2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: punaperson on June 28, 2017, 05:38:28 PM
-
In the video President Trump speaks for the first six minutes, followed by the stories from people who have had family members killed by illegal aliens, many of whom had multiple prior deportations. :(
If Congress doesn't pass these laws... >:(
Too bad the funding cuts only apply to cites and not states so Hawaii could get their financial ass kicked by a program that cut state funding as well. Maybe someday... I have a dream...
President Trump Holds Emotional Meeting Ahead of Votes on Two Important Laws..
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/06/28/president-trump-holds-emotional-meeting-ahead-of-votes-on-two-important-laws/
Tomorrow, the House will vote on the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which will cut federal grant money to cities that shield dangerous criminal aliens from being turned over to federal law enforcement. The House will also vote on Kate’s Law – named for Kate Steinle, who was killed by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times. This law will enhance criminal penalties for those who repeatedly re-enter the country illegally.
Today, ahead of tomorrow”s vote, President Trump met again with families of victims impacted by the crimes committed by illegal aliens, thanked them for their courage and presented their stories for all to hear. The passage these laws, and the enforcement of America’s border security, represents well-known campaign promises.
https://youtu.be/VwI5o5neaNs
-
The fastest way to pass a bill is present the photos of the widows and orphans who have been harmed by whatever it is the bill is trying to address. That's also why Trumpcare is having a difficult time.
-
It is also very tragic for our very own US news corporations take the side of illegals versus the righteous citizens of our great nation. Sick of hearing these Muslim travel bans. They are not.
-
If it passes, I wouldn't be surprised if liberal judges do exactly what they did with the travel ban and this ends up back in the courts.
-
If it passes, I wouldn't be surprised if liberal judges do exactly what they did with the travel ban and this ends up back in the courts.
led by AG chin
-
As a side note I wish Trump had spent more time tweeting about supporting these two laws than ragging on those two clowns on Morning Joe. I am sure there would be a lot more support getting behind the president for getting these laws passed than there will be today. JMHO.
-
Just got off the phone with Tulsi's office in a six minute phone call while I was on hold virtually the entire call only to be told that they don't know what Tulsi's position is on the bills, she has made no public statement about her position on these bills, and they don't know how she either intends to vote, or already voted if the vote was already held today (it's after 3 PM in D.C.). I guess it's some kind of top secret stuff they don't want her constituents to know about. I was told to email a "legislative assistant" (adam.schantz@mail.house.gov), and if I get a response I will update. Maybe some day we'll be able to find out how she voted (or abstained, or was absent, or voted "present").
I did find out more about the bills and discovered that not only cities, but also STATES will be held accountable... so Hawaii might get their ass kicked after all! Woohoo! Hawaii is already so dependent on the feds that every time the feds take back is like a slap in the face to the Ige/Chin progressive tyranny. Too bad they can't restrict more funds than just the DOJ and DHS grants... maybe someday!
H.R. 3003 – No Sanctuary for Criminals Act
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/27/hr-3003-no-sanctuary-criminals-act
"For States or localities determined to be in violation of Federal law, H.R. 3003 would restrict their eligibility to receive certain Department of Justice or Department of Homeland Security grants. Instead, under this bill, those grant funds would be reallocated to States and localities that comply with Federal law. Additionally, this bill would provide for more robust detention of criminal aliens. The Administration is committed to strengthening enforcement of our Nation’s immigration laws in order to improve national security and public safety. This legislation is critical to these efforts."
H.R. 3004 – Kate’s Law
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/27/hr-3004-kates-law
The Administration strongly supports H.R. 3004, Kate’s Law. This bill commemorates Kate Steinle, the 32-year-old woman who was shot and killed two years ago in San Francisco as she walked along a pier with her father. The alleged shooter, Francisco Sanchez, was an illegal immigrant who had already been deported five times and had seven felony convictions.
H.R. 3004 would increase the penalties that may be imposed on criminal aliens convicted of illegal reentry, deterring reentry and keeping criminal aliens off our streets. The bill is consistent with the Administration's broader efforts to strengthen enforcement of our immigration laws and improve the security of our Nation's borders.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/pcFqe7b.jpg)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/zKP9Ijk.jpg)
-
Now it's up to the Senate.
