Deleted Question: Agree Or Disagree ?

Question

If Enough Cities, Counties, And States
Took The Lead From Cities Like Hazleton, PA
And Farmers Branch, Texas
And Maricopa County, AZ
And The State Of Colorado
ie :
Passed Laws Against HIRING ILLEGAL ALIENS
And RENTING To ILLEGAL ALIENS
Restricted State And Federal Funding
(Health, Education, And Welfare Benefits)
From Non-Citizens
The Federal Government Would Have NO CHOICE
But To Federally Blanket The Nation
With Similar Restrictions And Laws

WE THE PEOPLE At A Local Level
(City, County, State )
Definitely Have The Majority

Agree Or Disagree ??



Reason of Violation:Chatting & Personal Communications

I KNOW This Question Should NOT Have Been Deleted
I'm, NOT Looking For An Eplaination WHY It Was Deleted
Or HOW
I Already Know Who, Why, And How

Answer The Question Please

Answer 1

True - I never thought the cities & states would have to pass laws to protect us from our own federal government! Scary, isn't it?

Answer 2

I do not understand why this question would have been deleted, but I agree with statement that the federal government would have to blanket the nation with similar laws and restrictions, but perhaps not for the reason that you might think. The federal government does not have to answer to any state or local government. And the federal government already has jurisdiction in the area of immigration.

However, since we have a representative republic form of government, if ENOUGH local governments adopted such laws, assuming that they were adopted under pressure/input from the public/local citizenry all over the country, the members of Congress who serve those areas would feel compelled to respond to such pressure from their constituents, as well, and so you would see the result indicated.

So, while you are not correct in the statement that WE THE PEOPLE at the local level definitely have the majority, it is true that we the people at the local level CAN have the majority, if enough local areas all agree on the same thing (which rarely happens).

Answer 3

Should not have been deleted. To answer your original one, I pretty much agree. This country was built on State and local authority being the final word. States don't just have the right, but the constitutional duty to set it's own rules.
Under the 10th Amendment the federal gov't has no right to override State immigration law. It can be done, but we the people gotta show the testicular fortitude to fight the federal gov't on constitutional grounds.
I can bet why you were reported. You stated facts, and facts are things leftists hate best. Like garlic on a vampire.

Answer 4

disagree because so far all those places you mentioned with the exception of FB have done nothing.I mean the ordinances were passed but its has all been tied up in court now.so i ask what is the victory there? aside from maybe using the residents' tax money to pay for attorneys costs to get permission so they can be put into effect. the only way this will ever change is for the Federal government to do something otherwise its just giving away money to attorneys so they can become richer and wasting money that could otherwise be used in to benefit that community in a different manner.If the people in those counties wanted those ordinances to pass so badly why isn't that they are using their own money to pay the attorney costs?

Answer 5

Agree

Answer 6

Agree

Answer 7

I agree that it is a good start for solving what the Federal government refuses to address.

Answer 8

i agree 100% they have no want to become citizens they just want the tax money at the end of the year for all the kids they got!

Answer 9

The laws are already there. The federal government is doing what ever they want to do.They are not asking us for advice.

Answer 10

If all the cities and states did that, the federal government would sue them for some idiotic reason.