Posted on 06/15/2020 7:18:50 AM PDT by Stravinsky
that protect immigrants from deportation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Illegal aliens, not immigrants.
Immigrants are people who applied for, paid for, waited for and complied with the documents that make them immigrants.
A RED State like Texas should immediately pass Deportation Anti-Sanctuary laws and start dumping illegals over the border. The precedent is set. SCOTUS won’t do a thing. Good deal.
Sounds good to me
The article is lacking a lot of info.
Anyone with horses ready to bolt California-—I have a nice turn key 5.58 acre property set up for multiple horses.
Contact me by PM.
Wait, SCOTUS just ruled that it is illegal to help non-citizens remain in this country.
Did I miss something?
Despite the knee-jerks here, this is what I see:
SCOTUS unanimously ruled that encouraging illegals to stay in the US is criminal.
SCOTUS then ruled that states can limit cooperation with federal immigration officials.
I do not think this makes sanctuary cities legal.
Yep. Washington should close all Federal offices in California.
I agree, states do not have to cooperate with federal agencies if it costs them money.
You say you want a revolution, well you know....
Totally wrong.
SCOTUS has said that states do not have to cooperate with federal law enforcement officials, not that federal laws are null and void.
This means, your state cannot be forced to cooperate with BATFE.
Declining to hear his administration’s challenge to “sanctuary” laws.
So he can rule as he sees fit then they hear the case?.
Sounds like a yes and no ruling.
How about a Federal Income Tax sanctuary state? I bet THAT would get someone’s attention.
A Second Amendment sanctuary state where the NFA 1934, GCA 1968 no longer apply.
Let me guess: Judge Roberts sided with the lefties.
Again.
___
Did he?
all bad news today from SCOTUS
Hope some states do it with respect to federal gun laws.
No Right Wing Madman is right, and the SC got it wrong. The entire issue is US Citizen versus Non-Citizen. It has NOTHING to do with States Rights, therefore the Supremecy Clause holds. To support your argument, a state would have to do something like preventing or favoring a state benefit to a NON-STATE citizen. For example, reciprocal agreements like hunting & fishing licenses of either border state are allowed in both states. The Feds have NO jurisdiction over something like that because the issue is purely state rights based on citizens of 2 states. Again in this case, it is NOT states rights because it is US CITIZEN vs. NON-CITIZEN, so FEDERAL LAW should be the deciding factor and nothing else. The SC got it wrong.
I think this was 6-3. Gorsuck agreed as well.
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.