States’ Rights or State Defiance? The Cost to American Citizens
The Erosion of Constitutional Governance: States Prioritizing Non-Citizens Over American Citizens
The principle of states' rights has been a foundational element of American governance, allowing states to tailor policies to the unique needs of their populations. However, recent developments have highlighted a concerning trend where certain states and localities are enacting policies that not only undermine federal laws but also prioritize non-citizens over American citizens.
A particularly alarming example is the establishment of "sanctuary cities," where local governments have chosen to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies like ICE. These jurisdictions argue that such policies protect immigrant communities and foster trust in local law enforcement. However, critics contend that these sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design.
Moreover, some states have taken steps that directly contravene federal immigration laws. For instance, Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the loss of $6.9 million in homeland security funding, arguing that the funding cuts were a result of their refusal to reallocate core local resources to support federal immigration enforcement policies.
Additionally, the Justice Department has published a list of sanctuary jurisdictions, asserting that these localities impede federal immigration enforcement through alleged "sanctuary jurisdiction characteristics." These include laws that restrict information sharing between local police and federal immigration agencies or restrict funding to support immigration enforcement, as well as policies that grant non-citizens access to certain public benefits like driver’s licenses.
While the Tenth Amendment protects states' rights, it does not grant them the authority to disregard federal laws. The federal government has a vested interest in ensuring that immigration laws are enforced uniformly across the nation. When states and localities choose to ignore these laws, they not only undermine federal authority but also erode the constitutional framework that binds the nation together.
In conclusion, while states' rights are a vital component of American democracy, they must not be exercised in ways that contravene federal laws or prioritize non-citizens over American citizens. It is imperative that all levels of government work collaboratively to uphold the Constitution and ensure that the rights and safety of American citizens are not compromised.No one is impeding anything... These are talking points and do not match the reality on the ground. American citizens are being brutalized by ice goons.... For what? A few people showing up to protest? This is performative bullshit... Americans don't support the theater that's going on in Portland and Chicago.
Americans are not that stupid.
One state invading another sovereign state? You have to be freaking kidding me
Very strange how protests and chaos starts after you send the military. Almost as if the military being there is what’s causing it."Willowarbor" is not even a legitimate Hubber: https://hubpages.com/@willowarbor
Linda,
Welcome! It is nice to hear a new voice.
I agree with you. Willowabor hasn't written any articles for years and only comes on to voice her opinions. Contributes nothing and takes everything. Not surprised.I haven't written any articles for years either. I also only come to voice an opinion. By your standards, I'm also an illegitimate 'taker.'
Geesh. That's not a flattering look.
GANo, you've written 47 articles. That is 47 articles circulating on the web gaining clicks and providing money for you and for Hubpages
So, you see, it is different than going on this site for years and producing NO articles.Nope, I've written 187 articles over 4 user names. Does that make me more entitled than you thought?
Considering the really bad article submissions we've both seen over the years, that's not a good measure for me.
GAGA, I think we’ve beaten this horse enough. Do you have anything to add to the actual topic of my thread?
Why are you attacking Willowarbor? Her points are poignant as far as I am concerned and the only reason that you are after her is that she reflects contrary points of view. What relevance is her participation in other aspects of hub-pages have to do with her forum participation? I never got after you rightwing folks over anything other than the content of your posts. Other wise, it is pretty small morsel to gnaw on in regards to a grievance.
"I never got after you rightwing folks over anything other than the content of your posts."
How many have zero articles?
Articles provide income to the sight. It is the way people on this forum contribute to keeping the forum going.
Zero articles mean contributing zero to the site or the forum.
That is taking without giving.
Is this something the left promotes?The problem, Mike, is that your angst over this matter is irrelevant. I would much rather have more forum participants whether they pen articles or not. Contribution to the discussion points is contributing as far as I am concerned. And you are free to disagree.
“Taking without giving” is false equivalency in this case. I have not written an article in over 10 years, do I forfeit my right to participate in the forums?
The Right is good at obfuscating and equivocating as an excuse to attack a rival concealing their real intent and purpose. You folks do it all of the time.Cred,
You have written 95 articles.
That are article that are getting clicks and getting money for you & the company.
Let whoever wants to post here post with or without having produced articles.
Not having written any articles does say something about the reason to be here.Mike, the reason to be here is to intelligently engage in spirited debates, that is reason enough for me.
The articles I have had been written so long ago that many simply are no longer relevant.
I certainly have not become rich from any of this and do not see economics as a compelling reason to insist that forum participants have to pen articles. Who knows, maybe the spirit has not moved her as of yet?Same here... Many of my articles were originally penned almost a decade ago...
Sadly many being prophetic almost... when the title is 'The End of America' and you understate the problems to come... It's not exactly something that instills hope or pride.Yep, you were always a conspiracy theorist. ;-)
Along those lines, I recall a thread exchange with PrettyPanther and IslandMom (years ago) when the 'bathroom issue' was a national controversy.
I was complaining about the issue, about what it would lead to. PrettyPanther asked why I was worried about it, it was only about kids using bathrooms. I answered with prophecy.
Looking back ... A female Secretary, testifying before a Congressional committee, can't define what a woman is; and the rest of your often noted examples, were proof of that prophecy. As you said, it's not very gratifying to be even close to 'prophetic' about this stuff.
GAYup... I have come a long way from those days... I am much closer to this level of wisdom and understanding now:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/D2diZhSXiMgTake the first exit you can. You don't want to go Carlin's way. It's not coming from wisdom; it's coming from arrogance. It's coming from his position of personal, societal, and financial security. It's nihilistic. I like his humor, but his 'wisdom' sucks.
2026 will probably be the 'Year of the Pendulum Peak.' By mid-campaign season, we might get some answers to the Paycom question: "Was that really necessary?"
Yep, mid-August 2026 will a braking point that should slow the swing. Lots of silver linings in that line of thought. None in Carlin's.
GAWell, the gave up on humanity part I will give you.
The detached from groups, political or corporate or religious...
I was at a Bar Mitzvah last weekend and the service was incredible, the unity of that community, the words/topics of the Rabbi and others, the sections of the Torah that were chosen... the experience was insightful, illuminating, uplifting... for me.
That is what faith is for, to bring people together, to give them a common belief and understanding of the world around them... guidelines for life, right and wrong, family and purpose, to lift up others, to do better...
What do people have (probably half of the country is not tied to a community church or temple or Mosque) in atheism or extreme feminism, or extreme racism (including extreme anti-racism) these things are destructive, they are hateful, they need to blame someone else for their problems, for the worlds problems... they work to destroy others... they do not uplift, they do not give hope... they separate and destroy community.
There are bad priests... there are bad politicians... one should never zealously devote oneself to a faith... a party... a ideology... they are all flawed because they are all run by humans... good and bad.
Family... Community... trying to make the world a better place for all, not going to get those things from atheism, communism or fifth wave feminism... in fact, it is the goal of those things to destroy family and community.
That is why we must consider much of what has gathered under the 'progressive' umbrella of the Dem Party the 'enemy within', something that must be defeated, not tolerated, not compromised with.
I am not yet sure of when we will see the Pendulum Peak... it depends on how many Americans are left that are made up of 'The Right Stuff' ... who will stand up and do the right things to save their families, their communities and their country... or if there are even enough Americans left who have been brought up to understand the values of those things, and who also have not succumbed to the brain rotting nonsense fed to them by the likes of CNN and MSNBC.
Whelp... time will tell... the next 3 years will be when this radical extremism is put in check... or it will prove to be the last hurrah of the sane and patriotic, at least at the Federal level of government.Yes, it was the 'give up on humanity' part that lit a simmering fuse. I was a Carlin fan in his early to mid-years, but when he took on the 'humanity is bad' position, in his later years, he lost me.
Your point about 'groups' is right.
My faith in 2026 as a moderating event is due to that mentioned PayCom question: Was that necessary?
I think a lot of Republican folks will be challenging the methods, not the goals, but the methods of the administration.
It's not unrealistic to consider (for some) if the university and visa crackdowns, or the purge of 'deep state' actors, or the ICE actions, or the tariffs, etc. needed to be as blunt-force driven as they have been.
Emotionally, things do look like they went too far. Factually and realistically, it's too soon for me to figure out. Maybe a shock treatment like these 9 months is the only way to get there. *shrug*
I think the 2026 candidates will bring some focus to that 'was it necessary' question.
Your description of the Bar Mitzvah experience is why I'm such an optimist. Those types of group experiences are the America that I see.
