Reply By: Texas WahinePosted: Tuesday, June 19, 2007

LW made some good points.

She always does, dats why she is my Moose.

And your article is well-written. That's all.

 

Wow thanx Tex, what a sweet compliment.

Well, see, MM, the reason I feel this way is because of what it has brought us. The federal government found outthat it can meddle in areas where it is Constitutionally PROHIBITED from legislating by dangling the carrot of federal funding. This is why the national drinking age is 21, when until the late 80's it was 18 in many states. Because the fed said "you like highway money, you play by our rules".

Sure, it's nice to get that "free" money from the federal government. But in this case the cost has been more than just the Benjamins pilfered from our bank account by the IRS' strongarm tactic; our autonomy has gone out the window with it.

But what are we as a nation to do when cities become a law unto themselves?

Cities are not guaranteed rights under the Constitution, only states.  It is really the states responsibility to reign in the renegades that govern these islands of anarchy, and most states do have laws to do just that.  They just shirk their responsibility in that regard.

So let me get this straight. There's apparently a war on terror going on yet the US government is refusing to protect some of its cities just because they're being recalcitrant on a domestic issue.

Call me crazy, but doesn't that just suggest the Republicans don't take the war on terror seriously?

Most cities have no land borders with foreign states. They have ports, sure, but I imagine it would be more effective to simply take the ports off them and seal off San Fran and other cities' foreigner-loving ways through that.

Taking away their ability to respond to a terrorist threat seems somewhat counter-productive to me.



I doubt that would do much save raise the spectre of Californian secession. California really doesn't need the rest of the country. It's one of the richest places in the world. If you go round executing its leaders for carrying out policies that are popular in California then you're going to end up alienating them severely.

The backlash alone would be enough to make the popularity of sanctuary cities far more entrenched than they are now.

Lemme tell yer sumpin bout California, shut down Lalaland {los Angeles} and Sanfran FREAKO {san francisco} and you have a republican state. Sanfranfreako has been disrespecting the rest of the country for decades, it's time for them to pay some dues now.

Ports are borders. Do you think that Ireland is any less safe because it has no land borders? It was that thinking that led to 9-11 (the oceans will protect us).

And if you think that denying them some pittance from a new federal bureaucracy is draconian, you apparently have not seen the financial impact on cities that have major ports. Cutting off a port (besides being far beyond the scope of the constitution bordering on a Chavez type of nationalization) from a city would have a much larger impact than any chump change to the cities.

The ports are, by definition, under federal jurisdiction. However the economic impact is something that these cities live off of. And to cut that out would require a dictatorial edict far exceeding anything that is currently available to a democracy. I am sure it is easily done in totalitarian regimes like China (yea, right) and Venezuela.

Apparently I wasn't being clear enough.

Border control is a state issue, unless of course ports are under city jurisdiction. From what you said ports are already under federal jurisdiction. Airports have always been federally controlled (customs is national, not local).

If that's the case then border control is out of the power of San Francisco and other cities. For their sanctuary policies to have any effect then the state or federal governments must have already failed the citizens of San Francisco and the other cities. In that event I don't consider it unwise for cities to protect themselves as best they can; if that's by acquiescing to invading hordes the federal government has failed to protect them from then so be it.

Punishing them by withdrawing the funding they need to protect themselves from terrorists seems an odd way to respond to a failure of federal government.



What on earth are you talking about? I meant the federal government taking over (or nationalising) security, screening and other customs-related industry, of course, not shutting the docks for some absurd reason. If the federal government already controls the docks then the city has absolutely nothing to do with border protection. Its policies only deal with those who the federal government has chosen not to adequately police. And in that case you can hardly blame San Fran and others for trusting in their senior government's judgement.

This all seems like one of those 2 wrongs don't make a right situation. In the end not only one authoriy system fails the American people but so does the second line of defense.

they also have huge entitlement programs that would rapidly drain the cities, like a crazed hungry vampire feeding on a baby.

But it still points out that they could not become "City States" since they are dependant upon both state and federal funds to survive.

Reply By: CharlesCS1Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2007 This all seems like one of those 2 wrongs don't make a right situation. In the end not only one authority system fails the American people but so does the second line of defense.

I agree with this Charles, but geeeze we really need to make these so called SANTUARY cities stop that practice, it is not only dangerous to the citizens of the country, it is thumbing their noses at the Federal government.