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 get the desire to flip the script and tell conservatives this is " conservative" but saying something isn't the same as being truthful
The fact is, the EO directed the Atty General to FOLLOW THE LAW. The judge just told the President to IGNOR THE LAW.
That is utterly LIBERAL. That's what liberals do. and liberals are mad at Trump for not ignoring the law.
We are still in this mess because you won't demand Trump follow the law. Federal immigration is HIS to enforce. NOT the states. When will you demand he start doing it? The biggest dent can be made by raiding and arresting employers hiring illegals. WHen are you going to demand he get off his lazy ass and do something?
in this particular case, the Executive Order directed the ATTY general to follow the law.
The wording directly related to Sanctuary cities reads:
(c) Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law;
so the Executive order directly mandates the Executive Branch follow separation of powers, and FOLLOW the law passed by congress. period.
The PROG Judge is the one in violation of the separation of powers, as his action directs the Executive Branch to IGNORE the lawful directives of the Legislative Branch.
You have it exactly backwards.
That "except as mandated by law" is exactly what is at issue. Cities/states receive money under numerous laws. If the city/state is meeting the requirements of a specific law, then those funds under that particular law cannot be cut off. The administration cannot come back and say, oh BTW, we will deny those funds if you don't do X.
To do what Trump wants, all of the existing programs will have to be reviewed by Congress, and the laws authorizing them will have to be amended to say that the requirements for getting that money now include compliance with ICE. I suspect that few, if any, of those programs now specify that complying with ICE is a requirement for receiving the funds.
There are so many angry conservatives in here that are completely missing the point.
This is a constitutional issue. DONALD TRUMP IS TRYING TO WITHOLD FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS BECAUSE HE DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE WAY CITIES ARE CONDUCTING BUSINESS. That is absolutely unconstitutional.
Thank god for the system of checks and balances, that allows the courts to block tyrant-like behavior of an over-reaching president.
Exactly!
His Orangeness nor any POTUS cannot direct federal government to withhold funding for say healthcare just because a local government won't toe the line regarding immigration. Indeed IIRC the court ruled administration was free to withhold funding directly related to immigration, but that was an end to it until matter is decided.
Even Obama finally got this when he tried to bust white suburbs. The administration threatened removal of federal housing dollars, but that was an end to things. Well that and lawsuits based upon "disparate impact" against minorities.
This whole debate over sanctuary cities is BS because it's not the job of local police to enforce immigration law. Trump wants to force them to do it but isn't going to send them more funding for it.
If Immigration is a Federal Issue, and not a State or County Issue, then State and County can not be forced to pursue any Federal issue, If Immigration was a State and County Issue then counties and States could make legislations regarding Immigration which may be different to Federal ones, Like Marijuana or death penalty. So some States could even legalize those who according to Federal law are ilegal immmigrants.
But If The legality of immigrants is restricted to Federal laws then States and Counties are exempt from pursuing those who are not following Federal rules. The Federal government can't Blackmail States and Counties for not addressing Responsabilities which only are of Federal Jursidiction.
This whole debate over sanctuary cities is BS because it's not the job of local police to enforce immigration law. Trump wants to force them to do it but isn't going to send them more funding for it.
He can send them billions but the Supreme Court ruled that they can not do it. It's not their place to enforce immigration laws.
I like your use of metaphors. Let it be known, I am not supporter of DT or Clinton. Having said that, I am also woefully ignorant that the POTUS could be struck down by (1) federal judge. Millions of people elected the POTUS. AFAIK, nobody elected a federal judge.
After some googling and digging, a federal judge is nominated by POTUS and confirmed by the Senate and House. Hey, I only had Poli Sci 101. Anyway, I think a contested EO should be decided by (5) federal judges NOT 1, and then brought to the Supreme Court if contested. How can one liberal judge be the deciding factor nationwide? That is a joke.
Yes, I am against Sanctuary Cities, schools, restaurants and so on. Oh, I am a minority but born here legally, have international friends (including latino), former latina GFs, wife, traveled countless times to South America (S.A.) and they know my stance. Hell, many of them are against sanctuary cities too. I guess because they do things legally too.
If we go there and try to overstay a VISA and/or commit a crime in their country, we get deported too. It is the "law". It's a simple basic law for a responsible society that nobody should have a problem with.
Illegal deportation - I am against. Additionally, I am against uprooting a family that has been here illegally for years (committed no crimes) and is contributing to society plus paying taxes.
"Piece of Administration" - Surely some of them are good enough. Why continue with politicians that only support NYC, L.A., San Fran? That is plain selfish. There was true corruption in Obama's Administration. I like him but it became obvious and Hillary would be 1 step above his corruption. The net worth sweep of profits fo Fannie and Freddie Mac or takeover is ongoing corruption. DT will probably end up as corrupt too while in office or afterwards.
There is an entire judicial system in place to correct a judge who gets decisions wrong. Parties have multiple appeal opportunities. This decision is not wrong, however. We don't elect federal judges, they are appointed. Their job is to resolve cases and controversies.
If you are in a sanctuary city, you still can be deported by the federal government if you are a removable alien.
What is the "true corruption" in Obama's Administration?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
No city has the right to conduct business by sheltering illegal aliens. Aiding and Abetting them is against the law!
Declining to do DHS's job for it is not aiding and abetting (you can also only aid and abet a crime, and the status of being a removable alien is not a crime).
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
Once again, the court overstepping its authority. There is no law that says the Federal Government must give funds to cities, and it is up to the government to decide who gets what. That these "Sanctuary Cites" are violating the laws and harboring criminals is a very valid reason to withhold funds. They are putting their own citizens in danger besides.
These judges need to be impeached for overstepping their authority.
There is a whole bunch of laws directing spending by Congress. The President does not get to unilaterally change those laws. The court is well within its authority to make that determination. Sanctuary cities are not violating laws or harboring criminals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
It is the Court here that doesn't understand the Constitution. This judge is overstepping his authority. We are experiencing what the Framers feared: Rule by unelected judges. That is why they made the Judicial branch the weakest branch.
It is the President that has been given the authority to make immigration policy, and the Courts are supposed to follow the law, not make law.
Where in the Constitution are the States given the right to ignore Federal Law and make their own immigration policy? Please point it out to me.
When the States created the Federal government, they delegated certain powers to it, and among those were immigration policy. Within the United States, there has to be a uniform immigration policy. We can't have every state deciding for themselves who can enter the country (their State) and who cannot. But it seems that is the situation that is created with these so-called "sanctuary cities."
You are incorrect. On every count. Congress has the authority to make immigration policy. The President executes the immigration policy made by Congress. Congress passes spending bills. The President carries out such spending.
Sanctuary cities are not making immigration policy. They are controlling the use of their own law enforcement resources. The federal government remains free to enforce immigration policy in sanctuary cities.
Who would have thought the left does not like the law?
Are there any illegal aliens, who are not breaking the law?
Who would have thought that the right doesn't like states rights, and wants them to enforce federal law at their expense?
Are they breaking laws? Sure, deport them. But its the FEDERAL job to do so, not local.
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.