GAThings look like they went too far 'emotionally' because the Main Stream Media has magnified every event, fabricated them, and done everything within their power to villainize everything the Trump Administration has done.
All the while hiding as many horrible events as possible (IE - the Ukrainian girl mercilessly slaughtered on a public train while people stood by recording the event on their phones)... that was one of the rare tragedies that they couldn't make disappear after days of trying to ignore it.
All the while ignoring every good deed or accomplishment of the Trump Administration, IE - the near stoppage of illegal migration across the border... from millions per year under Biden... to a couple hundred thousand.
I know you are a smart guy... but the more you expose yourself to the nonsense that the likes of CNN and MSNBC put out there, the more it DOES impact your views on what is going on.
In REALITY the Trump Administration has barely made a dent, yet, in stopping or reversing the trends that have had decades to get their roots deep into the American fabric of society... corporate, political, courts... it is not one thing.
Judges for example...
As of March 2025, approximately one-third of the active district judges in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia were born outside the U.S.
The judge who released the murderer of the Ukrainian woman in NC... Magistrate Judge Teresa Stokes, is not even a lawyer... I'm willing to bet she knows less about law than I do.
Our Justice system, including AGs at all levels... is filled with activists and incompetent individuals... the same goes for the entire Federal Government system... if they aren't beholden to corporations like Pfizer they are 'Progressive' ideologues out to "resist" the POTUS and the Citizens of America that want him to do the very things he is attempting to do.
The Trump Administration has been held up by Judges, non-compliant State Governors, by City Mayors, while ceaselessly being under constant barrage by a Media that is in bed with Open Borders, Globalism, Corporate Greed and wants the destruction of America as you and I know it.To your media point, you're singing to the choir. I agree.
But it is all the MSM, not just the Left-leaning ones. Also, I check in on the main ones every day. I already know what their presentation will be, so I'm just looking at the headline issues, not their 'substance or expertise.' I don't do much YouTube, but of what I have seen, there is as much biased junk as there is good stuff. It gets the same treatment as MSM.
Examples like yours (judges, etc.) are everywhere, but so are counterexamples. So, which one is the real problem? Are our eyes telling the truth, or are we only seeing through the keyhole (oh damn, look at me, waxing philosophically)? I can't answer that PayCom question yet, so I can't be sure, can I?
But I can lean, and you're getting more Amens than 'hold ons'. Hell, you've even gotten a nod ot two from Cred.
GAYou are correct about Youtube... but you can be selective in what you watch.
You can listen to experts (rather than talking heads on MSM) discuss topics in depth on Youtube.
An example of the difference:
MSNBC: Worrying signs for the economy amid Trump's 'utterly inane and insane' dismantling of BLS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq1Kv9jQops
Federal Workers Fired Amid Government Shutdown | Balance of Power
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdL3YdD … dL3YdDw3Zc
MSNBC... total garbage. Bloomberg... much better, but really not worth the time.
VS experts and independent analysis found on YouTube:
Peterson Institute: Global Economic Prospects: Fall 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k78oGXBaEK8
TLDR: America's Reindustrialization Isn’t Happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjlmYQhwlp4
Which two offer a better insight into what is happening with our economy and why?
I only have so much time in the day to spend digesting "News" ... nothing the Main Stream Media offers is worth my daily interest or attention.
I recently attended an evangelical funeral and it was eye-opening, The funeral was for the wife of a man up the street whose wife finally succumbed to long covid. They are/were evangelical and both very accomplished in their ministries. My wife has taken to preparing him some meals since he was spending almost all his time with his wife before she died. My wife will continue to do so.
Without a doubt the comradery was there and their devotion was unquestionable - there was a lot of random arm(s) raising and fingers pointing to the sky, something i have never witnessed before, but then I am not a church goer, let alone an evangelical one.
The thing I found most disappointing is that less than half the time (almost 2 hours) was devoted to remembering his wife. A lot of time was spent praising the husband and the rest praising Jesus.
What was nice to see was how many people stood up or came to the stage to say something nice about the wife, many more than were expected.
That said, it was evident they were all living in the straight-jacket of their faith which, of course, is fine so long as they don't annoy others with it. They live in a country that allows that. But that kind of blind devotion is something i cannot accept, which is also my right even though there are those who want to take that away from me or try to make me feel guilty about that.So it's fine as long as they don't annoy others with it. Well bless your heart, that's mighty white of you.
Look at your story a little differently. You saw camaraderie, devotion to a faith, and way of life. You heard of their (she and he) successful accomplishments. You saw the social and emotional benefits of the gathering, you saw all the good you mentioned, and your conclusion was that "it was evident they were all living in the straight-jacket of their faith."
Geesh.
GAIt's amusing when someone thinks they are countering your points... But their efforts instead confirm them... or meander in the effort.
GA is better at sticking the dart than I am, noting the lack of comprehension in a way that is not offensive.
Which, as I said, is perfectly fine. I just don't want all the strings that come with it.
I did good... I restrained myself.
After all, his posts speak for themselves.You did good. We never have to eat words we didn't say.
You have to watch out for MyEsoteric, he's a bit tricky. He's usually standing on firm ground, relative to his point (that's the trickiness), but that ground is ground he wants to make the focus. And that almost always means skipping ahead.
Plus, too many times it's not the same point I started with (his usually come a step or two past mine). We'll get there, just not in a leap. Most times, it turns out the leap wasn't needed anyway.
GA ;-)If you say so...
I see something different. The complete avoidance, disregard, dismissal, or ignoring of facts or quotes that cannot be easily refuted (if at all)... making discussion or debate rather nonsensical at best.
Or the twisting of what you state... to then disprove what you stated.. when it isn't what you stated... for example:
In one of my responses to you I was admonishing the Main Stream Media and one paragraph stated:
All the while hiding as many horrible events as possible (IE - the Ukrainian girl mercilessly slaughtered on a public train while people stood by recording the event on their phones)... that was one of the rare tragedies that they couldn't make disappear after days of trying to ignore it.
To which Eso then posted (up above):
about the Ukrainian girl that was killed:
You're right that mainstream outlets like CNN and MSNBC often frame Trump-era stories critically, which can amplify negative angles and contribute to a polarized view. But the idea that they've "fabricated" events or systematically hidden horrors doesn't fully hold up—coverage is messy, but it's there, and selective emphasis cuts both ways.
Take the heartbreaking case of Iryna Zarutska, the 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee stabbed to death in an unprovoked attack on a Charlotte light rail train on August 22, 2025. Bystanders did record the incident without intervening, sparking outrage over public safety and "bystander effect."
SOURCE - cnn.com
Far from burying it, major outlets covered it extensively: CNN aired the surveillance video and delved into policy debates,
So lets review...
On August 22, 2025, Iryna Zarutska was killed at the East/West Boulevard station on the Lynx Blue Line, in Charlotte, North Carolina.
At the national level, there was hardly any mention of the senseless murder for more than two weeks.
It was only due to the spread of the video on social media, especially on X... that it started getting reported on internationally (see below):
https://dailytelegraph.co.nz/world/ukra … -offender/
And then noteworthy persons bringing it up (see below):
https://www.megynkelly.com/2025/09/08/m … rlotte-nc/
That Main Stream Media was essentially forced to cover it, as not doing so made them look even more disingenuous and untrustworthy than most feel already that they are.
CNN's report was on September 8th (see below) the murder was two weeks prior:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/08/us/iryna … ne-refugeeI warned you he was tricky. Just from the information you provided, (I am familiar with the context), he got you. And he did it exactly as I described.
You used a general statement to make a point about a concept: the one you described. I agree with your point, and I think it's generally correct if the inference was as a trend or as a pattern or a bias. But you slipped. You left it as an inference that it was a fact that none of them covered it at all.
All MyEsoteric had to do was rebut with one factual example, and your point became a publicly refuted non-fact.
Here's how my previous description fits, as I see it:
He was on solid ground because he was factually correct — CNN did run that story blurb.
But his fact didn't address any of the descriptors or qualifiers your point did, ie. the delay in coverage until forced to, etc.. None of the details that define your point. He's talking from a different 'firm' ground.
If you meet his challenge of refutation (fancy, fancy), then he will have moved you from your firm ground to his. You lose.
There is an easy fix. He's big on connecting dots as proof. On this issue, he has one, and you have several. I don't know what your little shoulder-devil might do with that thought, but I bet it'll work. ;-)
GAI see what you are saying.
Moving the framework (ground) of the point being made ... or moving on to a different topic entirely (your 'yeah buts...) unrelated.
