Texas governor threatens funding cut over sanctuary cities

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Texas governor threatens funding cut over sanctuary cities
[Associated Press]
Associated PressJanuary 22, 2017



https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-governor-threatens-funding-cut-over-sanctuary-cities-212828938.html

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — A Central Texas sheriff's announcement her agency will be scaling back its cooperation with federal immigration agents has prompted Gov. Greg Abbott to say his office will be cutting funding for the county.

Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez announced last week she is scaling back the amount of aid her department provides federal immigration agents in detaining suspects who might be in the country illegally, the Austin American-Statesman reported. (http://atxne.ws/2iQZbfe ).

Effective Feb. 1, sheriff's officials will honor so-called immigration holds or "detainers" placed by federal authorities only when a suspect is booked into the Travis County Jail on charges of capital murder, aggravated sexual assault and "continuous smuggling of persons."

Otherwise, federal agents must have a court order or arrest warrant signed by a judge for the jail to continue housing a person whose immigration status is in question.

Hernandez's announcement came as Texas Republicans are gearing up for a new fight to ban so-called sanctuary cities in the current legislative session.

In response to Hernandez, Abbott tweeted his office "will cut funding for Travis County adopting sanctuary policies."

"Stiffer penalties coming," Abbott's tweet said.

Abbott has pushed the issue to the front of his unofficial agenda for 2017, pledging in interviews and on social media to sign into law a "ban" on cities and local governments that are seen as protecting people in the U.S. illegally, with sanctions such as cutting state funding. Civil rights groups say the threat from the governor could lead to racial profiling.

Travis County could lose up to $1.8 million in grants because the governor's office requires compliance in order to receive grants.

The Travis County sheriff's office has a $169 million budget, according to the county's budget website. The $1.8 million would represent 1 percent of that budget.

"The public must be confident that local law enforcement is focused on local public safety, not on federal immigration enforcement," Hernandez said in a video announcement.



Hernandez's announcement came as Texas Republicans are gearing up for a new fight to ban so-called sanctuary cities in the current legislative session.

In response to Hernandez, Abbott tweeted his office "will cut funding for Travis County adopting sanctuary policies."

"Stiffer penalties coming," Abbott's tweet said.

Yes sir, President Trump, sure brought some rapid changes.. :beer: :clap: :beer:
Now the lib/dem sanctuary cities/counties gonna have to pay if they want to keep on coddling, promoting and protecting criminals, invaders and other assorted vermin, IMHO.
Time to run out the elected liberal/dem vermin too. -TYR

[Gunny]

Yes sir, President Trump, sure brought some rapid changes.. :beer: :clap: :beer:
Now the lib/dem sanctuary cities/counties gonna have to pay if they want to keep on coddling, promoting and protecting criminals, invaders and other assorted vermin, IMHO.
Time to run out the elected liberal/dem vermin too. -TYR

That is weird. Travis County is where Austin is ... the most leftwingnut city in this state.

[fj1200]

It doesn't look like trump has done anything. But it seems that Texas might need a law:


Hernandez's announcement came as Texas Republicans are gearing up for a new fight to ban so-called sanctuary cities in the current legislative session.

[Gunny]

It doesn't look like trump has done anything. But it seems that Texas might need a law:

We got plenty of laws. We just don't give a rat's ass what the rest of you think. We've been enforcing the border on our dime since time began.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That is weird. Travis County is where Austin is ... the most leftwingnut city in this state.

Texas now has a President that will not attack by way of the Justice Department their actions in this matter.
Thus we see a governor jump in rapidly with a proper response, without fear of Federal intervention and hidden attacks.!-Tyr

[fj1200]

We got plenty of laws. We just don't give a rat's ass what the rest of you think. We've been enforcing the border on our dime since time began.

You apparently need at least one more to accomplish Abbot's goal.


The plan, marked as an emergency item by then-Gov. Rick Perry (https://www.texastribune.org/directory/rick-perry/), failed to pass the Texas Legislature in 2011, and similar legislation died in the Texas Senate in 2015. As expected, Republicans are taking another crack at passing a bill this year, and Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (https://www.texastribune.org/directory/dan-patrick/) have labeled the issue a “legislative priority.”
https://www.mintpressnews.com/texas-republicans-make-third-attempt-to-ban-sanctuary-cities/224129/

[Elessar]

I am not really sure what is wrong with enforcing Federal Law.

