Hilarious that the dumb fucking Dems are making states rights arguments, after spending the last 40 years shitting all over any Red State that tried to assert them.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Not hilarious that conservatives are suddenly against states rights after spending the last 160 years supporting them?
We're living in the upside down.
When Rat party members stood in the school house doorway I didn't support it. Now when they thumb their nose at Federal law, I don't support it. State's have no authority over immigration issues.That's a section of the law left solely to the Federal government. Are some people above the law? State's Rights never involved areas of the law that are solely the purview of Federal Government.
Hardly shocking that someone so ignorant of black voters isn't aware of this.
Don't see the issue spelled out right there, do you?
While I haven't dug into every Sanctuary City's policies, the few I've looked at is almost entirely virtue signaling by the Proggies in charge locally. The city cannot change federal law, nor absolve anyone from violations thereof. All they are really tangibly doing is cutting funding from enforcing federal immigration law: no city cops on immigration cases, not tracking immigration status with city resources, etc. It's good local politics, or at least that's what these city councils think, but bad policy. It results in instances like Border Patrol SWAT units being off the border and used to run immigration arrests within cities, because ICE doesn't have local police support. However, I haven't read a good explanation of how this, strictly speaking, is illegal.
A nuance lost here on the Proggy crowd that supports sanctuary cities, but decries the withdrawal of federal funds: The power that can give you a lot can take away a lot.
That wasn't a conservative issue not that I am a conservative. It was a racist's issue.
Not everything is everybody does it equally
The people I supported back in the day who now support state's rights and illegals over citizens are hurting minorities and white workers the most. The very people the democrats claim to help.
And the people that Trump is helping.
You don't believe that a state should be able to set their own drinking age? How about gun laws? Should some states be able to allow concealed carry?
Should some states be allowed to ignore the 2nd amendment and take your guns?
Like I said the name state's rights is so associated with racists that it should be retired with Jim Crow
Hilarious that the dumb fucking Dems are making states rights arguments, after spending the last 40 years shitting all over any Red State that tried to assert them.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Not hilarious that conservatives are suddenly against states rights after spending the last 160 years supporting them?
We're living in the upside down.
When Rat party members stood in the school house doorway I didn't support it. Now when they thumb their nose at Federal law, I don't support it. State's have no authority over immigration issues.That's a section of the law left solely to the Federal government. Are some people above the law? State's Rights never involved areas of the law that are solely the purview of Federal Government.
Hardly shocking that someone so ignorant of black voters isn't aware of this.
Don't see the issue spelled out right there, do you?
While I haven't dug into every Sanctuary City's policies, the few I've looked at is almost entirely virtue signaling by the Proggies in charge locally. The city cannot change federal law, nor absolve anyone from violations thereof. All they are really tangibly doing is cutting funding from enforcing federal immigration law: no city cops on immigration cases, not tracking immigration status with city resources, etc. It's good local politics, or at least that's what these city councils think, but bad policy. It results in instances like Border Patrol SWAT units being off the border and used to run immigration arrests within cities, because ICE doesn't have local police support. However, I haven't read a good explanation of how this, strictly speaking, is illegal.
A nuance lost here on the Proggy crowd that supports sanctuary cities, but decries the withdrawal of federal funds: The power that can give you a lot can take away a lot.
Here is what bothers me and many people I talk to
Local districts in the name of progress and sanctuary will charge illegals differently than citizens. Biden said drunk driving isn't serious enough to warrant deportation but to make sure some don't even get charge. We see folks released to commit crimes again
It's a real political issue. I know at home how much it pisses people off which is why I always talk about it. Free healthcare is another hot button. Its enough to cost the democrats power
Bernie 2016 understood his working class appeal and free shit could not work with open borders. Now he apparently doesn't give a shit
ICE has also started a "Flood the Streets" operation in these sanctuary cities. They are now arresting illegals outside of the court house. This is why Trump's supporters like him. He is doing what he said he would do.
Hilarious that the dumb fucking Dems are making states rights arguments, after spending the last 40 years shitting all over any Red State that tried to assert them.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Not hilarious that conservatives are suddenly against states rights after spending the last 160 years supporting them?
We're living in the upside down.