Which is why I rarely respond to Eso (and one or two others) with a genuine effort, as there doesn't appear to be interest in debating... rather, their efforts seem geared to discredit the point, the message, or the messenger... in a way that is not a debate of ideas, but assertions that you are wrong, and I am right, and 'Your Mother was a hamster' if you don't accept that.What you seem not to be able to do is present facts that challenge the multitude of facts that show your point of view is wrong or misleading. You appear to respond with broad generalizations and examples that are 90% wrong, as I have proven multiple times.
That is what it boils down to.
I’m glad you had a moving experience at the Bar Mitzvah. I agree, community is powerful. But the rest of your post leans on a bunch of sweeping claims that don’t hold up:
From ChatGPT (with some edits) but I agree with every word.
* False choice about community. Community isn’t owned by religion. People find it in synagogues and churches and in AA meetings, PTA, veterans’ groups, mutual-aid orgs, sports leagues, book clubs, and civic nonprofits. Secular ≠ anti-community.
* Morality isn’t monopoly-licensed. Atheists and believers alike volunteer, donate, raise families, and care for neighbors. There’s no evidence that disbelief makes people less ethical; it just means they ground ethics in human rights rather than scripture.
* Caricatures ≠ arguments. “Extreme feminism,” “communism,” “anti-racism” as family-destroyers is a bundle of straw men. Mainstream feminism is about equal legal, economic, and bodily autonomy. Anti-racism is about removing barriers so families can thrive. None of that requires attacking faith or family.
* Pluralism, not purges. Calling fellow Americans an “enemy within” because they vote differently is exactly the anti-community move you warn against. The country is designed to hold many worldviews at once; the test is whether we can argue policy without excommunicating half the country.
* Media brain-rot is a two-way street. If you think CNN/MSNBC spin, fine—critique them. But swapping one cable tribe for another isn’t awakening; it’s just choosing a different echo. The antidote is evidence, not slogans.
* Politics as character test vs. policy test. If your standard is “who uplifts families and communities,” judge by outcomes: safer streets, better schools, affordable health care, living wages, clean air/water. Those are measurement questions, not purity tests. (and NOT what Trump is NOT delivering, quit ethe opposite actually.)
Bottom line: Faith can build community; so can secular institutions. Families don’t need saving from feminism or atheism; they need stable jobs, decent health care, good schools, and a politics that treats opponents as neighbors—not enemies. (None of which is Trump even trying to do.)
If you want unity, start by dropping the blanket condemnations and making a case with facts and policies.
yeah... ChatGPT... regurgitating what it was programmed to tell based on your prompts. I'll see what Grok has to say:
Most feminist ideologies challenge or advocate to dismantle traditional institutions like the nuclear family, gender roles, and societal norms around marriage, parenting, and sexuality.
Extreme feminism—often associated with radical or second-wave feminist strains—promotes ideas that undermine these structures, prioritizing individual autonomy, non-traditional relationships, or collective systems over conventional family units.
Key Ideas Associated with Extreme Feminism’s Approach
Critique of the Nuclear Family:
Some radical feminists argue that the traditional nuclear family (a married heterosexual couple with children) reinforces patriarchal power dynamics. They claim it often subordinates women to roles like homemaker or caregiver, limiting economic and personal freedom.
Thinkers like Shulamith Firestone (in The Dialectic of Sex, 1970) suggested that biological reproduction and traditional family structures tie women to domesticity, advocating for alternative systems like communal child-rearing or technological interventions to free women from these roles.
Context and Origins
Historical Roots:
The ideas tied to "deconstruction" emerged prominently during the second wave of feminism (1960s–1980s), when radical feminists questioned institutions they viewed as patriarchal.
Works like Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique (1963) and later, more radical texts, fueled debates about women’s roles in family and society.
Philosophical Influences:
Marxist and socialist feminism influenced some arguments, viewing the family as a capitalist institution that exploits women’s unpaid labor (e.g., housework, child-rearing). This led to calls for restructuring society to prioritize collective welfare or gender equity.
Criticisms and Counterarguments
Social Stability:
Critics argue that traditional family structures provide stability for children and society. Studies like those from the Institute for Family Studies (2020) suggest children in stable two-parent households often have better educational and emotional outcomes, though causation is debated.
Cultural Erosion:
Some claim extreme feminism’s push against norms risks eroding shared values, leading to social fragmentation or declining birth rates (falling fertility rates in Western nations).
Evolving Norms:
Social changes—like rising divorce rates, same-sex marriage legalization, or women’s workforce participation—aren’t solely driven by feminism but reflect broader economic and cultural shifts.
Key Quotes from Feminism for the 99%: A Manifesto
"The world is in turmoil. From mass protests in Chile, Lebanon, and Iraq to the Yellow Vests in France, from the global climate strikes to the anti-racism mobilizations, from the women’s marches to the #MeToo uprising, a new cycle of revolt is underway. These revolts are not isolated. They are part of a global struggle against a common enemy: neoliberal capitalism. At the heart of this struggle is feminism for the 99%—a feminism that fights against the 1%, the capitalist class that exploits and oppresses the vast majority of the world’s population. This is a feminism that recognizes that the liberation of women cannot be achieved within the confines of capitalism, which relies on the unpaid and underpaid labor of women to reproduce the workforce and sustain the system."
"Liberal feminism offers women a seat at the table of power, but the table itself is built on exploitation. We reject this. Our feminism is for the 99%: the women who clean hotels, sew garments in sweatshops, harvest crops under the sun, and care for the world without pay. It is intersectional, recognizing how race, migration status, and colonialism compound gender oppression under capital. We call for mass women’s strikes—not just symbolic, but disruptive: shutting down schools, factories, and offices to demand free, universal childcare; paid family leave; equal pay; an end to violence against women; and the overthrow of patriarchal capitalism. This is the path to emancipation: not through individual advancement, but collective power. The future is feminist, socialist, and internationalist."
The Plan of Marxist feminism involved initial "acceptance" (often interpreted as gradual integration or infiltration into mainstream institutions) followed by "deconstruction" (dismantling or subversion) of the American system—particularly its capitalist, patriarchal, and familial structures.
This was first laid out in a 1969 memo from the First National Conference on Women's Liberation which outlined a strategy to "invade every American institution" for deconstruction.
The "acceptance then deconstruction" framing draws heavily from Antonio Gramsci's Prison Notebooks (1929–1935), where he proposed a "war of position"—infiltrating civil society (schools, media, family) to build counter-hegemony before political takeover. This evolved into the Frankfurt School's critical theory (e.g., Herbert Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man, 1964), which critiqued consumer capitalism and inspired 1960s radicals. In the U.S., this manifested in feminist pushes for gender studies programs and affirmative action.
I could go on... see how you can use AI ... to frame the answer?
The AI gave me exactly what I asked it to give... it echoed my expectations... and if it did not, I would have framed my query in another way until it did.
So... using ChatGPT to "prove your point" ... proves absolutely nothing.Most feminist ideologies challenge or advocate to dismantle traditional institutions like the nuclear family, gender roles, and societal norms around marriage, parenting, and sexuality.
Extreme feminism—often associated with radical or second-wave feminist strains—promotes ideas that undermine these structures, prioritizing individual autonomy, non-traditional relationships, or collective systems over conventional family units.
To this very day, i cannot figure out what your problem with these concepts is?Yes, I know... that is the problem we often have with debating issues.
I can attempt to put myself in your shoes to try and understand your perspective. Doing so, I am often sympathetic to your position and understand why you come to some of your perspectives/beliefs...
My attempts to have you see my perspective often fall short... I think that is because you feel confident in your beliefs and do not want to challenge them... but that is just my guess.
Still, debating with you on the issues often brings insight... and sometimes makes me re-asses... you are not obtuse or blindly pertinacious... you are extremely firm on your positions, there is a difference.
You recognize reason and facts... while others choose to ignore them and redirect, use belittling words or dismiss sources rather than address facts and alternative opinions.
That doesn't mean the others are not intelligent... it just means they are ideological beyond reason... they are dogmatic to the point of being irrational in their arguments despite being intelligent.
You debate... you do not dismiss... well, not always. We all have bad days where we just say "you all" and "they" when dealing with the opposing political spectrum... but those are our bad days.
------
On to the matter at hand... yes I have a problem with that... because we see what benefits strong community and a good upbringing in a nuclear family can produce.
