The Leftists Sanctuary Cities and allowing Amnesty for Millions of Illegals …

[riclag]

…“A sanctuary city is a municipality that limits or denies its cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law”.

 

Its premise is radically flawed,unconstitutional & illegal.And a component of it ,Delivering Amnesty to millions of illegal non citizens is a slap in the face to the Republic for which it stands, where federal immigration laws were set 100 years ago.

A slap in the face to assimilation!

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

the story is based on a Wikipedia reference report 

 

[annotator]

1 minute ago, riclag said:

…“A sanctuary city is a municipality that limits or denies its cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law”.

 

Its premise is radically flawed and unconstitutional & illegal.And a component of it ,Delivering Amnesty to millions of illegal non citizens is a slap in the face to the Republic for which it stands, where federal immigration laws were set 100 years ago.

A slap in the face to assimilation!

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

the story us based on a Wikipedia reference 

 

I only wish you were right. But the Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal government can't compel states or cities to assist the Feds in law enforcement. It has to do with states' rights and the federal nature of the US governmental system. It's a Constitutional thing.

[proton]

Imagine the stench and the garbage ugh

[bamnutsak]

8 minutes ago, annotator said:

It's a Constitutional thing.

 

For the MAGA Cult, and six o nine, States' Rights are but a mere speedbump.

 

Federalist 45 

 

James Madison

 

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp

 

 

[annotator]

30 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

 

For the MAGA Cult, and six o nine, States' Rights are but a mere speedbump.

 

Federalist 45 

 

James Madison

 

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp

 

 

The Federalist papers may explain thinking behind consitution. But they are not law. This is something from AI that explains the actual legal decision. I think it stinks but it's the law:

The Supreme Court case Printz v. United States established the anti-commandeering doctrine, which prevents the federal government from compelling state and local governments to enforce federal laws, including immigration laws. This means the federal government cannot force state and local law enforcement to implement or administer federal immigration programs. While states and localities can choose to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, they cannot be legally required to do so. 

[riclag]

Federal immigration laws supersede state immigration  laws. The arbiters

of the Constitution , the SCOTUS, sides with this. 

And now come 26 million who have crossed the border illegally, as opposed to legal immigrants who the laws were designed , drafted and democratically approved for.
 

“The United States is a federalist system. In other words, states have some freedom to determine their laws. But state governments still must remain within specific parameters in the laws they pass and implement”.

 

https://www.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-laws-and-resources/federal-vs-state-immigration-laws.html

[riclag]

26 million non citizens many( not all ) living in

blue states are going to be in shock when they realize they can’t stay or rely on state immigration laws!

 

“This careful judicial consideration reaffirms that while states have sovereignty in many areas, immigration must remain under the exclusive control of the federal government. This aligns with the principles laid out by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, which continues to guide the balance between state rights and federal authority in matters impacting the nation's integrity and international standing”.

https://www.usconstitution.net/constitution-and-immigration-policies/