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


Another deflection and refusal to address what was specifically written.
In any event, what does all that have to do with punishing elected leaders who ignore federal law, in this case harboring?



I’ve addressed it three times, you just “conveniently” ignore it.

Legal scholars say “no”, history says “no”, jurisprudence says “no”. It’s not talking about immigration, it’s talking about slavery.

And when courts established power over immigration in the 1880s, they said nothing about this. They outright stated that it was an implicit power, not mentioned in the Constitution.

Your position can’t explain that.


You deflected and obfuscated three times. Whenever I post documented facts, you avoid a rebuttal and sometimes post a link insinuating it addresses what I have posted rather than addressing what I post yourself. The subject of the thread is about punishing lawless officials in sanctuary cities with fines and jail time for violating federal law. It’s not about your quackery “natural rights” which you have babbled on and on about. If you are not interested in the subject of the thread, and prefer to babble on and on about natural rights and Napolitano the libertarian, then start a thread on those subjects.



You always twist the facts to suit your agenda. I’ll repeat a question I asked days ago.

If “people”, “persons” and “The People” are all synonymous, why did the Supreme Court make this differentiation regarding “The People”: “all members of the political community”, “part of a national community”, or have “substantial connections” to the United States? This is the law of the land regardless of the opinion others.

FYI: At the time of ratification free blacks were considered citizens with voting rights in many but not all State including a few Southern States. Native Americans were not explicitly considered citizens and their relations to the United States were at the discretion of the Congress. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 excluded “Indians, not taxed” from citizenship. The Cherokee Nation became citizens in their treaty of 1817. Other Native Americans became citizens by act of Congress in 1924.


I specifically gave evidence, debunking the idea that Article 1, Section 9 refers to immigration.

You have never addressed it. Which tells me that you know you can’t argue it.

The Constitution does not give explicit authority anywhere over immigration, that courts have stated this.


You gave no rebuttal to what I posted. Stop making crap up.


Yes I did:

You then proceeded to try and justify why a power over immigration existed. Because you have no source that will argue this section meant immigration, so you were left with no other option, but to abandon this argument and try something else.


No… I brought up that court cases didn’t agree with one another, differing on which amendments applied to illegals, you ignored that, and insisted that they came to the same conclusion.

“all members of the political community”, “part of a national community”, These are different, and it’s why the court cases disagree.

My point, was that the first decision is stated to be closer in accordance with the traditional understanding of what the words meant, because the review itself states this.

And before that decision, the Court assumed all of the rights belonged to illegals.

Which means for legals, they’ve always had them.

Which means, they are operating under a Common Law framework, and that there is an obligation to treat them in Good Faith, which the current system, does not do.

You yourself have admitted that there is nothing conservative about our immigration system, and the truth of the matter is, that the system violates our obligations to them.

That isn’t “twisting words”, it’s being bloody consistent.


Stop making stuff up. You offered no rebuttal to what I posted. What I posted was:

see Article 1, Section 9, wherein Congress is in fact granted a power over migration. This of course indicates a regulatory power does exist in Congress’ hands over migration of persons which the States shall think proper to admit.

Now, what does Article 1 Section 9 declare? It declares the following:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

What I wrote is factually correct, and that is why you could not offer a rebuttal. The truth cannot be changed to what it is not. Stop making stuff up.

Article 1, Section 9 explicitly indicates, by its very language, a regulatory power does exist in Congress’ hands over migration of persons which the States shall think proper to admit. Are you suggesting a taxing power is not a regulatory power?

The bottom line is, what I wrote is factually correct and you offered no rebuttal to what I wrote.



California AG threatens local citizens who may cooperate with ICE Agents

See ‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says


”The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.

“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.”

What this nitwit AG fails to understand is our court has already indicated state officials cannot require interested parties to not cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.

To confirm this fact see Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s WRITTEN OPINION

“The constitutionality of Section 1373 has been challenged before. The Second Circuit in City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999), addressed a facial challenge to Section 1373 in similar circumstances. By executive order, New York City prohibited its employees from voluntarily providing federal immigration authorities with information concerning the immigration status of any alien. Id. at 31-32. The city sued the United States, challenging the constitutionality of Section 1373 under the Tenth Amendment.

Id. at 32.

The Second Circuit found that Section 1373 did not compel state or local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program or conscript local employees into its service, and therefore did not run afoul of the rules gleaned from the Supreme Court’s Printz and New York decisions. City of New York, 179 F.3d at 35. Rather, the court held that Section 1373 prohibits local governmental entities and officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. Ibid. The Court found that the Tenth Amendment, normally a shield from federal power, could not be turned into “a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs.”

The fact is, local government officials cannot forbid voluntary cooperation with federal law enforcement officers.

Attorney General Xavier Becerra can rub his unenforceable law on his chest and that’s about all its good for.


American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.



I will make one final attempt to educate you in basic logical reasoning.

A, B and C are three different properties that an object may have.

An object may have the properties A and B and C.

An object may have the properties A or B or C.

These are not equivalent statements. The court is saying “OR” and you are saying that it must be “AND”.

Get it?

The court cases may be slightly different but the do not disagree. Whoever these rulings are interpreted to include I can not imagine that illegal aliens, an army of invaders, tourists or diplomats are “part of a national community”.

PS I was tired and careless and had to edit this post several times. Time to take the dogs out and look for critters.


And rebutted this, with this post.

And the source I linked in it

You have no response John. You can’t explain why the courts in the 1880s make no mention of this, and call immigration an implicit power.

You have no explanation for this. You just sidestep it, and pretend I said nothing. Admitting that you don’t have an argument.


Old Dog the review demonstrates that you are wrong.

It lays out that illegals had different amendments apply to them in the wake of each decision, and offered court case decisions that reflected this dichotomy.

You can’t claim they’re the same, when they had consistently different results in how courts applied the rights to illegals.

Sorry, but read the damn review already. You’re making assumptions right now, when you have no reason to be doing that.


I’d REALLY like for you, AS, to explain to all us benighted morons just HOW someone who sneaks into your house enjoys an unfettered “right” to your property, your belongings and your money. If I remember my history properly, one of the reasons we went to war with Great Britain was that government’s DEMAND that Americans provide those “rights” to British troops, regardless of how those Americans felt about it.


Big baloney!

I see you are still in self denial. Poor you. The irrefutable fact is, Congress is granted a regulatory power over migration under Article 1, Section 9.

So, once again let me ask the question you avoided: Are you suggesting a taxing power is not a regulatory power?



AS is here to muddy the waters and prevent a productive discussion. That’s what anarchists do. They despise our constitutionally limited system of government, especially those parts designed to protect rights associated with property ownership as applied to American citizens and the geographical area called the United States of America.

I’m beginning to think it may be best to simply ignore AS. It may encourage him to leave and find another place to disrupt productive discussions.

BTW, what do you think of California’s AG threatening local citizens who may cooperate with ICE Agents?



I’d be happy to call his bluff, were I in a position to do so. No court…with the possible exception of the 9th circus…would agree with punishing people for ENFORCING the law.


+1 I am not replying to any more of his nonsense.


I probably will, from time to time. Especially when he posts something that’s patently silly as his argument that all humans have a “natural right” to come to the U.S. and settle here.


I was stunned to hear him threaten concerned American citizens who may voluntarily cooperate with ICE Agents to protect against an ongoing invasion of our borders. It seems the Fifth Column movement in our country is getting bolder as each day passes.