• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California judge refuses to bring back Trump's sanctuary cities ban

Congratulations leftists, the rule of law means nothing to you and once again the state of California leads the way showing again why California should never be allowed to elect our President due to its population.

What do you call someone who wants to strip his political enemies of their basic rights, such as the right to vote? Why do you hate America and our constitution so much?
 
What do you call someone who wants to strip his political enemies of their basic rights, such as the right to vote? Why do you hate America and our constitution so much?

What is it about the term illegal and rule of law that you don't understand. This thread is about sanctuary cities and those illegals have no right to vote but apparently in California that fact is ignored as is Immigration law which is the LAW OF THE LAND.
 
What do you call someone who wants to strip his political enemies of their basic rights, such as the right to vote? Why do you hate America and our constitution so much?

An American conservative saying "rule of law" is an oxymoron these days.
 
An American conservative saying "rule of law" is an oxymoron these days.

So what part of Immigration Law don't you understand, obviously the term illegal. Do you have laws regarding immigration in your country? Do you enforce those laws?
 
What is it about the term illegal and rule of law that you don't understand. This thread is about sanctuary cities and those illegals have no right to vote but apparently in California that fact is ignored as is Immigration law which is the LAW OF THE LAND.

Actually this thread seems more about your desire to silence your political opponents because you're sour. What other basic rights would you like to strip from your fellow countrymen? Perhaps we should send you to Mexico instead if you hate our way of life so much.

Californians being allowed to vote is THE LAW OF THE LAND.
 
California judge refuses to bring back Trump's sanctuary cities ban | Fox News

Congratulations leftists, the rule of law means nothing to you and once again the state of California leads the way showing again why California should never be allowed to elect our President due to its population.

And so it appears that this Conservative fully supports the Federal Leviathan, and would have it so that local people cannot make their own laws and procedures. This Conservative appears to favor rule from Washington as far superior to rule from local sources.

Goodness!
 
Actually this thread seems more about your desire to silence your political opponents because you're sour. What other basic rights would you like to strip from your fellow countrymen? Perhaps we should send you to Mexico instead if you hate our way of life so much.

Californians being allowed to vote is THE LAW OF THE LAND.

So that is what you get out of California violating the Immigration Laws of the United States? Do you believe ILLEGAL Immigrants deserve taxpayer dollars to live in this country? Who is denying CALIFORNIANS the right to vote? Are ILLEGALS Californians??

Send me to Mexico? Why? I was born and raised in this country and am here legally. You seem to want to enforce only the laws you agree with. Have you bothered to check the Immigration Laws in the country you live in now? Maybe you should pay closer attention to the problems those laws are causing but like most liberals if it doesn't affect you it doesn't exist and isn't a problem, right?
 
And so it appears that this Conservative fully supports the Federal Leviathan, and would have it so that local people cannot make their own laws and procedures. This Conservative appears to favor rule from Washington as far superior to rule from local sources.

Goodness!

You have every right to make your own laws, but what you don't have is the right to violate FEDERAL LAW and have FEDERAL TAXPAYERS fund your personal choice laws.
 
You have every right to make your own laws, but what you don't have is the right to violate FEDERAL LAW and have FEDERAL TAXPAYERS fund your personal choice laws.

...says the guy who believes that Californians shouldn't be allowed to vote.
 
What do you call someone who wants to strip his political enemies of their basic rights, such as the right to vote? Why do you hate America and our constitution so much?

Illegals can't vote.
 
What do you call someone who wants to strip his political enemies of their basic rights, such as the right to vote? Why do you hate America and our constitution so much?
California has not made illegal aliens officially able to vote. Yet.
 
You have every right to make your own laws, but what you don't have is the right to violate FEDERAL LAW and have FEDERAL TAXPAYERS fund your personal choice laws.

Well if the locals have 'every right' to make their own laws and policies, but those can be rendered invalid by those inside the Beltway, why do we even have local government? Why do the states exist?

Now I agree and support the US Constitution, and understand that any legitimate federal law must "in accordance with the foregoing powers" as listed in Article I Section 8, but I also understand the meaning of the 10th Amendment.

So whether California wants to object to questionable federal law, I think they have that right. Micro-managing the immigration question has never worked well for the feds, and that is not likely to change.

I favor local rule over micro-management from thousands of miles away.
 
So what part of Immigration Law don't you understand, obviously the term illegal. Do you have laws regarding immigration in your country? Do you enforce those laws?

Ahh you one of those.

Problem one.. immigration law has not really been enforced for the last what.. 50+ years? So you have people who have lived illegally in the US for decades and have families and what not. Under the rule of law, they would be kicked out if caught. That is inhumane.. just as your present and past governments are using the "rule of law" to kick out adopted children because of an administrative error 30+ years ago.. it is pathetic.

South Korean Adopted At Age 3 Is To Be Deported Nearly 40 Years Later : The Two-Way : NPR

That is your "rule of law" and it is pathetic.

