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.
federal judge says Trump can't cut funding to sanctuary cities, calls Trump's order unconstitutional
It's like closing a bridge as political payback. Can't do that kind of thing as political threats or extortion.
They can and do ALL the time. Don't lower your speed limit to 65? NO federal highway money. Don't lower your BA for DWI to .08? NO federal money for this or that. It happens all the time and has been forever. The court ruling will be over turned since there is like a 100 years of precedent.
States are not doing that as they can not do that.
What is it then, if it's not amnesty? They are turning a blind eye to criminals, allowing them to remain in their city (harboring illegals ...which is a crime), and even granting them government benefits, which is also a crime.
There is nothing there that suggests a state/city cannot cooperate with federal officials in enforcing those laws and they do. When an illegal immigrant is arrested ICE may issue a detainer request to the local law enforcement agency. They are not honoring those requests in sanctuary cities.
They can not afford to and the complaints started when the feds simply wanted the states to hold these people indefinitely. States can not hold someone indefinitely or really at all over civil matters.
Did you read the bolded? This is a civil matter. What other civil issues do you want the state to hold people over?
Your arguments are the ones made by those only interested in politics and a hatred towards those who do not share your politics, even though the politics should be something you support and would in other instances.
If the government came up with education reforms and a local school system decided to not follow them would you support the state or city to go in and arrest the school board members?
There are 10 million or more, who knows, how many illegals. These kinds of actions will stop at best an extremely small number and be very expensive at that. Going after employers would have a large immediate impact and on top of that the fines would at least partially pay for the enforcement.
For some reason, you refuse to condemn those who will not do this.
Repeal Obamacare - fail
Ban Muslims - fail
Build wall and get Mexico to pay for it - fail
cut funding to most American cities - fail
bring jobs back to America - fail
So much winning
At this time in 0bama's first term, he didn't pass 0bamaCare either. So it's way too early for you to count your chickens.
As for the jobs;
1) Trump was instrumental in bringing back jobs to America, even before he was sworn in as president, and more have followed since that time.
2) US unemployment is at a 25 year low, so what the hell are you talking about?
You might remember this from 2016, where 0bama was left with egg on his face:
During a PBS town hall that aired Wednesday, Obama referenced Trump's promise to bring back jobs to the United States when talking about manufacturing.
“Well, how exactly are you going to do that? What exactly are you going to do? There’s no answer to it," Obama said."He just says, 'Well, I’m going to negotiate a better deal.' Well, what, how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually the answer is, he doesn’t have an answer.”
You guys are all getting away from the main issue..
A judge says Trump can not cut funding..
Of course he cant because the purse is ran by CONGRESS..
it doesnt matter if the states are violating federal law, or not, it doesnt matter if sanctuary cities support illegals etc..
CONGRESS has to be the one to stop funding programs.. Trump can not change funding already authorized by Congress.
Its no different than Trump stopping funding for ACA.. The Courts said CONGRESS needs to appropriate funds.. they didnt pay for it, thats the only reason why Trumps EO to cut funding was legal..
They can and do ALL the time. Don't lower your speed limit to 65? NO federal highway money. Don't lower your BA for DWI to .08? NO federal money for this or that. It happens all the time and has been forever. The court ruling will be over turned since there is like a 100 years of precedent.
I covered this once. States can enact and enforce speed limits. They can NOT enforce immigration laws.
You guys are all getting away from the main issue..
A judge says Trump can not cut funding..
Of course he cant because the purse is ran by CONGRESS..
it doesnt matter if the states are violating federal law, or not, it doesnt matter if sanctuary cities support illegals etc..
CONGRESS has to be the one to stop funding programs.. Trump can no change funding already authorized by Congress.
Its no different than Trump stopping funding for ACA.. The Courts said CONGRESS needs to appropriate funds.. they didnt...
This at least takes the argument somewhere. Whether the courts would allow Congress to discriminate over something that states aren't even permitted to do is another question.
Even at that, as I note, the designation really means nothing. A state can drop the label but still refuse to do the feds job.
I covered this once. States can enact and enforce speed limits. They can NOT enforce immigration laws.
Thats not entirely true.
Gonzales v City of Peoria states "general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statues".
The tenth circuit states there is a "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws".. US vs Vasquez-Alvarez, "state and local police officers have implicit authority within their respective jurisdiction to "investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws""
its up to the states to decide if they want to help the feds, they are not forbid from doing so..
This at least takes the argument somewhere. Whether the courts would allow Congress to discriminate over something that states aren't even permitted to do is another question.
Even at that, as I note, the designation really means nothing. A state can drop the label but still refuse to do the feds job.
But the states ARE permitted to do it.. There is nothing limited states from arresting individuals for violating federal laws.. it happens all the time..
child porn cases, is an example where this occurs..
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.
