Trump's Raids are meant to terrorize Americans. So I decided to help stop this.

When they say "universal health" they mean universal--like everyone on the planet. They demand the west pay for it too.

 

EVERYONE under the jurisdiction of the Law of the Land has the Constitutional Rights stipulated in the OP irrespective of residency status.

 

"Some" politicians? Like 20 DNC presidential candidates. Kamala's open border policy is already on full display in California. Kamala's state not only enacted sanctuary law, but enacted health care laws tyat extend medicaid to illegals. (D)'s want "medicaid for all" and illegals aren't excluded. Liz Warren says "decriminalize" illegal border crossings. Meaning illegals may never become citizens but they can stay as long as they like. (D)'s = open borders, and if they enact the proposals they're floating the $100bn illegals cost taxpayers annually will balloon to almost $1 tn. Health care ain't cheap.

 

Again, non of that is open border policy. It's after the fact policy of those that have been here. In many cases almost their entire lives.
So, more RW BS.

 

More obstinant denial of reality on your part. DNC = open borders. In words and deeds the DNC promotes illegal immigration 24 / 7 ... Nothing in the way of streamlining the "path to citizenship" though. I guess they must have hatched a scheme to tax illegals without representing them. Gerrymandering a couple House seats by virtue of a resident illegal population doesn't seem like enough incentive to wreck public schools, bankrupt medicaid, and break US labor unions. The DNC must have found a way to monetize illegal aliens.

 

Obeying the law is different than enforcing it. If sanctuary cities can claim immigration and all that encompasses it are the sole purview of the federal government, so can corporations.

Have you actually read the Constitution? There's actually a whole list of rights that protect the citizen. Perhaps politics isn't your forte...

 

So, if you're right (you aren't), how come the Orange Oaf hasn't prosecuted any state officials?

I taught American history.

But nothing that would allow a corporation or other business the right to ignore a law against hiring illegals.

I've run political campaigns and led community fights. You? I don't think so.

 

The legitimacy of 'sanctuary cities' is not yet settle through the courts. It would be premature to arrest and charge local officials at this point. There are of course others who are actively attempting to aid and abet illegal aliens in this country and those people should be arrested and charged. Of course that would set off liberals like you, and the law would become secondary to the PC agenda and false optics that media would create.

You taught American history? At what level? From what I've seen if you really want American history look to books, because the sanitized PC version taught is our schools is farce that leaves out so much crucial information as to be utterly worthless.

It is not for corporations or businesses to determine who is or isn't legal, that falls to the federal government according to liberals and sanctuary city advocates.

Community fights against what? The Constitution? I have spent my days in the private sector and only have limited campaign experience, but that certainly does not mean its beyond my comprehension...

 

You're clutching at straws. States are refusing to devote their tax dollars to enforcing federal laws.

For what? Refusing to use state funds to enforce federal law?

If they're violating the law, yes.

See above. Also, I'm not a liberal, but I'm also not a Trumpite because I think Trump is a malignant narcissist.

Whatever this means.

I rather doubt you have a good idea of what's taught in K-12. At the senior high level, we have university level courses in history where the curriculum is set by universities. There is a lot of watering down by state departments of education in setting curricula, and some agenda pushing, as often by conservatives as it is by liberals.

No, the courts determine what is and isn't legal.

Against a $2b in today's money "sanitary landfill" (aka "garbage dump") supported by twenty cities. It took more than two years to pound the nail in the coffin of a bad idea. Yes, we need landfills, but they should be located in arid regions.

Don't be absurd.

I don't know about you personally, but there is much truth in what you say. Citizens have every right and reason to be involved in government.

 

If states need not devote their tax dollars to enforce federal laws, I fail to see how that burden could be placed on private companies using private monies. I still don't understand how anyone can defend sanctuary cities and then expect non-government entities to somehow pick up that slack without looking like total hypocrites.

Trump wasn't my first choice, I was a Cruz supporter. Cruz lost, and the most important thing that remained was the courts, and that wasn't a choice at all. Allowing Hillary to choose who would set legal/Constitutional precedent for a generation or supporting Trump for president wasn't about him, but the future of America. Those who were childishly against Trump because their candidate failed, were willing to give Hillary the courts. To me that is unforgivable and only liberals or their allies would do such a thing to America.

I graduated K-12 with honors, so I actually do know a bit about what was taught to me. Every graduate should have some clue, or do you think all your students are too stupid to understand what you teach them? What was taught 20-30 years ago is a lot different that what is taught now. It has been sanitized and it continues in many universities as well. This country is losing its history to a PC inclusionist agenda, it should sadden every patriotic American.

Some might say fighting that landfill only made you a NIMBY, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Although, seriously, is there arid land anywhere around where you live? Or did you expect someone else to shoulder that problem?

 

States do have rights in our federal system. The Constitution says so. Corporations have a different, more limited and less protected set of rights.

There is no sanctuary. The federal government is unencumbered when enforcing federal law.

I expected more from honors students and those in my economics classes.

What is an "inclusionist agenda?" Should some of us be excluded? Who? When? On what basis?

The two square miles they wanted to use are worth a lot of money today. When everyone woke up to the fact that using future urban space for a landfill didn't make sense, the option of building a garbage dump in an urban area was off the table forever.

100 miles away, the town that gets less than 10” of rain a year wanted the dump. They've had it for 30+ years.

 

You were afraid for the second amendment being taken away?