-
From what I can find, it appears both Tulsi and Colleen BOTH VOTED "NO" ON BOTH BILLS.
I really [censored censored censored censored censored].
-
From what I can find, it appears both Tulsi and Colleen BOTH VOTED "NO" ON BOTH BILLS.
I really [censored censored censored censored censored].
you expected differently?
-
Who was the Rep piece of feces that voted no?
-
Wait so they want to protect these people from breaking the law, but if I were to exercise my 2a outside of my home, I will be thrown in jail?
-
Who was the Rep piece of feces that voted no?
Probably the last rep to vote, he did it for shits and giggles. ;D
-
From what I can find, it appears both Tulsi and Colleen BOTH VOTED "NO" ON BOTH BILLS.
I really [censored censored censored censored censored].
Hawaii has HOPE for them :thumbsup:
-
you expected differently?
No. Not expected in the slightest. But each time I see the actual votes they make... well, I get kinda pissed off. I deeply resent that my tax dollars are paying their salaries to fuck me over. And what about that bumper sticker of years past? "Miracles Happen"
Wait so they want to protect these people from breaking the law, but if I were to exercise my 2a outside of my home, I will be thrown in jail?
That makes perfect sense to them, that's the way they want it to be, and they will do everything they can for the next 40 years they (likely) hold office to make sure it stays that way.
-
I like the principal of the law, however it interferes with state's rights in general. Each state should be able to decide on it's internal matters without penalty as long as it doesn't violate anything in the US constitution. Better way to do it is to get rid of federal grants, lower federal taxes, and raise state taxes as needed to pay for programs.
-
I like the principal of the law, however it interferes with state's rights in general. Each state should be able to decide on it's internal matters without penalty as long as it doesn't violate anything in the US constitution.
You mean like the Hawaii laws, and how the are applied, on CCW and open carry? All the courts thus far (forever) find no violation of the US Constitution (nor the Hawaii Constitution. See: Article I, Section 17 "Right to Bear Arms"). Show us the section(s) of the Constitution that would prohibit a state from banning abortion or banning "same sex" marriage, both of which are thus "internal matters" according to you.
Better way to do it is to get rid of federal grants, lower federal taxes, and raise state taxes as needed to pay for programs.
-
You mean like the Hawaii laws, and how the are applied, on CCW and open carry? All the courts thus far (forever) find no violation of the US Constitution (nor the Hawaii Constitution. See: Article I, Section 17 "Right to Bear Arms"). Show us the section(s) of the Constitution that would prohibit a state from banning abortion or banning "same sex" marriage, both of which are thus "internal matters" according to you.
SCOTUS ruled both violated the 14th amendment. You should have provided this yourself. If you bring it up, you should provide the references. Easy to look up in the SCOTUS decisions.
Offering money to states that have to agree to something is manipulation. It's like individual tax credits, obamacare fines, etc...social engineering. Pay money to the government (taxes) and you can get back your own money if you do what they want you to do.
-
SCOTUS ruled both violated the 14th amendment. You should have provided this yourself. If you bring it up, you should provide the references. Easy to look up in the SCOTUS decisions.
I didn't ask you to tell us how SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution, I asked you to provide the part of the Constitution that specifically addresses the "right" to abortion or the "right" to "same sex" marriage. Just show us. Pointing to an interpretation by a certain group of people isn't an answer. Or do you look to those SCOTUS decisions validating slavery as legitimate validations of slavery because justices voted that way? Certainly in those two cases mentioned above we see that the people voting on these matters are doing so based upon their personal beliefs, not on a strictly limited legal interpretation. Please tell me in detail the legal justification, using the 14th amendment, why "same sex" marriage is a "right", but "group marriage" is NOT a right, and those people don't deserve "equal protection". Or why there is no right (yet?) to marry an animal or an inanimate object. The courts often use laws (including the Constitution) as tabula rasa to create or deny, by personal whim, any "right" they choose.
If cops here can have handgun magazines greater than 10 rounds, including when they are off duty and/or retired, then how is it not a violation of my rights, under the 14th Amendment, to deny me the right to the same property under the "equal protection" clause?