It is one thing to want to broaden the rights and freedoms of women, it is another for that movement to desire the destruction of the Family model and the destruction of the institutional/social systems that brought humanity to the place that it is today.
To take it even further, to advocate for the disdain and harboring of ill will for the opposite sex (men) within the movement...
I could go with some real winner videos of women expressing hatred for men... but [EDIT] will just throw in this short:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kWMGAkqE824
So... why does it matter?
Does a healthy society matter to you?
Or do you feel the direction things were going in, last year, was a good direction?
You know, the trans, child sex change, qualifications don't matter quotas do direction.
Again... it is one thing to want freedom and equality for all...
It is another to want the destruction of others... it is another to blame others for what you perceive to be injustices done to you and others...
Down with the Patriarchy (men)... down with the Family... for what? What is being offered that is better for humanity and society?My admiration and respect for your determination stand up and support your position regardless. But, we are different people with world views that are different.
I am aware of your positions in this matter, I just can’t see how you can hold on to them with a straight face.
“It is one thing to want to broaden the rights and freedoms of women, it is another for that movement to desire the destruction of the Family model and the destruction of the institutional/social systems that brought humanity to the place that it is today.”
I don’t recognize the feminist movement as threatening the sanctity of traditional family arrangements. I hardly think that asking for equal opportunity and equal pay are extremist goals of the movement. I don’t think that is man hating, do you? I still subscribe to the idea that anyone should be able to do and be anything that they want if they have the aptitude and diligence to succeed. I insist on that for myself, how can I deny it for others? I am not interested in customs, and traditional gender roles, but it is ok for those that want to subordinate themselves to this to do as they like as well. I am speaking of the choice. Reminds me of the Mary Tyler Moore show where her character was a single woman earning her own living, and in 1970 that was radical. Women with a hatred for men are an aberration at best and is not necessarily part of a feminist movement.
It depends what is a “healthy society” my view may well differ from yours.
When it comes to injustices, if the government is responsible for setting the structure and groundwork for the injustice than IT can be held accountable. Just as reparations were in order for Japanese Nisei in the U.S unjustly imprisoned during WWII.
If I believe that things were not going well, it is because of a rising right wing influence in our lives, which I consider a threat on its face.I want to come back to this, at a later point.
If enough evidence of teachers, professors, activists, books, were shown to you that were advocating for the destruction of families... then perhaps we would have a similar foundation that we were judging this on...
It is interesting to me how difficult it can be trying to get others to see the issue at hand, even when sound evidence is provided.
Just as it always astonished me, literally left me perplexed... when considering how Jews did not see what was coming in Germany when Hitler coalesced his power.
Jewish folk are typically well educated and well read... Mein Kampf gave a good idea of what was to come... and yet a vast majority ignored the threat until it was too late.
Anyways... I'd rather focus on this at the moment:
So explain this to me... give solid evidence, examples, done deeds that support this concern you have of this rising right wing threat.
Start somewhere basic... like I am from New Zealand and really have no idea what is going on in America, so that I can better understand your perspective.
Now you can't use CNN or Salon unless they have a lot of solid factual support... none of the "un-named sources" being the backbone of the report. None of the... well this happened in 1864 so it only goes that today Trump is trying to do the same thing opinions.“If enough evidence of teachers, professors, activists, books, were shown to you that were advocating for the destruction of families... then perhaps we would have a similar foundation that we were judging this on...”
I see no “advocation” and even if there were, there is no associated power to stop people from forming the families they want. People advocate things all the time, do you have the power to change things toward what you advocate outside of the will of those who want to do otherwise? The question is whether evidence provided is truly objective and impartial?
Can you blame the Jews for not following or appreciating the ravings of a madman, I am following the one here and he did not need to write a book. The British government and Neville Chamberlain did not take into account Hitler’s manifesto, when attempting to negotiate in the 1930’s. Why would you not expect the same from the average layman?
This is a mouthful, but it reflect my view of a troublesome President. This is my opinion, and always remember, you asked for it.
======
criticisms concerning threats posed by Donald Trump to American life include those related to undermining democratic institutions, inciting political violence, weakening social cohesion, mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic, and altering the federal judiciary. Supporters and critics often hold vastly different views on the nature, severity, and legitimacy of these concerns. Concerns raised frequently cite his rhetoric, policies, and actions, often viewed through a partisan lens.
Threats to democratic institutions
Challenges to election integrity: Trump's persistent questioning of the 2020 election results, his unsubstantiated claims of widespread fraud, and his alleged attempts to pressure election officials to change vote counts are widely cited as an attack on the integrity of the U.S. electoral process. Critics assert this undermined public faith in the peaceful transfer of power.
Incitement of political violence: His rhetoric leading up to and on January 6, 2021, culminating in the attack on the U.S. Capitol, is frequently cited as incitement of political violence. Critics and historians argue this was a direct assault on American democracy.
Undermining the rule of law: Legal experts have accused Trump of undermining the independence of the judiciary and the Department of Justice by criticizing judges who ruled against him and by attempting to install politically loyal figures in key positions.
Concentration of power: Concerns have been raised about his attempts to exert greater control over the executive branch and undermine the traditional checks and balances on presidential power. Critics describe these actions as a form of executive aggrandizement.
Weakening of social cohesion
Divisive rhetoric: Trump's use of inflammatory and nationalistic language is often criticized for exacerbating social divisions, appealing to racial and religious anxieties, and emboldening extremist groups. His rhetoric often employs an "us vs. them" framework, targeting immigrants, minorities, and political opponents.
Attacks on marginalized communities: Civil rights groups document that his rhetoric and policies have led to increased feelings of threat and discrimination among marginalized groups, including immigrants, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community.
Antagonizing media and dissent: Critics contend that his frequent attacks on independent media and journalists undermine the role of a free press and have a "chilling effect" on free speech and dissent.
Mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic
Dissemination of misinformation: Trump is accused of downplaying the severity of the virus, promoting unproven treatments, and contradicting the advice of public health experts like Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Delayed and ineffective response: Critics point to a slow and disorganized initial response, as well as the undermining of federal agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as factors that worsened the pandemic's impact in the U.S.
Politicization of public health: Trump's response is described by many as politicizing public health measures, such as mask-wearing and social distancing, and contributing to confusion and distrust among the public.
Altering the federal judiciary
Confirmation of conservative judges: His judicial appointments, including three Supreme Court justices, have been criticized by civil rights advocates for their potential to roll back hard-won rights related to abortion, LGBTQ+ protections, and voting rights.
Questionable nominations: The American Bar Association found some of Trump's nominees to be "not qualified" due to concerns about their temperament or experience.
Economic and foreign policy concerns
Trade wars and instability: Critics argue that Trump's unilateral trade wars have increased consumer costs and created instability in global markets.
Withdrawal from global agreements: His withdrawal from international agreements on climate and health has been cited as a threat to American leadership and global stability.
It is important to note that these points represent the perspective of critics and some organizations, and supporters of Donald Trump often provide different interpretations or defenses of his actions and policies.
———-
Need I say more? Must I elaborate further?Your first three are home runs, you have solid foundation for them, I would agree that he was neither as Presidential in his handling of these things as I would like... nor used the best ways to present his case... or consider the consequences of his tweets.
Obama before him and Biden after used the power of the Executive Office and EOs to bypass (go around) Congress to get things done that would not pass legal or popular muster (to include using the FBI and DOJ to sabotage the Trump Administration and bog it down in the specter of Russian Conspiracy).
The wrongs done by Obama... Clinton *2015... and Biden you gloss over because you had already accepted Trump as the 21st century Hitler before he was sworn in... you bought into the CNN framing of Trump without question.
That was a great thing... it led to more free speech and people looking elsewhere for their information... the machine lost control of the narrative, people began to see the lies and deception of our government.
And then the lid was blown off of it when Musk bought Twitter and released the Twitter Files... showing the depths of the efforts the FBI and then the Biden Administration were putting into silencing anyone they did not agree with and any facts they wanted to remain hidden.
Obama did the same... and we can see those judges doing legal cartwheels to try and stop every action the Trump Administration takes.
We could see those Judges doing everything to ruin Trump prior to his being elected again.
And then Biden had an activist... more than a legal scholar... put on the Supreme Court during his term.
So... when looking at it from a neutral standpoint... both sides are equally guilty of putting in "their guys"... rather than always the "best most qualified"... wouldn't you agree?I have been meaning to get back to you and your comment here.
The first three “home runs” was enough for me to discredit Trump beyond any of his predecessors.
