Atlanta becoomes a "Sanctuary City"

Discussion in 'Georgia In the News' started by johnski, Sep 7, 2018.

  1. johnski

    johnski Well-Known Member

    1,669
    35
    48
    https://www.11alive.com/article/new...ove-all-detainees-from-city-jail/85-591481219

    ATLANTA – Atlanta is preparing to permanently end its relationship with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in regards to accepting immigration detainees at the Atlanta City Jail, Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms announced Thursday.

    “We will no longer be complicit with a policy that intentionally inflicts misery on a vulnerable population without giving any thought to the fallout,” Lance Bottoms said. “As the birthplace of the civil rights movement, we are called to be better than this.”

    ...with plans to do this throughout the rest of Georgia when they can. Georgia to become the new Kommiefornia?
     
  2. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,603
    1,702
    113
    I always thought Massachusetts was the original birthplace of civil (and political) rights?

    Does Atlanta dictate policy to the other GA cities, towns and counties?
     

  3. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    All of you folks bitching about local governments not cooperating with the feds on a law that is a strictly federal issue (immigration) ...
    ...would you feel the same way about city and county governments not cooperating with the feds on a new federal assault weapons ban --let's say one that Senator Feinstein gets passed and which will take effect in 2020?
     
  4. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    in the big picture of things, having local governments defy the federal government could help the feds gain power and reduce the power and influence of local governments. The feds could create a national police force (and if they don't call it the FBI it could be modeled after the FBI but with 50 times as many officers in the field.)

    The feds could operate their own jails and not even ask cities to house detainees or arrestees in a city or county jail .


    And the feds could also de-fund local law-enforcement.
    Right now, a large percentage of all local law-enforcement budgets comes, directly or indirectly, from federal money.

    The feds could help pay for the creation of their new federal police force with all separate federal jail and detention for themselves using the money they save by not giving any grants or other funds to local law enforcement .

    Just like the Civil War resulted in a huge expansion of the federal government's power and influence at the expense of states rights, the exact same thing could happen again if the feds have to step in to enforce federal laws were local governments won't.

    And that would be a big brother communist's wet dream !
     
  5. Wheedle

    Wheedle Active Member

    754
    48
    28
    If Abrams wins the governorship, the whole damned state will likely head that way.
     
  6. Wheedle

    Wheedle Active Member

    754
    48
    28
    There is a difference, the Constitution places immigration squarely with the US Congress and the executive branch. The same Constitution also says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Thus, federal law on immigration, and enforcement thereof is just, legal, and constitutional. Any gun ban would be none of these.
     
  7. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,535
    680
    113
    Due Process of law is a constitutional mandate, too.

    If a City thinks the feds are denying immigrants "due process" rights, MAY the City stop cooperating with the feds?

    Is there a constitutional requirement that cities in the U.S. must help enforce federal laws?
     
  8. codegeek

    codegeek codegeek reincarnate

    901
    9
    18
    already been decided, right? States and local governments cannot be required to enforce Federal law, per SCOTUS. Given the continued erosion of Constitutional rights, states are duty bound to interpose between the Federal government and their citizens. Unless, of course, we all agree that such erosion is a good thing.
     
  9. johnski

    johnski Well-Known Member

    1,669
    35
    48
    Fixed it for you. Sounds different when you replace "immigrant" with "illegal". Illegals o not have constitutional rights imho. They are not citizens, they are criminals from another country.
     
    Wheedle and Smilodon like this.
  10. Smilodon

    Smilodon Active Member

    696
    40
    28
    Yeah, anyone illegally invading the country has no right to due process imho.
     
    johnski and Wheedle like this.