It should be done nation-wide and has not a damn thing to do with racial profiling.
Mexicans and Central Americas are NOT a race. They are cultures only. What is
so hard to grasp about that?

[Gunny]

You apparently need at least one more to accomplish Abbot's goal.


https://www.mintpressnews.com/texas-republicans-make-third-attempt-to-ban-sanctuary-cities/224129/

To start with, why should Texas need an extra law to enforce what is already Federal law? Don't put this on us. We like to fight.

[fj1200]

I am not really sure what is wrong with enforcing Federal Law.

It should be done nation-wide and has not a damn thing to do with racial profiling.
Mexicans and Central Americas are NOT a race. They are cultures only. What is
so hard to grasp about that?

It's not proven that they aren't enforcing Federal law.


To start with, why should Texas need an extra law to enforce what is already Federal law? Don't put this on us. We like to fight.

Why indeed? I'm just reporting the news.

[Elessar]

It's not proven that they aren't enforcing Federal law.



Why indeed? I'm just reporting the news.

The previous administration refused to, FJ. Obama and
the DOJ turned their backs to it.

[fj1200]

The previous administration refused to, FJ. Obama and
the DOJ turned their backs to it.

Refused to what?


Enter the sanctuary cities. These are places where there are large immigrant populations, among which many are undocumented, yet where there is apparently not a little public sentiment and local governmental support for sheltering the undocumented from federal reach. Trump has argued that these cities are required to comply with federal law by actively assisting the feds — or at least not aggressively resisting them.
Thus the question: Are state and local governments required to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word: No.
http://reason.com/archives/2016/12/08/donald-trump-sanctuary-cities-legal

[Elessar]

Refused to what?


http://reason.com/archives/2016/12/08/donald-trump-sanctuary-cities-legal

Don't be a dipshit. They did not enforce existing Federal Law. They allowed places
like California to bypass law and declare sanctuary and refused to assist ICE and Border Patrol
to move these people out - send them home.

[fj1200]

Don't be a dipshit. They did not enforce existing Federal Law. They allowed places
like California to bypass law and declare sanctuary and refused to assist ICE and Border Patrol
to move these people out - send them home.

A touchy little dude aren't ya? Can you refute what I posted?

[BoogyMan]

It doesn't look like trump has done anything. But it seems that Texas might need a law:

Why would TX need a law in order to actually follow federal immigration law?

[fj1200]

Why would TX need a law in order to actually follow federal immigration law?

Um, not sure. But Governors Perry and Abbott seemed to think they did. States and cities can't be compelled to enforce Federal law but OTOH states have more control over cities.

[BoogyMan]

Um, not sure. But Governors Perry and Abbott seemed to think they did. States and cities can't be compelled to enforce Federal law but OTOH states have more control over cities.

I think we are going to find that there will be a choice made to follow federal immigration statute when the day is done.

[fj1200]

I think we are going to find that there will be a choice made to follow federal immigration statute when the day is done.

Possibly but there is a limit to Federal power and rightfully so. State's Rights! Yay!

[BoogyMan]

Possibly but there is a limit to Federal power and rightfully so. State's Rights! Yay!

Yes, there is a limit. When they step over the line, Abbot isn't going to have a problem telling them to get stuffed.

[Gunny]

Possibly but there is a limit to Federal power and rightfully so. State's Rights! Yay!

Selective States Rights ... yay. Our international border is a matter of Federal authority. They need to enforce it. Immigration is a matter of Federal law. They need to enforce it. Instead, they run around poking their noses in everyone's business where it doesn't belong.

[Elessar]

Selective States Rights ... yay. Our international border is a matter of Federal authority. They need to enforce it. Immigration is a matter of Federal law. They need to enforce it. Instead, they run around poking their noses in everyone's business where it doesn't belong.

Exactly correct.

It is not State's Rights to intentionally ignore Federal Law, especially when it comes to things like this.
What is worse is that some states refuse to even assist ICE and CBP, mandating that state or local LE
not cooperate. There is something deeply wrong with that notion.

[fj1200]

Yes, there is a limit. When they step over the line, Abbot isn't going to have a problem telling them to get stuffed.

Who has stepped over the line? Apparently this will be the third time they've tried to tell the cities to get stuffed. You know what they say about the third time though...


Selective States Rights ... yay. Our international border is a matter of Federal authority. They need to enforce it. Immigration is a matter of Federal law. They need to enforce it. Instead, they run around poking their noses in everyone's business where it doesn't belong.

