Question about sanctuary states and cities

[Dawg]

Post #19

Fake news.[/QUOTE]

nothing fake about it, it's a Fact Barry O completely removed the citizen question

 

[EatTheRich]

If the citizenship question remains on the next census and states are afforded representation based upon citizens within the state will those progressive states and cities do? Consider that if it comes to fruition the number of house seats and electoral votes afforded those states will not reflect the number of people but rather the number of citizens.

My bet is that given the facts that the only reason sanctuary states exist is to manipulate the states power in congress and the presidential election that those states will immediately abandon the bogus policies and deport them toot sweet.

1. The main reasons they exist are to comply with the law and to avoid a public outcry over human rights abuses.
2. Constitutionally, no matter what questions are asked on the census, apportionment is based on the whole population, not the citizen population.

 

[EatTheRich]

Awe bless your heart, you actually think that the reasons they are going against federal law is due to resources or some altruistic purposes.
The DPRC has to keep the population up or loose representation in the election and in the house while keeping up the open theft of money from those who earn so that they may purchase the votes of those who chose poverty. Given the mass exodus of people from the DPRC (tax payers) they must bring in more illegals to keep the numbers up.

And no one chooses poverty, of course.

 

[EatTheRich]

I would like it known who took it off and why?

Obama did due to evidence it made the Census results less accurate. Trump tried to bring it back because he thought that inaccuracy would help his party get an electoral advantage.

 

[EatTheRich]

HAHAHA. Liberals don't do anything because they care about other people. Liberals are white-hating racists and everything they do is part of their plan to destroy the white race.

Even the white ones who dominate the parties, lobbying groups, and think tanks?

 

[EatTheRich]

Happens every weekend. Not much can be done about it since most black men can't read and thus can't get jobs. Crime is their only career option.

An obvious lie.

 

[redtide]

Post #19

Fake news.

nothing fake about it, it's a Fact Barry O completely removed the citizen question[/QUOTE]
True and he did so for the same reason the progressives are trying to keep it off, they have such a disdain for the nation that they for some sick reason want to see US all go down.

 

[Dawg]

nothing fake about it, it's a Fact Barry O completely removed the citizen question

True and he did so for the same reason the progressives are trying to keep it off, they have such a disdain for the nation that they for some sick reason want to see US all go down.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it was decided in 2008...…………...Bush...……..but Barry O didn't stop it for a reason

 

[Dawg]

Yet you hate Southern Americans
______________________________________________________________

Exactly, Alabama is inbred central. Along with the states that border it.



now_what, Wednesday at 9:30 PM Report
#5 + Quote Reply
_________________________________________________________________

Hypocrite often?

Yet, it isn't as fvcked up as your city 4/15

https://allthatsinteresting.com/poop-patrol-san-francisco

 

[Emily]

-The reason sanctuary cities exist is because it's not state or cities jobs to enforce immigration laws. They shouldn't be wasting their limited resources doing the Fed's job for them.

They are not going against federal law. They are actually upholding federal law. It is the Fed's job to enforce immigration, Locales have no business enforcing it, if they are then they are in violation of the constitution.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that state laws and policies are preempted when they conflict with federal law, as well as when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Congress has set priorities through the INA to determine who may enter and remain in the United States. Sanctuary laws, ordinances, and policies shield aliens from the administration of federal law, thereby frustrating the execution of immigration law as Congress intended.

Additionally, in De Canas v. Bica the Supreme Court held that any state law or policy related to immigration will be per se preempted if it is a regulation of immigration because the “power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.” A state law or policy is a “regulation of immigration” when it determines who should or should not be admitted into the country, and under what conditions they may remain. Sanctuary laws, ordinances, or policies regulate immigration because they essentially decide who may remain in the United States. In particular, state and local governments that ignore the federal government’s request to hold an alien for pick-up or for notification of release regulate immigration because they take away the decision over who can remain in the country by shielding them from federal prosecution. As a result, such laws, ordinances, and policies should be per se preempted by federal law.

Finally, federal law at 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits policies that impede cooperation between federal, state, and local officials when it comes to the sending, requesting, maintaining, or exchanging of information regarding immigration status. Under that provision, any federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from the federal government, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. Congress enacted this law in 1996 with the intent to block state and local leaders form obstructing the INA’s carefully crafted scheme because of pressure from special interests and partisan politics. Thus, because sanctuary laws, ordinances, and policies inherently restrict such communication, they are in direct conflict with federal law and should be deemed invalid.

https://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/role-state-local-law-enforcement-immigration-matters-and-reasons-resist

 

[Deleted member 21794]

And no one chooses poverty, of course.

Of course people choose poverty.

 

[ObamacareForever]

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that state laws and policies are preempted when they conflict with federal law, as well as when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Congress has set priorities through the INA to determine who may enter and remain in the United States. Sanctuary laws, ordinances, and policies shield aliens from the administration of federal law, thereby frustrating the execution of immigration law as Congress intended.

