David Horowitz: Democrats are the party of hate

@maxdancona,

Quote:

And my side can point to laws protecting "illegal" immigrants, and allowing communities to protect them.

Any city can propose and pass any law it wants. It can, for example, pass a bill making it illegal to serve blacks in public restaurants. Just vote on it, have the mayor sign it, and, voila, you have a new city ordinance! The "law" is now on your side when you refuse service to blacks.

I'm sure you see the problem, eh, Max?

Guess what? It would not be a defense to a civil or criminal suit for illegal discrimination to claim that you had a local city ordinance you were relying on.

1 Reply

It is not "legal" for States to attempt to pass their own immigration laws. Such follies are not within any "State's right," and never have been, since the constitution was adopted in 1791 (or whenever it was).

This is not a "novel" question, or legally debatable. It has been ruled on by the Supreme Court, just as civil rights laws have been.

Your attempt to claim that your city/state has the power to ignore the constitution and usurp clearly defined federal power is either extremely ignorant or dishonest.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Any city can propose and pass any law it wants. It can, for example, pass a bill making it illegal to serve blacks in public restaurants. Just vote on it, have the mayor sign it, and, voila, you have a new city ordinance! The "law" is now on your side when you refuse service to blacks.

I love irony.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Your attempt to claim that your city/state has the power to ignore the constitution and usurp clearly defined federal power is either extremely ignorant or dishonest.

This is another strawman. I have never claimed this.

2 Replies

@layman,

Damn! You are sucking me into these silly straw man arguments again. It is your job to get your head out of your partisan bubble and to understand the arguments on both sides. I have already done my homework... and you don't show any desire to move beyond simplistic mischaracterizations of the other side.

I guess the blame is on me for responding.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Quote:
Your attempt to claim that your city/state has the power to ignore the constitution and usurp clearly defined federal power is either extremely ignorant or dishonest.

This is another strawman. I have never claimed this.

Why try to deny it, Max? You're on record:

Quote:

And my side can point to laws protecting "illegal" immigrants, and allowing communities to protect them.

And you have clearly stated in other posts that you support sancturary cities and are even "working" to try to pass sanctuary laws in your State. Can you at least be honest?

1 Reply

@layman,

That's very funny Layman. Now I know you are joking.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I have never claimed this.

Your position is clear, Max, to wit: **** the feds. We'll pass our own laws, which "protect" illegals from the enforcement of federal immigration law (which you call "anti-immigration" law). Of course you also claim that you don't believe that only those laws you like need to be obeyed.

You can't even see your own inconsistency. It's like you answer both yes and no to every question, then later, however things turn out, you say '"I already said yes!", or, if it's convenient at the time "I already said no!"

1 Reply

I bring up a serious issue to discuss, i.e., the potential conflict between Federal and local law, and, implicitly, how such conflicts are to be resolved, and your only response is:

"I love irony!"

So much for any possibility of serious rational discussion with you, eh?

0 Replies

@layman,

This is for Finn and McGentrix, but I am sure they already know this stuff.

1. The Constitution gives certain powers to the States in cases where they differ with the Federal government (you learned this in High school civics if you were paying attention).

2. The Sanctuary State laws are legislating how local police and local funds are used. They aren't the purview of the Federal government.

3. This issues are resolved in Courts... where both sides will present the facts and argue the points of law that favor their side. It is ridiculous to claim that the law exclusively supports one side. The courts will make the final decision based on the law and the facts of the case.

Again, my invitation here is to have an intelligent discussion out side of our little partisan bubbles where we can intelligently discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both sides.

I haven't seen anyone but me discuss the strengths of the other side or the weaknesses of their own side. But I still hope.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This is for Finn and McGentrix, but I am sure they already know this stuff.

1. The Constitution gives certain powers to the States in cases where they differ with the Federal government (you learned this in High school civics if you were paying attention).

2. The Sanctuary State laws are legislating how local police and local funds are used. They aren't the purview of the Federal government.

3. This issues are resolved in Courts... where both sides will present the facts and argue the points of law that favor their side. It is ridiculous to claim that the law exclusively supports one side. The courts will make the final decision based on the law and the facts of the case.

Again, my invitation here is to have an intelligent discussion out side of our little partisan bubbles where we can intelligently discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both sides.

I haven't seen anyone but me discuss the strengths of the other side or the weaknesses of their own side. But I still hope.

You're completely missing the issue, Max. For the sake of argument, let's say State's can spend their money any way they want. They can give every last dollar in their treasury to an immigrant they happen to "like," OK?

That would not give them the right to disobey, obstruct, or sabotage federal law, nor would it make any attempt to pass laws purporting to supersede federal law legal. People (including governors and mayors) can go to prison for breaking the law, even if they don't have the money to pay a fine any more.

If you kill a guy, the State can send you to prison. They can't take your house, just for that reason, though. There is an appropriate punishment for every crime, which doesn't generally have anything to do with money or assets.

You're acting like a criminal who thinks he is immunizing himself from any consequence if they can't take his house.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

That would not give them the right to disobey, obstruct, or sabotage federal law, nor would it make any attempt to pass laws purporting to supersede federal law legal. People (including governors and mayors) can go to prison for breaking the law, even if they don't have the money to pay a fine any more.

