header pic

Area51 Board (non-moderated) at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' Scout-Tennessee a51 Crowd- Enjoy ROWDY discussion covering politics, religion, current events, and all things under the sun

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Tuscon votes down being a Sanctuary City

 (Read 223 times)

HK_Vol

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 9361
  • Liked:
Tuscon votes down being a Sanctuary City
« on: November 07, 2019, 01:12:40 AM »
And it wasn't close.
Note that Tuscon is 42% hispanic.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/11/06/one-of-arizonas-liberal-hotbeds-overwhelmingly-rejected-proposition-to-become-st-n2555988

SNIP:
Voters in Tucson, Arizona, a liberal hotbed roughly 70 miles north of the Mexican border, overwhelmingly rejected Proposition 205, which would have made the city the first sanctuary city in the state. Voters shot down the proposal by 71 percent

TREX

  • Global Moderator
  • All Star
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2858
  • Liked:
Re: Tuscon votes down being a Sanctuary City
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2019, 06:52:47 AM »
Wascists

Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14492
  • Liked:
Re: Tuscon votes down being a Sanctuary City
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2019, 07:12:52 AM »
Is it illegal to be a sanctuary city?

If it is, why do so many exist?

gymvol

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4549
  • Liked:
Re: Tuscon votes down being a Sanctuary City
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2019, 07:27:32 AM »
Is it illegal to be a sanctuary city?

If it is, why do so many exist?


Is being in this country illegally a crime?

Is harboring a criminal a crime?

Is violating federal laws a crime?

Can you even think and rationalize about things for yourself?

Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14492
  • Liked:
Re: Tuscon votes down being a Sanctuary City
« Reply #4 on: November 07, 2019, 07:33:31 AM »
I think you don't understand the concept of sanctuary city, which is not a shock.

If they are illegal, why do so many exist?

HK_Vol

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 9361
  • Liked:
Re: Tuscon votes down being a Sanctuary City
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2019, 07:41:35 AM »
Because places like San Francisco are the modern version of the secessionist South.
Federal Laws?  We don't need no stinkin' Federal Laws.
We make our own laws and they supersede those of the Federal Government.
Meanwhile, Pelosi prances around the House of Representatives talking about the "rule of law".
Nonsense.  She believes in nothing of the sort.

gymvol

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4549
  • Liked:
Re: Tuscon votes down being a Sanctuary City
« Reply #6 on: November 07, 2019, 07:44:27 AM »
I think you don't understand the concept of sanctuary city, which is not a shock.

If they are illegal, why do so many exist?

I know exactly what they are and why they exist. To be counted in the census so democrats can hope to increase members in the house of representatives in order to take control of the government.  You do know population determines the number of representatives don't you?

So why don't you call your congressman and ask him?  I don't why they are allowed to exist but what I do know is people being in this country illegally is a crime and harboring criminals is a crime.

So why don't you explain it you know everything or think you do.

Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14492
  • Liked:
Re: Tuscon votes down being a Sanctuary City
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2019, 07:49:28 AM »
A sanctuary city requires that no person arrested be asked their immigration status.  Therefore, they do not know it, and cannot report it to the Feds.

If they KNOW it, they have to report it, by law, but a hole in said law is that if they don't know it, they don't have to report anything.

That is the basic concept, and why it is legal under the law.

And of course a person arrested could claim they were here legally and have no means of "proving it" necessarily, and the city has no real means of disproving that assertion.

gymvol

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4549
  • Liked:
Re: Tuscon votes down being a Sanctuary City
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2019, 07:50:41 AM »
A sanctuary city requires that no person arrested be asked their immigration status.  Therefore, they do not know it, and cannot report it to the Feds.

If they KNOW it, they have to report it, by law, but a hole in said law is that if they don't know it, they don't have to report anything.

That is the basic concept, and why it is legal under the law.

And of course a person arrested could claim they were here legally and have no means of "proving it" necessarily, and the city has no real means of disproving that assertion.


You're an idiot and I apologize if I have insulted other idiots.

Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14492
  • Liked:
Re: Tuscon votes down being a Sanctuary City
« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2019, 07:52:46 AM »
Yeah, I'm familiar with your epithets, which of course you can never back up with specific examples.   

When you get out of your depth, it's all you have, and you're out of your depth on facts most of the time.

Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14492
  • Liked:
Re: Tuscon votes down being a Sanctuary City
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2019, 07:56:04 AM »
Here is another explanation (no doubt that will be derided without any factual or logical rebuttal):

"No, sanctuary cities do not violate federal law. Federal law requires public entities to share and maintain information that has been gathered on an individual’s citizenship or immigration status. Federal law does not require compliance with federal requests to prolong detention. It does not impose an affirmative duty to gather information about place of birth or immigration status. It does not require localities to give local resources to assist federal immigration agents in carrying out their federal immigration enforcement responsibilities. So long as a local sanctuary policy does not limit communication or maintenance of information on a person’s immigration or citizenship status, it will not run afoul of federal law, and I know of no policies that restrict the sharing of such information. "

gymvol

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4549
  • Liked:
Re: Tuscon votes down being a Sanctuary City
« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2019, 08:16:44 AM »
Here is another explanation (no doubt that will be derided without any factual or logical rebuttal):

"No, sanctuary cities do not violate federal law. Federal law requires public entities to share and maintain information that has been gathered on an individual’s citizenship or immigration status. Federal law does not require compliance with federal requests to prolong detention. It does not impose an affirmative duty to gather information about place of birth or immigration status. It does not require localities to give local resources to assist federal immigration agents in carrying out their federal immigration enforcement responsibilities. So long as a local sanctuary policy does not limit communication or maintenance of information on a person’s immigration or citizenship status, it will not run afoul of federal law, and I know of no policies that restrict the sharing of such information. "


You're still an idiot.