On the issue of “concentration of power”. It comes down to same problem that I always have with conservatives, the idea of magnitude and frequency matters. In this area, Trump has been the most abusive, hands down. Trump and his background has earned the title of “Hitler” well before he steps off from the escalator, in my opinion. It has nothing to do with CNN, Trumps bigotry and unethical behavior precedes him. I am not going to buy the excuse that muzzling a free press has led to more free speech and people looking elsewhere for their information.
As for the judges, what did Obama do, he was cheated from nominating his choice to fill the seat vacated by the late Antonin Scalia on the excuse from the “old crow” Senate majority leader, that the next president should make the appointment. But upon the death of Justice Ginsburg, they did no such thing, on the eve of Biden’s administration they filled the vacancy on short notice. So, yes, Republicans are treacherous and unprincipled and it is not see by me as “neutral. Trump is in an elective office, he is not a king. Your view of Biden’s choice for the bench; is purely your opinion and quite partisan, and not one that I come close to agreeing with.
No, in my opinion magnitude and frequency makes Trump the far more irritating candidate, President and human being.
You didn't feed in what you wrote, did you? I'll do it for you. Also, clearly you don't know how those programs work, do you.
When I ran what you wrote though Grok, it didn't come up with the answer you did. Instead, it covered and agreed with the same findings as the neutral ChatGPT did. IAs an added benefit it couched them in highly partisan terms - no wonder you think AI responds with the bias of the developer, Musk.
For example, Grok wrote about the Ukrainian girl that was killed:
You're right that mainstream outlets like CNN and MSNBC often frame Trump-era stories critically, which can amplify negative angles and contribute to a polarized view. But the idea that they've "fabricated" events or systematically hidden horrors doesn't fully hold up—coverage is messy, but it's there, and selective emphasis cuts both ways.
Take the heartbreaking case of Iryna Zarutska, the 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee stabbed to death in an unprovoked attack on a Charlotte light rail train on August 22, 2025. Bystanders did record the incident without intervening, sparking outrage over public safety and "bystander effect."
SOURCE - cnn.com
Far from burying it, major outlets covered it extensively: CNN aired the surveillance video and delved into policy debates,
SOURCE - cnn.com
ABC News highlighted the unprovoked nature and released footage,
You already saw how ChatGPT framed it, but I'll repeat it anyway:
Nope. The Charlotte light-rail murder of Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee, was covered by mainstream and local outlets (Charlotte Observer, CBS affiliates, national sites). It wasn’t “disappeared.”
SOURCE - Charlotte Observer
Are you able to discern the difference between the partisan Grok approach and the neutral ChatGPT approach?
Fortunately, ChatGPT refrains from adding useless commentary, Grok it seems does not and adds it gratuitously. .
Its interesting that... I can read many of your articles and nod in agreement, like the top one that is more than a decade old:
The Immigration Controversy: One View from Just Left of Center
Of course, many of those perceptions and considerations from ten years ago precede the Lockdowns, the Riots, and the Biden Administration...
Now many of these issues require more dramatic, more severe resolutions.
We will either have a Nation for American Citizens... or we will have Open Borders and a growing collapse and fragmentation of American society ... lawlessness will become more commonplace, especially in blue states.
What the Biden Administration set as legal and moral norms (IE Transgenders being classified as a protected minority with rights that supersede those of women) ... what it pursued by joining the Global Compact on Migration and spending hundreds of billions on helping illegal migrants cross our borders (IE funding UN efforts, NGOs, and paying for hundreds of thousands to be flown here) ... wantonly encouraging and then escalating war with Russia... DEI... Trillions wasted on 'Green Energy' efforts that was nothing short of a fleecing of Americans with nothing to show for it (IE where is that national EV infrastructure)...
The Democrats promise doom for America... its Citizens becoming second class citizens in their own nation...
There is only one alternative that was given to that...
Anyways, I will spend more time reading your articles, I enjoyed that one.And there's another impossible-to-resist open door ...
10 Years ago, Cred wrote about being "just left of Center" ...
Aha, see, see, we've been telling him that. I remember when it happened. About 9 years ago. Hillary's loss was too much of a blow. Next thing ya know, Cred's in full combat mode; girded loins and guilded nib held high.
From 'just left of Center' to full-blown self-proclaimed Progressive. Aha!
GA ;-)The right has become considerably more reactionary than it was 13 years ago. I can no longer be just left of center, a Chuck Smoozer moderate in the face of political outrage created by the Right and the current regime. So, no, now I am a magnitude further on the left than I was in the past as I can ill afford not to be anything less.
Better close that door quick, if you want to avoid being an ingredient thrown into the burning cauldron."Reactionary' was a good choice. Can you consider the 'whys' of that change? Why did the Republicans become more reactionary? Because they had some serious stuff to react to.
GABecause they had some serious stuff to react to. A black president?
And their reaction has forced the Left to respond with a serious counter.I will cede to you there are those that carry racism close to the heart.
But Obama was elected twice, despite during his second campaign things being abhorrent economically at that time.
So clearly, there are plenty of people who are not racist. The majority of whites and latinos fall under that category.
The serious stuff they had to react to, you love to try and ignore or brush off, so that you can stand firm on your primary concern (racism).
But for many others, issues like Transgenders being a protected minority and shoving aside women's rights for their insanity... or the growing efforts to make pedophilia acceptable in society... or the 10+ million new illegal migrants many of whom received taxpayer-paid incentives to come here... or basically everything that filled with insane and incompetent individuals Administration did...
Sorry... the effort the Left is putting forth to counter a return to some semblance of sanity is only reminding people, many of whom may be growing tired of Trump... of how awful the alternative is.Nope, the Black president was leaving the stage (race again?) Was the thought about 'Hillary's loss' wrong?
Makes sense to me. Eight years of riding high with the gleeful expectation of eight more with Hillary, all unbelievably dashed in one election.
Remember Tsmog's 'Zero point' discussions? Remember the many videos of crying Democrats, the celebraties leaving the country, The View (oh yeah, The View))? I think her loss can be the 'Zero point' of the Democrats' actions that propelled Trump to the presidency again.
The issues that drove that win are the core issues the Republicans and Conservatives reacted to. It wasn't about race.
You know what the biggies were/are. You even have a bit of empathy for a couple of them. Race wasn't one of the biggies for most of us.
Your 'serious counters' took the bathroom issue to the transgender issue, the biological reality of male and female to the promoted reality that male and female can mean anything you want.
Look at what your serious counters got you; #47. Do you think that would have happened if the Democrats held your view on the male/female issue? Look at the other issues that have you dancing around just to stay in 'good standing.' What if your party's position included some of the empathy you feel?
GAGA, i mentioned in the past that i saw Trump as a dangerous authoritarian threat long before he ran in 2016. I am aware of his record prior to 2016. I have never liked nor trusted him and that goes back decades.
Yes, i was disappointed that Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, but i really wanted Bernie Sanders who better reflected my points of view.
In America, it is always about race. It is only conservatives that continue to deny it. For me race and racism is a “biggie” and it should be obvious as to why. If there is any empathy for today’s conservatism is does not amount to much more that a layer of dust on the scales.
Yes, i have issues with the sex identification and the bathroom stuff, but shredding the Constitution as this administration continues to do by running roughshod over the guardrails is not the remedy.
The male/female issue is just the periphery compared to the outrages coming from the Republicans, Conservatives and the Trump administration.
So, I will not return my saber to its scabbard until we have managed to get all of their proponents back under the floor boards from whence they came. There is no “standing”, whatever faults can be found among the Democrats and their ideology, i consider that the lesser of two evils when compared with the Trump regime…..(quoting you-know-who)
"There you go again ... " Look at the bones of your comment:
It's always about race," 'it's always about Trump,' there are always 'yeah buts.' Not one bit about the content points you replied to.
It is only always 'all about race' to folks who need it to be because that's all they have. And that is a minority group.
Even as your party suffers the consequences of their "serious counters," you're still promoting the strategy to cry racist louder and harder, and declare, with even more adjectives, how evil the conservatives are and how cold their hearts are. All you seem to have are 'yeah, buts ...'
Ya'll trying to get him elected again?
GAThe reason we are here now is Trump, a few years ago i actually thought that much to the American style of bigotry was receding and it was behind us. Trump and his overwhelming support made me realize that the American affliction was similar to a herpes virus. The body is always infected as the virus goes dormant, but outbreaks are possible. For American culture, Trump has been the impetus for the latest outbreak.
You did not ask me about content points, don’t want to get accused of dancing, you know.