Right now you have the American mayors of several important American cities, backed by a majority of their American citizens who are openly defying the Trump administration. This will be decided in court, of course. So far several American judges have been sympathetic to the cities over the Federal government. And so it goes.

If you want to see American mayors and governors sent to prison for defying the Trump administration... I think you are going to be disappointed.

I know I changed your phrase "defying the Trump administration" to "breaking the law". But the fact is they aren't breaking the law by defying the Trump administration. Mayor DeBlasio the American mayor of the great city of New York directly challenged the Trump administration to explain how they are breaking the law... and nothing.

Why I am still arguing with you. This is civics 101.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Right now you have the American mayors of several important American cities, backed by a majority of their American citizens are openly defying the Trump administration.

Yes and that's exactly the problem with the lawlessness of the left. It will be very expensive for the federal authorities to sue, get injunctions against, and imprison every governor and mayor who defy the injunctions.

The cost to the USA will be enormous, but they don't care at all. Those who will only follow the law of land if and when forced to by compulsion of law are not "patriots," they are simply criminals who impose immense burden on the state with their crimes.

George Wallace, Lester Maddox, et al knew this. They defied every federal court order directed at them, to the tremendous cheers of their constituents. They stalled the feds for years, until, ultimately, the tanks had to be brought in.

They made it extremely difficult and expensive for us to enforce the law, simply by being defiant, and were quite proud of themselves for doing so, just like the criminal cheese-eaters.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Let's try this one last time.

I am not rendering a legal opinion, but an ethical one.

In a nation of laws, law breakers should not win by virtue of their illegal actions.

That they sometimes do doesn't make it OK. That criminals profit (and here I don't necessarily mean financially) from their illegal actions doesn't open the door for illegal immigrants to cross into our country illegally.

What should happen in every criminal case that is heard in court is that if a person is judged to have broken the law, there will be consequences. Those consequences may range from a slap on the wrist to a death sentence, but unless the sentencing judge or jury is thoroughly corrupt or insane, there is a consequence.

That some people who are guilty of breaking a law or not judged to have done so is simply par for the course with our system. It doesn't meant that consequences should not follow law breaking.

People who have come to this nation in violation of our laws are not likely to have much of a defense (unless liberals are successful in somehow manufacturing one). What are they going to argue?

"I don't have legal documents because I lost them or the immigration official didn't give them to me."

They are not citizens and they don't enjoy the same rights as citizens, regardless of how much you think they add to our nation.

You don't want to accept my ethical opinion because you can't counter it with ethics.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

No he is not, and you really need to lay off the "strawman" accusations.

If you claim it is a "real issue" than it is worthy of debate.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

But you're not there.

You acknowledge some points as having some validity, but then you dismiss them rather than dismantling them.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

You also need to lay off the "I love the irony" if you want civilized debate

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

But the fact is they aren't breaking the law by defying the Trump administration. Mayor DeBlasio the American mayor of the great city of New York directly challenged the Trump administration to explain how they are breaking the law... and nothing.

Why I am still arguing with you. This is civics 101.

You're arguing because you don't know the relevant civics or law, even after it's shoved in your face. I have already cited federal statutes and Supreme Court cases on this topic, but I doubt you understood a single one of them.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

If it is federal law that when ICE requests a State or city police department to detain someone presumed to be an illegal alien, that police dept doesn't get to say: "I get to spend my money as I see fit and that will cost us too much."

As layman has pointed out over and over again, it is well established that
the federal government has jurisdiction on matters of immigration. It's the argument Obama made in fighting the Arizona law a few years ago. I doubt you were saying "Now wait a minute POTUS, States have rights!"

No one here is going to accept your invitation when it seems awfully clear that what you mean is "all of my opinions should be considered as just one shade of the truth"

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This is for Finn and McGentrix, but I am sure they already know this stuff.

1. The Constitution gives certain powers to the States in cases where they differ with the Federal government (you learned this in High school civics if you were paying attention).

2. The Sanctuary State laws are legislating how local police and local funds are used. They aren't the purview of the Federal government.

3. This issues are resolved in Courts... where both sides will present the facts and argue the points of law that favor their side. It is ridiculous to claim that the law exclusively supports one side. The courts will make the final decision based on the law and the facts of the case.

Again, my invitation here is to have an intelligent discussion out side of our little partisan bubbles where we can intelligently discuss the strengths and weaknesses of both sides.

I haven't seen anyone but me discuss the strengths of the other side or the weaknesses of their own side. But I still hope.

Yes, I am a great believer in states rights.

In 2010, Arizona tried to crack down on illegal immigrants. Gov. Jan Brewer said:

Quote:

We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.

In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down most of Arizona's immigration legislation, siding with the Obama administration and immigrant rights activists who argued that Arizona's law intruded on the federal government's well-established authority over immigration.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote:

Quote:

Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.

Tell me Max, do you agree with that?

1 Reply

David Horowitz: Democrats are the party of hate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know