House to Take Up Bill Blocking Money for ‘Sanctuary Cities’

Or how about putting the officials elected to protect and enforce our laws to get a prison term for not complying. That's what would happen to you or I if we don't comply with the law

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, our complacency is why we got these pandering whores we got. It is time to unite against these piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) liars that won't enforce our laws

 

All cities and states who are for harboring illegals should not see a dime and have to spend their own money. Watch these leftist ran areas start changing their tune.

 

What does that have to do with anything? Seriously.

 

You said....

Why would there be, they are private citizens and not supported by tax dollars. What they do is none of the Governments business. Sanctuary Cities are supported by tax dollars, therefore their shielding of illegals against the law should land them in jail.

 

Agree. The Federal Government continually "blackmails" States to get what they want, i.e. highway funding, Medicaid, Education funding. So why not take away funding from States and Cities that fail to enforce immigration laws?

 

The GOP has been on a lawmaking losing spree so long they don't know how to win. Whatever they do will be overridden by Obama or judged unconstitutional.

The present GOP is the most incompetent assemblage of lawmakers in USA history. All they do is blather and whine.

 

As do all your posts about the GOP. Are you even American? I ask as your sentence construction appears at times to be somewhat ESL.

 

A super majority will override the incompetent liar that you probably voted for.

Liberal loons got their asses handed to them last election, you may want to update your news sources.

 

Then you wake up.

 

No you seemed confused about someone asking why that one did not produce the typical results when it was a typical election.

 

What if the stranger had just raped someone? Would anyone send the pastor to jail for harboring him and hiding him from the police? I think so.

The fact remains church sanctuary is a myth.

 

Yep, these cities should be flying the Confederate Battle Flag.

 

Too bad that never has applied to you

 

It wasn't a typical situation. Now you seem confused about what an outlier is.

 

Typical - Conservatives want the federal government to interfere with the ''will of the people'' only when it suits them.

 

The Republicans are doing the will of the people...........

Friday’s survey found 79 percent of Republicans and 65 percent of unaffiliated voters support DOJ action against sanctuary cities. Democrats were less enthusiastic, with 43 percent in support.

 

No, it is called rule of law, something liberals have no concept of. Ferguson, Baltimore, Oakland....well, you probably get the idea

We are a nation of laws, not mob rule like you think

 

The election was a typical mid-terms yet the results were atypical, so WHY do you think it was an outlier? Is that so hard for you to comprehend?

- - - Updated - - -

So if a city elects to become a baby sanctuary city and ban abortions you are all for it?

 

Why is the SF ordinance, which you disagree with, not your sacrosanct ''rule of law?" It should, by your argument, be respected. It represents the will of the people of SF.

 

Pay attention....

1996 federal law [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA )] that requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities (and some small) have adopted so-called "sanctuary" policies. Generally, sanctuary policies instruct city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens--so illegal aliens often benefit from taxpayer funded government services and programs too.

 

It wasn't a typical midterm. The country was just attacked and we were in the process of going to war.

 

We were attacked before Clinton's first mid-term where he lost the congress. He also had a soaring economy while Bush had one in recession/recovery. And we didn't go to war until 2003 6 months after the mid-terms. And then the liberal argument is the Bush took us to war against the will of the people, now you claim that is why he had one of the best mid-terms in our history.

 

Lol, your comparing that to 9/11? Lol!

Whichnismwhy I said in the process of going to war.

no, the reality is we went to war under false pretenses and deliberate lies by the bush administration.

 

That has to be the most arsine statement that I have read thus far. Think about what the topic of this thread is about, and then think about your statement.

 

The bolded is definitely true.