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.
If Congress wants to give an administration the power to withhold funds from a program under specific conditions, they can - and in quite a few cases, already do. But an administration can't decide on its own to just withhold funds for the reason du jour.
You profoundly misunderstand the separation of powers - especially the power of the purse - if you think that an Executive Order can take the place of Congressional action.
Once again..the courts have ruled..local and State officials are under know obligation to enforce Federal Immigration law--further...the Federal Govt. is not allowed to hold grant monies hostage to force the local authorities to do what the courts have said they need not:
Brief quote:
"A federal appeals court on Thursday said the U.S. Justice Department cannot deny public safety grants to so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration.
The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court injunction in a case brought by the city of Chicago. The appeals court agreed the injunction should apply nationally while the lawsuit proceeds in federal court.
The case is one of a number of battles between the administration of Republican President Donald Trump and Democratic state and local leaders over immigration, healthcare, the environment and other issues.
Chicago sued last year after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he would cut off cities from certain Justice Department grants unless they allowed federal immigration authorities unlimited access to local jails and provided 48 hours' notice before releasing anyone wanted for immigration violations.
The lawsuit contended that Sessions exceeded his authority by imposing new conditions beyond those Congress prescribed when it established the grant program. In its ruling on Thursday, a three-judge Seventh Circuit panel said its role was not to decide national immigration policy, but rather to protect the separation of powers between the branches of the federal government.
"The Attorney General in this case used the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement," the court wrote. "But the power of the purse rests with Congress""
BTW..I hate the whole idea of sanctuary Cities...and would deport every illegal tomorrow..if i could. But right is right....if the Feds want to deport..they could..if they had the will---but they don't..so they put it on the States.
Very well then. In that case, we refuse to cooperate with federal gun control laws, federal abortion funding, Obamacare, etc. And thanks for those federal funds that we are now entitled to.
Very well then. In that case, we refuse to cooperate with federal gun control laws, federal abortion funding, Obamacare, etc. And thanks for those federal funds that we are now entitled to.
Who the heck is we??
If you wish to break the law to make a point--you won't have to worry about gun control laws, anymore.
Once again...as the courts have held..time and time again, The States are breaking no laws.
Sorry for a confused question but I didn't quite understand what the court was ruling, it's saying that the states don't have to comply with the Feds in enforcing immigration law, that is that sanctuary cities like San Francisco or Phoenix or whole states like California are free to just ignore the federal guidelines? And that the Feds do not have the option to withdraw funds from these cities or states?
I think it's completely ironic for the United States of America to even faintly whisper the word "illegal", when it comes to immigration. That's especially so, when considering those from Mexico and further south of the border. Most are fleeing either oppressive governments, or gang-related predation.
Then there's the whole concept of "Manifest Destiny" and President James A. Polk's racist aggressive and belligerant attitude against Mexicans which culminated in the Annexation of Mexico, the Mexican-American War, and subsequently, the Treaty of Guadeloupe.
When you truly consider the general racist attitude of white Americans against all non-whites, including indigenous Americans and African slaves, one is given pause to note the immoral motivation for such territorial aggression.
OTOH, we could just simply rationalize the acquisitions of California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas, as simply the "spoils of war" and move on. It's just that when we take the many broken treaties into consideration, along with the unmitigated massacre and eventual displacement of so many indigenous Americans, it just plain boggles the conscientious mind of American justice.
It's like, who IS that so-called "blind" lady?....I think she may be faking it!
Who's asking the states to deport anyone? They don't even have the authority to do so. All this administration is doing is asking states and cities to cooperate with the feds not aid abet illegal aliens by protecting them.
Additionally, what about all the "inducements" (i.e. coercion) that the fed has done to the states over the years, such as threaten to withhold federal funding if the speed limit in states were not reduced.
Other than aid for natural disasters in various states and providing protection for our citizens, what else should the Fed be responsible for?
Sorry for a confused question but I didn't quite understand what the court was ruling, it's saying that the states don't have to comply with the Feds in enforcing immigration law, that is that sanctuary cities like San Francisco or Phoenix or whole states like California are free to just ignore the federal guidelines? And that the Feds do not have the option to withdraw funds from these cities or states?
Immigration is up to the feds. The feds can't force or bribe the states to do their job for them, especially when they aren't even permitted to for the most part.
The Constitution is specific that this is a federal issue. Maybe someone can tell me now why people want to condemn the states as opposed to the feds for the feds not doing their job.
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.
