• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is This The New Normal?

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
42,585
45,699
Los Angeles Area
✟1,015,720.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Baloney. The city sanctuary laws are preventing criminal illegal immigrants from being deported. The sanctuary city laws are attempting to circumvent federal law enforcement from doing their jobs by making it far more difficult and dangerous for federal law enforcement.
Okay, you seem to be backing away from asserting the cities are breaking laws. If not, produce the law being broken.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
42,585
45,699
Los Angeles Area
✟1,015,720.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,935
5,742
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟376,404.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Funny how quickly conservatives cottoned to the concept of Big Government.
Conservatives have always affirmed in the necessity of obeying and following the laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A New Dawn
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,935
5,742
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟376,404.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Of course and I would expect nothing less from this petty, authoritarian regime who wants everyone to bend oover and comply with their demands. As we see with Boston, sanctuary cities are standing up to this federal bully.
If city laws override federal laws, then we might as well not have any federal laws. By the way, what's wrong with turning over criminal illegal immigrants to ICE? Why do liberals appear to be on the same side as criminals?
 
  • Like
Reactions: A New Dawn
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Raised by bees
Mar 11, 2017
22,060
16,597
55
USA
✟418,158.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
If city laws override federal laws, then we might as well not have any federal laws. By the way, what's wrong with turning over criminal illegal immigrants to ICE? Why do liberals appear to be on the same side as criminals?
They are not overriding federal laws, they just aren't doing the immigration authority's jobs for them.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,358
9,111
65
✟433,764.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
They are not overriding federal laws, they just aren't doing the immigration authority's jobs for them.
Hey are actively participating in the allowance of the breaking of federal immigration law by harboring illegals. In fact they invite them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
26,214
28,924
LA
✟646,838.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
If city laws override federal laws, then we might as well not have any federal laws.
They don’t override federal laws. They are state and city laws meant to govern state and city officials.
By the way, what's wrong with turning over criminal illegal immigrants to ICE? Why do liberals appear to be on the same side as criminals?
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it in theory.

I just think my local PD has more pressing issues and more relevant crimes to deal with than to be committing time, resources and manpower to enforce federal laws. First, that’s not their jurisdiction and second, with the ridiculously huge boost in funding now available to ICE there’s even less reason for local authorities to spare any extra resources to them.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
42,585
45,699
Los Angeles Area
✟1,015,720.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
By the way, what's wrong with turning over criminal illegal immigrants to ICE? Why do liberals appear to be on the same side as criminals?
We want criminals to face justice and receive punishment. Not escape justice. That said, if ICE has a judicial warrant, they will be honored by local police.
 
Upvote 0

Tropical Wilds

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
Oct 2, 2009
6,818
4,968
New England
✟270,018.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Hey are actively participating in the allowance of the breaking of federal immigration law by harboring illegals. In fact they invite them.
They were bussed there by Texas, too, or did we forget that? I think the claim was “now they’re your problem, and Boston accepted them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BCP1928
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,935
5,742
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟376,404.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
We want criminals to face justice and receive punishment. Not escape justice. That said, if ICE has a judicial warrant, they will be honored by local police.
I've seen the opposite of that happening in blue cities and blue sanctuary cities.
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
42,585
45,699
Los Angeles Area
✟1,015,720.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
I've seen the opposite of that happening in blue cities and blue sanctuary cities.
Nonsense, you've been crowing about local police in sanctuary cities apprehending aliens who commit crimes.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
22,689
14,011
Earth
✟246,177.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
If city laws override federal laws, then we might as well not have any federal laws. By the way, what's wrong with turning over criminal illegal immigrants to ICE? Why do liberals appear to be on the same side as criminals?
Writing a city law that says (in effect) that city funds cannot be used to enforce Federal Immigration Law, would be a valid law.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,935
5,742
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟376,404.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
42,585
45,699
Los Angeles Area
✟1,015,720.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
If so, then it is also the right of the federal government to deny federal funds to sanctuary states and sanctuary cities.
Not necessarily.

Judge blocks Trump admin from withholding funding to 34 cities and counties over 'sanctuary' policies

The 15-page order from Judge William Orrick grants a preliminary injunction in the administration's effort to withhold funds and expands the number of cities that federal funds can't be withheld from due to their "sanctuary" status for undocumented immigrants.

