Comments on: Fred Has More

By: Metulj

Metulj — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:12:08 +0000

What’s interesting is that of the four sanctuary cities in NJ, Newark is by far the largest and not diverse at all (Hispanic and Black). I live in Jersey City (which is not a sanctuary city) and it is much more ethnically diverse than any of the four that are (Newark, Trenton, Bridgeton, and Hightstown). Hell, Bridgeton doesn’t get any whiter (or more conservative — that’s South Jersey). That’s all about having enough people to pick in the cranberry and blueberry fields. Hightstown is between Princeton (rich) and Freehold (working class white). These are local domestic workers being protected there. As for Newark, I wouldn’t blame its problems on it being a sanctuary city. You could go armed with your best in the South Ward and you wouldn’t stand a chance. It really does look like a war zone. Even the main downtown area of Newark is rife with street crime. I worked for an AIDS foundation at University Hospital in Newark as a researcher. They picked you up in an armored bus from the train station to take you 1 mile to work.

The other side of the coin is where I live. Heavily immigrant and very safe. Similar crime numbers to Knoxville, yet only 4 miles (two rivers and part of the Meadowlands) from Newark.

By: Ron W

Ron W — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:28:30 +0000

Why should the feds care about “sanctuary cities” for illegal aliens? The Federal Gov’t is allowing the invasion of our country?

The States established the Federal Government to begin with along with a Constitution to govern it. It’s job is to obey those orders…a primary function of which is that it “SHALL protect the States against invasion” and deport invaders!!

By: Nomen Nescio

Nomen Nescio — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:08:55 +0000

i wish somebody would propose making my town a sanctuary city. then i could pipe up, second the motion, and recommend it be proclaimed a sanctuary for people who’ve broken other kinds of laws as well — say, tax evaders, for instance.

By: chris

chris — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:49:52 +0000

I agree with Rustmeister that the Federal government can (and does) easily prohibit a state, which does not comply with Federally mandated maximum speed limits, from getting Federal highway funding.

I wonder why the Federal government cannot similarly prohibit the dispensation of Federal highway funds to states which intentionally ignore Federal immigration laws.

Easy answer – It can, it simply chooses to not do so.

We citizens, particularly in sanctuary cities, need to pressure, harass and publicly ridicule the politicians who run sanctuary cities.

By: Rustmeister

Rustmeister — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 14:09:56 +0000

I’d pull all federal funding from sanctuary cities.

Hey, it worked when the feds wanted us to all drive 55….

By: Ron W

Ron W — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:57:50 +0000

If a CITIZEN is apprehended by local or state law enforcement and it becomes known that they have committed or they’re wanted for a federal crime, won’t the local law enforcement hold them to be handed over to federal authorities? YES! Don’t local police respond and arrest those who steal Federal Reserve Notes? YES!

So why is it that those who’ve illegally invaded our country should be treated differently and when local law enforcement apprehends them, then the feds should do their DUTY and pick them up for DEPORTATION.

AND the feds should do their DUTY and “protect the States against INVASION” (Article IV, Section 4 U.S. Constitution) so that deported illegal aliens cannot re-enter. To refuse that is criminal negiligence and in time of war (“war on terrrorism”) allows enemies to enter and stay in our country which is TREASON according to Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:03:23 +0000

Oh, they can’t undermine federal efforts. The feds are free to have agents wandering the streets picking up illegals if they want. If they tried to block the, the Supremacy Clause would win out. But the feds couldn’t pass a law requiring that local authorities report illegal immigrants to ICE. State officials can enforce federal law, but the feds can’t force them to.

Of course, there are ways for the feds to coerce cooperation, if they really wanted to, since most police departments take federal money.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:14:31 +0000

I understand that, but it still strikes me as a stretch. As you noted, the issue in Printz was whether or not the federal government could force the state or local governments to administer background checks, not whether states could actively undermine efforts by the federal government to conduct them on its own. I'm not sure Printz would have been decided the way it was if the background checks were conducted by the federal government, and the only issue was whether states had to cooperate with the efforts (or whether participating states could deliberately withhold information relating to crimes they personally believed should not be disqualifying factors under federal law, but were). I hope it wouldn't have been decided that way, which would be tantamount to ruling that the laws of the United States are not the laws of Arizona (or here, New Jersey).

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:43:35 +0000

Because the federal government can’t force state officials to administer federal programs or enforce federal laws, and immigration laws are federal. There’s case laws on this, including Printz vs. US, which our friend and fellow blogger Dave Hardy played a hand in.

By: Lyle

Lyle — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:37:13 +0000

“The politicians who are running these �sanctuaries� should have to answer for that, before forcing me to answer for my gun ownership.”

Your gun ownership, like your freedom of speech, is something you should never have to explain to anyone. You’re American, this is America, and that’s the only explanation needed.

Anyone in public office who is nervous about you exercising your civil rights should be looking for another job, as should anyone in public office who is nervous about enforcing proper and just immigration laws. We need adults as servants, not a pack of dysfunctional, quivering blobs of Jell-o (no offense to the makers of that fine dessert product).

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 02:24:35 +0000

What I don’t understand is why sanctuary cities are allowed. I’m generally not a big fan of the federal government commandeering the states and their subdivisions, but c’mon; this is one of the few things the federal government is supposed to do, and do well. We don’t let states declare their own wars, and we shouldn’t let them make up their own immigration policies, either.