7 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

You mean the states have the right to disobey federal law? Interesting...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

The states are not disobeying federal law, they are simply not taking on the responsibility for enforcing federal law.   The local police do not have the time or resources to enforce all the federal laws, that is why there are agencies such as the FBI and ICE.   

 

The priority for the sanctuary cities is to protect the community.   If they start checking immigration status they can't do that.   

 

 

Off-topic post removed.   The thread is about funding and sanctuary cities/states.

Not having resources is not an excuse. Here's why it is legal for the US Government to hold back money:

 

(Quote): Though the federal government cannot legally compel states to comply with federal law, it is permitted to use financial rewards or incentives to encourage states to comply. This precedent was established in the 1992 Supreme Court case New York v. United States and has been upheld and strengthened since, and thus the Justice Department’s guidance in this instance clearly falls under constitutional precedent, Culberson reasoned. (Un-Quote)

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442578/sanctuary-cities-federal-law-congresss-power-purse-incentivizes-cooperation-john

12 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Here we go again.

The order has serious constitutional problems.

Longstanding Supreme Court precedent mandates that the federal government may not impose conditions on grants to states and localities unless the conditions are “unambiguously” stated in the text of the law “so that the States can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds.” The Constitution is the law, and the Constitution does not allow the president to impose grant conditions not specifically authorized by Congress.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/26/constitutional-problems-with-trumps-executive-order-on-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.42d976df644f

See you in court (again) Mr. President. And remember, California is in the 9th Circuit of Appeals!

n

Unfortunately for that National Review article, that section of the law that it cites to enforce the Federal Government's will, is unconstitutional.

 

"As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/26/constitutional-problems-with-trumps-executive-order-on-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.83c4909c533a

 

Odd that the National Review ignored that little obstacle. Almost makes you think that they might not be practicing honest journalism.

 

Oddly enough, if Merrick Garland were installed as a Supreme Court Justice, Trump's order or the Congressman's leverage, might have stood a better chance. It was the conservatives on the court who unanimously voted to establish this as a precedent. The liberals unanimously voted against it.

 

And thank you Srikcir for locating that article.

 

 

18 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Thanks for the entirely irrelevant comment. The question is whether or not the Trump administration can legally withhold funds from jurisdictions refusing to cooperate with immigration authorities. It's clear that funds can not be withheld on those grounds.

What makes the request even more dubious is that these jurisdictions do hold immigrants when they are presented with a warrant. But what the justice department wants to compel is for them to cooperate when a request is made to detain an immigrant. Not a warrent but a request. A request is not legally binding.

 

Thanks for the great breakdown into layman's terms. Ya must have been a lawyer in a previous life. I will go to bed that much more informed tonight.

 

46 minutes ago, LazySlipper said:

 

Thanks for the great breakdown into layman's terms. Ya must have been a lawyer in a previous life. I will go to bed that much more informed tonight.

 

You're welcome.

19 hours ago, Dagnabbit said:

 

You mean the states have the right to disobey federal law? Interesting...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Kinda like how the ultra-red states are demanding to be allowed to disobey the law on marriage equality, abortion, voting rights...well, you get the idea.

The federal gov't has the resources and authority to enforce federal laws, the states do not.   If there is a warrant out for someone's arrest, they will enforce it.  If not, they will not.   If someone from one a state where pot is illegal and smokes it in another state, should the police in that state arrest him and wait for the other state to come and get him?   

 

The Federal gov't is responsible for immigration laws and has offices in nearly every state.   When someone is arrested, then a part of the investigation may be to determine their immigration status, just like an investigation might determine if crimes were committed in other states.   

 

Cities have to have policies and priorities.   For many that is protecting the members of the community, not enforcing federal immigration laws.   

On 4/23/2017 at 11:06 AM, LazySlipper said:

Illegal means 'illegal'... and the immigration laws in the US were there before Trump took office, but previous presidents were afraid to implement them for fear of popularity backlash.

 

I will reiterate my opinion once again. If the bleeding hearts in the US think things are really bad for them in the US then they should actually come and see how we are treated here.

 

Funny how ignorance left to run rampant can have a snowball effect. If we get kicked out of here no one will shed a tear, but everyone around will be quick to loot our property.  When we call the Thais ignorant we need to remember the folks back home who have never set foot outside of their homes and ignore what it may be like elsewhere. If someone who gets kicked out of Thailand for staying here illegally goes and tries to make headlines back home with the injustice, I doubt anyone will raise a brow... but rather I believe that person would be a laughing stock.

 

So, who cares if they get kicked out for being illegal. They are illegal and that is the bottom line.

 

 

 

 

I guess the fact that the Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants then any other is besides the point in your assertion "previous presidents were afraid to implement them for fear of popularity backlash."

 

I continue to be baffled by people's susceptibility to the incorrect belief propagated by pandering populists that the Obama administration did not enforce immigration laws and allowed unlimited immigration.  Certainly Obama took a humanist approach to enforcement by not separating families, but that is far away from being "afraid" to enforce existing laws.

TH 

Guess this really does mean nothing anymore:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

 

Of course, it doesn't cover illegal immigrants and some states and counties it seems.

2 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Guess this really does mean nothing anymore:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

 

Of course, it doesn't cover illegal immigrants and some states and counties it seems.

I'm sure that in your mind your comment is actually relevant. But to others maybe not so much.