As for “all about race”, it may be all we have, but it remains all that we ever needed.
I can call “racist” “fascist” “felon” tyrant, and you know i have many more adjectives that would be appropriate, but in the interests of decorum i wont elaborate on those.
When enough of his voters feel the dagger Trump will put in their back, rising health premiums for example, they will have to think twice the next time they get to the ballot box.Across democracies, a durable minority—on the order of 20–30%—regularly endorses authoritarian or exclusionary (racist/bigoted) options, with support swelling in threat contexts (Pew 2024 median 31% for strong-leader/military rule; U.S. panel data shows >25% sympathetic to authoritarian alternatives, 32% among some partisan subgroups). Pre-dictatorship Nazi votes (~37%/33% in 1932) illustrate how a ‘hard core’ plus mobilized context can dominate politics without a true majority.
And what, in 1994 - 2015 was that serious stuff. The way I remember it is the social conservatives began taking over the Party which drove it further to right.
Up until Trump, the Republican's maintained their stated belief in small government, free-trade, and outward-looking foreign policy. None of that exists in today's Trump party.
Isn't it ironic that Trump has adopted the policies of the far Left?At least you were clear from the start, a 'what about ... ' is coming.
Back at you: What about the Democrat "Zero point" of my comment? It was specific to the Democrats—relative to being a 'Zero point,' it was specific to a time frame, and it was a speculation, not a challenge.
So, why didn't you respond to that instead of offering a 'what about' of a separate issue?
GAWhat in 1994 - 2015 does not equate to "what about ..." so, I repeat my question
"And what, in 1994 - 2015 was that serious stuff? " I guess I should have put a question mark to make it clearer.No, you should address the comment you hooked onto before trying to introduce an adjutant as a new starting point.
The "Zero point" idea wasn't about a cause or blame — yet, it was about a timeframe relative to Cred's description of Democrats' serious counters to Republican actions.
Counters such as the impeachments of Trump's first term, the 'lawfare' and social justice claims, or the bathroom-to-operating-room transgender claims made during the Biden administration.
Those weren't listed as arguments, but as illustrations of the issue-type being timelined.
GA
Yes, things have change but the solutions are still varied and the current regime has a draconian response and policy with which I cannot abide.
I cannot ever trust republicans as an alternative, not with their record.
If we read each others articles, we might actually begin to make a little money around here.
So if I throw up a few AI generated "articles" I'll be legitimate???
LMAOHi Linda, it’s great to see you here on the Political Forum! Anyone with a HubPages account can post in the forums, even if they’ve never published an article. You could say it’s a place where free speech is still alive and well. Everyone’s welcome to share their views, and others can choose to respond or simply scroll past. I hope you’ll join in. We’ve got so few people engaging here these days.
Hello, Sharlee: I was surprised that Willowarbor's page looked like the spam followers I keep getting—with no articles. The spammers, however, usually offer a bio advertising their wares. Willowarbor does not even offer a bio. So I also then wondered why Hubbers would be engaging with someone whose identity is completely hidden. Now he asks "So if I throw up a few AI generated ‘articles’ I'll be legitimate??? LMAO." The disingenuousness of such a question is obvious to genuine, dedicated writers. Free speech or any kind of exchange with what seems to be little more than a troll seems useless—but that's just my opinion.
No linda, throwing up AI generated articles is par for the course here... Don't believe me? Just copy and paste a few lines from any of them and you'll see the AI source that it came from.... If you want, I can start a thread doing that to lots of them, sound good?
Linda,
"any kind of exchange with what seems to be little more than a troll seems useless"
You are absolutely right. I think it also deters other people from wanting to engage in a topic they normally would discuss as they don't want to deal with the unhinged responses they may experience.
It's a shame and frustrating.Hi, Readmikenow: Thank you for your supporting response. You have voiced the exact point of my original entry into this conversation. I have apologized to Sharlee for my distraction, and I offer you the same apology. If HubPages doesn't mind encouraging trolls, then I guess I have no standing to rail against the practice.
Linda,
Thanks for your input.
I hope to see you share your voice on other topics. Your participation is very appreciated.
Hi Linda, I completely get what you’re saying. It’s strange when someone jumps in but doesn’t even reveal who they are; it makes it hard to take them seriously. Real writers put in effort, and it’s frustrating when comments feel like bait or come with a dare, leading nowhere. There aren’t many people truly conversing here, but we do have some who offer really great discussions. Free speech is important, of course, but I’ve found myself picking and choosing which conversations to engage in more carefully lately. I am very careful not to reply when I detect trolling.
Hi, Sharlee: I'd like to apologize to you for my insertion of a distraction from your thread's topic. I was not aware that someone with no identify could participate in forums. Guess I should go look at the HubPages standards.
Hi Linda, I think you made a very valid point, and it really resonated with me as a fellow user here. I personally prefer to engage with people who identify themselves; today’s online policies often conflict with that view. Over time, I’ve learned to be selective about who I choose to converse with here and on other social media. I’ve also found that debating certain individuals isn’t productive and can actually leave me feeling less intelligent for having done so. I truly hope you’ll stick around and continue joining the discussions; your voice adds real value.
Shar
I was surprised that Willowarbor's page looked like the spam followers I keep getting—with no articles. The spammers, however, usually offer a bio advertising their wares. Willowarbor does not even offer a bio. So I also then wondered why Hubbers would be engaging with someone whose identity is completely hidden.
Subsequently, I have learned that one need not contribute articles to HubPages in order to participate in the forum. However, the rules do state “Be honest with your identity.” My original statement was not meant as an attack, certainly not personal, but simply as an observation based on what I have seen on Willowarbor’s profile page.
Personally, I find it odd that anyone would want to engage completely anonymously on a forum like this. But then that’s just my opinion.Sometime in the future, mine will look like that as I migrate them to a different platform.
Shar,
You do have to ask yourself if anyone on the left has heard of or comprehends the Supremacy Clause. I think dealing with illegal immigration is an area where the federal government has supreme authority.
"The Supremacy Clause refers to the foundational principle that, in general, federal law takes precedence over any conflicting state law. Established under Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause enables the federal government to enforce treaties, create a central bank, and enact legislation without interference from the states. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.
The Supremacy Clause underpins the broader doctrine of preemption, where if laws are in conflict, the law of a higher authority can preempt the law of a lower authority if the superiority of the former is stated expressly or implied. Traditionally, when it is not indicated, federal law does not preempt state law in areas traditionally regulated by states, unless Congress’s intent to preempt is clear. In areas where the federal government has historically significant regulatory involvement, preemption is less likely to apply. Today, disputes usually involve statutory interpretation rather than its scope of application."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/supremacy_clauseMike, first off, thank you for actually addressing the topic of my thread. I really believe we could draw more users in if we focused on having meaningful conversations and stayed respectful of each thread’s subject.
Your point is great — the Supremacy Clause really does make it clear that immigration falls squarely under federal authority. Yet it’s interesting how much tension still exists between the states and Washington on this issue. Some states have stepped in because they feel the federal government isn’t enforcing immigration law strongly enough, while others push back on enforcement altogether.
What’s fascinating is that this tug-of-war isn’t new; it actually mirrors conflicts going back to the 19th century, like when states tried to regulate immigration before federal law took over completely. The courts have long held that immigration is a federal responsibility, but the states’ growing frustration has led to what you could call “shadow policies,” where local governments indirectly shape enforcement through cooperation or defiance.
It raises an interesting question: if the federal government fails to uphold immigration law, at what point do the states have not just the right, but the duty, to step in to protect their citizens?You are misinterpreting the Clause and the Law:
What the law actually says
Anti-commandeering doctrine (Supreme Court):
* New York v. United States (1992) — Congress can’t require states to enact or administer a federal program.
Justia Law
* Printz v. United States (1997) — Congress can’t direct state/local executives to perform federal enforcement tasks.
Legal Information Institute
+1
* Murphy v. NCAA (2018) — Reaffirms anti-commandeering; Congress can’t issue direct orders to states, even framed as “no state shall…”
Supreme Court of the United States
+1
Sanctuary laws upheld: The Ninth Circuit upheld California’s SB-54 (limits local assistance to ICE). The court noted it may “frustrate” federal enforcement, but states can refrain from assisting so long as they don’t obstruct federal agents.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
ICE detainers are requests, not commands: Courts have held local jails aren’t required to hold someone on a civil ICE detainer; doing so can create local liability. See Galarza v. Szalczyk (3d Cir. 2014) and follow-ons.
