You asked me why I believe the judge blocked the order. I answered you. I could care less what his legal justification is. I don't believe him or any of those pushing this to be sincere. There is a bigger agenda here not being spoken of in the courts. Now if you want to discuss what is really at hand here then fine. If you do not let me assure you, no skin off my nose.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Judge Blocks Donald Trump’s Executive Order On Sanctuary Cities
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
You asked me why I believe the judge blocked the order. I answered you. I could care less what his legal justification is. I don't believe him or any of those pushing this to be sincere. There is a bigger agenda here not being spoken of in the courts. Now if you want to discuss what is really at hand here then fine. If you do not let me assure you, no skin off my nose.
Brent W
Active Member
I am literally asking you to please understand that what is being challenged here is not whether or not the Federal Government can enforce immigration laws or withhold Federal funding. Yes, they can. What I am asking you to understand is why this is being challenged. There is a very specific clause of the Executive Order that is being challenged based on precedent that I have described above.
Brent W
Active Member
See, this is all I needed to hear. Your bias is so overwhelming that even when a judge makes a ruling that results in a non challenge from the President and a rewrite of the executive order, you can not give credit and instead must concentrate only on his perceived bias by you.
Even though botht he Constution and the acts of prior Congress have grants executive branch that authority? Its just being ruled on based upon hatred....
Sure it is. It fits your bias.
Actually the bias of this court is so overwhelming. They are the most overturned court in the country. They do not have a good record on interpreting the constitution. The far left agenda includes sanctuary cities and open boarders. Sorry but what is going on here is obvious.
Brent W
Active Member
See you still do not understand. I have presented my case and will not try to get you to understand it anymore since you seem to be stuck elsewhere. I advise you to read over the linked Supreme Court Decision and how it may or may not affect this Executive order. What is being challenged is not based on immigration or federal money, but local government rights when it comes to collecting information from individuals that they arrest.
Brent W
Active Member
I do not have a bias when it comes to left and right. Your 1 and 0 thought process is yours and many others do share that but I do not. Whether or not the court is biased and you may very well be right about that, it does not concern me. What concerns me are the individual cases that each Judge rules on and the merits behind it.
Merits that you do not wish to discuss because you would rather talk about left vs right and the bias of the court. So with that said, if anyone else on the forum would like to discuss this particular challenge to Donald Trump's Executive order I would be more than happy to. I think the courts have a legitimate opposition based on Printz v. United States. For those that wish to entertain @Revmitchell constant liberal attacks, you are more than welcome to do that as long as it stays on topic!
Again, do illegals have afforded same rights as citizens?
Brent W
Active Member
I have already answered that and it has nothing to do with what is being challenged. This challenge is about the rights of local law enforcement, which are U.S. Citizens. Again, I will not repeat what I have already said anymore after this.
So with that, you have your answer and if you would like to discuss the specific challenge to this executive order we can. Otherwise, enjoy the rest of your day. Hope it is as nice outside where you are as where I am!
[QUOTE="Brent W, post: 2310641, member: 13158" Whether or not the court is biased and you may very well be right about that, it does not concern me.[/quote]
Then hold your head in the sand to the real problem.
Liberals do not even like the 10th amendment. Anyway there is no 10th violation anyway. Local governments do not have any control over the immigration issue. This was n issue that came up with Arizona a few years ago.
Define attacks? Pointing out their agenda is not an attack.
Then hold your head in the sand to the real problem.
Liberals do not even like the 10th amendment. Anyway there is no 10th violation anyway. Local governments do not have any control over the immigration issue. This was n issue that came up with Arizona a few years ago.
Define attacks? Pointing out their agenda is not an attack.
Brent W
Active Member
They have rights and one of those rights is to not have to collect additional personal information. Only what is required by law. Immigration status is not required by law in their jurisdiction and therefore they do not have to collect it and can not be required to.
That is what is being challenged and I look forward to seeing the result.
Again, do illegals have coverage same as citizens fir this? NOT by the constution, correct?
It is an absurd claim simply because if they knew not their immigration status they would not need to claim sanctuary city status. You cannot provide sanctuary to someone of whom you do not know needs it. If you know they need it then you also know their immigration status.
Brent W
Active Member
Why do you continue to ask me something I have already answered?
That is not what is being argued in this case. I won't entertain you anymore if you can't understand this. I have respected you and answered the question you keep asking me more than once now.
Brent W
Active Member
It isn't an absurd claim. They are not required to collect this information from anyone. That is the law. You seem to be a stickler for the law unless it doesn't fit your needs. The law states that local law enforcement is only suppose to collect information when arresting a person as defined by the law. Immigration status is not a requirement by law.
That is what is being argued because Trump is demanding that they collect information that they are not required by law to and then threatening to punish them if they do not do as he says. Over reach of Federal Government into State and local government rights.
What is absurd is allowing the Federal Government to break the 10th amendment because it suits your political goals. The local Governments are well within their rights to push back against this overreach and have the courts rule on this.
Last edited:
Sanctuary city policies are not only tied to obtaining immigration status. I think you need to study this issue beyond this one absurd ruling by this liberal judge. it is much bigger than this.
Brent W
Active Member
I don't need to study it beyond this complaint. The complaint, I feel, has validity. My political views on sanctuary cities are not important to this complaint.
My concerns are a Government that is overreaching and breaking the Constitution to benefit their needs politically. Withholding federal money when local and state governments are not violating any laws is unconstitutional. These cities, as far as the complaint goes and the information at hand, have a valid reason for this to be heard by the courts.
Your politics is getting in the way of a case of Federal government vs local government rights and that is what will be heard by the courts. The courts will not argue whether or not the Federal Government can withhold money. They will not argue whether or not illegals have rights, what they will argue though, is that this specific Executive Order violates the 10th amendment based on the fact that the Federal Government is withholding money based on the local governments lawful right to not collect information during an arrest.
Simple, concise and to the point. That is what is being argued here and I feel they have a valid case and look forward to seeing if 1) Either Trump drops the Executive Order and/or revises it somehow 2) the courts get to rule on it.
This is pretty obvious Brent. Whoever wants to understand what's going on has the information at their finger tips but it's a matter of wanting to learn. Instead we have a thread full of people who simply refuse to educate themselves yet for some reason insist on participating in this thread from a position of ignorance anyway. Even more bizarre is that people are somehow proud of this ignorance yet still press on the with the "yadda, yadda liberal" argument.
That is a stretch.