Is this a good idea?

Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) will introduce legislation to cut off money to self-described sanctuary cities. These cities refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration law, creating a "safe zone" for illegals.

Good move.

I do not like it, although I do not like the idea of sanctuary cities.

I'm against federal overreach and pushing states and municipalities around.

The federal government needs to delegate the power to enforce some of these laws by letting states make it state law that being there is illegal.

The Federal government is simply too large and too inefficient to get anything like this done.

(07-07-2015 06:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  These cities refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration law, creating a "safe zone" for illegals.

But not baking a cake for a gay wedding is punishable by a fine? I don't even.... understand..... what.....why.......how........

I approve this measure.

(07-07-2015 06:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Is this a good idea?

Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) will introduce legislation to cut off money to self-described sanctuary cities. These cities refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration law, creating a "safe zone" for illegals.

Great move.

(07-07-2015 07:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 06:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Is this a good idea?

Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) will introduce legislation to cut off money to self-described sanctuary cities. These cities refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration law, creating a "safe zone" for illegals.

Great move.

Sarcasm?

This is no different than how the minimum drinking age was set at 21 nationwide. If states won't enforce federal law, or worse, act contrary to federal law, why don't we just all go our separate ways?

States rights!

(07-07-2015 07:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 07:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 06:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Is this a good idea?

Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) will introduce legislation to cut off money to self-described sanctuary cities. These cities refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration law, creating a "safe zone" for illegals.

Great move.

Sarcasm?

No it's a great move. The sooner republicans show their true colors, the easier it is to vote.

(07-07-2015 08:14 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  States rights!

San Francisco isn't a state.

Cities are the lowest form of life on the government totem pole.

(07-07-2015 06:42 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I do not like it, although I do not like the idea of sanctuary cities.

I'm against federal overreach and pushing states and municipalities around.

The federal government needs to delegate the power to enforce some of these laws by letting states make it state law that being there is illegal.

The Federal government is simply too large and too inefficient to get anything like this done.

Stopping payment doesn't take much effort. Normally I'd agree bit this is a bigger picture issue. When a municiapalities are openly defying federal laws like on this big of an issue they need to pay the piper.

I ask again, OK for cities to refuse issuing gay licensees? San Fran doesn't want to recognize illegals, other cities don't recognize their wedded.

(07-07-2015 07:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  I approve this measure.

Ditto.

(07-07-2015 08:40 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I ask again, OK for cities to refuse issuing gay licensees? San Fran doesn't want to recognize illegals, other cities don't recognize their wedded.

I was about to ask the same question.

(07-07-2015 08:40 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I ask again, OK for cities to refuse issuing gay licensees? San Fran doesn't want to recognize illegals, other cities don't recognize their wedded.

Curious Paul, why are you seemingly always the first to introduce "the gay" into a thread?

(07-07-2015 08:25 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 07:56 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 07:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 06:22 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Is this a good idea?

Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) will introduce legislation to cut off money to self-described sanctuary cities. These cities refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration law, creating a "safe zone" for illegals.

Great move.

Sarcasm?

No it's a great move. The sooner republicans show their true colors, the easier it is to vote.

LoL if by "true colors" you mean making sure cities enforce Federal Immigration Laws... then, yeah... but I wouldn't expect a Mexican to be in favor of immigration laws, so...

I don't agree with this approach, and I think it will run afoul of the courts if it ever got that far.

What I do agree with is saying, if you want to be a sanctuary city, fine, but if you let someone go and he subsequently commits a crime, you are civilly liable to the victims. And I would extend that liability to include any person who voted in favor of sanctuary status in any proceeding where that was approved.

(07-08-2015 09:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2015 08:40 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I ask again, OK for cities to refuse issuing gay licensees? San Fran doesn't want to recognize illegals, other cities don't recognize their wedded.

Curious Paul, why are you seemingly always the first to introduce "the gay" into a thread?

Curious Tom, why are you seemingly always the first to imply that someone is either gay or a homophobe in a thread?

I guess I agree with the approach. I don't know how they can be a "sanctuary" in the first place but at minimum we should dis-incentivize them from doing so. I'd rather do that than try to "get them back" if it results in a murder - as that would be a bit too late for the murder victim.