Bill to punish lawless officials in sanctuary cities with fines and jail time


None of which answers my question. Are you still claiming that illegally invading the U.S. is a “natural right?” Do I need to put that some other way for you to understand the question?


You didn’t answer mine before.

This case Dave:

Who is more in the wrong? The Law, or the man?


If doing so caused a plane to crash and killed a bunch of people he SURE could have been arrested and jailed…and SHOULD have been.


It is, of course, a stupid law, but the answer isn’t to IGNORE IT, but to change it…legally. It should NEVER have been allowed to pass in the first place.

THERE. NOW will you answer my question?


So what are you saying? Who is more in the wrong?


The Left never answer the questions that will render their positions fallacious, I only point that out because of what can be gleaned from this consistent pattern.

Some people argue indefensible positions because they (for whatever reason) are ignorant of the facts and perspectives that would reveal their error; these people most often mean well and believe they are arguing for good.

Other people argue indefensible positions with full knowledge that their position is indefensible based on their claimed motivations.

These people know that their actual agenda will be rejected by most people, so they claim an agenda that is popular and try to convince others that their indefensible positions will achieve the popular agenda.

That is why they specifically and consistently ignore all facts, questions and statements that prove their position is indefensible; this is not ignorance it is premeditated deception.

So I appreciate those who patiently repeat their questions even though I know their question will never be respected; the consistency of the Left as they ignore truth and push propaganda serves as a spotlight exposing the Lefts agendas that they themselves are too ashamed of to admit openly.


You never answered mine RET.

If the Govenrment subsidizes guns, is that now no longer a right? Can it now ban or control them?

If your logic does not repeat across other rights, then it’s your logic which is fallacious.

If you hold immigration rights in isolation to others, if you make this judgement arbitrarily, then you are the same as the Left, because that’s precisely what the Left does.

To only esteem those rights that they care about, holding others as “optional”, so long as it doesn’t interfere with their plans, and wantonly dispensing with those “optional” rights if they do.

Yes RET, so when will you stop projecting, and come clean that this is about Social Engineering on your part?

You’re playing the same game as the left, just from the right wing perspective. Identitarianism, with Statist tendencies.

And I’m calling bull**** on BOTH of you. Statist bull, deserves nothing less than my foot up its rear.


RET is perfectly capable of answering this swill, but I couldn’t resist putting in my own two cents worth. YOU, AS, keep commenting on this and other threads from a false premise…that coming to America is somehow a “right” enjoyed by everyone in the world who wants to. THERE IS NO SUCH “RIGHT.” Once you get around to admitting the truth of that, maybe we can have a REAL conversation about the illegal invasion of the United States by the 3rd World in an effort to create a new, “Progressive” voting base. There is NO OTHER EXPLANATION for the Democrat’s insistence in “amnesty” or a “path to citizenship” for these people.

Secondly, the government does NOT “subsidize guns.” It doesn’t even do that in Switzerland–though ACTUAL assault rifles are provided to some of its citizens by the Swiss government in order to arm its own “militia.” Nothing in Swiss law prevents citizens from obtaining and keeping PRIVATELY-OWNED firearms as well. So, your premise about gun “rights” is irrelevant to this conversation.


The highlight-and-click-quote is the way to go if you want the other person’s quote to appear in your post. It’s also reliable, as far as I’ve seen.


You are absolutely wrong in brining up the Printz case in relation to the subject of the thread. And when it was shown to you the case actually confirms political hacks in sanctuary cities may not prohibit law enforcement officers from voluntarily cooperating with federal law enforcement officers, you resort to your fallback tactic of misdirection and obfuscation.

The irrefutable fact is, harboring illegal entrants is a criminal offense, which is exactly what elected political hacks in sanctuary cities are doing.

And what does the law say?

People subject to punishment under 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens do not have to be involved in smuggling to be prosecuted. Harboring can apply to “any person” who knowingly harbors an illegal entrant. SEE,:UNITED STATES v. ZHENG, United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit, 2002

“In considering this appeal, we first examine the language of the statute at issue. “As with any question of statutory interpretation, we begin by examining the text of the statute to determine whether its meaning is clear.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 285 F.3d 1329, 1331 (11th Cir.2002); see also Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1185 (11th Cir.1997) (“In construing a statute we must begin, and often should end as well, with the language of the statute itself.”). The Appellees assert that the language of § 1324 restricts its application to individuals who are in the business of smuggling illegal aliens into the United States for employment or those who employ illegal aliens in “sweatshops.” We disagree. Section 1324 applies to “[a]ny person” who knowingly harbors an illegal alien. Although § 1324 and § 1324a appear to cover some of the same conduct, “the fact that Congress has enacted two sections encompassing similar conduct but prescribing different penalties does not compel a conclusion that one statute was meant to limit, repeal, or affect enforcement of the other.” United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 573 (2d Cir.1999). The Supreme Court has noted that statutes may “overlap” or enjoy a “partial redundancy,” United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 118, 99 S.Ct. 2198, 2201, 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979), and yet be “fully capable of coexisting.” Id. at 122, 99 S.Ct. at 2203. We agree with the Second Circuit’s analysis of §§ 1324 and 1324a that “nothing in the language of these two sections ․ preclude[s] their coexistence.” Kim, 193 F.3d at 573. The plain language of § 1324 does not limit its reach to certain specific individuals, and thus, the Government properly charged the Appellees with violating this statute.”

The irrefutable fact is, any public servant who has taken an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, who “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” can be prosecuted under 8 U.S. § 1324 (a)

It’s time for the Trump Administration to go after public servants who flaunt the law, especially those in New York, California, Oregon and Iowa!


American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax slaves and forced to finance the personal economic needs of millions of foreigners who have invaded America’s borders.


? Why?

They said Printz wasn’t relevant, because the issue was grant money.

You don’t address this John, you keep avoiding it.

Grant money, is Federal help to cities and States. If Cities and States violate Federal rules, the Federal Government can remove that help.

That is not the same as punishing local officials. You’re conflating these things. I don’t get why.

If the issue is punishment, if it is Congress trying to compel local officials to cooperate by force, then Printz applies.

Grant money is a privilege the Feds can remove at any time. Federalism, nullification, those things are rights.


How about you answer the question I asked you?

Who is more in the wrong? The Law, or the man?

I can’t answer your question until you answer mine. Your answer has to confirm it as one or the other.


Do you not bother to READ my posts, AS? I answered your nonsense question. I SAID the law was stupid and needs to be repealed, but NOT simply ignored. What has that question (and answer) have to do with MY question to you?


Which means what? Who is more in the wrong?

I’m not asking if you think either is in the right, I’m asking who is more in the wrong.

Can you answer this?


Would like to see this one answered.


Why are you insisting that there must be degrees of “wrong?” Something is either right or it’s wrong…period. Why don’t you just answer my question instead of repeating your inane question?


Already explained. Accept the fact that your reference to Printz was irrelevant, except for the fact that the opinion indicates elected political hacks “any person” in sanctuary cities can be prosecuted for harboring illegal entrants.



AS is not here to engage in a productive discussion. His mission appears to be derailing a conversation which focuses on the criminal activity of elected political hacks in sanctuary cities.



Because it decides who had the larger duty here. Duties are not made equal, and duties are what determine what rights are. You need only watch this to hear that this is the way we actually determine, within our own legal system, how our rights operate.

So one more time, can you answer the question?


For Federal Grant money.

You keep sidestepping this…you don’t even acknowledge that it was Grant money the court was ruling on…