White House proposed releasing immigrant detainees in sanctuary cities, targeting political foes

Dec 2013
33,105
19,188
Beware of watermelons
#11
Did I say that? NO.

What is it with you and reading comprehension?
If a cop sees you stealing and takes you to the police station for processing, "that demonstrates justice and due process". (Which is what I said)
If instead he decides to pack you up in a car and drive you to some other city where he dumps you off, that is not in line with justice or due process. He would be acting outside the law.
As the cop would be both transporting you against your will and did so in violation of justice / due process, one can legitimately label that as kidnapping.



City and state law enforcement are not obligated to enforce federal law. A sanctuary city is doing nothing illegal when they act as such.

You are right that Trump's idea would be bad and even illegal.



It does not surprise me that you support yet another unconstitutional act...
Court rules Trump move to cut 'sanctuary city' funds is unconstitutional


In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Lemme know when it gets to SCOTUS before you start parading things so flagrantly as unconstitutional
 
Likes: Spdy
Nov 2005
8,091
2,652
California
#12
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Lemme know when it gets to SCOTUS before you start parading things so flagrantly as unconstitutional
Decision still stands, doesn't it?
That ruling was eight months ago and has Trump tried to push it since then? Nope!

So I realize you need others to "let you know" things, but you should really try to listen the first time they say it, 'mmkay?
 
Dec 2018
2,157
686
New England
#13
Did I say that? NO.
Yes, you implied it. More specifically, you implied dumping them in sanctuary cities against their will was kidnapping and sending them to a federal facility was not. In either case, we can be sure they are being sent somewhere "against their will."


City and state law enforcement are not obligated to enforce federal law.
This is such BS. First of all, sanctuary cities have not chosen to simply "not enforce federal law;" they often actively work against it or, at a minimum, refuse even the most basic levels of cooperation such as reporting. What would you think if, say, the city of Dallas decided to take the exact same approach with federal civil rights law?
 
Nov 2005
8,091
2,652
California
#14
Yes, you implied it.
No. It was not even implied.
Sometimes people think in binary. You assume that you have a position and others disagree, so they must have the exact opposite opinion.
You need to stop and listen to what people are actually saying.


More specifically, you implied dumping them in sanctuary cities against their will was kidnapping and sending them to a federal facility was not. In either case, we can be sure they are being sent somewhere "against their will."
Do you understand that "against their will" is not the only distinguishing factor between "kidnapping" and an actual legal arrest / detention?
You don't seem to understand that.


No. It's actually not.
City and state law enforcement are not "extensions" of the federal government. They have no obligation to enforce federal laws.


First of all, sanctuary cities have not chosen to simply "not enforce federal law;" they often actively work against it or, at a minimum, refuse even the most basic levels of cooperation such as reporting. What would you think if, say, the city of Dallas decided to take the exact same approach with federal civil rights law?
The 14th amendment requires state and local governments protect civil rights, ergo your counter-analogy is fundamentally flawed.
 
Dec 2013
33,105
19,188
Beware of watermelons
#15
Decision still stands, doesn't it?
That ruling was eight months ago and has Trump tried to push it since then? Nope!

So I realize you need others to "let you know" things, but you should really try to listen the first time they say it, 'mmkay?

No. Instead of pushing it they (he) have just decided to give the majority of the illegals to them. It is a much better play both financially and optically.

No need to remove federal funding that may negatively effect innocents. Give them exactly what they want. an unlimited supply of illegals that will financially strain their already fragile entitlement programs.



20190413_194958.png
 
Likes: Spdy
Nov 2005
8,091
2,652
California
#16
No. Instead of pushing it they (he) have just decided to give the majority of the illegals to them. It is a much better play both financially and optically.
You would really look like less of an ignorant troll if you would actually try to read the article, which explicitly disproves you...

A White House official and a spokesman for DHS sent nearly identical statements to The Post on Thursday, indicating that the proposal is no longer under consideration.

This was just a suggestion that was floated and rejected, which ended any further discussion,” the White House statement said.
 
Dec 2013
33,105
19,188
Beware of watermelons
#17
You would really look like less of an ignorant troll if you would actually try to read the article, which explicitly disproves you...

A White House official and a spokesman for DHS sent nearly identical statements to The Post on Thursday, indicating that the proposal is no longer under consideration.

This was just a suggestion that was floated and rejected, which ended any further discussion,” the White House statement said.

It's so sad that my posts just consistently sail over your head and then we spend three pages trying to get you to understand until you finally go.... "that's not what i ment"
 
Nov 2005
8,091
2,652
California
#18
It's so sad that my posts just consistently sail over your head and then we spend three pages trying to get you to understand until you finally go.... "that's not what i ment"
Sabcat falling back to his repetitive "it went over your head" claim when he's proven wrong... :rolleyes:
It's his go to issue derailment when he knows he's got nothing left...
 
Dec 2018
2,157
686
New England
#19
Do you understand that "against their will" is not the only distinguishing factor between "kidnapping" and an actual legal arrest / detention?
... and you cited it as a consequence of one and not the other, hence my point. If it's not what you meant then write more carefully next time and you won't have to fumble through these tiresome explanations.

The 14th amendment requires state and local governments protect civil rights, ergo your counter-analogy is fundamentally flawed.
Actually, no. It says "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." How does that obligate a state to assist in a case with federal jurisdiction? So tell us, with which federal laws would you have the states cooperate with the feds and which not? I'd like to get a sense of how flexible your commitment to the rule of law is.
 
Likes: Spdy