Democrats again.....

Yesterday the Democrats in the Senate circled the wagons to block Republican lead legislation that purposed a crackdown on 'sanctuary cities'......Explain....who's now playing politics with illegal immigration and selectively choosing which laws on the books are enforced....If held to the same standards as a clerk of the court...they should be fired or removed from office and/or jailed until they meet the conditions that they'll support their oaths of their office...If its good enough in one case why not the others....

Their oath is useless... it should be changed to "the ends justify any means".

PkrBum wrote:

Their oath is useless... it should be changed to "the ends justify any means".

Further sadness from the NY Times---'Sanctuary City Slander'

"Mr. Lopez-Sanchez was a homeless man with drug convictions but no record of violent crime, the bullet he fired was found to have ricocheted off the pier-----suggesting that he had not targeted anyone. The suggestion that it was a horrible accident could well be true".

This is the logic of the NY Times!.... Protecting an illegal criminal over an American Citizen......

The pos illegal alien [not Mr....] had SEVEN felony drug charges and had been deported FIVE times...Now the NY Times takes up a crusade and defense for illegal criminals?.... The biggest defender of blocking this legislation on the floor of the Senate.....Sen Harry Reid (D-NV).....What a freakin joke!.... They are out in the open of choosing to ignore laws and yet make laws for others?....Why wasn't Reid and the others arrested?....If only the criminal illegal would have stated he was against same sex marriage....THEN the liberals would have been OUTRAGED....

Jillian Johnson & Mayci Breaux

Why don't the republicans fight for new laws for these 2 girls?

polecat wrote:

Jillian Johnson & Mayci Breaux

Why don't the republicans fight for new laws for these 2 girls?

What's not to acknowledge that the Louisiana Theater shooting was a tragedy?

OK....What 'new law' would have prevented this or any of the other senseless shootings?....If this new law would be so effective would it also have stopped all the shootings in Chicago...LA...Cleveland...Baltimore etc.,...This has absolutely nothing to do with republicans...the NRA or anyone else...this is pure and simple politics being played....

There are laws on the books on immigration/illegals....The case in point in SF was directly involved with these laws not being enforced on either the State or more importantly the Federal level...This criminal should have never been allowed to continue to be in this country and yet he committed crimes eventually up to murder...This isn't the only case like this and yet why no outcry about non-selective enforcement by officials that are and have taken a sworn oath to uphold the laws of this nation?....

Sen Reid and other Democrats shut down a discussion/vote on Kate's law and a crackdown on sanctuary cities....so why aren't Democrats fighting to enforce the laws on the books and a new law that would take aim and have a direct impact on crime?....Further, what new law or laws have been proposed that Republicans have opposed and/or shut down that would have had a direct impact on the violent crimes that have and continue?....

You can't legislate crime prevention when the criminals don't care about "law" and they know they'll likely get a pass on most convictions anyway. How many gun crimes have you seen where the criminal has multiple felony convictions, was on probation and was "prohibited" from possessing weapons? It's laughable to think even more gun restrictions will do anything.

Selective law enforcement is the new motto at the DOJ....

nochain wrote:

You can't legislate crime prevention when the criminals don't care about "law" and they know they'll likely get a pass on most convictions anyway. How many gun crimes have you seen where the criminal has multiple felony convictions, was on probation and was "prohibited" from possessing weapons? It's laughable to think even more gun restrictions will do anything.

Selective law enforcement is the new motto at the DOJ....

I'm not really expecting an answer....just tired of hearing about some magical 'new law' that's available that is a solution and the evil republicans are blocking it....Elected leaders have been asked about new law(s) and you're correct it always comes back to gun control talk and yet the areas that are at the top of violence....have the toughest gun control laws...but their aim is at law abiding citizens not at the thugs that are doing the killing....

I thought you guys liked states rights, and government that is much closer to the citizens.
Now you want the feds to tell what local governments can do?
Ha.

Eddard wrote:

I thought you guys liked states rights, and government that is much closer to the citizens.
Now you want the feds to tell what local governments can do?
Ha.

So it's the States' responsibility for National Defense/Border Security/Immigration and Immigration laws?....You're comments make no sense whatsoever in the conversation of the thread...This isn't a States rights issue...as a matter of fact there have been state/local law enforcement agencies that have been harassed/investigated/overruled by the federal government for enforcing the laws on the books that they should be enforcing....The federal government...this administration made the choice to continue to allow sanctuary cities and non-enforcement of immigration laws...Those federal agencies that are obligated have failed to do their jobs and sworn obligations....

So nothing for Jillian and Mayci then.

Hope to see you at the Movies.

City governments are as close as governments get to their constituents in America today.
Cities have decided, with the will of their constituents to be sanctuary areas.

Once more, I thought you guys believed big old national guv'mnt was out of touch with the people? That it should be the locals who decided things like gay marriage and abortion rules. That's the libertarian way.

Man, y'all are confusing.

Eddard wrote:

City governments are as close as governments get to their constituents in America today.
Cities have decided, with the will of their constituents to be sanctuary areas.

Once more, I thought you guys believed big old national guv'mnt was out of touch with the people? That it should be the locals who decided things like gay marriage and abortion rules. That's the libertarian way.

Man, y'all are confusing.

There are federal laws and state/local laws. The discussion is about the DOJ not enforcing current federal law and the futility of trying legislate gun crime away with even more "laws" that criminals will continue to ignore.

The border and illegal immigration is federal law and jurisdiction. We've seen during this administration the condemnation of states (az) for even enforcing the federal laws... now we see the administration ignore cities that don't enforce detention and deportation federal laws. That is purely political and ideological... they react if actions are contrary to their agenda... and ignore if it fits their agendas. The oath of office doesn't allow for such wishy washy applications... this is political and judicial activism.

nochain wrote:

Eddard wrote:

City governments are as close as governments get to their constituents in America today.
Cities have decided, with the will of their constituents to be sanctuary areas.

Once more, I thought you guys believed big old national guv'mnt was out of touch with the people? That it should be the locals who decided things like gay marriage and abortion rules. That's the libertarian way.

Man, y'all are confusing.

There are federal laws and state/local laws. The discussion is about the DOJ not enforcing current federal law and the futility of trying legislate gun crime away with even more "laws" that criminals will continue to ignore.

Kind of get the idea that what we've been posting is understandable but that would call for some common sense.....

PkrBum wrote:

The border and illegal immigration is federal law and jurisdiction. We've seen during this administration the condemnation of states (az) for even enforcing the federal laws... now we see the administration ignore cities that don't enforce detention and deportation federal laws. That is purely political and ideological... they react if actions are contrary to their agenda... and ignore if it fits their agendas. The oath of office doesn't allow for such wishy washy applications... this is political and judicial activism.

Of course we can expect more of the same if Farm Animal Billary gets in office. Too bad liberals don't get their panties in a wad of more mundane issues like trillions in debt, a failed education system, a worn out and disillusioned military, decaying infrastructure, a severely broken VA system (in spite of Farm Animal Billary's recent statement that the VA is not as bad as everyone says - as if she had a clue), Obamacare exchanges failing all over costing billions (not one thin dime - the other big lie), failed foreign policy in the Mideast, Russia and China adventurism, exploding entitlement costs, a dysfunctional Congress thanks to hyper-partisan idiots on both sides of the aisle, a broken immigration system, the list is endless.

But the Islamic activists son with the clock fake bomb got a trip to the W/H.......and then they said they are moving back to Qatar. Imagine that.

nochain wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

The border and illegal immigration is federal law and jurisdiction. We've seen during this administration the condemnation of states (az) for even enforcing the federal laws... now we see the administration ignore cities that don't enforce detention and deportation federal laws. That is purely political and ideological... they react if actions are contrary to their agenda... and ignore if it fits their agendas. The oath of office doesn't allow for such wishy washy applications... this is political and judicial activism.

Of course we can expect more of the same if Farm Animal Billary gets in office. Too bad liberals don't get their panties in a wad of more mundane issues like trillions in debt, a failed education system, a worn out and disillusioned military, decaying infrastructure, a severely broken VA system (in spite of Farm Animal Billary's recent statement that the VA is not as bad as everyone says - as if she had a clue), Obamacare exchanges failing all over costing billions (not one thin dime - the other big lie), failed foreign policy in the Mideast, Russia and China adventurism, exploding entitlement costs, a dysfunctional Congress thanks to hyper-partisan idiots on both sides of the aisle, a broken immigration system, the list is endless.

But the Islamic activists son with the clock fake bomb got a trip to the W/H.......and then they said they are moving back to Qatar. Imagine that.

Over 300 pieces of legislation was ignored/killed/by Sen Harry Reid....you know from the party that calls the other party obstructionists and the party of no.....

You are correct.....along with a willing media that lobs softball questions at the democrat love fest and says they refuse to pit on candidate against the other....so just the opposite of the republican debate....Wish the republicans would grow and set and simply not answer any questions that start with.....________candidate said this about you....how do you want to respond?....You've provided a GREAT list to draw from for questions to candidates....and no dance around the question....answer the question!..Instead of a quip for a soundbite answer the question and offer some substance....I liked that Trump and Carson said we won't participate in the msnbc [is that a network] debate unless the format is changed...time to change from the cnn candy Crowley answering and assisting the cowh as he was stumbling on his own policy....

Of course MSNBC is a network. Trump and Carson are afraid they might get some questions they won't be able to figure out a simple answer to- one that will appeal to those with IQ's of less than 80.

BTW Pkr, the matter of abortion has also been settled under federal law.
I guess it's okay to fight one federal law but not another.

States all over the country are still trying to interfere with abortions.
So why can't cities try and interfere with immigration rules?