Problem 2. Now, a new person who came the last say 5 years or whatever small time amount.. throw the book at them.. but you dont go out of your way to deport taxpaying illegals, just because they broke the law 20 years ago and successive governments failed to enforce the rule of law. Deport the criminal illegals, and the recently arrived.. but leave the rest to be able to become citizens.

Your so called rule of law, is just another idiotic attempt to stack the books politically as you know fully well, that if these illegals became legal, and were able to vote, that they would not vote for your people. Add to that, the usual racism and xenophobia and you have the conservative "rule of law", which is highly selective against those they see as the enemy... GOP rule of law goes out to attack and discriminate, not to be inclusive and help people.
 
Until that happens, they are still part of America and do not have the right to fence themselves off from federal laws.

They're not. This has been covered ad nauseam. Sessions wants local police, who do not fall under the purview of immigration, to carry out deportation duties.
 
Well if the locals have 'every right' to make their own laws and policies, but those can be rendered invalid by those inside the Beltway, why do we even have local government? Why do the states exist?

Now I agree and support the US Constitution, and understand that any legitimate federal law must "in accordance with the foregoing powers" as listed in Article I Section 8, but I also understand the meaning of the 10th Amendment.

So whether California wants to object to questionable federal law, I think they have that right. Micro-managing the immigration question has never worked well for the feds, and that is not likely to change.

I favor local rule over micro-management from thousands of miles away.

...says the guy who believes that Californians shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Until that happens, they are still part of America and do not have the right to fence themselves off from federal laws. Allowing illegal immigration as a border state affects the entire country. Sanctuary tells illegals to "Get here and we will protect you at taxpayer expense".

Sorry, but that dog doesn't hunt.
 
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.[1] It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.[2] In essence, it is a conflict-of-laws rule specifying that certain national acts take priority over any state acts that conflict with national law.
wikipedia

Maybe when California loses Federal funding...
 
Until that happens, they are still part of America and do not have the right to fence themselves off from federal laws. Allowing illegal immigration as a border state affects the entire country. Sanctuary tells illegals to "Get here and we will protect you at taxpayer expense".

Sorry, but that dog doesn't hunt.

Different law enforcement agencies have different jurisdictions. Sorry.
 
So that is what you get out of California violating the Immigration Laws of the United States? Do you believe ILLEGAL Immigrants deserve taxpayer dollars to live in this country? Who is denying CALIFORNIANS the right to vote? Are ILLEGALS Californians??

Send me to Mexico? Why? I was born and raised in this country and am here legally. You seem to want to enforce only the laws you agree with. Have you bothered to check the Immigration Laws in the country you live in now? Maybe you should pay closer attention to the problems those laws are causing but like most liberals if it doesn't affect you it doesn't exist and isn't a problem, right?

Your one sentence OP included a demand to strip Californians of their right to vote. Why is it ok for you to demand THE LAW OF THE LAND and the constitution be violated all because you're unhappy with a judge's ruling in a state you don't even live in?

If these illegal immigrants respect the constitution more than you, maybe they should take your spot.

California has not made illegal aliens officially able to vote. Yet.
Illegals can't vote.

No ****, Sherlock. The OP demanded all Californians have their right to vote for the President stripped from them. What does that have to do with illegals?
 
They're not. This has been covered ad nauseam. Sessions wants local police, who do not fall under the purview of immigration, to carry out deportation duties.

Sessions wants ICE holds to be honored. If not, no federal money. Works for me.
 
And so it appears that this Conservative fully supports the Federal Leviathan, and would have it so that local people cannot make their own laws and procedures. This Conservative appears to favor rule from Washington as far superior to rule from local sources.

Goodness!

Immigration law is not a prerogative of any state because of our unrestricted policy of traveling from state to state. If California kept its illegals contained, then it would be their problem. But the illegals they protect can then go anywhere in the country they want.

But lets make a deal. Lets send ALL the illegals to California and let Californians feed, house, clothe, educate, and provide healthcare and other benefits for all of them. That works for me.
 
Until that happens, they are still part of America and do not have the right to fence themselves off from federal laws. Allowing illegal immigration as a border state affects the entire country. Sanctuary tells illegals to "Get here and we will protect you at taxpayer expense".

Sorry, but that dog doesn't hunt.

One of the early USSC Justices, cannot remember his name right now, went on the record in an early case and noted that no citizen has an obligation to obey an illegitimate law. I agree with that sentiment in general, and by 1850 juries were routinely acquitting defendants charged under the Fugitive Slave Act, noting that it was an illegitimate and foolish and cruel law. Whether repealed or not I don't know, but before long there were no more prosecutions brought under that law.

So, maybe various California cities feel that the Sanctuary City issue is an example of the federal government over-stepping its bounds? Maybe they are laying the groundwork for a court case?

Don't know the answer, but I'm glad to see somebody complaining over cruel and stupid and likely illegitimate federal policies and laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom