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.
California’s sanctuary city law will survive after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the case on, the court announced Monday morning.
The Supreme Court denied the Trump administration’s petition challenging Senate Bill 54, which prevents state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal imigration enforcement officials.
“We’re protecting Californians’ right to decide how we do public safety in our state,” said California Attorney General Xavier Beccera in a statement. “The Trump Administration does not have the authority to commandeer state resources. We’re heartened by today’s Supreme Court decision.”
The fight over SB 54 entailed legal interpretations of the 10th Amendment, which regulates states’ rights versus the rights of the federal government.
Looks like states can ignore federal laws if they want. Under some provisions of the Clean Air Act, EPA can cut a state's federal highway funding if the state fails to comply with federal requirements. How is that different than the sanctuary law?
Sticking with true conservative values, it's good to see states rights being placed above the federal government. Liberals with their pro-big-central government agenda would be offended by this decision.
Sticking with true conservative values, it's good to see states rights being placed above the federal government. Liberals with their pro-big-central government agenda would be offended by this decision.
But where do you draw the line? The Southern states argument in the 1850s was that federal law to ban slavery discriminated against states that allowed slavery, making them second-class states.
One rationale given for why Washington took over environmental laws was that pollution can cross state boundaries. Can't these illegal aliens cross state boundaries too? It's costing the federal government money to pay from the illegals in federal prison. Looks like there are about 30,000 of them: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics...itizenship.jsp
Doesn't stop deportations or arrests at the border or checkpoints so stay in those shadows illegal aliens. You are still fair game. The easiest fed move is more checkpoints between big cities.
Sanctuary states are following the letter of the law. They have no duty to enforce immigration and the federal government has no power to compel them to do so.
Sanctuary states are following the letter of the law. They have no duty to enforce immigration and the federal government has no power to compel them to do so.
Great. And the federal government/Trump can withhold federal funds from them. It's a win-win!
Great. And the federal government/Trump can withhold federal funds from them. It's a win-win!
Every state gets federal funds, if they want to change the ground rules then introduce legislation indicating states are responsible for enforcing immigration. But right now these states are in compliance.
Doesn't stop deportations or arrests at the border or checkpoints so stay in those shadows illegal aliens. You are still fair game. The easiest fed move is more checkpoints between big cities.
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.
