Posted on 03/17/2017 5:58:10 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Stop smoking that stuff it makes you write stupid things.
Speaking of a post that is stratospherically stupid, we actually have a creeper on this thread who is mentally incapable of comprehending that suffering a real, continuing consequence will cause people behaving badly to change their course.
That’s the biggest mind of stupid that exists on this thread.
It’s not as if said consequences will need to continue for long, but they are the right thing to do.
>The cities that do this will likely have an influx that will tax their system and drive out current residents. They of course are not smart enough to see this likely outcome.
Exactly. Trump has the law on his side. Soon Trump will go after the Employers who provide jobs for the illegals. Will these sanctuary cities be able to provide food and housing for hundred of thousands of unemployed and destitute foreign nationals?
Is there some sort of a Biological reason Democrats and Liberals cannot say the word ILLEGAL?
Immigrants are Invited, Invaders are Repelled.
I expect the Fed government also has it’s finger in the pie somewhere in the mix.
Jeff Sessions, at the age of 15, witnessed the threatened use of deadly force against his Governor of Alabama and complete humiliation of an entire culture in 1963. He was there.
It was right there on the Schoolhouse steps of the University of Alabama.
The entire Alabama National Guard was federalized under the order of JFK. There was a court decision in hand (Brown) and a court order refused by the Governor.
Our Attorney General knows what to do. And he’ll enjoy it.
Right now ...not sure what those are ...
There are USSC rulings that make it difficult to coerce the states by threatening their current funding. I am not a lawyer and I may be wrong about where the legal boundaries lie, but the main legal way Congress can act is on issues involving future funding. For example if Congress wanted to encourage voter reform and provided say $100 Billion to cover the cost, then they could set conditions to qualify. But they generally cannot say “if you don’t detain suspects for ICE we will cut off funding for XYZ”
Unless of course, the funds already had set conditions. Then if a state refuses to abide they can lose funding.
Another way they may be able do it is to change the law as it applies to all states.. This may be politically acceptable, too, since the states that voted for Hillary are the ones with the majority of immigration. So such a move may work since the GOP may not get much political blowback. Just speaking in general terms for illustration, Congress could repeal programs for social welfare and replace them with new programs that are contngent on certain conditions. If they tried this, it will be one heck of a fight with tons of protest.
Remember when Arizona wasn’t allowed to decide her own immigration laws? Obama got a court to declare that immigration at the federal level trumps anything at the state level.
Those chickens will come home to roost :-)
Informative link, thanks.
“Trump is now making as an unlawful intrusion on state’s rights.”
Obamacare, Gay Marriage, Trangender activism, EPA Regulations, open-borders, etc, etc.....no party in recent history has crammed their agenda down the throat of states more than Leftists....now they wanna cry “States Rights!”.....bwahahaha!
LOL!
The funnest thing about this is how the liberals are having to defend everything on every front. A total, all-out, siege. Nice to wake up every morning and see conservatism on offense and the liberals on defense.
He threatened to withhold all Medicaid funds from states that didn't sign on to Obamacare. The Supreme Court said he couldn't do that. That's the precedent California will rely on.
Strike back against the rule of law. Mm hmm.
No, most California water is in-house, even in the
subject areas. I don’t think the feds have much say-so
regarding outside water I believe.
“Among the most potent are high court decisions that have interpreted financial threats like the one Trump is now making as an unlawful intrusion on state’s rights.”
It’s a miracle - the leftists are suddenly for states’s rights!
No, states are making a choice to accept or not accept federal funding. If a state chooses to shelter illegals then they pay for it. Simple.
These people should be arrested for obstruction of justice, and in some cases like San Francisco, as accomplices to murder.
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.