• 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!

Which side are you on concerning Sanctuary cities?

Which side are you on?

  • Total voters
    81
Casper said:
Correct, kinda coming back to haunt some. So trump will need to have Feds in place rounding up illegals across the Nation, unfortunately Congress has already said NO to that.
Click to expand...

Seeing how the agencies all work for the Executive Branch, there isn't much Congress can do to stop it.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am somewhere in between.

On one hand, I do think law enforcement at the state and local level should be cooperating with the feds in regards to enforcing immigration laws.

On the other hand, I don't want a system where woman that has overstayed her visa will not call the police when her boyfriend is beating the **** out of her because she is afraid they will deport her.
Click to expand...

She should go home, then.
 
BrewerBob said:
I believe power should be as localized as possible. Local governments should not be required to enforce state and federal laws and state governments should not be required to enforce federal laws. That is why each has their own law enforcement agencies.

Now, the lower level governments should comply with all court orders for action and they shouldn't be able to actively stop federal law enforcement officers from doing their jobs.

But all that said, state government can withhold state funds from local governments and the federal government can withold federal funds from state and local governments who decide not to cooperate. They aren't entitled to that money so I am fine with there being strings attached.

So sanctuary cities need to decide if their autonomy is worth giving up that money. Some can afford it more than others. And if the residents don't like how it is handled they will make it known at the voting booth.
Click to expand...

If the Feds say, "hold that guy, we're coming to get", should state and local authorities be required to hold him, or should they be able to ignore the Feds and do what the hell they please?
 
apdst said:
Seeing how the agencies all work for the Executive Branch, there isn't much Congress can do to stop it.
Click to expand...

They control the purse strings, did you forget that? Presidents can make all kinds of edicts getting them implemented is quite another thing.
 
I don't think the city or even the state should bore the time and expense running around looking for illegals. But should they detain or arrest one, in the course of their normal everyday policing, they should be obligated to hold the illegal alien until the federal authorities can come and assume responsibility. To do otherwise, is enabling the obstruction of federal law. Especially if the illegal was being detained/arrested for committing a crime.

But, that being said, that could be a double edged sword.
 
Casper said:
They control the purse strings, did you forget that? Presidents can make all kinds of edicts getting them implemented is quite another thing.
Click to expand...

Congress is going to abolish the budget for Border Patrol and ICE? I'd love to see that political goat ****.
 
apdst said:
Congress is going to abolish the budget for Border Patrol and ICE? I'd love to see that political goat ****.
Click to expand...

They do not have to abolish it, just not add the Billions more someone wants to spend.
 
Josie said:
President Trump says he will punish cities who don't comply with immigration laws -- some mayors of sanctuary cities are vowing to defy the President's order.

Which side are you on?
Click to expand...

Completely opposed to sanctuary cities. It's astonishing they have been able to get away with such a policy. I am very hopeful these cities loose funding and are forced to comply.

Even if they are forced to comply, they can still use the racial profiling policies they have enacted to allow certain people the opportunity to selectively chose which laws apply to them, and which laws all the others must abide by.

The whole thing is a crime against legal citizens who are being discriminated against.
 
Casper said:
They do not have to abolish it, just not add the Billions more someone wants to spend.
Click to expand...

There's an operational level that Congress must maintain. Like I said, I would love to see Congress hamstring President Trump's illegal immigration control plan. That would mean fewer Democrats and RINO's getting re-elected.
 
Josie said:
President Trump says he will punish cities who don't comply with immigration laws -- some mayors of sanctuary cities are vowing to defy the President's order.

Which side are you on?
Click to expand...

The federal government takes a dim view of defiance of its authority.

 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That's so kind of you. The Good Lord sure did bless you with an abundance of compassion.
Click to expand...

How many illegals have you invited to live in your home so you can support them?
 
Jack Hays said:
I started a thread a while back to ask whether Trump is a Peronist. We're on the same page.
Nonetheless I consider it unacceptable for cities to flout federal authority regardless of who is POTUS.
Click to expand...

I agree. But I have to ponder. If the states are enslaved, (for lack of a better word,) to federal authority, and the fed reigns supreme, should we not just concede to that fact and abolish the concept of "state rights" altogether?

You know, I have never seen as many "pro-state's-rights" people jump ship and adopt a "pro-federalist-authority" preference, as I have seen here lately. Have you noticed that?
 
Josie said:
President Trump says he will punish cities who don't comply with immigration laws -- some mayors of sanctuary cities are vowing to defy the President's order.

Which side are you on?
Click to expand...

I think the mayor and or city council should be prosecuted if they do not obey the law. Sanctuary cities are breaking the law.
 
Captain America said:
I agree. But I have to ponder. If the states are enslaved, (for lack of a better word,) to federal authority, and the fed reigns supreme, should we not just concede to that fact and abolish the concept of "state rights" altogether?

You know, I have never seen as many "pro-state's-rights" people jump ship and adopt a "pro-federalist-authority" preference, as I have seen here lately. Have you noticed that?
Click to expand...

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is clear.

Cities do not enjoy the Constitutional standing of the states.
 
Casper said:
What law?
Click to expand...

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.

[h=3]Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia[/h]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause



 
apdst said:
How many illegals have you invited to live in your home so you can support them?
Click to expand...

Right, so saying a woman should be able to call 911 in the event her life is being threatened without fear of deportation is just like taking in illegal immigrants into your home and feeding them.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is clear.

Cities do not enjoy the Constitutional standing of the states.
Click to expand...

Do you think Trump will come down, with the federal hammer, on the states that have legalized pot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom