Posted on 06/23/2023 8:02:16 AM PDT by antidemoncrat
You would want to keep it state funded otherwise you are introducing a federal handle” that could be used against you.
“Excellent idea! But the sticking point is funding the effort. Who pays for it?”
As a tax payer, I will and will not mind my tax dollars going there. In the long run, getting rid of enough of them, it may bring my taxes down.
You're right, but most career Republican politicians (governors, mayors, etc) are RINOs and are in it for job security. They're going to use the headline to justify their career impotence.
Tulsa, for example, has a RINO pimp who is all on board for this liberal crap. And our governor is no better. He issued a press release that the refugees were welcome in OK.
I have been saying that all along.
Just the other day, they "found" $6.8 Billion that was "lost" in the Pentagon "budget" due to an "accounting error" and bingo!
Deep State sends $6.8 Billion to Ukraine just. like. that.
No mess. No fuss.
But when Trump was trying to get money for a border wall, he had to scrape for every damn cent, fight for every cent, go to court for every cent, and even then, as soon as the Deep State got him out of office, every piece of fence existing was cancelled, torn down, or had holes cut in it.
And we have scummy douchebags on here who say "Trump said he was going to build a wall but never did. It was all for show because he is a fraud". I am sick of those a-holes.
The problem wasn't that Trump did or didn't make bad choices, it was that our government is so ENTIRELY corrupted and hostile to our values, it was that there were so few trustworthy people for him to choose from who could have been chosen.
Seems to have had panties in a bunch since I first recall seeing the Freepname appear on this site.
The Court seems to be comfortable in the idea that if a federal policy is unpopular that the proper way to challenge it is through legislation. As a legal and political concept, that might make some sense, but in practice, we know that the people no longer control elections.
EASY FIX for the States, they just need to pass a New Tax Law assessing the Income, Tips, Wages and Assets of ALL Federal Employee’s in the State to pay the Cost of Servicing... and SEIZE their Assets, let them go to Court to stop you then tell them to go pound sand, you aint getting your money back...
The case involved the issuing of new enforcement guidelines by the Department of Homeland Security. After initially attempting to impose a 30-day moratorium on all ICE deportations, the department issued guidance that restricted ICE agents to targeting three types of illegal immigrants for arrest and deportation: recent border crossers; threats to public safety; and national security threats.
What does “recent border crossers” even mean ? It looks to me like the vast majority are walking across, getting their papers and being bused out never to be seen or heard from again.
If Thomas was against it, then there’s a constitutional concern.
The majority opinion is based upon a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution. It is a very conservative opinion based upon Article III.
It seems like federal law regarding aliens should confine their decisions to apply only to federal facilities, like jails and Post Offices. States might try arresting the illegal aliens, and handcuffing them to the nearest federal facility. If the fed removes such illegal from custody and they set foot again on state property, you have the instance SCOTUS said was lacking. Trespass on state property by Federal charges who had been detained on fed property.
You get an A+.
Someone likes to be spoon fed like a helpless infant. Again, if you bothered to read the first paragraph of the Syllabus, you’d know the answer to your question.
If memory serves immigration is a federal responsibility. Their not fulfilling that obligation does not change that. The biggest problem is that the administration would never use its powers to crackdown on sanctuary states.
The ruling is consistent with law but not with actual practice. If we don’t want the USSC making law from the bench this will happen.
“If Thomas was against it, then there’s a constitutional concern.”
Yep. Thomas is a member of the Federalist Society, and the Federalist guideine about making legal decisions based on “what the law says, not what it should say” is pertty sound advice. Usually results in Libtards crying and complaining, but sometimes the decisions go the other way.
Quotes from the 1951 Refugee Convention:
Article 23 - Public relief
The Contracting States shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to their nationals.
Article 17 - Wage-earning employment
....
2. In any case, restrictive measures imposed on aliens or the employment of aliens for the protection of the national labour market shall not be applied to a refugee who was already exempt from them at the date of entry into force of this Convention for the Contracting State concerned, or who fulfils one of the following conditions:
(a) He has completed three years’ residence in the country;
....
(c) He has one or more children possessing the nationality of the country of residence.
Article 34 - Naturalization [and getting the right to vote]
The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-relating-status-refugees
Article 44 - Denunciation [getting out from under the Refugee Convention]
1. Any Contracting State may denounce this Convention at any time by a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
2. Such denunciation shall take effect for the Contracting State concerned one year from the date upon which it is received by the Secretary-General of the United Nations....
NOTE: I do not trust any politician to end leftist migrant mercenary-based political takeovers who has not called for invoking Article 44 to get the US out from under the Refugee Convention. And my distrust extends to Trump and DeSantis.
The Refugee Convention must be removed from the Democratic Party toolbox by invoking Article 44.
Or if he wasnt robbed in 2020
The constitution grants limited rights to the fed.
One of those rights is immigration and naturalization.
The states have no say, therefore they have no standing.
Right, wrong or indifferent, there it is.
I really hate to say this folks BUT it has been immigrants OUT THERE FULL FORCE fighting these bastards at the school boards ect. MANY , MANY of these immigrants came from 3rd world shit holes with dictators AND they are not having this bullshit here!! I find it very ironic for the American people that immigrants are probably going to be the people saving this nation! I am FURIOUS that our borders are WIDE OPEN, HOWEVER this mass migration is going to BLOW UP in the Dems faces in the long run!! Americans have become VERY disrespectful to our nation and all she stands for AND THAT IS THE TRUTH!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.