Bring charges against those who vote for this, violating Fed law.

[Bill M]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/sanctuary-city-trump-deportations-immigrants-los-angeles/2024/11/19/id/1188715/

[CEO]

Maybe this will cause a mass migration of illegals to those cities. Then the Feds deny assistance when the burden is too much.

[SmTx]

Everybody wants small government until it’s time for small government.

subject matter aside good on folks telling the feds no.

we’d all be better off had more of this happened in 2020.

[Playa]

Everybody wants small government until it’s time for small government.

subject matter aside good on folks telling the feds no.

we’d all be better off had more of this happened in 2020.

I agree with you for the most part, but immigration and border security are about the only thing the feds should be involved in

[SmTx]

I agree with you for the most part, but immigration and border security are about the only thing the feds should be involved in

Correct. LA is saying it's a federal issue so use federal funds/resources to combat it.

Which in turn shouldn't surprise them if that logic is followed for drug enforcement as well for all their dispensaries.

[Artos]

Border czar doesn't care...it's not so much about the resources & not wanting to get involved as much as it is interfering.

Several elected leaders have said they will resist mass deportations.

https://x.com/Breaking911/status/1858913397925953936

[flywise]

Seems some would rather continue to allow criminals to suck up the American tax payer funded resources than to see them sent back to where tolhey came from. Pizzon all of those sympathizer's. Gov will become smaller and more efficient in the next 4 years, the Tax payers will get what we asked for by removing these people and this incoming administration will walk through the un-Americans trying to prevent it

[Tejas Wildlife]

Seems some would rather continue to allow criminals to suck up the American tax payer funded resources than to see them sent back to where tolhey came from. Pizzon all of those sympathizer's. Gov will become smaller and more efficient in the next 4 years, the Tax payers will get what we asked for by removing these people and this incoming administration will walk through the un-Americans trying to prevent it

^^^^^^^^^. I hope & pray this will occur!

[Slabby]

Correct. LA is saying it's a federal issue so use federal funds/resources to combat it.

Which in turn shouldn't surprise them if that logic is followed for drug enforcement as well for all their dispensaries.

Are you sure that's what they are saying? Or are they saying they will aid and abed criminals from the feds? Because those aren't the same thing

[tvc184]

I am not in favor of sanctuary cities. I abhor them.

However.....

I don’t think there is a federal law requiring a state or city to help the federal government. They cannot lawfully stop the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws however they are not required to assist.

Texas has done the exact same thing for gun laws. Texas is a sanctuary state and it's against state law for a the state, county or city law enforcement agencies to assist the federal government in a firearms law unless it is also against state law. The most obvious example is a suppressor. A police department, can catch a guy with a suppressor which is against federal law without a stamp but since it's not against state law, he cannot go around the state law by just contacting the ATF. So Texas is saying, if it's not against OUR law, we aren't going to help.

LA and other city are simply doing the same thing. We can yell STATES' RIGHTS when we like sanctuaries but then do a Kamala Harris flip-flop when we don't.

We could look back at other threads on TBH where sheriffs have declared their county as a Second Amendment sanctuary. Several people here have backed them up and say that constitutionally, the sheriff at the supreme law of the county and can keep the Feds out. It's not true but okay, let's run with that idea. Some cities and counties are doing roughly the same thing on immigration.

It's like people want to champion a law or a right when it fits their beliefs but they turn around and hate the exact same law or right when it doesn't.

it seems to be that these cities and counties have the right to say, just like Texas did with Firearms, you can enforce your law if you wish, but we're not going to help.

I like firearms sanctuaries and hate illegal immigration sanctuaries but are they really any different other than our feelings?

If it can be proven that a government official has violated a federal law like using state funds to hide a known criminal fugitive, absolutely file criminal charges on the government official. Lock him up!

[Kingfisher789]

Can you believe we spent 66 Billion dollars on these illegals?!? That could have bought some infrastructure .

[100%TtId]

There are an estimated 40,000 homeless vets in the US today. $66B could have bought each one of them a $1.6 million house.

[Lawhunter]

I am not in favor of sanctuary cities. I abhor them.

However.....

I don’t think there is a federal law requiring a state or city to help the federal government. They cannot lawfully stop the federal government from enforcing federal immigration laws however they are not required to assist.

Texas has done the exact same thing for gun laws. Texas is a sanctuary state and it's against state law for a the state, county or city law enforcement agencies to assist the federal government in a firearms law unless it is also against state law. The most obvious example is a suppressor. A police department, can catch a guy with a suppressor which is against federal law without a stamp but since it's not against state law, he cannot go around the state law by just contacting the ATF. So Texas is saying, if it's not against OUR law, we aren't going to help.

LA and other city are simply doing the same thing. We can yell STATES' RIGHTS when we like sanctuaries but then do a Kamala Harris flip-flop when we don't.

We could look back at other threads on TBH where sheriffs have declared their county as a Second Amendment sanctuary. Several people here have backed them up and say that constitutionally, the sheriff at the supreme law of the county and can keep the Feds out. It's not true but okay, let's run with that idea. Some cities and counties are doing roughly the same thing on immigration.

It's like people want to champion a law or a right when it fits their beliefs but they turn around and hate the exact same law or right when it doesn't.

it seems to be that these cities and counties have the right to say, just like Texas did with Firearms, you can enforce your law if you wish, but we're not going to help.

I like firearms sanctuaries and hate illegal immigration sanctuaries but are they really any different other than our feelings?

If it can be proven that a government official has violated a federal law like using state funds to hide a known criminal fugitive, absolutely file criminal charges on the government official. Lock him up!

You're comparing an enumerated right with harboring criminals. Those are not the same.

[Artos]

Denver mayor Mike Johnston has said he will use the Denver police & citizens to physically stop the feds from deporting illegals...it's this nonsense that is the problem.

[tvc184]

You're comparing an enumerated right with harboring criminals. Those are not the same.

They are exactly the same. Both are federal criminal acts which a state or county determined that they don’t want to enforce.

Thanks for making my point.

We stand by the Constitution …. except the parts that we don’t like!