There isn't anything selective about the Constitution. And AFAIK the Feds can't force cities/states to enforce Federal law.


Exactly correct.

It is not State's Rights to intentionally ignore Federal Law, especially when it comes to things like this.
What is worse is that some states refuse to even assist ICE and CBP, mandating that state or local LE
not cooperate. There is something deeply wrong with that notion.

Not really. But you keep saying the same thing.

[NightTrain]

There isn't anything selective about the Constitution. And AFAIK the Feds can't force cities/states to enforce Federal law.

And the States can't force the Feds to give them billions of dollars.

[fj1200]

And the States can't force the Feds to give them billions of dollars.

Nobody suggested they could as I recall.

[Gunny]

Who has stepped over the line? Apparently this will be the third time they've tried to tell the cities to get stuffed. You know what they say about the third time though...



There isn't anything selective about the Constitution. And AFAIK the Feds can't force cities/states to enforce Federal law.



Not really. But you keep saying the same thing.

Well yeah because saying the same thing when it is fact is about how it works,

[fj1200]

Well yeah because saying the same thing when it is fact is about how it works,

The question is not ignoring Federal law, the question is what are states and cities required to do? They are apparently not required to enforce Federal law.

[Gunny]

The question is not ignoring Federal law, the question is what are states and cities required to do? They are apparently not required to enforce Federal law.

The US Civil War decided that answer, did it not?

[NightTrain]

The question is not ignoring Federal law, the question is what are states and cities required to do? They are apparently not required to enforce Federal law.

They are not being asked to enforce federal law. Federal agencies are tasked with that job.

If they would like to continue receiving billions of dollars in Fed money, then they will need to participate in a professional manner with other LEOs by communicating with other agencies tasked with enforcing illegal immigration.

[fj1200]

The US Civil War decided that answer, did it not?

Sure.


They are not being asked to enforce federal law. Federal agencies are tasked with that job.

If they would like to continue receiving billions of dollars in Fed money, then they will need to participate in a professional manner with other LEOs by communicating with other agencies tasked with enforcing illegal immigration.

Yes they are.


The term applies generally to cities that do not use municipal funds or resources to enforce national immigration laws, and usually forbid police or municipal employees to inquire about a person's immigration status. The designation has no precise legal meaning.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city#cite_note-sfgate-1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

[fj1200]

How Trump Can Reform Immigration without Tanking Republicans or the Economy (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-trump-can-reform-immigration-without-tanking-republicans-or-economy)

Texas did the opposite of California. Texas Republicans directed their immigration enforcement on the border, not inside of the state. Texas Republicans, by and large, opposed interior enforcement bills. They funneled money to border enforcement, but did not unleash law enforcement to target illegal immigrants inside of the state. They didn’t spread fear among Texas Hispanics in the way the California did among Hispanics there.Republican Sen. Craig Estes ideologically opposed “show me your paper laws (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__m.amarillo.com_news_latest-2Dnews_2015-2D05-2D26_controversial-2Dimmigration-2Dbills-2Ddie-2Dtexas-2Dsenate-23gsc.tab-3D0&d=DgMF-g&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=siLhf6UWM9OgY6DASQIot8V1BR2zbbXNTlFgZEL_-Vw&m=mVN_LHO5pI2jnyoyWn7hc2Iater60bwuwxsZQxDMv8E&s=88NDxg3T3W7aiX5irL7oM-ogSAOqNktdfvO7zD7PF9Y&e=)” but also said “[N]othing could alienate Hispanic Americans more than being stopped at random arbitrarily and asked their status because of the color of their skin (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__m.amarillo.com_news_latest-2Dnews_2015-2D05-2D26_controversial-2Dimmigration-2Dbills-2Ddie-2Dtexas-2Dsenate-23gsc.tab-3D0&d=DgMF-g&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=siLhf6UWM9OgY6DASQIot8V1BR2zbbXNTlFgZEL_-Vw&m=mVN_LHO5pI2jnyoyWn7hc2Iater60bwuwxsZQxDMv8E&s=88NDxg3T3W7aiX5irL7oM-ogSAOqNktdfvO7zD7PF9Y&e=).” It also pleased Texas businesses and consumers who demanded immigrant labor.
Enforce the Border, and Only the Border
Texas Republicans didn’t ignore illegal immigration, though: they allocated $800 million to extra border security (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.texastribune.org_2015_06_09_abbott-2Dsigns-2Dsweeping-2Dborder-2Dsecurity-2Dbill_&d=DgMF-g&c=B73tqXN8Ec0ocRmZHMCntw&r=siLhf6UWM9OgY6DASQIot8V1BR2zbbXNTlFgZEL_-Vw&m=mVN_LHO5pI2jnyoyWn7hc2Iater60bwuwxsZQxDMv8E&s=wRdKz4Q0-QqOtQvEQlhNqBichU0L2kVDgL1LZ-mfYAY&e=) in 2015. They focused on the border, and nothing but the border, meaning that they wouldn’t alienate Hispanic Texans, many of whom have illegal immigrant friends and family members. Texas Republicans learned that concern about border security doesn’t translate into support for checkpoints in Houston.

Let's try not to turn Texas into California.

[NightTrain]

Sure.



Yes they are.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

No.

They are being asked to notify the Fed agencies when they run across an illegal in the normal course of police activity, and hold them until they arrive to take them off their hands.

[fj1200]

No.

They are being asked to notify the Fed agencies when they run across an illegal in the normal course of police activity, and hold them until they arrive to take them off their hands.

Exactly. There is no legal requirement to do so and states can't be forced to.

[NightTrain]

Exactly. There is no legal requirement to do so and states can't be forced to.

Exactly. There is no legal requirement to hand out billions of Fed dollars to uncooperative States.

[fj1200]

Exactly. There is no legal requirement to hand out billions of Fed dollars to uncooperative States.

I never said there was.

[NightTrain]

I never said there was.

So the only option to compel these renegade areas around the country is to fiscally starve them into submission.

I'm down.

[fj1200]

So the only option to compel these renegade areas around the country is to fiscally starve them into submission.

I'm down.

The Republican approach apparently worked very well in California.

[NightTrain]

The Republican approach apparently worked very well in California.

That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

Where did anyone suggest that all government workers unaffiliated with law enforcement become ICE agents?

[fj1200]

That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

Where did anyone suggest that all government workers unaffiliated with law enforcement become ICE agents?

Not really. It's history.

[NightTrain]

Not really. It's history.

So is burning witches at the stake. And as relevant to this discussion.

[jimnyc]

This whole thing is quite easy to solve, so long as the law is followed by everyone. Folks shouldn't be sneaking into our country, nor staying here illegally. No US citizen or group or political entity - none of the above should be skirting the law, in order to help any illegals get around the law. Both the federal government and states should be working towards ensuring the laws of our country are followed and upheld. If that is done, then these sanctuary cities don't exist, nor are there any issues with any monies being withheld. But if that's too much for some areas to grasp, then withhold every last penny that is possible, and also take whatever legal steps allowable to still jail and/or deport. If all else fails, they can look into penalties/laws to have law enforcement as mandatory to enforce the law or have certain groups notified, and also hold certain prisoners. They should be penalized by law themselves if possible. Maybe criminal records will deter police and other authorities from creating and assisting sanctuary cities and illegals.

[BoogyMan]

Who has stepped over the line? Apparently this will be the third time they've tried to tell the cities to get stuffed. You know what they say about the third time though...

You seem to be talking in a circle here as I have no idea where you are going with this one. :laugh:

[fj1200]

So is burning witches at the stake. And as relevant to this discussion.

The issue is state responses to illegal immigration. I provided examples of state responses to illegal immigration. Do you require a flow chart?


You seem to be talking in a circle here as I have no idea where you are going with this one. :laugh:

No. It seems there is a need to restate relevant factors. :)

[NightTrain]

The issue is state responses to illegal immigration. I provided examples of state responses to illegal immigration. Do you require a flow chart?

No one has proposed turning state employees into unofficial ICE agents. Do you require a link to the relevant OP?

[fj1200]

No one has proposed turning state employees into unofficial ICE agents. Do you require a link to the relevant OP?

I didn't say that they did. I was providing an example of state reactions to illegal immigration including some history as to exactly what Texas has done in the past and how it relates to the California example. It will be interesting to see what they do this time around. I didn't mean to upset your safe space in bringing up related information.

[NightTrain]

I didn't say that they did. I was providing an example of state reactions to illegal immigration including some history as to exactly what Texas has done in the past and how it relates to the California example. It will be interesting to see what they do this time around.