Additionally, in De Canas v. Bica the Supreme Court held that any state law or policy related to immigration will be per se preempted if it is a regulation of immigration because the “power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.” A state law or policy is a “regulation of immigration” when it determines who should or should not be admitted into the country, and under what conditions they may remain. Sanctuary laws, ordinances, or policies regulate immigration because they essentially decide who may remain in the United States. In particular, state and local governments that ignore the federal government’s request to hold an alien for pick-up or for notification of release regulate immigration because they take away the decision over who can remain in the country by shielding them from federal prosecution. As a result, such laws, ordinances, and policies should be per se preempted by federal law.

Finally, federal law at 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits policies that impede cooperation between federal, state, and local officials when it comes to the sending, requesting, maintaining, or exchanging of information regarding immigration status. Under that provision, any federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from the federal government, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. Congress enacted this law in 1996 with the intent to block state and local leaders form obstructing the INA’s carefully crafted scheme because of pressure from special interests and partisan politics. Thus, because sanctuary laws, ordinances, and policies inherently restrict such communication, they are in direct conflict with federal law and should be deemed invalid.

https://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/role-state-local-law-enforcement-immigration-matters-and-reasons-resist

That's great. Sancturary Cities don't prevent the feds from doing their job. They just aren't going to do it for them.

 

[Emily]

That's great. Sancturary Cities don't prevent the feds from doing their job. They just aren't going to do it for them.

federal law at 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits policies that impede cooperation between federal, state, and local officials when it comes to the sending, requesting, maintaining, or exchanging of information regarding immigration status.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that state laws and policies are preempted when they conflict with federal law, as well as when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Congress has set priorities through the INA to determine who may enter and remain in the United States. Sanctuary laws, ordinances, and policies shield aliens from the administration of federal law, thereby frustrating the execution of immigration law as Congress intended.

Sanctuary policies are a violation of federal law. They impede cooperation with federal authorities and shield aliens from the administration of federal law. They're illegal and invalid. Law-enforcement officials at all levels are legally bound to ignore them. Those who implemented them should be charged and tried.

 

[EatTheRich]

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that state laws and policies are preempted when they conflict with federal law, as well as when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Congress has set priorities through the INA to determine who may enter and remain in the United States. Sanctuary laws, ordinances, and policies shield aliens from the administration of federal law, thereby frustrating the execution of immigration law as Congress intended.

Additionally, in De Canas v. Bica the Supreme Court held that any state law or policy related to immigration will be per se preempted if it is a regulation of immigration because the “power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.” A state law or policy is a “regulation of immigration” when it determines who should or should not be admitted into the country, and under what conditions they may remain. Sanctuary laws, ordinances, or policies regulate immigration because they essentially decide who may remain in the United States. In particular, state and local governments that ignore the federal government’s request to hold an alien for pick-up or for notification of release regulate immigration because they take away the decision over who can remain in the country by shielding them from federal prosecution. As a result, such laws, ordinances, and policies should be per se preempted by federal law.

Finally, federal law at 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits policies that impede cooperation between federal, state, and local officials when it comes to the sending, requesting, maintaining, or exchanging of information regarding immigration status. Under that provision, any federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from the federal government, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. Congress enacted this law in 1996 with the intent to block state and local leaders form obstructing the INA’s carefully crafted scheme because of pressure from special interests and partisan politics. Thus, because sanctuary laws, ordinances, and policies inherently restrict such communication, they are in direct conflict with federal law and should be deemed invalid.

https://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/role-state-local-law-enforcement-immigration-matters-and-reasons-resist

None of that has to do with sanctuary policies, which only require subordinate governments to FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION (supreme federal law) by not detaining people without cause.

 

[EatTheRich]

Of course people choose poverty.

Why would anyone?

 

[EatTheRich]

federal law at 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits policies that impede cooperation between federal, state, and local officials when it comes to the sending, requesting, maintaining, or exchanging of information regarding immigration status.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that state laws and policies are preempted when they conflict with federal law, as well as when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Congress has set priorities through the INA to determine who may enter and remain in the United States. Sanctuary laws, ordinances, and policies shield aliens from the administration of federal law, thereby frustrating the execution of immigration law as Congress intended.

Sanctuary policies are a violation of federal law. They impede cooperation with federal authorities and shield aliens from the administration of federal law. They're illegal and invalid. Law-enforcement officials at all levels are legally bound to ignore them. Those who implemented them should be charged and tried.

They impede ILLEGAL cooperation with federal authorities, namely detaining people without legal warrant because federal authorities have requested that.

 

[Emily]

None of that has to do with sanctuary policies, which only require subordinate governments to FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION (supreme federal law) by not detaining people without cause.

They impede ILLEGAL cooperation with federal authorities, namely detaining people without legal warrant because federal authorities have requested that.

What's the word I'm looking for? ... um ... Oh, yeah ...
Wrong.

Read the linked article.