- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 51,768
- Reaction score
- 14,180
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
So this makes me so angry, so earlier this year the City of Burien passed an ordinance making the city a "sanctuary city" for illegal aliens. A group of residents didn't like that so they went through the legal channels to put it on the ballot for the residents of Burien to vote on, so it's scheduled for the ballot and some liberal advocacy group sued to keep the initiative off of the ballot. Despite a clear stream of precedent from the state Supreme Court saying that the legality of ballot measures is a question after and not before enactment of the measure, a judge who I'm certain is a democrat ruled that the citizens of Burien don't have the right to vote on sanctuary city status and ordered the elections department to remove it from the ballot.
So what really happened is, Burien is a solidly blue city with a reasonably diverse population, and if sanctuary city status was rejected (by the way this was the fist time a sanctuary city order was to be voted on ever in this country) it would undermine the democrats political agenda, so therefore you as a voting citizen have fewer rights then an illegal immigrant. You can't even vote on whether the cops should be legally barred from determining someone's immigration status during a valid investigation.
And now a judge who isn't accountable to voters of your city is allowed to determine what issues your city is allowed to vote on, the initiative process is effectively dead.
King County Judge orders sanctuary repeal measure off Burien’s Nov. ballot – The B-Town (Burien) Blog
if the measure truly exceeds the scope of the initiative process, the proper procedure is to wait until it passes then file an injunction against enforcement. The problem is, since this measure wouldn't create a new crime that wouldn't work and just having the election results rejecting the sanctuary city policy would cause other cities to rethink their policies. That's the real thing behind this
So what really happened is, Burien is a solidly blue city with a reasonably diverse population, and if sanctuary city status was rejected (by the way this was the fist time a sanctuary city order was to be voted on ever in this country) it would undermine the democrats political agenda, so therefore you as a voting citizen have fewer rights then an illegal immigrant. You can't even vote on whether the cops should be legally barred from determining someone's immigration status during a valid investigation.
And now a judge who isn't accountable to voters of your city is allowed to determine what issues your city is allowed to vote on, the initiative process is effectively dead.
King County Judge orders sanctuary repeal measure off Burien’s Nov. ballot – The B-Town (Burien) Blog
if the measure truly exceeds the scope of the initiative process, the proper procedure is to wait until it passes then file an injunction against enforcement. The problem is, since this measure wouldn't create a new crime that wouldn't work and just having the election results rejecting the sanctuary city policy would cause other cities to rethink their policies. That's the real thing behind this