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov
+2
Case Law
+2
8 U.S.C. § 1373 (info-sharing): After Murphy, several courts concluded § 1373 is unconstitutional commandeering; DOJ’s attempts to tie grants to immigration cooperation were largely blocked for exceeding authority. (E.g., City of Philadelphia v. Sessions; City of Chicago v. Sessions/Barr.)
SCOTUSblog
+4
www.hoganlovells.com
+4
National League of Cities
+4
Supremacy & preemption—what it means here
The Supremacy Clause lets valid federal law preempt conflicting state laws; it does not let the feds conscript state officers. So a state may not pass laws that block federal agents (true “obstruction”), but it may decline to help (non-cooperation). United States v. California captures this line.
Ninth Circuit Court of AppealsYes! Was just about to post.
Courts have consistently upheld that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility and that states are not obligated to carry it out.
The Supreme Court and lower federal courts have repeatedly upheld the right of states to decline cooperation, provided they do not actively interfere with or obstruct federal agents....
Here is the problem with that opinion - it isn't supported by the evidence.
The broader claim that states are “prioritizing non-citizens over citizens” by adopting sanctuary policies isn’t supported by crime evidence or by constitutional law: non-cooperation is lawful, and the data don’t show a crime-increase pattern.Can you provide the information in terms of what the courts have determined and upheld regarding states participating in in enforcement of federal immigration law?
Your original post is only half the story...
Let's just cut to the chase.
Courts have decided that states are not required to enforce federal immigration laws due to the anti-commandeering doctrine, which prohibits the federal government from compelling states to enforce federal programs...."Courts have decided that states are not required to enforce federal immigration laws due to the anti-commandeering doctrine, which prohibits the federal government from compelling states to enforce federal programs...."
According to Grok:
That claim overstates the doctrine's scope, ignoring how federal law can and does compel states to facilitate enforcement without "commandeering" their executives in the prohibited sense.
While the anti-commandeering doctrine does limit the federal government's ability to directly conscript state officials into enforcing federal programs, it does not broadly exempt states from all obligations related to federal immigration laws.
Courts have recognized key exceptions, limitations, and federal mechanisms—rooted in the Supremacy Clause, statutory mandates, and preemption principles—that effectively require states to cooperate in specific ways, such as sharing information or avoiding obstruction, without violating the doctrine's core protections.
For instance, under 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and § 1644, federal law prohibits states and localities from restricting the voluntary sharing of immigration status information with federal authorities like ICE.
These provisions impose ministerial reporting requirements that courts have upheld as constitutional, distinguishing them from impermissible commandeering because they do not compel affirmative enforcement actions but merely bar states from erecting barriers to cooperation—treating states as "owners of databases" akin to the upheld Driver’s Privacy Protection Act in Reno v. Condon (2000).
Appellate courts, including the 2nd Circuit in City of New York v. United States (1999), have rejected facial challenges to these sections, affirming they do not thrust day-to-day administration onto states and instead leverage federal preemption in the exclusively federal field of immigration to ensure information flow essential for enforcement.
Moreover, the doctrine permits the federal government to condition funding on cooperation, creating practical requirements for states to assist without direct compulsion.
In New York v. United States Department of Justice (2d Cir. 2020), the court upheld conditions on Byrne Justice Assistance Grants that incentivize immigration-related information sharing, reasoning that states can voluntarily reject the funds, preserving their sovereignty under the Spending Clause as clarified in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012).
This approach has been tested in ongoing litigation under renewed federal policies, allowing indirect but enforceable leverage over state resources.
States also face obligations not to obstruct federal operations, a limit on non-cooperation that courts enforce through intergovernmental immunity and preemption.
In United States v. King County (9th Cir. 2024), a county policy restricting ICE's use of local facilities was struck down as unlawfully interfering with federal detainee transport, clarifying that while states need not affirmatively help, they cannot discriminate against or increase the costs of federal enforcement in ways that frustrate congressional objectives under the Supremacy Clause.
Similarly, the President retains authority to deploy federal resources, including federalized National Guard units under 10 U.S.C. §§ 12304 and 12406 or the Insurrection Act, to execute immigration laws without state consent, overriding local resistance as affirmed in Perpich v. Department of Defense (1990) and historical precedents like Eisenhower's 1957 deployment.
These mechanisms demonstrate that the anti-commandeering doctrine is not an absolute shield; in the immigration context—a field of exclusive federal supremacy per Arizona v. United States (2012)—courts have carved out space for required cooperation through preemption of obstructive state policies, statutory info-sharing mandates, and conditional incentives.
Back to the subject, and a current issue---
Portland, Oregon, may be setting an example for other blue cities by taking a proactive approach to public safety through collaboration with federal authorities. President Donald Trump has indicated he is prepared to deploy National Guard units to help protect both the city and local ICE facilities, which have faced repeated attacks by Antifa. In a Truth Social post, Trump said, "At the request of Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect war-ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists. I am also authorizing Full Force, if necessary."
The need for support is clear. Camilla Wamsley, director of Portland’s ICE office, told Fox News that the agency’s facility has experienced violence for more than 100 consecutive nights, often without local police intervention. She described the protests as including "bottle rockets striking the facility, barricades blocking vehicles and lasers targeting officers' eyes."
Sgt. Aaron Schmautz, president of the Portland Police Association, stressed that collaboration with federal authorities could be the most effective path forward. "Let's present what resources we have to bring to bear to accomplish that task," Schmautz said. "And if it's not sufficient, then we need help. And so, you know, again, I don't want to be drawn into a hard yes or no. What I want is for us all to identify the problem and work together as a whole of government to solve the problem." https://www.foxnews.com/us/blue-city-of … union-pres
Schmautz also highlighted the challenges local law enforcement faces. He described the Portland Police Bureau as "horrifically understaffed" and said that some city leaders have contributed to the problem by fostering what he called "open, very, very anti-police rhetoric in our city council meetings."
The data backs up concerns about crime in Portland. "We are still working our way out of a significant, you know, burst, or an expansion in our crime profile. I mean, we have, you know, our homicides went up, times five from 2020 to 2023, and we're kind of slowly receding, although we've had nine last month," Schmautz explained.
He expressed sympathy for federal officers dealing with dangerous conditions, noting, "I am extraordinarily sympathetic to how concerned and afraid federal officers, I mean, there was a shooting in Dallas at an ICE facility. There are federal officers being hit by cars. And, you know, in a world where we have different perspectives about politics, it's one thing to have policy discussions and everything else. But no one should be OK with violence directed at anyone."
Note--- So, for Trump to send federal forces into Portland “legally” and safely, he would either need the governor’s request or a clear justification under the Insurrection Act. If Oregon’s governor does not consent, it becomes a gray area that would almost certainly involve legal scrutiny.
In my view, for blue cities like Portland, this willingness to work with federal authorities represents a pragmatic, forward-thinking solution to crime and resource challenges. Rather than seeing federal support as a political issue, it can be viewed as a smart, cooperative approach to protecting citizens, public servants, and local institutions, setting a model that other cities struggling with similar problems might follow.
Any constructive thoughts to share?There has been no "repeated attacks from antifa"
The whole premise is undermined by even putting forward the idea that antifa is an actual organization LOL.
The misinformation on this forum that gets repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over is getting really tiresome and old ....But hasn't collaboration with federal law-enforcement on violent crime always been the norm nationwide for decades; I don't see anything new there. What they don't do is help ICE abuse our citizens.
The Little Rock Nine were a group of nine African American students enrolled in Little Rock Central High School in 1957. Their enrollment was followed by the Little Rock Crisis, in which the students were initially prevented from entering the racially segregated school by Orval Faubus, the Governor of Arkansas.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, on May 17, 1954. Tied to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the decision declared all laws establishing segregated schools to be unconstitutional, and it called for the desegregation of all schools throughout the nation.
On September 24, Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act of 1807 to enable troops to perform domestic law enforcement. The president ordered the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army to Little Rock—initially without its black soldiers at the request of the Department of Justice—and federalized the entire 10,000-member Arkansas National Guard.
--------------------------------------------------
The Ole Miss riot of 1962 (September 30 – October 1, 1962), also known as the Battle of Oxford, was a race riot that occurred at the University of Mississippi—commonly called Ole Miss—in Oxford, Mississippi, as segregationist rioters sought to prevent the enrollment of African American applicant James Meredith. President John F. Kennedy eventually quelled the riot by mobilizing more than 30,000 troops, the most for a single disturbance in United States history.