States cannot nullify federal law.


You may not have heard of the “Nullification Crisis” that President Andrew Jackson faced in 1832. But there are many unfortunate similarities between it and what is happening today on immigration. From the unjustified obstruction of immigration law by some activist federal judges to the defiance of the federal government on sanctuary policies by governors and city mayors such as Ed Murray of Seattle, there are some interesting parallels — and lessons.

I was reminded of the Nullification Crisis recently on a tour of James Madison’s home, Montpelier, which is close to the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, Virginia. One of the docents related how President Jackson had visited Madison in the midst of his reelection campaign to get his advice. This crisis was about high tariffs which, before the implementation of the income tax in 1913 through the Sixteenth Amendment, was one of the main sources of income for the federal government.

High tariff rates were resented throughout the South, particularly in South Carolina. While they benefited manufacturers in the northern states, they hurt the mostly agricultural southern states. Led by John Calhoun, South Carolina and other states asserted that they had the final authority to declare federal laws unconstitutional and thus null and void within their states. While Jackson was a moderate on tariffs and respectful of the rights states retained in our federal system, he was scornful of the nullification theory. He considered it an unconstitutional, “abominable doctrine” that “will dissolve the Union.”

Get exclusive insider information from Heritage experts delivered straight to your inbox each week. Subscribe to The Agenda >>
Subscribe to The Agenda >>
In 1832, the nullifiers took control of the South Carolina government and passed the infamous “Ordinance of Nullification.” They expressed the same type of virulent hostility and contempt for (and defiance of) the Jackson administration and the tariff system that we are seeing today towards the Trump administration over enforcement of federal immigration law, including provisions against certain sanctuary policies. Those states and cities are pushing the same concept of nullification of federal law, although they are doing it in federal court.

As one would expect of Andrew Jackson, he reacted strongly to this threat from South Carolina, including issuing a Nullification Proclamation on Dec. 10, 1832. Nullification was “incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed,” He wrote. The crisis was resolved by a compromise bill on tariffs that Congress passed in 1833 after passing the Force Bill, which gave the president the power to use state militias and federal forces against the nullifiers.
The similarity between these events and what is happening today are eerie. While there are many areas over which the states and the federal government share responsibility — or where the Tenth Amendment gives responsibility to the states — immigration is not one of them. Section 8 of Article I gives Congress exclusive authority to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” just as Section 8 gives Congress the exclusive authority to establish and collect all “Imposts and Excises” or tariffs. The states have no authority in these areas at all. They can no more dispute the immigration rules established by Congress than they could dispute the tariffs imposed by Congress back in 1832.

This makes perfect sense. Any other rule would produce chaos. Think of the enormous problems that would be caused by border states such as Texas or California deciding that they would ignore federal law and apply their own immigration rules to individuals coming across the Mexican border into the United States — or if states decided that they would impose their own tariffs on foreign goods coming into their states in addition to those imposed by the federal government. In fact, it was that kind of behavior that was restricting trade under the Articles of Confederation between states such as Virginia and Maryland that helped lead to the call for a constitutional convention.

When it comes to immigration and the entry of aliens into the U.S., Congress delegated to the president the extremely broad authority under 8 U.S.C. §1182 (f) to suspend the entry of any aliens or class of aliens into the U.S. if he believes it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” As five dissenting judges at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently pointed out, there are a long series of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the authority of prior presidents under this provision and severely limiting the ability of the courts to review the president’s decision.

Unfortunately, at the urging of certain states, the courts have in large part ignored the Constitution, federal law, and prior precedents. They are instead substituting their judgment for that of the president, and enjoining the president’s executive order by implementing a temporary halt to entry from certain terrorist safe havens. In essence, states such as Hawaii and Washington are turning to activist federal judges to nullify the exclusive authority of the federal government over immigration and the security of our national border — and those judges are complying.

Cincydawg

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14492
  • Liked:
Re: Tuscon votes down being a Sanctuary City
« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2019, 08:23:55 AM »
The reason these sanctuary cities exist unmolested is that they are not breaking Federal law.

This is rather clear to anyone who can read and comprehend.

And, being called an "idiot" by you is modest praise in my view.  I don't think you are capable of understanding simple concepts and instead cut and paste stuff not relevant to the point, but you don't grasp that, which also is fully expected.

HK_Vol

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 9361
  • Liked:
Re: Tuscon votes down being a Sanctuary City
« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2019, 08:25:17 AM »
John C. Calhoun would defend San Francisco, just as he did tariffs and slavery on the exact same principle.

Some people in South Carolina want to take down a statue of John C. Calhoun - I presume San Francisco would be happy to take it and erect it as their new hero......


 

Please Support Site: