Mayor Paul Soglin called it "reckless":
“The consequences of declaring the offices a safe space can be disastrous.... We have made the point that we are a sanctuary city. We are committed to justice. The law is on our side. Let us avoid a futile gesture that that may make us feel good but that does not add to the sanctity of our position and only creates enormous risk."Sanctity?? "Sanctity" means holiness. Maybe Soglin sees it as the adjective that goes with "sanctuary." [ADDED: Another — better? — word is "sanctimoniousness."]
City attorney Michael May said language on the Trump executive orders and safe place is new, but the rest of the proposal is existing policy and practice, even though some of what’s existing isn’t written down. The safe space language is so vague that it’s essentially “meaningless,” May said, adding, “I see it as aspirational.”Well, that's certainly reassuring. The city's lawyer says it's meaningless.
Nothing like meaninglessness to make you feel safe.
Posts
61 comments:
Translation: "Don't send the crazies to MY office!"
But the Madison Mayor probably sees City Hall as a church. The church of Big Government. Haven't liberals replaced God with government?
Could Milo go there without people in masks assaulting their political opponents or are only some thoughts safe there?
Sanctity is the right word, after all progressivism is a religion to these clowns. They are they believe the righteous in the most fundamentalist way.
Every should buy the homeless bus tickets to Madison, include new immigrants from Honduras. It won't take long for the plumbing to backup.
"Sanctity??" Faux question marks, right? I mean, you know better than anyone that progs have adopted the holier-than-thou posture for a long time now. They may not have religion, but they do Believe.
"From this day forward no Federal arrest warrant shall be enforced where the subject is ensconced within a domicile subject to the authority of the City of Madison in Wisconsin."
even though some of what’s existing isn’t written down.
We're good at making shit up!!
Next up --Milo buys property in Madison so he can attend city council meetings.....zaniness ensues.
8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
Mandatory safe space? where you can go in and claim the current occupants are making you feel unsafe so they have to leave?
939.05 Parties to crime
Let's start throwing Democrats in jail, along with the illegal aliens they are harboring.
So the city is a sanctuary city which is supposed to be safe for its citizens but when there is the talk of making their offices a sanctuary or safe space, it suddenly creates risks for those who work in the offices that could be disastrous? Do they not see the hypocrisy?
"It’s likely that, even amid Trump’s intimidation tactics, many cities will maintain their sanctuary status, since a large percentage of their workforce and entrepreneurial base are undocumented, and deporting these immigrants would be economically ruinous."
I'd wonder what provides the Council the right to determine who can inhabit government buildings.
Crazy time
So the City will ensure that residents *are* safe, not just that they *feel* safe. So if somebody gets hurt, liability will arise.
I envision a baby blanket flying on the municipal flagstaff, and city social workers bearing carafes of warm milk.
The Democrats are trying to flip Wisconsin back to the Democratic Party.
Establishing sanctuary cities for illegal aliens might be a winning issue for them.
"We are a sanctuary city! But we're not having that filth in our offices and hallways! Are you nuts?! We are a sanctuary city SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY!"
"It’s likely that, even amid Trump’s intimidation tactics, many cities will maintain their sanctuary status, since a large percentage of their workforce and entrepreneurial base are undocumented, and deporting these immigrants would be economically ruinous."
It seems like the question of whether federal law predominates or not was settled pretty decisively in 1865.
I think the City Council doesn't want any of that evil "political" speech that riles people up. Can't have that in City Hall, can we?!?!?!!
When you've lost Paul Soglin...
Another twilight zone. Progressives are notoriously Pro-Choice.
Geez, is that the old Chicago thug Paul Soglin of 60's Miffland fame? He's now the mayor? Good luck!
What about Richard Spencer?
Would he protected if he ran in there with a pack of Nazi punchers hot on his tail?
Asking for a friend.
“The consequences of declaring the offices a safe space can be disastrous.... We have made the point that we are a sanctuary city. We are committed to justice. The law is on our side. Let us avoid a futile gesture that that may make us feel good but that does not add to the sanctity of our position and only creates enormous risk."
Don't worry Madisonians, that's just the weed talkin'.
"It seems like the question of whether federal law predominates or not was settled pretty decisively in 1865."
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Mike Sylwester said...
The Democrats are trying to flip Wisconsin back to the Democratic Party.
Establishing sanctuary cities for illegal aliens might be a winning issue for them."
They're likely to lose the black voters in Madison. Well, at least two out of the three.
Wouldn't it make more sense to pass a law that instead of going in the city hall you just yell, "Ollie Ollie Oxen Free!" wherever you are and you're good.
So I can live there and not pay rent?
"The Madison City Council considers a resolution that would "Designate City Council offices as a safe space, where all residents may enter and be safe and protected.""
Klanners? Neo-nazis? Mad men on a shooting spree? Sign-waving anti-abortionists? Scimitar-swinging jihadists?
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/
The extreme political left is going to great, and even illegal, lengths to defend its bubble.
Meade is simpatico with Victor Davis Hanson. VDH calls those sanctuary cities the Confederacy. More people should do so. "The Confederate State of California."
@ Meade
The interesting thing here is that we are dealing with something that is not an enumerated power of Congress, one that is therefore specifically left to the states by the 10th amendment, a power in fact that os even mentioned in the cnstitution as specoficallu being a state power, and one, that, as far as know, no court has ever decided Congress has.
Congress has been held to have plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden, but where does it get the power to deport anyone against the wishes of a state, or forbid their employment?
The power that Congress has in this field is derivative of its power to regulate foreign commerce, and might also possibly, in some cases, be derivative of the war power or the power to provide for the common defense.
Meade @ 6:54:
Are you saying the illegal aliens are too big to fail in sanctuary cities?
Congress has been held to have plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden, but where does it get the power to deport anyone against the wishes of a state, or forbid their employment?
Arizona was prevented from enforcing immigration laws against the wishes of Obama. That's the same here.
Article I Section 8 of the United States constitution gives Congress power over...
Naturalization.
But not immigration.
Article I, Section 8 Clause 4:
The Congress shall have Power... To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
The Tenth Amendment to the United states constitution says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Not only that, but immigation is specifically mentioned as a state power in Article I, Section 9, Clase 1:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
That does indicate some power of Congress, but it is undoubtably derivative
of the power to regulate foreign commerce.
It's the same thing with regard to bankrutpcy. The power to make bankruoptcy laws does not carry with it he power to write a commercial code.
It was actually enviosned at the time that customs inspections might be done by the states:
Article I, section 10, clause 2:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or
Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary
for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties
and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the
Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be
subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
I think you can make a very good case Congress cannot bar someone from the country whom a state wants to admit, or at least it cannot expel them once they are here, or once they were admitted on whatever basis.
And Judge Neil Gorsuch, being an originalist and a textualist, is just the judge to join a Supreme Court majority ruling so, particularly of there really is a strong ccntroversy, so it's not like you can just dismiss it and say apage of history os worth a pound of logic.
But he's probably not the one to wrote an opinion as a case may come up around 2021 to 2023.
Justice Clarence Thomas will write the opinion of the court..
Arizona was prevented from enforcing immigration laws against the wishes of Obama.
Well, first of all, it is not an Arizona law but a federal law. if it was an Arizona law, then maybe it might be different.
Arizona probably can exclude non-citizens and no other state can make a person a citizen - and we can say maybe Congress can make a persons half citizens. But Arizona can only exclude people from the state, not the country.
The question here, though, is whether the federal law is constitutional.
It's the same question as Halbig.
Don't be silly, Professor, asking about the actual merits of the thing is mean-spirited. What matters is the INTENTIONS expressed.
Damn, the democrats never learn. First we had to free their slaves. Then we han to desegregate their schools. Then we had to end Jim Crow. Now this. Democrats never get tired of losing to the Feds.
I was tempted to say that the Madison City Council occupies 7700 square feet which is surrounded on all four sides by the City of Madison. Which in turn is 77 square miles surrounded by reality.
I was tempted to say that.
But the Madision City Council actually considered that, and declined an ordinance to that effect:
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/madison-city-council-refuses-square-miles-surrounded-by-reality-as/article_1e48686b-6a7e-5846-a360-31b734acbc59.html
If immigration law is aggressively enforced outside of sanctuary cities then, inevitably, said cities will be magnets for illegals with an inevitable increase in crime, homelessness, lower wages, unemployment, crappier schools, and strained social services. Trump doesn't need to challenge the sanctuary cities, he needs to make sure the illegals know where they are. Sounds like a self-correcting issue.
I have sent them a list of nations which do NOT have extradition treaties with the USA.
So where are the safe spaces in Chicago?
