Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Judge blocks Trump' 'sanctuary city' order


Farmer77

Recommended Posts

Just now, aztek said:

he basically allowed CA to disobey federal law, regardless of the words he used. well if CA does not have to obey, why should trump obey someones ruling?

No you're missing it. 

Trump cant just speak anything he wants into law. That is called a dictatorship. I know the right is p***ed but as I said to Ella are you really sure you want to attach yourself to the position that the founding fathers were wrong in how they created our nation?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
9 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No you're missing it. 

Trump cant just speak anything he wants into law. That is called a dictatorship. I know the right is p***ed but as I said to Ella are you really sure you want to attach yourself to the position that the founding fathers were wrong in how they created our nation?

founding fathers?? ;lmao really? what do you their stance on illegal immigration would be?

 

but you know what, i'm not worried 1 bit, i'm sure there will be a way to connect funds with immigration laws, disobeying federal laws, ....... one way or another Ca will pay. 

Edited by aztek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aztek said:

founding fathers?? ;lmao really? what do you their stance on illegal immigration would be?

I believe their stance would be that regardless of the scenario we cant allow America to become a dictatorship. Hence the importance of checks and balances. If what this judge has done isnt in line with the law then his ruling will be overturned. 

As for how they would feel about illegal immigration,IDK how do you extrapolate 18th century thinking to a modern day problem?  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Farmer77 said:

I believe their stance would be that regardless of the scenario we cant allow America to become a dictatorship.

 

lol, it is oligarchy, basically it is a dictatorship. political show is just a show.,

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aztek said:

lol, it is oligarchy, basically it is a dictatorship. political show is just a show.,

Let me have my delusions damnit ! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No you're missing it. 

Trump cant just speak anything he wants into law. That is called a dictatorship....

The thing YOU are missing is this; Cali and the rest of the Sanctuaries are sanctuaries for those who are breaking Federal Law.

Trump is the one guy trying to enforce Federal Law, is that a bad thing?

Because if so, you are opening the King Kong of all cans o' Worms. And it won't end with this, not by a long shot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AnchorSteam said:

The thing YOU are missing is this; Cali and the rest of the Sanctuaries are sanctuaries for those who are breaking Federal Law.

Trump is the one guy trying to enforce Federal Law, is that a bad thing?

Because if so, you are opening the King Kong of all cans o' Worms. And it won't end with this, not by a long shot. 

Oh Im not missing that. Lets be clear though its not that the feds cant go in and get illegal immigrants from those cities. They arent preventing the feds from enforcing federal law they simply dont want all of the problems that will be a result of local authorities enforcing federal law. I know its a heated and partisan issue but there is a certain amount of logic to these cities' position. The federal government shouldnt be in the practice of making life harder, more expensive and less safe for its citizens, which is what theyre attempting to do with these cities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

think of usa as an apartment building, each state is an apartment, one tenant wants to turn his app into a crack house, keep dozen of dogs, and disregard rules, it affects everyone in the building,   

Edited by aztek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the states are actively obstructing (not just ignoring) the federal government, they are not in violation of the law.  And, until such time as it becomes law, the president simply cannot decide on his own to co-opt state law enforcement into doing federal law enforcement.  There is a reason that states have to have their own budget votes and elections.  Their law enforcement already has X amount of things they are responsible for, and their budget is allocated accordingly.  Now, the federal government wants them to take on extra duties, but hasn't allocated the funds yet, because the part of the government that ordered them to do the extra duties is not the part of the government that allocates the states their funds.  Yes, the judiciary branch is well within its scope to question an order that effectively by-passes congressional approval on a specifically congressional government function.  Unless Trump means for state law enforcement to do his extra work and make them pay for it, which is not the first time he has proposed a plan like that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's amusing how the sides have flip-flopped over State's Rights on this issue. One side that advocates State's Rights strongly, find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to oppose them. Contrawise, the ones that want a stronger Federal government suddenly are finding that not such a great idea, after all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

It's amusing how the sides have flip-flopped over State's Rights on this issue. One side that advocates State's Rights strongly, find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to oppose them. Contrawise, the ones that want a stronger Federal government suddenly are finding that not such a great idea, after all.

I strongly support state rights, and federal immigration laws. Always have. State rights are only for those powers not given to the fed by the constitution. Like say drug laws. No where in the constitution does it give the fed the power to imprison people for drugs. Same can not be said for immigration laws. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 4/26/2017 at 2:11 PM, aztek said:

founding fathers?? ;lmao really? what do you their stance on illegal immigration would be?

Their stance on illegal immigration is painfully obvious.   It was to illegally immigrate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Yamato said:

Their stance on illegal immigration is painfully obvious.   It was to illegally immigrate.

you got a point there there, there was no such thing as immigration laws in their time, maybe they would know the concept better if it went by different name, more familiar to them, trespassing 

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2017 at 0:56 PM, Farmer77 said:

This from the ruling makes pretty good sense to me: 

 

Political correctness made sense to you too so who cares what you think, I don't. I have sense enough to know and recognize  right from  wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ellapennella said:

Political correctness made sense to you too so who cares what you think, I don't. I have sense enough to know and recognize  right from  wrong.

Well since I started this thread clearly ALL Y'all care a little ;) 

You seem to hate the fact that America was built in a way to prevent dictatorships. Im really sorry you're forced to live in a society that values freedom that highly. I know it would be much easier to get trump's agenda pushed through if that weren't the case. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Farmer77 said:

Well since I started this thread clearly ALL Y'all care a little ;) 

You seem to hate the fact that America was built in a way to prevent dictatorships. Im really sorry you're forced to live in a society that values freedom that highly. I know it would be much easier to get trump's agenda pushed through if that weren't the case. 

You were defending the wannabe  dictator Obama  and his administration, remember? It was all cool with you when he was stripping the country of our freedom  . I'm so sorry for you that you can't tell the difference between the two. President Trump is not a dictator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ellapennella said:

You were defending the wannabe  dictator Obama  and his administration, remember? It was all cool with you when he was stripping the country of our freedom  . I'm so sorry for you that you can't tell the difference between the two. President Trump is not a dictator.

:lol::lol: Are you really claiming that I supported the man I called a mass murderer for his actions across the globe?

Again with parroting the talk radio BS and again it fails you because im no democrat, I didnt support Obama and I didnt support Hillary. 

Edit to add im not calling trump a dictator , he cant be thanks to the checks and balances which keep that from happening. Its those checks and balances you seem to hate. 

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

I strongly support state rights, and federal immigration laws. Always have. State rights are only for those powers not given to the fed by the constitution. Like say drug laws. No where in the constitution does it give the fed the power to imprison people for drugs. Same can not be said for immigration laws. 

There are myriad, "no where in the constitution" instances the courts have interpreted as constitutional. The phrase "the separation of church and state" occurs nowhere in the constitution. It's a modern interpretation for the provision originally intended to prohibit the recognition or establishment of a National Church, such as is the Church of England.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.