Posted on 03/31/2017 8:44:12 AM PDT by kevcol
One thing the Constitution is VERY clear about is that the Federal Government has sole authority over immigration matters. NO court or person can argue otherwise, unless of course they insist on being TRAITORS to our Constitution.
As in this entire article is a hoax?
I should have known. If so, the poster should have indicated “hoax” in the title.
Not sure if that is true or not, but Trump can direct government agencies to curtail all non-essential travel, new business, etc. in these two states. That would have immediate, visible impact.
You do not support the designation by DHS of CA and CT as sanctuary states?
Connecticut’s been on my s list a while. First for what they’re not allowing doctors to do to help Lyme’s victims. Then how U of C basketball players behaved during the anthem a year or so ago, pathetic and angering.
Absolutely not and I strongly suspect that such federal action is unconstitutional.
Unconstitutional on what basis?
Are you LEO, or retired LEO?
Sounds like actual swamp draining taking place.
Use the money saved from the sanctuary cities/states to
BUILD THE WALL...
Thanks CA, CT for your loverly contributions...
y’alls such patriots !!!
yeah that was definitely a /s
You must be talking about giving Constitutional rights to aliens in other nations. That kind of unconstitutional federal action.
I haven’t delved into it, but on the face,
1) The feds are constitutionally required to protect the United States for invasion (Art IV, Sec 4). Illegal immigration and immigration of enemies are invasion. Federal designation of “sanctuary cities” does the opposite of that constitutional mandate.
2) I know of nothing in the Constitution that would authorize the feds to override state sovereignty by “designating sanctuary cities”.
I haven’t delved into it, but on the face,
1) The feds are constitutionally required to protect the United States for invasion (Art IV, Sec 4). Illegal immigration and immigration of enemies are invasion. Federal designation of “sanctuary cities” appears to be a federal action that actually violates that constitutional mandate.
2) I know of nothing in the Constitution that would authorize the feds to override state sovereignty by “designating sanctuary cities”.
It’s the states that designated themselves as sanctuary states.
The DHS recognized them as having done so and will take action—hopefully
Excellent idea.
There are so many sources for funds to build the wall.
Also use the US money that is sent to Mexico [their #1 source of income]: Ill-gotten gains in the form of untaxed wages paid to illegal criminal alien insurgent invading colonists from Mexico.
Confused wording, but what isn’t these days?
IMO the DHS should be not be “designating” CA and CT as “Sanctuary States”. That sounds like the feds are ratifying this behavior.
IMO, the feds should be ACCUSING CA and CT of harboring illegals and should be filing charges.
“IMO, the feds should be ACCUSING CA and CT of harboring illegals and should be filing charges.”
They haven’t ‘accused’. They have designated them.
“IMO the DHS should be not be “designating” CA and CT as “Sanctuary States”. That sounds like the feds are ratifying this behavior.
IMO, the feds should be ACCUSING CA and CT of harboring illegals and should be filing charges.”
Designating is stronger than accusing. It means they have been convicted.
The proper interpretation seems to be that the states are accused of being sanctuaries, not allowed to be sanctuaries as you apparently have concluded.
Poorly written headline, see my post #54
The headline should have been “DHS Recognizes that California and Connecticut have been deemed Sanctuary States by Politicians”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.