When Rat party members stood in the school house doorway I didn't support it. Now when they thumb their nose at Federal law, I don't support it. State's have no authority over immigration issues.That's a section of the law left solely to the Federal government. Are some people above the law? State's Rights never involved areas of the law that are solely the purview of Federal Government.
Hardly shocking that someone so ignorant of black voters isn't aware of this.
Don't see the issue spelled out right there, do you?
While I haven't dug into every Sanctuary City's policies, the few I've looked at is almost entirely virtue signaling by the Proggies in charge locally. The city cannot change federal law, nor absolve anyone from violations thereof. All they are really tangibly doing is cutting funding from enforcing federal immigration law: no city cops on immigration cases, not tracking immigration status with city resources, etc. It's good local politics, or at least that's what these city councils think, but bad policy. It results in instances like Border Patrol SWAT units being off the border and used to run immigration arrests within cities, because ICE doesn't have local police support. However, I haven't read a good explanation of how this, strictly speaking, is illegal.
A nuance lost here on the Proggy crowd that supports sanctuary cities, but decries the withdrawal of federal funds: The power that can give you a lot can take away a lot.
Dealing with illegals arrested was as simple as making a phone call. Hardly a high cost item.
We had a BP agent that lived in my city and he had a take home government ride. We'd give him a call and he'd picj 'em up on his way to work! Otherwise it just took a little longer for them to pick up. Cost my ass.
That wasn't a conservative issue not that I am a conservative. It was a racist's issue.
Not everything is everybody does it equally
The people I supported back in the day who now support state's rights and illegals over citizens are hurting minorities and white workers the most. The very people the democrats claim to help.
And the people that Trump is helping.
You don't believe that a state should be able to set their own drinking age? How about gun laws? Should some states be able to allow concealed carry?
Should some states be allowed to ignore the 2nd amendment and take your guns?
Like I said the name state's rights is so associated with racists that it should be retired with Jim Crow
There are things legitimately left to the states.
K.I.S.S. Pretty well laid out right thur for y'all.
Anything in question, let the 9 homeys in robes figure it out.
Hilarious that the dumb fucking Dems are making states rights arguments, after spending the last 40 years shitting all over any Red State that tried to assert them.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Not hilarious that conservatives are suddenly against states rights after spending the last 160 years supporting them?
We're living in the upside down.
Immigration is regulated at the federal level, chiefly under the rules established in 1952 with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was enacted to curb illegal immigration, denying welfare benefits to undocumented immigrants and strengthening sanctions against employers who hire them.
The U.S. Congress has control over all immigration-related regulations, while the White House is in charge of enforcing immigration laws.
Jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
Hilarious that the dumb fucking Dems are making states rights arguments, after spending the last 40 years shitting all over any Red State that tried to assert them.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Not hilarious that conservatives are suddenly against states rights after spending the last 160 years supporting them?
We're living in the upside down.
When Rat party members stood in the school house doorway I didn't support it. Now when they thumb their nose at Federal law, I don't support it. State's have no authority over immigration issues. That's a section of the law left solely to the Federal government. Are some people above the law? State's Right never involved areas of the law that are solely the purview of Federal Government.
I don't disagree.
I also think when the states won't support the rights of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" for certain individuals in their purvey then it's the federal governments right (and responsibility) to step in and enforce those rights.
Which pretty much ends the vast majority of states rights issues historically.
@dnc, you're confusing the Constitution's language with the Declaration of Independence. Two vastly different documents. Two vastly different purposes.
Hilarious that the dumb fucking Dems are making states rights arguments, after spending the last 40 years shitting all over any Red State that tried to assert them.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Not hilarious that conservatives are suddenly against states rights after spending the last 160 years supporting them?
We're living in the upside down.
When Rat party members stood in the school house doorway I didn't support it. Now when they thumb their nose at Federal law, I don't support it. State's have no authority over immigration issues. That's a section of the law left solely to the Federal government. Are some people above the law? State's Right never involved areas of the law that are solely the purview of Federal Government.
I don't disagree.
I also think when the states won't support the rights of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" for certain individuals in their purvey then it's the federal governments right (and responsibility) to step in and enforce those rights.
Which pretty much ends the vast majority of states rights issues historically.