-------------------------------------------------
There are Governors and Mayors openly refusing to follow Federal Law, Supreme Court Rulings, and the Orders of the President of the United States of America.
They are harboring criminals, terrorists, and threats to the safety and security due all peoples of a civil society.
Order must be restored... Law must be enforced... these radical, incompetent, ideological Judges and Politicians must be removed from positions of power, those who fund them must have their assets seized, and those acting against the agents of Law and Order... be they ICE or Deployed soldiers or local Police trying to do their job must be jailed and prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.
The Nation needs to be saved... while there is still time and enough people with the will and fortitude to do what must be done to save it.Ken, you did a terrific job laying out the history and the pattern. I couldn’t agree more. The Little Rock Nine and the Ole Miss crisis are perfect historical examples of when presidents had to step in with federal power to enforce Supreme Court rulings and protect citizens’ rights. Those events show that when state and local officials refuse to follow federal law, the federal government has both the authority and the precedent to act.
What you added about governors and mayors openly defying federal rulings and orders is spot on, that kind of refusal creates dangerous pockets where laws aren’t uniformly applied and public safety suffers. It also echoes the same kind of constitutional crisis those civil rights battles created decades ago.
Another strong point to remember is that the Insurrection Act and related statutes exist precisely to handle these situations, when local authorities either cannot or will not enforce federal law. History has shown that presidents have used those powers, reluctantly but decisively, to preserve the rule of law and protect the nation’s integrity.
Order must be restored, and law must be enforced, because a nation that tolerates selective obedience to its highest laws invites chaos. We do have a president in Trump who will do what none before him had the courage to do.
Thank you so much for sharing on the subject."What you added about governors and mayors openly defying federal rulings and orders is spot on",
Where is the evidence? His statement is 100% false..
Just in terms of one state,...A federal judge dismissed the Trump administration's lawsuit against Illinois in July 2025, upholding the state's sanctuary policies and affirming that the federal government cannot compel states to enforce federal law.
"Refusing to help is not the same as impeding": The federal judge in the Illinois case reasoned that the state's policies, while limiting cooperation, did not actively obstruct federal agents from doing their jobs....
I can certainly list actions that other states have taken against the administration...and wonI offer this... so apt for today's America:
Robert F. Kennedy's "Mindless Menance of Violence" Speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt7IuKoETEcKen, first of all, what an eloquent and beautiful speech. I have to recognize that in his words, there was not a single thing in Bobby's speech that could be identified as Democratic ideals. What Bobby shared in his words reflects what my Republican Party represents today.
I have seen a complete metamorphosis of the Republican Party in my lifetime. I was a card-carrying Democrat when Bobby gave that speech, a party that aligned with my values and hopes for America. But over the decades, I watched the changes unfold. At first, they were subtle, almost unnoticeable, but then, suddenly, it was clear: the party had transformed into something I could no longer support or even understand.I agree.
While many of my opinions about money, taxes, foreign affairs have changed to the 'Conservative' as is often the case as an individual that has garnered even moderate success in life is often prone to do...
Many of my other values have remained entrenched in what was the foundation of the 'old' Democratic Party... the workers party... and the ideas of equal opportunity and equal rights for all (citizens), regardless of race or class.
As is often stated these days by others ... 'I didn't leave the Party... the Party left me'... in truth, the Party made me Enemy #1 ... white, CIS, heterosexual, male, Judeo-Christian ... by default there is nothing worse to those championing the ideology and agendas of today's 'progressive' Democrats.Ken, I couldn’t agree more. Like you, I’ve seen how success, experience, and simply living life with responsibility can reshape one’s views on money, taxes, and foreign affairs, often leading toward more conservative, pragmatic thinking. Yet, it’s refreshing to hear that your core values, the belief in equal opportunity and fairness for all citizens, have remained steady. That was once the heartbeat of the old Democratic Party, a focus on hard work, merit, and unity across class and race.
I share your sentiment about how today’s progressive movement has shifted away from those founding principles. It often feels as though anyone who still holds traditional values, faith, family, self-reliance, and patriotism is labeled as the problem rather than as part of the solution. In truth, it’s not that we changed, but that the political landscape moved so far left that those of us who once stood in the middle now seem like outliers.
Your words resonate with me. I have come to seek simply fairness, opportunity, and a return to common sense in leadership, not ideology.
The governors and Mayors are not breaking any laws Ken, that is abundantly clear and has been reinforced by the courts....
Now tell the WHOLE story Ken. Eisenhower, a Republican, used the Insurrection Act because the Governor was in open rebellion and physically trying to prevent a federal law from being carried out. That is WAY different than rhetorically opposing and not offering assistance. Isn't that true?
Family... Community... trying to make the world a better place for all, not going to get those things from atheism, communism or fifth wave feminism... in fact, it is the goal of those things to destroy family and community.
BS.Bill Mahar has a good description of the democrat party.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/p5ojxMtxjGIA recent post had many factual errors in it, they need to be corrected:
Again, to save time so I can do other things, I turned to ChatGPT and then edited the answer to my liking.
1) “MSM fabricated everything & hid the ‘Ukrainian girl’ murder.”
Nope. The Charlotte light-rail murder of Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee, was covered by mainstream and local outlets (Charlotte Observer, CBS affiliates, national sites). It wasn’t “disappeared.”
Charlotte Observer
+1
2) “A non-lawyer ‘judge’ freed the suspect—proof the system is corrupt.”
In North Carolina, the official who sets initial bail is often a magistrate. By law, magistrates are not required to be attorneys; they have different statutory qualifications (education/experience + state training). That’s a policy debate, but it’s how the system is designed, not secret malfeasance.
North Carolina Courts
+1
3) “Media brain-rot: CNN/MSNBC warp reality.”
Media trust is highly polarized—Democrats trust CNN/MSNBC more; Republicans trust Fox more. That’s about audience sorting, not proof that one side “fabricates” while the other is pure. Best practice: cross-check major stories across outlets with different leanings. BTW, "pure" independents don't trust either.
YouGov
+1
4) “One-third of DC judges were born abroad—proof the courts are compromised.”
Being a federal judge doesn’t require being U.S.-born; the Constitution imposes no such requirement. Yes, several D.D.C. judges are foreign-born; that fact says nothing about competence or legality. (Even the partisan pieces citing this concede there’s no legal issue. but it does smack of bigotry and racism.)
WLS 890 AM
5) “The MSM villainized everything Trump did; ignored every accomplishment.”
Demonstrably not true. Coverage has been adversarial—as it is for any presidency—and yes, some outlets, mainly on the right, overreach. But on major policies (immigration, deployments, court fights), mainstream outlets have reported both the tangible impacts and the legal challenges. If you want balance, read across the spectrum; don’t assume fabrication when disagreement or context explains it better.
Why do people write such nonsense and think they should be trusted or believed?
Related Discussions
- 16
Can a State defy the laws of the Federal Government?
by Jack Lee 7 years ago
Recently, with regard to illegal immigration, Califronia and other states and cites have decided to refuse to enforce federal laws. They have chosen to disobey federal laws and not help ICE in enforcing our immigration laws.Is this legal? Are there any precedence on this?Where is the Supreme court...
- 40
Deporting Criminal Migrants: Time for Action
by Sharlee 11 months ago
These statistics show that illegal migrants with criminal records have entered the U.S. under multiple administrations, with a noticeable increase during the Biden administration.NOTE --- Please consider that my original point is focused specifically on the deportation of illegal immigrants who...
- 42
How to stop the rioting plaguing our cities!
by Dan Harmon 5 years ago
It seems that Portland, Or, has finally figured out how to stop this - "defund" the police, cutting the force necessary to control such things and then refuse the designate a riot for what it is because they no longer have the force necessary to address...
- 49
Why Do Democrats Value Illegal Immigrants over American Citizens?
by Readmikenow 6 years ago
It is obvious Democrats value illegal immigrants over American citizens and legal immigrants. Why? Why are illegal immigrants so important to the Democrat party they are willing to ignore American citizens and the crime from illegal immigration?Law-abiding citizens have become victims...
- 248
Arizona Immigration Law- What do you think?
by TheSituation 15 years ago
What do you all think about this one? Seems like some good fodder for my fellow hubbers.
- 23
Do American citizens give up their civil rights when they join the military?
by Marlene Bertrand 8 years ago
Do American citizens give up their civil rights when they join the military?My husband told me that when he joined the military, they told him he was the property of the United States. That got me to wondering if that meant he lost his civil rights while he was serving in the military.