Sanctuary cities
 

Having been camping for 8 days, I just heard about this last night.

Are we a nation of laws, or are we not? It's time for the feds to put an end to looking the other way, when these liberal sanctuary cities refuse to comply with duly constituted federal laws. Buffoon that he is, Trump is correct on this one issue, and this may well doom Jeb Bush, and may well catapult Scott Walker to the head of the pack.

I don't know what unites us anymore as a country, I truly do not. How can we disagree on whether or not it's a good idea to let illegal aliens, with multiple felonies in this country, continue to walk around?

http://www.businessinsider.com/kathr...-cities-2015-7

In all seriousness, how does one's moral compass get so utterly broken, that they can't see anything wrong with letting repeat felons back on our streets?

I do not think we are even capable of a rational discussion on this anymore. We have jumped the shark as a nation. We cannot even discuss these issue on a national level without being rasssist or have the social justice warrior mob reign down on you.

We are unable to discuss that this is simply: law. Abused, circumvented, ignored as convenience, law.

This country couldn't be more divided more now if we tried.
Imho this has been the plan all along.

But if some cities can spit in the face of federal immigration laws without any consequences, why can't another city, maybe Birmingham or Kansas City, refuse to perform gay marriages? Why is it that only the liberal squeaky wheel gets the grease?

Are we really this divided, that liberals can't agree it's a bad idea to shield illegal aliens with muktiple felonies, from the feds? Are they that far gone? What's in that Kool Aid, anyway, acid? How does the liberal moral compass get this fu**ed up?

As to how divided we are, I agree 100%. Pat Buchanan wrote a brilliant piece on what's happening to this country. If America was a married couple, we'd have gotten divorced by now.

http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...797&source=RSS

The same nation that elected Ike, now elected this guy twice? Jumped the shark, indeed.

Megyn Kelly made a great point last night about the fact that Obama hasn't commented on this case, when he chooses to comment in situations like his pal up at Harvard disobeying cops, and Ferguson, and other events that pander to his base and thus deserve the attention of POTUS. This family is showing nothing but dignity and grace in the aftermath of this. After the funeral, they took all the flowers, and passed them out at convalescent homes. That doesn't warrant a syllable from Obama, when the death can be traced directly to the feds willingness to let cities ignore our laws? Yet maybe if the family chose to set fires and riot and loot stores, maybe then Obama would respond?

John R, what is all this leading to? Combine the complete breakdown of rational thought on things like this, with the looming collapse of SS and Medicare? What is this country going to look like in 20 years?

What are we doing to our kids?

Ohhh, I don't think we have reached peak division, sadly.

I don't know, other than to say we will all be "equal" and divided as we bow to our Chinese Overlords in a decade or two.

I cannot see many possible outcomes other than some kind of massive nation state takeover of everything if we continue on the path we are on. We will be Greece or Aregentina except we will OWE close to the WORLDS GDP if we do not change course soon and hard. Here is a 2 year old chart: http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfile...prosperity.pdf


All the "Doomsday" issues such as National Debt, unchecked illegal immigration (I am all for legal immigration), gangs, terrorism, global instability in markets, and conflict (ISIS, Eastern Europe, SCS/WestPAC, Iran and a Persian Gulf States Nuke Arms Race).

People are either not gaming out the next 2-3 decades, are smelling Unicorn Farts and Double Rainbows, or see this as an acceptable end state.

"as we bow to our Chinese Overlords in a decade or two. "

Have you seen what the Chinese stock market is doing? Not good.

I hear that any nation ending in "-aguay" is agood bet. Paraguay, Uraguay, etc.

WE R NOT UNITED JIM...:)
If we were, the country would B a much better place......U can thank the communist, socialist democratic, liberal, progressive left....the feds should step in and refuse these sanctuaries federal money.

Even more reason for the PRC to want to collect, no? Or worse, what does a country barely containing 1.5 billion people do when internally things go to crap? They unite/nationalize people against external entities. Interesting times.

I thought I heard something about 'Guays" being able to form unions, mergers....or something along those lines.... :hee:

Ye, and when they start calling all their debts to cover mounting losses, who do you think they will be coming after?????

Kind of like saying the money the US borrowed was "payable on demand" and they may be "demanding" payment soon!!!

What China has is long term bonds of ours, they can't call that on demand, thank God.

But it also means they can't buy as many of our bonds going forward, which means the demand of our bonds goes down, which means the price of our bonds goes down, which means the interest rate on those bonds goes up...all of which means, it is about to become harder for us to borrow money.

That pendulum swings in two directions as far as divide goes. Total lack of concession by both sides is the killer in the crowd.

If the Feds step in and remove aid due to Sanctuary Cities doesn't that also lend itself to also dropping funding due to any legal matter where a state is out of compliance with federal law? Could become a slippery slope. For example let's say the executive branch declares through executive order some inane federal law that states are expected to adopt or face loss of federal funding in certain areas of state budget. Sounds almost dictatorial considering there could be a majority of a certain leaning group on the SCOTUS. You set legal precedent based on Sanctuary Cities and what else could follow?

I think the idea of harboring criminals via "sanctuary" is beyond ridiculous. But the law has to be written to protect the rights of those it is intent on protecting with out opening a door to future violations of our rights as citizens.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In house committee yesterday TSA says they will not hold back federal funding from sanctuaries....so much for that....:)

Yes, it is dictatorial. It's also the only way to run a country. The alternative is anarchy, where state sare free to choose which federal laws they comply with, and which they don't.

These are duly constituted federal laws, dealing with issues of national security. Liberal cities are choosing to ignore these laws, and people are dying because of it.

What would happen if, for example, Dallas Texas decided they weren't going to recognize gay marriages? You think Obama would allow that?

Abraham Lincoln took the dictatorial approach during the Civil War, and he is usually considered a hero for that.

I cannot believe that we cannot agree on low hanging fruit such as this. Cities can let felons walk around free, in spite of federal laws to turn these people over to the ICE. I literally cannot believe that our divides run this deep.

:hidin::nailem::nailem::rocketem::rocketem:

Just read that article. WTF? I'm with you Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"What should be done is any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, which as I understand it, urged them to deport this man again after he got out of prison another time," Clinton said.

"The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported,” she added.

But in a statement the next day, the former Secretary of State's campaign made it clear that she supported sanctuary cities.

"Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years,"

No wonder this country is where it is right now...

I think there's a lot of confusion as to what a "sanctuary city" is and is not.

Define it Spence. I'm curious
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The term Sanctuary city is given to cities in the United States or Canada that have policies designed to shelter illegal immigrants. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status. The designation has no legal meaning.[1]
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Shouldn't "sheltering illegal immigrants" be illegal?

Sheltering anything illegal should in itself be illegal...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

U have me confused now...."sanctuary," could it B or not B a bird aviary?...I need to get some good weed to figure this one out.....lol:)

Instead of merely insulting us for being ignorant, why in Gods name don't you enlighten us?

One thing stands out.. We're talking about San Francisco.
Not much left to be said there... Most liberal population in the country... People there make me look like Charleston Heston. :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotflmao: that's friggan funny

I was just getting ready to do the same thing when I read the Charlton Heston line.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just read an article on this the other day simply due to the fact that the City of Worcester was looking to adopt Sanctuary City status.
Shocker really. The city leaders would step on each other's balls to get the attention of Boston Democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device