But that's not what you said, was it?

Trump has no intentions of turning state workers into unofficial ICE agents - that was something that miserably failed that you interjected into this conversation.


How Trump Can Reform Immigration without Tanking Republicans or the Economy (https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-trump-can-reform-immigration-without-tanking-republicans-or-economy)




Let's try not to turn Texas into California.


I didn't mean to upset your safe space in bringing up related information.

My safe space is an impenetrable aura around me. It's pretty mobile. :happy0203:

[fj1200]

But that's not what you said, was it?

Trump has no intentions of turning state workers into unofficial ICE agents - that was something that miserably failed that you interjected into this conversation.

I never mentioned trump. I never suggested Texas was going to turn anyone into ICE agents. I successfully interjected relevant information as to someone's opinion on what Texas should take heed of. Sorry.

EDIT: The link referenced trump though. My B.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-trump-can-reform-immigration-without-tanking-republicans-or-economy


My safe space is an impenetrable aura around me. It's pretty mobile. :happy0203:

Clearly. You're not letting anything get by. :poke:

[NightTrain]

I never mentioned trump. I never suggested Texas was going to turn anyone into ICE agents. I successfully interjected relevant information as to someone's opinion on what Texas should take heed of. Sorry.

EDIT: The link referenced trump though. My B.

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-trump-can-reform-immigration-without-tanking-republicans-or-economy

Quite.


Clearly. You're not letting anything get by. :poke:

Indeed.

There is a hot cup of premium coffee in front of me and a nice blue cloud of smoke swirling serenely about my aura. The Prez is kicking ass and taking names, my modem is firing on all cylinders and life is good. :smoke:

[fj1200]

Quite.



Indeed.

There is a hot cup of premium coffee in front of me and a nice blue cloud of smoke swirling serenely about my aura. The Prez is kicking ass and taking names, my modem is firing on all cylinders and life is good. :smoke:

As I said. I'm hopeful he doesn't screw it up. An inability to discuss issues is another thing altogether though.

You might want to cut an opening in that bubble. Carbon monoxide you know. :poke:

[Gunny]

The issue is state responses to illegal immigration. I provided examples of state responses to illegal immigration. Do you require a flow chart?



No. It seems there is a need to restate relevant factors. :)

The cities within the State of Texas are responsibility of the Governor of Texas. End of THAT story.

The people of Texas who pay taxes are footing the bill for what is a Federal Govt responsibility. We have to live here. The Fed steals our land and ruined our oil business at one time; yet. cannot or will not protect our international border.

So screw 'em. We do it ourselves.

[NightTrain]

As I said. I'm hopeful he doesn't screw it up. An inability to discuss issues is another thing altogether though.

I'm quite interested and capable of discussing issues - but deliberately muddying of waters and unsubstantiated charges needs to be pointed out.


You might want to cut an opening in that bubble. Carbon monoxide you know. :poke:

You're confusing my serene aura with a panicked snowflake nevertrump bubble - the two are very different things.
Besides, I thrive on CO2 and nicotine and caffeine. :smoke:

[gabosaurus]

The state of Texas is fighting a losing battle over this issue. Many police departments have stated that they are not going to become ICE agents. They have drawn their line in the sand.

http://www.weaponstickers.com/images/full/5.5x3.5_cati_AR15_w.png

[NightTrain]

The state of Texas is fighting a losing battle over this issue. Many police departments have stated that they are not going to become ICE agents. They have drawn their line in the sand.

Source?

[gabosaurus]

Source?

Read the newspapers. The mayors of Houston, Dallas, Austin and many cities in the Rio Grande Valley are not going to hold anyone who is not wanted for a crime. Nor are they going to check the citizenship of anyone who is arrested.

[NightTrain]

Read the newspapers. The mayors of Houston, Dallas, Austin and many cities in the Rio Grande Valley are not going to hold anyone who is not wanted for a crime. Nor are they going to check the citizenship of anyone who is arrested.

But being in this country illegally is a crime, and therefore those that are, are criminals.

And, your Mayor of Houston will quickly come around when the Fed money is shut off. Unless, of course, there is a majority of illegals populating and voting in that city.

[gabosaurus]

Unless, of course, there is a majority of illegals populating and voting in that city.

If you believe this, you are as delusional as Trump is. :rolleyes:

[NightTrain]

If you believe this, you are as delusional as Trump is. :rolleyes:

I don't. I guess that sarcasm whiffed right over your head.

