XPost: alt.politics.immigration, alt.trump.is.a.filthy.lying.insurrectionist.and.rapist.and.shitbag, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
[Nazi filth newsgroups alt.politics.trump and alt.politics.republicans removed]
On 5/4/2025 7:55 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 03 May 2025 07:44:02 -0700, Siri Cruz <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/5/25 5:40, Dark Brandon wrote:
Republicans in Congress have pressured officials in
Democratic-led cities to cooperate with the Trump
administration’s immigration agenda. Lawmakers summoned the
mayors of Denver, Boston, New York and Chicago to testify last
month before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Hey, cowards. Every city in California is a sanctuary city.
There is no such federal thing.
non sequitur
Oh and you're welcome to show a Supreme Court ruling that this is permitted.
Printz v. United States (1977)
Google AI answer:
"The Printz v. United States Supreme Court decision has significant implications
for sanctuary policies, particularly regarding the federal government's ability to compel states to enforce federal laws, such as immigration laws. The case established that the federal government cannot force state and local officials to carry out federal duties, including background checks on gun purchasers. This
principle, often referred to as "anti-commandeering," is relevant to sanctuary policies because they often involve state and local jurisdictions limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities."
The federal government may not compel state and local law enforcement to assist ICE in carrying out immigration enforcement. State and local government may not obstruct or impede ICE, but they don't have to lift a finger to help them. This is settled.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)