@dnc, you're confusing the Constitution's language with the Declaration of Independence. Two vastly different documents. Two vastly different purposes.
Hilarious that the dumb fucking Dems are making states rights arguments, after spending the last 40 years shitting all over any Red State that tried to assert them.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Not hilarious that conservatives are suddenly against states rights after spending the last 160 years supporting them?
We're living in the upside down.
Immigration is regulated at the federal level, chiefly under the rules established in 1952 with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was enacted to curb illegal immigration, denying welfare benefits to undocumented immigrants and strengthening sanctions against employers who hire them.
The U.S. Congress has control over all immigration-related regulations, while the White House is in charge of enforcing immigration laws.
Jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
Sorry, you were saying?
I agree the federal government has the day so about immigration and have said zero to disagree with that.
Hilarious that the dumb fucking Dems are making states rights arguments, after spending the last 40 years shitting all over any Red State that tried to assert them.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Not hilarious that conservatives are suddenly against states rights after spending the last 160 years supporting them?
We're living in the upside down.
When Rat party members stood in the school house doorway I didn't support it. Now when they thumb their nose at Federal law, I don't support it. State's have no authority over immigration issues. That's a section of the law left solely to the Federal government. Are some people above the law? State's Right never involved areas of the law that are solely the purview of Federal Government.
I don't disagree.
I also think when the states won't support the rights of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" for certain individuals in their purvey then it's the federal governments right (and responsibility) to step in and enforce those rights.
Which pretty much ends the vast majority of states rights issues historically.
@dnc, you're confusing the Constitution's language with the Declaration of Independence. Two vastly different documents. Two vastly different purposes.
That wasn't a conservative issue not that I am a conservative. It was a racist's issue.
Not everything is everybody does it equally
The people I supported back in the day who now support state's rights and illegals over citizens are hurting minorities and white workers the most. The very people the democrats claim to help.
And the people that Trump is helping.
You don't believe that a state should be able to set their own drinking age? How about gun laws? Should some states be able to allow concealed carry?
Should some states be allowed to ignore the 2nd amendment and take your guns?
Like I said the name state's rights is so associated with racists that it should be retired with Jim Crow
There are things legitimately left to the states.
K.I.S.S. Pretty well laid out right thur for y'all.
Anything in question, let the 9 homeys in robes figure it out.
That wasn't a conservative issue not that I am a conservative. It was a racist's issue.
Not everything is everybody does it equally
The people I supported back in the day who now support state's rights and illegals over citizens are hurting minorities and white workers the most. The very people the democrats claim to help.
And the people that Trump is helping.
You don't believe that a state should be able to set their own drinking age? How about gun laws? Should some states be able to allow concealed carry?
Should some states be allowed to ignore the 2nd amendment and take your guns?
Like I said the name state's rights is so associated with racists that it should be retired with Jim Crow
There are things legitimately left to the states.
K.I.S.S. Pretty well laid out right thur for y'all.
Anything in question, let the 9 homeys in robes figure it out.
Banning alcohol. Definitely not a part of the original Federal mandate. But notice, they didn't ban it with a Congressional law. That would have been an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power. So they got off their butts and got an actual amendment to the Constitution. Like the playbook calls for. State drinking age of 21? Again, not a federal Constitutional mandate. But now it is by Congressional law. Just like abortion. Oops, that was 5 dudes who used emanations and penumbras to dig up a super Constitutional right that can never be revisited by 5 dudes.
Hilarious that the dumb fucking Dems are making states rights arguments, after spending the last 40 years shitting all over any Red State that tried to assert them.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Not hilarious that conservatives are suddenly against states rights after spending the last 160 years supporting them?
We're living in the upside down.
Immigration is regulated at the federal level, chiefly under the rules established in 1952 with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was enacted to curb illegal immigration, denying welfare benefits to undocumented immigrants and strengthening sanctions against employers who hire them.
The U.S. Congress has control over all immigration-related regulations, while the White House is in charge of enforcing immigration laws.
Jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
Sorry, you were saying?
