Fl. House bans sanctuary cities, will punish local leaders who flaunt law



See Florida House passes ban on ‘sanctuary cities’ for undocumented immigrants

February 03, 2016 11:28 PM


The Florida House on Thursday voted to require local governments to detain people believed to be undocumented immigrants and, in some cases, let the governor remove local officials from office when they don’t comply.

It’s an effort to stop so-called “sanctuary cities,” which refuse to cooperate with federal immigration agencies. The House’s proposal (HB 675) includes not only traditional sanctuary cities but also any place that releases nonviolent offenders who may be undocumented immigrants.”

Keep in mind this legislation is in total harmony with 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

(A)Any person who—

_ (iii)knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;_

_(II)aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, _
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

Now, all we need is for Jeff Sessions to grow a spine and send federal Marshalls to New York City and California and arrest and prosecute their elected leaders who are violating 8 U.S. Code § 1324


American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance the economic needs [housing, education, medical needs, etc.] of the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders and violate our laws.


Can’t remember, but one other state enacted similar legislation this week. It is sad that it comes down to this. The federal laws are on the books, but America is in full blown anarchy, and apparently Jeff Sessions and the DOJ are too cowardly to something about it.


Exploiting poverty stricken aliens

We are told that sanctuary cities exist because employers want cheap labor. Of course, cheap, illegal entrant labor, does benefit the bottom line for business. But cheap labor is not the primary reason for the existence of sanctuary cities and States.

Keep in mind the political leadership which controls sanctuary cities and States across America is, without question, a communist/socialist/progressive leadership. And to remain in power this leadership needs an overwhelming voting block which is dependent on government cheese, who, when given the chance, will more than likely vote in accordance with fulfilling that economic need. This is why the notoriously evil leadership of sanctuary cities and states have embraced and welcomed, into America, the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled populations of other countries ___ it’s about gaining and holding political power!

In the end, American citizens in sanctuary cities and states have been made into tax slaves to finance the economic needs of a financially dependent voting bloc welcomed into America which the political leadership of these enclaves exploit for their vote in order to remain in political power.


American citizens have been made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who have, and are, invading America’s borders to give birth.


That doesn’t matter; States are only obligated to not obstruct the Feds enforcing those laws themselves. States are not obligated to help them do it.

States aren’t obligated to enforce Obamacare, they aren’t obligated to enforce Federal environmental laws, and they aren’t obligated to enforce immigration laws.

That’s Federalism. States get prudential judgement over their own domain & resources.


Fine, except neither those here illegally nor the financial support they receive are these State’s “own resources.”

The illegals aren’t the State’s “resource,” unless you acknowledge that the States are USING these people for their own purposes and almost NOTHING that the States provide in aid of these illegals is from their own resources exclusively. States even receive cash from the feds based on how many kids are attending their schools–without differentiating as to their citizenship status.


The police are, the courts are. They don’t have to spend money going after or prosecuting illegals if they don’t want to.

Their resources, their manpower, their choice. Federalism. What laws they enforce, is up to their own discretion.

And you can hold them accountable for that by taking the money away; although Judge Leinenweber seems to think that it also must not create “irreparable harm” in the process.


What Judge Leinenweber may think of as “irreparable harm” and what IS “irreparable harm” are likely two completely different things.

Secondarily, no law enforcement official in the country is empowered to decide for him or herself what laws they will enforce and what laws to ignore. The same applies to ANY public official who takes an oath of office. ALL such oaths INCLUDE an oath to uphold their own State’s Constitution AND the Constitution of the United States…without exception… Just because someone is elected to public office does NOT exempt them from obeying the law. On the contrary, they SHOULD be held to an even higher standard than an ordinary citizen.


Uh, he decided it:

Hence why Sessions couldn’t pull the funding.

Nope; Federalism, States have prudential judgement as to what Federal laws they will enforce.

That has always been the case. Even in the Founder’s day.

States have ignored firearm laws, environmental laws, aviation laws, and drugs laws.

As I have said, there are two Federal Court cases that substantiate this position in the modern era. States can ignore orders from Congress if they don’t like or want them.


What federal firearms laws have the States ignored with impunity? What environmental or aviation laws have the States so ignored, for that matter?



Which has nothing to do with the Bill which passed Florida’s House and would punish local leaders who flout the law.



The Brady Handgun Violence Act, which the Federal courts upheld in Printz v. United States. And not because of the 2nd amendment, but because of the 10th.

The State Environmental Quality Review Act .

There’s a messy requirement requiring States go through a long-drawn out public outreach period to gather opinions and impact… that States outright ignore as it would be too costly.

As to aviation, the biggest divergence right now would be Drone Policy:

The FAA wants to be the sole authority, but States and cities have other ideas. And below 1,000 or 500 feet, there’s a pretty strong argument that they can have it.


Now why doesn’t is surprise me that you would cite two mainstream media OPINION articles to bolster your arguments?


The Niagara Reporter? That’s mainstream media?

Also Dave, are you honestly trying to deny that States are resisting these laws?

Because it’s damn easy to find out.

You might want to try less obvious deflection tactics.


Check out who OWNS the Niagara Reporter.


I don’t care Dave, I asked you a question.

Are you denying that these States are resisting these laws?

Because that’s the point. States can & have resisted Federal Laws.

If you talk about anything else, you’re just trying to deflect. You are admitting that your argument is done.


LOL. YOU cite these articles as somehow “proof” of your position (opinion pieces, BOTH) and accuse ME of “deflection?”


Ad hominem gets you no where.

You know that’s a fallacy, and we both know it’s deflection.

Either answer the question, or you admit nothing you’ve said in the last three posts had any integrity.


Nobody denies that some (a few) States are resisting some federal laws. That doesn’t have the least thing to do with whether or not they will eventually be successful. Oh, some leftist, activist judge might give them a TEMPORARY “victory” but such judges simply are NOT the final arbiters of what’s constitutional and what isn’t…which is PRECISELY why electing Trump was such a bullet-dodge for the Constitution.


Printz v. United States is pretty definitive proof they were successful. Of the three cases I brought up, only Drone policy will need some sort of future arbitration.

Printz, along with a landfill decision in the 90’s (another environmental law, ignored), establishes that the 10th amendment applies: States don’t have to take orders from Congress. The President can’t change that.

And thank God he can’t: Future Obamas could use that authority to force States to go along with even more awful laws.


BS. It’s ONE CASE where a liberal State was successful (Judge shopping, maybe?) in slapping down the Feds. It’s not “proof” of anything except that we still have a lot of cleaning up to do to get back to a Constitutional judiciary.