Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I suspect it wont be a complicated decision. Its well settled law that you can't force cities and states to enforce federal laws. ESPECIALLY retroactively.
From what I've read it's ruling the EO was too broad but in another article there is this.
. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities say turning local police into immigration officers erodes trust that's needed to get people to report crime.
It's a poor argument but correct in the big picture. The courts have clearly ruled that local police can NOT enforce immigration law. It's up to the federal government to do that.
Quote:
If Sessions or this administration had a brain they would tie it to new future funding. This didn't pass muster-not even remotely. And they HAD to know it going in. This is theater of the worst sort.
LOL, whatever happened to the party that believed in states rights? Where are those folks?
It would likely have to be very narrowly tailored.
A US judge has blocked Trumps attempt to withhold funds from sanctuary cities. The news is unfolding, but evidently the cities are "entitled" to federal funds even if they do not co-operate with ICE.
wait - didn't the Obama admin lecture AZ a couple years ago that they had no say regarding illegal immigration? but now an Obama-appointed judge declares that the feds have no say in how states handle illegal immigration
Judges are no longer judges. Laws are no longer laws. The president is no longer the president. Any judge that wants to run the country is now running the country.
wait - didn't the Obama admin lecture AZ a couple years ago that they had no say regarding illegal immigration? but now an Obama-appointed judge declares that the feds have no say in how states handle illegal immigration
You are conflating "this is a federal job, not a local one" with "Do what we tell you".
I found both arguments pretty sub optimal. But the "This is my job, not yours" was found to be legal. This nonsense has been found to be illegal to do before.
What would be legal however is passing the infrastructure bill, and limiting it to states without sanctuary cities for example.
Judges are no longer judges. Laws are no longer laws. The president is no longer the president. Any judge that wants to run the country is now running the country.
No, the judges are upholding the law and the constitution. The President of the USA is not a dictatorship position and this is why we have checks and balances in place. You do like the constitution right? You know, the one that has that 2nd amendment which right wing radicals insist can never change even if it means mentally ill people and people on terrorist watch lists can buy guns.
I'm horrified by how often this has to be explained to people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