You're entirely missing the point. Anyone who claims to uniformly champion states' right, or oppose them, is a fucking imbecile. The "hypocrisy" charge that gets thrown around is equally stupid. There are plenty of nuanced reasons to delineate when states' rights should supersede federal intervention, and when they shouldn't. Most reasonable people would agree that the federal government has domain over immigration issues. The far left doesn't think so. That makes them fucking idiots, but neither side is being hypocritical.
Hilarious that the dumb fucking Dems are making states rights arguments, after spending the last 40 years shitting all over any Red State that tried to assert them.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Not hilarious that conservatives are suddenly against states rights after spending the last 160 years supporting them?
We're living in the upside down.
Immigration is regulated at the federal level, chiefly under the rules established in 1952 with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was enacted to curb illegal immigration, denying welfare benefits to undocumented immigrants and strengthening sanctions against employers who hire them.
The U.S. Congress has control over all immigration-related regulations, while the White House is in charge of enforcing immigration laws.
Jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
Sorry, you were saying?
You're entirely missing the point. Anyone who claims to uniformly champion states' right, or oppose them, is a fucking imbecile. The "hypocrisy" charge that gets thrown around is equally stupid. There are plenty of nuanced reasons to delineate when states' rights should supersede federal intervention, and when they shouldn't. Most reasonable people would agree that the federal government has domain over immigration issues. The far left doesn't think so. That makes them fucking idiots, but neither side is being hypocritical.
Please avoid using words like "nuance." Please. Too much John Kerry imagery.
Hilarious that the dumb fucking Dems are making states rights arguments, after spending the last 40 years shitting all over any Red State that tried to assert them.
Hypocrisy anyone?
Not hilarious that conservatives are suddenly against states rights after spending the last 160 years supporting them?
We're living in the upside down.
Immigration is regulated at the federal level, chiefly under the rules established in 1952 with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was enacted to curb illegal immigration, denying welfare benefits to undocumented immigrants and strengthening sanctions against employers who hire them.
The U.S. Congress has control over all immigration-related regulations, while the White House is in charge of enforcing immigration laws.
Jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
Sorry, you were saying?
You're entirely missing the point. Anyone who claims to uniformly champion states' right, or oppose them, is a fucking imbecile. The "hypocrisy" charge that gets thrown around is equally stupid. There are plenty of nuanced reasons to delineate when states' rights should supersede federal intervention, and when they shouldn't. Most reasonable people would agree that the federal government has domain over immigration issues. The far left doesn't think so. That makes them fucking idiots, but neither side is being hypocritical.
Comments
While I haven't dug into every Sanctuary City's policies, the few I've looked at is almost entirely virtue signaling by the Proggies in charge locally. The city cannot change federal law, nor absolve anyone from violations thereof. All they are really tangibly doing is cutting funding from enforcing federal immigration law: no city cops on immigration cases, not tracking immigration status with city resources, etc. It's good local politics, or at least that's what these city councils think, but bad policy. It results in instances like Border Patrol SWAT units being off the border and used to run immigration arrests within cities, because ICE doesn't have local police support. However, I haven't read a good explanation of how this, strictly speaking, is illegal.
A nuance lost here on the Proggy crowd that supports sanctuary cities, but decries the withdrawal of federal funds: The power that can give you a lot can take away a lot.
Like I said the name state's rights is so associated with racists that it should be retired with Jim Crow
There are things legitimately left to the states.
Local districts in the name of progress and sanctuary will charge illegals differently than citizens. Biden said drunk driving isn't serious enough to warrant deportation but to make sure some don't even get charge. We see folks released to commit crimes again
It's a real political issue. I know at home how much it pisses people off which is why I always talk about it. Free healthcare is another hot button. Its enough to cost the democrats power
Bernie 2016 understood his working class appeal and free shit could not work with open borders. Now he apparently doesn't give a shit
We had a BP agent that lived in my city and he had a take home government ride. We'd give him a call and he'd picj 'em up on his way to work! Otherwise it just took a little longer for them to pick up. Cost my ass.
K.I.S.S. Pretty well laid out right thur for y'all.
Anything in question, let the 9 homeys in robes figure it out.
The U.S. Congress has control over all immigration-related regulations, while the White House is in charge of enforcing immigration laws.
Jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause
The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
Sorry, you were saying?
C'mon @dnc. You're better than that.