"..this situation calls for a really futile and stupid gesture. And we're just the guys to do it." - Madison City Council
Barry:
Morgues.
We have made the point that we are a sanctuary city. We are committed to justice. The law is on our side.
Progthink.
Lincoln's war cry wasn't "save the constitution," it was "save the union."
War is war, not politics. The Missouri legislature fled rather than face union troops. It voted to secede. The feds claimed it did not have a quorum to do that, the Missourians said they did. Lincoln had troops in Saint Louis. History books say Missouri did not secede -- which, BTW,put them in the odd position of being a slave state that was theoretically in the Union (Maryland was in this position too, I believe).The lesson: soldiers trump (hah!) the constitution.
It’s likely that, even amid Trump’s intimidation tactics, many cities will maintain their sanctuary status, since a large percentage of their workforce and entrepreneurial base are undocumented, and deporting these immigrants would be economically ruinous."
What kind of entrepreneurial base?
... so if I bring a sleeping bag or whatever, can sleep there? or is it just safe and sanctuary-ized during regular business hours?
Sammy, read the whole thing. That provision has explicit time limit on it.
It reminds me of "Safe Place." I've seen these signs in fast-food restaurants. Bojangles? I think it was Bojangles.
From the Wikipedia article:
National Safe Place (doing business as National Safe Place Network) is a non-profit organization based out of Louisville, Kentucky. It originated in 1983 from an initiative known as "Project Safe Place",[1] established by a short-term residential and counseling center for youth 12 to 17.[2] The organization is intended to provide access to immediate help and support for children and adolescents who are "at risk" or in crisis situations.[3] The purpose is to both defuse a potential crisis situation as well as provide immediate counsel and support so the child in crisis may be directed to an appropriate shelter or accredited care facility.
Businesses and community buildings such as fire stations and libraries are designated as "Safe Place" sites. Any youth in crisis can walk into one of the nearly 20,000 Safe Places across the country and ask an employee for help. These locations display the yellow, diamond-shaped Safe Place sign on their location. Inside, employees are trained and prepared to assist any young person asking for help. Youth who go to a Safe Place location are quickly connected to the nearby youth shelter. The shelter then provides the counseling and support necessary to reunify family members and develop a plan to address the issues presented by the youth and family.
Safe Place = Safe Space.
So that's the first question I have: why are you talking to adults like they are children?
"The Madison City Council considers a resolution that would "Designate City Council offices as a safe space, where all residents may enter and be safe and protected."
If I was homeless I would start camping out in the mayor's office.
If I was here illegally and I had a job and an apartment--or a house--why the hell would I risk deportation?
On the positive side, maybe Steven Spielberg will shoot the sequel in Madison, Wisconsin.
That movie is apparently based on real events.
I was struck by this part: The Guardian indicates that Spielberg's DreamWorks production company paid US$250,000 to Nasseri for rights to his story
I think at that point I would stop living at the airport!
I was also struck by...
his 18-year-long stay at Terminal 1 in the Charles de Gaulle Airport
As a general rule, when a bunch of communists offers you safe harbor, you should run the other way.
Arizona probably can exclude non-citizens and no other state can make a person a citizen - and we can say maybe Congress can make a persons half citizens. But Arizona can only exclude people from the state, not the country.
They'd have to enter the country to enter Arizona. Allowing them in permanently de facto naturalization. That needs to be stopped. Or else you'll see states decide that gun control laws only need to be followed if they so choose to do so. I mean, if a lunatic from Chicago wants to drive to my state and buy guns --- why, EXACTLY, should they not be sold to them if my state is a sanctuary state for guns?
Blogger Meade said...
"It’s likely that, even amid Trump’s intimidation tactics, many cities will maintain their sanctuary status, since a large percentage of their workforce and entrepreneurial base are undocumented, and deporting these immigrants would be economically ruinous."
Politically ruinous as well, since illegal aliens constitute an important voting block for the Democratic party.
What really worries Mayor Soglin:
"Municipalities that violate the law would be subject to a loss of $500 to $5,000 a day in state funding."
If it is declared a "safe space", does that mean I don't have to worry about stepping in human feces there?
When that city clerk defied the feds about gay wedding licenses, she was the devil, but when a whole city does it, they are wonderful? At least with the individual we can say she didn't know better or was making a virtue point or something. Cities are supposed to have lawyers.
Post a Comment