Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:You're talking 2 differant things. Sanctuary Cities are about Illegal Aliens NOT refugees

I'm talking about the POTUS forcing the state to do his biding. I'm not sure what copycat is talking about.

Quote:I'm talking about the POTUS forcing the state to do his biding. I'm not sure what copycat is talking about.

 

There's no "force." From the EO, states are free to harbor the criminals, they just won't get all of the Federal dollars if they do. The Supreme Court has ruled this is legit in the case of state enforcement of the National 55 MPH speed limit.

Quote:I think this is a very ignorant and blanketed statement JIB. You have no clue what some people from war torn countries have/had to sacrifice to escape or try to escape for a better opportunity.

 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't answer the question.  Which is more dangerous?  A refugee trying to escape from a communist country, or a "refugee" coming into this country from a place that is a known breeding ground for terrorists?

Quote:There's no "force." From the EO, states are free to harbor the criminals, they just won't get all of the Federal dollars if they do. The Supreme Court has ruled this is legit in the case of state enforcement of the National 55 MPH speed limit.

Quote:"The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program."

-Justice Antonin Scalia


Re: Printz v. United States

Quote:The Supreme Court has ruled this is legit in the case of state enforcement of the National 55 MPH speed limit.

Which was wrong.

Quote:-Justice Antonin Scalia


Re: Printz v. United States

 

1. This isn't a federal regulatory program, this is a law about prohibiting non-citizens from illegally crossing the US border.


2. Once again, show me where offering the choice of enforcing federal law or losing federal grants is the same as a "command." I personally don't agree with the practice and think it should be unconstitutional, but it has been done in the past with SC approval.

Quote:You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't answer the question.  Which is more dangerous?  A refugee trying to escape from a communist country, or a "refugee" coming into this country from a place that is a known breeding ground for terrorists?

There is no difference between any refugee trying to escape tyranny, communism, or extremism of any sorts. I don't know why you place quotation marks around that word, but perhaps my family's background and what they had to endure plays a direct role in my opinion. 

 

I can't blame you for not experiencing such a thing, so consider yourself more privileged than others who are less fortunate in that regard. 

 

I wasn't even addressing the question you posed in my previous post, but rather the ignorance or very poorly constructed conglomeration of words. I guess my life experiences overall contribute to my ability to empathize with others who suffer - regardless of race, gender, religion, etc.

 

To each their own.

Quote:Please remind us again what Obama failed at...

 

You're kidding me right? His failure to have the foresight in knowing that cutting off Libya and Syria would lead to further uprising and sprouting of terrorism was a HUGE blunder on his part. Something he's personally gone on record HIMSELF saying he made a mistake. He called ISIS a [BAD WORD REMOVED] JV team man. 

 

A JV team that now sells Oil to make profit and keep it's terrorism going. So he failed on that alone massively. He failed on his words as well. He straight up lied to the people and promised to get our soldiers out of there and then proceeded to go on for the next eight years in making the Middle East even MORE of a hell hole. 

 

He left behind a ton of our high quality, high end military grade weapons, armor, ammo and vehicles for them to come on in and take up themselves as well. This guy refused to accept the help from Russia to target ISIS as well. Which is beyond baffling and troubling. 

 

Just face it and stop being so blind. He was a puppet for the big banking cartel and Wallstreet. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like much of the new Neoliberal and Neodemocratic party. Because, let's call a spade a spade. There's nothing democratic and liberal about bombing seven countries over eight years and not having a single day's worth of peace in office. There's also nothing democratic or liberal about [BAD WORD REMOVED] off Israel, your only true ally in the middle east while opening the door for Iran to advance it's nuclear capabilities. 

 

This man, for eight years, proceeded to bash the Bush Jr. administration, rightfully so. I'll give him that. But then he proceeds to go FURTHER than any war mongering Neoconservative ever DREAMED of. He took the Patriot Act further. He took away more civil liberty from the public. The GDP went lower. Personally, our race relationships in this country took a nose dive under his leadership more than I've seen in our history since the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's. 

 

And understand this. I don't lean left. I don't lean right. Trump nor Clinton had my vote. Obama certainly didn't have my vote. Nor did McCain nor Romney. It's this very same division that's tricked you and millions of others for years that lean so hard to the left. And folks that lean so hard to the right that they can't see the forest for the trees. 

Does anyone take Al Franken seriously?

You insinuated that the EO was unconstitutional due to the 10th Amendment, I countered with Drifters post that cited, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

 

What is not to understand?

Quote:You're kidding me right? His failure to have the foresight in knowing that cutting off Libya and Syria would lead to further uprising and sprouting of terrorism was a HUGE blunder on his part. Something he's personally gone on record HIMSELF saying he made a mistake. He called ISIS a [BAD WORD REMOVED] JV team man. 

 

A JV team that now sells Oil to make profit and keep it's terrorism going. So he failed on that alone massively. He failed on his words as well. He straight up lied to the people and promised to get our soldiers out of there and then proceeded to go on for the next eight years in making the Middle East even MORE of a hell hole. 

 

He left behind a ton of our high quality, high end military grade weapons, armor, ammo and vehicles for them to come on in and take up themselves as well. This guy refused to accept the help from Russia to target ISIS as well. Which is beyond baffling and troubling. 

 

Just face it and stop being so blind. He was a puppet for the big banking cartel and Wallstreet. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like much of the new Neoliberal and Neodemocratic party. Because, let's call a spade a spade. There's nothing democratic and liberal about bombing seven countries over eight years and not having a single day's worth of peace in office. There's also nothing democratic or liberal about [BAD WORD REMOVED] off Israel, your only true ally in the middle east while opening the door for Iran to advance it's nuclear capabilities. 

 

This man, for eight years, proceeded to bash the Bush Jr. administration, rightfully so. I'll give him that. But then he proceeds to go FURTHER than any war mongering Neoconservative ever DREAMED of. He took the Patriot Act further. He took away more civil liberty from the public. The GDP went lower. Personally, our race relationships in this country took a nose dive under his leadership more than I've seen in our history since the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's. 

 

And understand this. I don't lean left. I don't lean right. Trump nor Clinton had my vote. Obama certainly didn't have my vote. Nor did McCain nor Romney. It's this very same division that's tricked you and millions of others for years that lean so hard to the left. And folks that lean so hard to the right that they can't see the forest for the trees. 

+100

Quote:1. This isn't a federal regulatory program, this is a law about prohibiting non-citizens from illegally crossing the US border.



Regarding point 1, the law wil be apart of a new regulatory program according to the EO:


<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
Sec. 10. Review of Previous Immigration Actions and Policies. (a) The Secretary shall immediately take all appropriate action to terminate the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) described in the memorandum issued by the Secretary on November 20, 2014, and to reinstitute the immigration program known as "Secure Communities" referenced in that memorandum.

2. Once again, show me where offering the choice of enforcing federal law or losing federal grants is the same as a "command." I personally don't agree with the practice and think it should be unconstitutional, but it has been done in the past with SC approval.



Regarding point 2, while the language may not be specific, the EO is certainly subject to interpretation and will be interpreted by the court of law as San Francisco has already filed suit against the POTUS with more cities to follow.</blockquote>

Courts won't touch it. Most seem to forget this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/26...50840.html