In 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13,768(“EO 13,768”), titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” which was directed at so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions.”The City and County ofSan Francisco and County of Santa Clara sued, arguingthat Section 9 of EO 13,768wasunconstitutional. I found that theyhad pre-enforcement standing, that they were likely to succeed on the merits because Section 9(a)of EO 13,768 was unconstitutional, and that they faced irreparable harm absent an injunction. I enjoined Section 9(a)ofEO 13,768. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Cnty.of Santa Clara v. Trump, et al., 250 F. Supp. 3d 497(N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017) (Preliminary Injunction Order), aff’d, 897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018).

Here we are again.

Precedent in the Ninth Circuit and the orders of this court show why the Cities and Countieshave establishedthatthey are likely to prevail on the merits of at least their separation of powers, Spending Clause, and Fifth and Tenth Amendment claims. The challenged sectionsin the 2025 Executive Orders and the Bondi Directivethatorder executive agenciesto withhold, freeze, or condition federal fundingapportioned to localities by Congress,violate the Constitution’s separation of powers principlesandthe Spending Clause,as explained by the Ninth Circuit in the earlier iteration of this case in 2018; they also violatethe Fifth Amendmentto the extent theyare unconstitutionally vague and violate due process.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

Vambram

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative
Site Supporter
Dec 3, 2006
7,935
5,742
60
Saint James, Missouri
✟376,404.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Not necessarily.

Judge blocks Trump admin from withholding funding to 34 cities and counties over 'sanctuary' policies

The 15-page order from Judge William Orrick grants a preliminary injunction in the administration's effort to withhold funds and expands the number of cities that federal funds can't be withheld from due to their "sanctuary" status for undocumented immigrants.

In 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13,768(“EO 13,768”), titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” which was directed at so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions.”The City and County ofSan Francisco and County of Santa Clara sued, arguingthat Section 9 of EO 13,768wasunconstitutional. I found that theyhad pre-enforcement standing, that they were likely to succeed on the merits because Section 9(a)of EO 13,768 was unconstitutional, and that they faced irreparable harm absent an injunction. I enjoined Section 9(a)ofEO 13,768. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Cnty.of Santa Clara v. Trump, et al., 250 F. Supp. 3d 497(N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017) (Preliminary Injunction Order), aff’d, 897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018).

Here we are again.

Precedent in the Ninth Circuit and the orders of this court show why the Cities and Countieshave establishedthatthey are likely to prevail on the merits of at least their separation of powers, Spending Clause, and Fifth and Tenth Amendment claims. The challenged sectionsin the 2025 Executive Orders and the Bondi Directivethatorder executive agenciesto withhold, freeze, or condition federal fundingapportioned to localities by Congress,violate the Constitution’s separation of powers principlesandthe Spending Clause,as explained by the Ninth Circuit in the earlier iteration of this case in 2018; they also violatethe Fifth Amendmentto the extent theyare unconstitutionally vague and violate due process.
The decision of that one lower court judge shall be appealed and over ruled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A New Dawn
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
28,358
9,111
65
✟433,764.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
They were bussed there by Texas, too, or did we forget that? I think the claim was “now they’re your problem, and Boston accepted them.
Yup, cause Biden wasnt doing anything about it, so they sent them where the cities wanted them because they were sanctuary places. States cannot arrest or detain illegals for being illegal. If illegals are arrested for something else jails can check on legal status and notify ICE who can order a hold. However liberal states and or cities are not doing that. They are welcoming illegals into their cities and refusing to cooperate with the feds and letting them go.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0

Tropical Wilds

Little Lebowski Urban Achiever
Oct 2, 2009
6,818
4,968
New England
✟270,018.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yup, cause Biden wasnt doing anything about it, so they sent them where the cities wanted them because they were sanctuary places.
Exactly, they were sent there, we took them, and wanted them. They’re there now. Just because you’re mad the world didn’t implode by bussing them there and you want them back to deport them doesn’t mean they need to be sent back. You admit yourself, they knew sending them there that they were sanctuary cities and once there getting them back would be difficult. It’s why they were sent there.

States cannot arrest or detain illegals for being illegal. If illegals are arrested for something else jails can check on legal status and notify ICE who can order a hold. However liberal states and or cities are not doing that. They are welcoming illegals into their cities and refusing to cooperate with the feds and letting them go.
Because Republicans sent them there. They were told this would happen and they sent them anyway. Can’t complain that the system you set up to do what you wanted it to do is doing exactly what you set out for it to do, but you don’t like it. Its like sending your neighbor a package from Amazon then being upset they kept it, used it, and don’t want to give it back.

You sent them. They’re theirs now.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Vambram
Upvote 0