So, since there aren't a majority of illegals residing and voting in Houston, and it suddenly experiences many millions in budgetary shortfalls - which way is your courageous mayor going to bounce?

Continue to protect illegals and lose his job next election, or behave like a responsible Mayor and cooperate with federal law enforcement?

[Gunny]

The state of Texas is fighting a losing battle over this issue. Many police departments have stated that they are not going to become ICE agents. They have drawn their line in the sand.

http://www.weaponstickers.com/images/full/5.5x3.5_cati_AR15_w.png
Actually, we are not fighting a losing battle. We arrest and deport illegals. There just is no concerted effort to go out and find them. Caught where found.

Unlike YOUR state that has a revolving door on the border.

[Gunny]

Read the newspapers. The mayors of Houston, Dallas, Austin and many cities in the Rio Grande Valley are not going to hold anyone who is not wanted for a crime. Nor are they going to check the citizenship of anyone who is arrested.

Nobody in this state gives a damn what the people in those cities you cite think. You could take those leftwingnut hell hole cities out of this state and nobody would miss them. Dallas is occupied by snowbirds; Houston is a dirty little sh*thole full of Loisianans; and, Austin our leftwingnut hole university town full of out of state college brats.

The only weakness we have is 8 years of a so-called President who cut funding and likes to sign EOs. We have to follow his laws but he doesn't have to follow THE law? You Dems are such hypocrites.

[Gunny]

I don't. I guess that sarcasm whiffed right over your head.

So, since there aren't a majority of illegals residing and voting in Houston, and it suddenly experiences many millions in budgetary shortfalls - which way is your courageous mayor going to bounce?

Continue to protect illegals and lose his job next election, or behave like a responsible Mayor and cooperate with federal law enforcement?

She needs to look at the voting demographics. WHO is delusional? Hillary was going to win TX? THAT worked.:laugh:

[fj1200]

The cities within the State of Texas are responsibility of the Governor of Texas. End of THAT story.

The people of Texas who pay taxes are footing the bill for what is a Federal Govt responsibility. We have to live here. The Fed steals our land and ruined our oil business at one time; yet. cannot or will not protect our international border.

So screw 'em. We do it ourselves.

No doubt. Not sure why they would even need a law anyway but there it is. :dunno:


I'm quite interested and capable of discussing issues - but deliberately muddying of waters and unsubstantiated charges needs to be pointed out.

There was no muddying and no unsubstantiated charges. It was clear examples of ways to do something and ways not to do something.


You're confusing my serene aura with a panicked snowflake nevertrump bubble - the two are very different things.
Besides, I thrive on CO2 and nicotine and caffeine. :smoke:

So you say. You seem to have lost an ability to discuss issues rationally.

[NightTrain]

So you say. You seem to have lost an ability to discuss issues rationally.

Odd. No one else has pointed out my irrational behavior and my wife assures me that I'm the same upbeat, fun-loving guy that I've always been.

[Gunny]

No doubt. Not sure why they would even need a law anyway but there it is. :dunno:



There was no muddying and no unsubstantiated charges. It was clear examples of ways to do something and ways not to do something.



So you say. You seem to have lost an ability to discuss issues rationally.

Simple. The State of Texas does not the authority to enforce federal law, It does not have the authority to issue edicts to the US Govt. It DOES however, have the authority to makes laws and enforce them within the State of Texas.

It's a case of "if you won't do your job, we will". I agree there should be no need for another law. But you have to do what you have to do.

[fj1200]

Odd. No one else has pointed out my irrational behavior and my wife assures me that I'm the same upbeat, fun-loving guy that I've always been.

It's good to be ahead of the game. ;) Besides, I didn't say you weren't upbeat or fun loving. Being irrational doesn't preclude the others and may actually promote them. :poke:

[fj1200]

Simple. The State of Texas does not the authority to enforce federal law, It does not have the authority to issue edicts to the US Govt. It DOES however, have the authority to makes laws and enforce them within the State of Texas.

It's a case of "if you won't do your job, we will". I agree there should be no need for another law. But you have to do what you have to do.

I don't think we have a disagreement.

[jimnyc]

Governor Abbot takes funding away from one sanctuary city. :) :)

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2017/02/01/gov-greg-abbott-cuts-money-travis-county-amid-sanctuary-city-fight