congress passed legislation that directed local law enforcement to enforce a federal gun registration scheme, the Supreme Court invalidated the statute. It ruled that the feds cannot commandeer local and state officials and compel them to enforce federal laws; the feds can enforce their own laws.


    The federal compulsion, the court held, violated the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, which guarantees a representative form of government in every state. If the feds could enter a state and nullify the will of elected state officials not to spend state tax dollars, that would unconstitutionally impair representative government in those states.


    Can the feds withhold federal funds from cities that refuse to cooperate in the enforcement of federal law? Yes and no. In the post-World War II era, Congress began purchasing state compliance with its wishes in areas that the Constitution did not permit it to regulate. Stated differently, since Congress can spend money on any matter it wishes, as long as it is arguably for the general welfare, but it cannot regulate for the general welfare, it has used its power of the purse as a way around the constitutional limitations on its regulatory powers.


    This is legalized bribery of the states.


    In the Reagan administration, Congress offered hundreds of millions of dollars to the states to repave federal highways if the states lowered their maximum speed limits to 55 miles per hour. South Dakota objected. Its government wanted the federal cash for the highway repaving but did not want to lower its speed limits.


    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the feds. It held that South Dakota is free to reject federal dollars, but if it accepts them, it must accept the strings that accompany them, as long as those strings are clearly spelled out before the cash flows and rationally related to the expenditure of the federal funds. Because repaving highways and the maximum speeds that vehicles would travel on them were rationally related, South Dakota had to choose between its cherished liberal speed limits and federal cash. No surprise, it chose the cash.


    Now back to sanctuary cities. When the Obama administration offered Chicago and other cities cash to purchase new police communication equipment, it attached strings to those offers -- but compliance with federal immigration authorities was not among them. Chicago's complaints about DOJ threats are constitutionally sound because federal strings can be imposed only by Congress and they cannot be imposed retroactively.


    Thus, federal funds awarded in the Obama administration without the string of cooperation with immigration authorities attached may not be interfered with by the Trump administration. If the feds do withhold committed funds that lack a cooperation condition attached, a court will invalidate that withholding.


    Is the refusal to cooperate with the feds a form of nullification? In a word, yes. Federal law is superior to local law in areas that are primarily or exclusively federal, and immigration is unambiguously federal. Yet having pockets throughout the country without local cooperation with the feds fosters what the courts have called "laboratories of democracy."


    Stated differently, if the local government in Manhattan or Chicago or Seattle aggressively protects undocumented immigrants who live there in return for the purchasing power and cultural diversity that immigrants bring, that may relieve social and legal pressure on governments elsewhere and will be a social experiment -- a laboratory of democracy -- worthy of cultural and political scrutiny and perhaps even indifference when it comes to the feds.


    Many Trump supporters see in the president a champion who will rid the country of those they see as unlawfully here, and they also see in liberal big-city mayors politicians pandering to interest groups. But there is a rich history to federalism, and there are two sides to its coin. The rich history is that of state and local resistance to the tyranny of the majority in Washington -- a resistance as old as the country itself. The refusal of Massachusetts authorities to cooperate with the feds in the enforcement of the federal Fugitive Slave Act comes to mind.


    The other side of the coin is unthinkable to my conservative brethren. If Hillary Clinton had been elected president along with a Democratic Congress and it had offered state and local governments federal funds with strings attached requiring cities to make abortions available on demand, they all would be whistling a very different and very federalism-based tune.



    https://townhall.com/columnists/judg...f-law-n2366474
    Judge swamp strikes again.


    O'Bummer is no longer President and Trump may undo what O'Bummer did.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  22. #79
    Having floated the idea and gotten positive feed back from his base and condemnation from Dems he seems intent to follow through...


  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    There is welfare and sanctuary policies and we are talking about people who will be dumped in other places anyway.
    Yes, it's only fitting they should go to the places where they are the most welcomed. Let the invasion start in sanctuary cities.



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    Yes, it's only fitting they should go to the places where they are the most welcomed. Let the invasion start in sanctuary cities.
    When the time comes for the great deportation they will be concentrated and easier to find too.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by EBounding View Post
    Why is MAGA cheering for this? Are there walls around these sanctuary cities that would keep these migrants from going anywhere else?
    You're thinking about it too much, and are therefore a cuck/traitor/loosertarian.

    Just embrace the awesomeness.

    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr.3D View Post
    Yes, it's only fitting they should go to the places where they are the most welcomed. Let the invasion start in sanctuary cities.
    To the extent that the factors you're talking about affect their motivations, those cities are what they will naturally gravitate to anyway.

    How different is this than the catch and release policies he criticized so much?

    If it be answered that without dropping them off in sanctuary cities, they may settle down in other cities. But if it's not the case that the sanctuary policies would be sufficient to draw them into the sanctuary cities, then it also will not be sufficient to keep them there. There are lots of reasons in each individual case for people to want to go other places.

    But again, I hope Trump follows through on this. It's an improvement over the alternative, and may even turn out to be a more effective open-border, amnesty, immigration increasing policy than what any other recent presidents of either party ever adopted.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; Yesterday at 07:28 AM.

  28. #84
    Trump admin considers/proposes/suggests etc etc blah blah blah. One thing you got to give Trump, he knows how to blow smoke up his supporter's arses. Like a good soap opera writer who knows how to close every episode with a cliffhanger so the viewers keep coming back.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Trump admin considers/proposes/suggests etc etc blah blah blah. One thing you got to give Trump, he knows how to blow smoke up his supporter's arses. Like a good soap opera writer who knows how to close every episode with a cliffhanger so the viewers keep coming back.
    And his supporters love it. Every time he contradicts himself in word or deed, they see it as part of a larger brilliant plan.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Superfluous Man View Post
    And his supporters love it. Every time he contradicts himself in word or deed, they see it as part of a larger brilliant plan.
    And when he follows the orders of his neocon advisers, that is also evidence of him brilliantly conning those same neocons. Its amazing how much rubbish one would believe when you have ones mind psyched to believe in a leader. Every move they make ultimately confirms their original bias.
    You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Trust principles; not people.
    My Che avatar is my unique way of giving a big middle finger to the, the neocons, the globalists, imperialists and most importantly to the left and right political establishment who hate his guts till this day. My admiration for him ends where his anti imperialist pro communism ideology starts.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Similar Threads

  1. Trump and Jeff Sessions Are Going After More Sanctuary Cities
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 11-21-2017, 10:12 PM
  2. U.S. judge sides against Trump in fight over 'sanctuary cities'
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-15-2017, 10:22 PM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-26-2017, 08:50 AM
  4. Ben Carson: Trump is right on Sanctuary Cities
    By AuH20 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-02-2016, 12:30 AM
  5. Selling Sanctuary: Cities Offer Safe Harbor to Illegals
    By FrankRep in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-28-2010, 10:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •