Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 Here's a really, really unique idea. Let's cut off ALL cities from federal funding, cut taxes, and let the cities raise the revenue they need on their own! Hehehe.

not bad, not good, But I truly would like to see Sanfran FREAKO sink into the ocean.

 

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.

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 Here's a really, really unique idea. Let's cut off ALL cities from federal funding, cut taxes, and let the cities raise the revenue they need on their own! Here Here!

there there!@!

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.

This is very true gid, and States rights have gone the way the the "speakeasy", But what are we as a nation to do when cities become a law unto themselves? deciding what LAW they will follow and what law they will ignore? To openly declare "we {insert city name here} will NOT report Illegals to the federal authorities" We will not allow our police to even ask if someone is Legal or ILLEGAL"

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.

Reply By: Dr GuyPosted: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 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.

See I did not know that. So when cities misbehave it is up to the capitol of the state to manage the city, what happens when sanfran freako tells Sacramento to fuck-off, and they will do that.

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?

Stay with me here, cacto...

If we're going to PROTECT our borders, we should first SECURE our borders. What SF and similar cities are proposing is to refuse to cooperate in defending our borders. Why should they receive funds when they're working AGAINST our efforts?

Simple solution: round up the leaders of these "sanctuary cities" and hang 'em for treason. Make it a public hanging.

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.

OK yer CRAZY!

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.

Cheers!



Maybe, but since Gid drew me into highly implausible what-if scenarios, San Francisco and Los Angeles are big and rich enough to be independent city-states anyway.

I'm not a big fan of executing high-profile public figures just for thumbing their nose at big government. It's just never been a good move historically.

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.

Then why do they receive more in the federal dole than they pay?

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.

You were unclear since the discussion was on MONEY, and then you brought up ports. Your transition was not well done, and thus the confusion.

But as far as the feds (and states) failing the cities in protection - yes they are, and that is a big issue in the colonies. However, just because the state police do not catch a speeder, does not mean that the city police should let him go.

It is the same principal.

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.

That's the whole point. They're NOT responding to a terroristic threat. They "are" saying we don't care if you're here illegally or a criminal, it's okay to stay in our city.

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

to be fair to Cacto, all big cities in America are Meccas to the bums that live off the public dole. hmmmmmmm

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

My Point exactly Doc M. A city just cannot pick and chose which federal law it's going to obey, either obey them all or pay the piper.

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.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 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. Stay with me here, cacto... If we're going to PROTECT our borders, we should first SECURE our borders. What SF and similar cities are proposing is to refuse to cooperate in defending our borders. Why should they receive funds when they're working AGAINST our efforts? Simple solution: round up the leaders of these "sanctuary cities" and hang 'em for treason. Make it a public hanging.

That might be a little harsh,. But an old fashioned recall might be the ticket.