• 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!

Sanctuary and Sedition.

jimbo said:
Chomsky, I don't understand the Constitutional grounds. The feds are charged with protecting the borders. They don't. When the citizens affected try to do it on their own, the feds respond with suits claiming the states can't protect themselves.

You're correct. A travesty.
Click to expand...
re: Constitutionality

I was speaking earlier of how the feds cannot legally force states and local jurisdictions to enforce federal law.

Now conversely as to local LE not being allowed to enforce fed law, I know little about that. I suspect that also may be a Constitutional issue, but that's just a WAG on my part.
 
Moot said:
Green cards are easily revoked if the employee loses employment. If an employer wanted to retaliate or silence an immigrant all they had to do was threaten to turn them in.
Click to expand...

Green cards actually are not easily revoked. Temporary Visa's however can be. That aside however despite your attempts to twist it into something that it isn't. The framers of the bill and the governor of California touted it as being for illegal immigrants. So your argument is..well...moot.
 
Chomsky said:
Firstly, thanks for this specific information.

I was initially going to give you kudos for a job well-done, admit you are right in this, and move-on.

But I did do a quick Google and cursory speed-read on those bills, and while you are right in technicality, there is a lot of context missing.

- 666 (what a number - argh!) is to prevent whistle-blower employer retribution.

- 2792 is as you say, but is essentially saying: "Until we get through the detention process, you can talk to him if he agrees, otherwise you can have him when we're done with him".

I can see the point in the whistle-blower bill (666), but I have to ask: Why are the illegals being hired in the first place?

As to 2792, I think it's fair. Until the local jurisdiction works through their detaining process, they don't know if they have a citizen or not. So that person's rights have to be protected.

So you are technically right in the actions of these bills, but there's much more apparent in their complete context. I'm all for 2792 (as I know it), but not sure what to make of 666.
Click to expand...


Yes, both bills are framed in a way as to allow them to legally claim just what others in this thread are claiming. However when those two were signed along with the "Trust Act" (all signed at the same time) the governor made it quite clear that those laws were designed to help and protect illegal immigrants. He also made it clear that LEO's were not allowed to detain illegal immigrants for the federal government if they had been brought in for minor crimes. Not even illegal immigrants that were being sought after by ICE.

Signing Trust Act is another illegal-immigration milestone for Brown
 
Chomsky said:
Yeah FishKing, the Constitution is wrong - and you're right.

Perhaps then you should argue it before the Court yourself, since you believe you know better.
Click to expand...

I don't know what your post is supposed to mean. The Constitution backs me up. Regulation of immigration is a proper enumerated power of the federal government. If the cities and states know information and actively hide it from the federal government, that's obstruction of justice and sedition.
 
San Francisco better hope they don't get a major earthquake in the next four years. All those lib snowflakes will have blistered hands having to dig themselves out.
 
Fishking said:
I don't know what your post is supposed to mean. The Constitution backs me up. Regulation of immigration is a proper enumerated power of the federal government. If the cities and states know information and actively hide it from the federal government, that's obstruction of justice and sedition.
Click to expand...
If the constitution backed you up, it wouldn't be legal for the cities to do what they're doing! :doh
 
Chomsky said:
If the constitution backed you up, it wouldn't be legal for the cities to do what they're doing! :doh
Click to expand...

And there is a court case resolving the matter? I'm unaware of a court case where a state or city was found within it's rights to obstruct the federal government. That aside, again, the Constitution does back me up. Regulation of immigration is the proper authority of the federal government, period. Full stop.

-edit- That aside, our government does things they aren't allowed to all the time. Has anyone been convicted of torture yet? Getting away with something or people being more worried about political blow black than enforcing the law =/= constitutional/legal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom