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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thank you for admitting the verdict was just
I can see the purpose/value to both sides of the coin at times...
Most illegals are not as dangerous or criminal as Trump portrays them
They do work Americans don't want to touch at that rate of pay
Many are just women and children following their men
And many today are fleeing from war in Central America and the US will not grant asylum
Thank you for admitting the verdict was just
I can see the purpose/value to both sides of the coin at times...
Most illegals are not as dangerous or criminal as Trump portrays them
They do work Americans don't want to touch at that rate of pay
Many are just women and children following their men
And many today are fleeing from war in Central America and the US will not grant asylum
And none of which qualifies them as acceptable immigrants deserving of our hospitality.
So what is an acceptable number of dangerous criminals here illegally? We current have thousands in our prisons.
How many victims of ID theft by illegals is an acceptable number?
Tax increases to provide services for the children of the illegals?
It is not a victimless crime.
Thank you for admitting the verdict was just
I can see the purpose/value to both sides of the coin at times...
Most illegals are not as dangerous or criminal as Trump portrays them
They do work Americans don't want to touch at that rate of pay
Many are just women and children following their men
And many today are fleeing from war in Central America and the US will not grant asylum
Maybe you should read up on their crime stats. How many haven't even been caught yet using a fake or stolen SS number to work or worked for cash evading taxes? Last I read those are crimes.
Why should Americans work for sub-standard pay to keep their jobs and have to compete with illegal aliens for them when they don't even have a right to be in this country? American construction workers
got ran off their jobs by cheap, illegal aliens. Is that ok with you? Or are you on the side of these greedy employers who hire them just so they can increase their profits? There are no jobs that Americans won't do for a fair wage.
No illegal aliens belong here whether they be man, woman or child. If someone has a legitimate claim of asylum then they are not turned down but this is about illegal immigration not asylum seekers. Just where is this war in Central America?
Thank you for admitting the verdict was just
I can see the purpose/value to both sides of the coin at times...
Most illegals are not as dangerous or criminal as Trump portrays them
They do work Americans don't want to touch at that rate of pay
Many are just women and children following their men
And many today are fleeing from war in Central America and the US will not grant asylum
Most guns have not killed anyone as Democrats portrays them but they want to want to ban them all. Why the double standard? And illegals are, well illegal. The US doesn't owe them anything.
By the way, how is this different than when through government held funding to force speed limits?
Most guns have not killed anyone as Democrats portrays them but they want to want to ban them all. Why the double standard? And illegals are, well illegal. The US doesn't owe them anything.
By the way, how is this different than when through government held funding to force speed limits?
It isn't - Same situation. This is an activist court.
Most guns have not killed anyone as Democrats portrays them but they want to want to ban them all. Why the double standard? And illegals are, well illegal. The US doesn't owe them anything.
By the way, how is this different than when through government held funding to force speed limits?
They "threatened" to do it and no one called them on it. Politicians are not going to actually do something like this as they needs the votes of the people of these states. They like the threaten it though.
As has been pointed out, even at that, as has been pointed out, this is different as it's a Constitutional issue. States are free to set speed limits. They can not enforce immigration.
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.
"This administration" - magic words.
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.
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.