On 4/22/2017 at 5:37 PM, Emster23 said:

California was part of Mexico til US stole it in war. Ever wonder why so many Spanish names, Los Angeles, San Francisco.... very few New Brightons, New Dusseldorfs, etc.

Allow me to educate you a bit:

Large portions of the American West were once Mexican territories. Texas won independence from Mexico in 1836 and was annexed by the U.S. as a state in 1845. After losing the Mexican-American War, Mexico ceded the land that would become California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and parts of Colorado and New Mexico for $15 million

13 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I'm sure that in your mind your comment is actually relevant. But to others maybe not so much.

Ditto.

1 minute ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Ditto.

So you can't explain why citing a piece of the Pledge of Allegiance is relevant to this thread?

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So you can't explain why citing a piece of the Pledge of Allegiance is relevant to this thread?

Which part don't you understand or is it the whole thing? Are you even from America?

Just now, mrwebb8825 said:

Which part don't you understand or is it the whole thing? Are you ever from America?

Let me put this in small small words for you. I get what it says. I don't get why you cite it on this thread.

On 4/22/2017 at 10:38 PM, Traveler19491 said:

I find it interesting that the right is all about "STATES RIGHTS!!!" all the way up to the point where some state has the audacity to want to exercise a right that they don't agree with. Hypocrits.

It's NOT a right to shelter illegals from the federal government.

 

To those that say California should secede from the Union. I agree. If California can't vote for the president, say goodbye to Democrat presidents for many elections to come. Good result.

On 4/23/2017 at 2:23 AM, attrayant said:

 

You wanna guess where those funds came from in the first place?  California is more than wealthy enough to take care of its own, and the red states, that leech off the rest of the country, would be the ones to lose.

 

That $2 Billion dollar deficit they are projecting for California in 2017 must not concern you any. The bottom line is that California is the laughing stock of the nation, and everyone see's through their bullshit.,

On 4/24/2017 at 6:53 AM, ilostmypassword said:

You're welcome.

Sorry... forgot to add... bar stool lawyer. But that's ok, I forgive you for being pedant and trivial.

BTW what is a warrent? Maybe you can educate me on spelling too!

 

 

On 4/23/2017 at 10:36 PM, ilostmypassword said:

thank you Srikcir for locating that article

An update:

A U.S. judge on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities .... The ruling from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco said Trump's Jan. 25 order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-ruling-idUSKBN17R2QO

Maybe time for Trump to replace Sessions already.

3 hours ago, LazySlipper said:

Sorry... forgot to add... bar stool lawyer. But that's ok, I forgive you for being pedant and trivial.

BTW what is a warrent? Maybe you can educate me on spelling too!

 

 

So in rebuttal you do 2 things:

1)name calling

2)typo criticizing.

In other words, you've got nothing.

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It's NOT a right to shelter illegals from the federal government.

 

To those that say California should secede from the Union. I agree. If California can't vote for the president, say goodbye to Democrat presidents for many elections to come. Good result.

When the US government follows due process, such as issuing a warrant, then California complies.  California is not obliged to comply with requests.

37 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

When the US government follows due process, such as issuing a warrant, then California complies.  California is not obliged to comply with requests.

Even with federal warrants in hand, the federal government cannot dictate the state's law enforcement priorities.

 

For example, should the state spend 100 manhours to apprehend an undocumented immigrant who has not committed any serious (vs misdemeanors) violations of state and/or local laws instead of spending the same time to detain those people who have or providing public safety & security in neighborhoods? Would Trump really want New York City to pull its officers from protecting the Trump family at Trump Tower and use its funds to serve warrants on undocumented immigrants?

 

The federal government is free to bring in adequate federal law enforcement necessary to meet its needs without regard to state needs.

 

On 4/24/2017 at 6:06 AM, LazySlipper said:

Thanks for the entirely irrelevant comment.

Sorry, sorry sorry. How about 555 or lol?

BTW normally, and I am sincerely second guessing myself and doing some soul searching to see if I forgot anything I might have done that is not in line with my thinking here, when I disagree with someone on line I try not to be 'in your face' as telling the person that what they wrote is irrelevant or dumb unless they started the ball rolling.
An opinion is just that--an opinion. So if name calling and insulting someone's opinion are kinda at par then tit for tat buddy...

The federal funding is to help the states pay for the extra man hours and manpower needed to comply with federal regulations and laws. Yet, once again we have a democrat judge in a democrat state blocking a federal order.

Never in the history of America has a "lawsuit" been filed, approved and acted upon with such speed. Did this judge have an absolutely clear calendar without a single bit of work pending?

Time for President Trump to start firing these "Presidentially Appointed" judges and replacing them. Wonder where these lawsuits would be getting filed if there wasn't a functioning 9TH due to no federally appointed judges? Seems the 9th covers AK, HI, CA, OR, WA, MT, ID, NV and AZ, most of which backed Clinton.

3 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

The federal funding is to help the states pay for the extra man hours and manpower needed to comply with federal regulations and laws. Yet, once again we have a democrat judge in a democrat state blocking a federal order.

Never in the history of America has a "lawsuit" been filed, approved and acted upon with such speed. Did this judge have an absolutely clear calendar without a single bit of work pending?

Time for President Trump to start firing these "Presidentially Appointed" judges and replacing them. Wonder where these lawsuits would be getting filed if there wasn't a functioning 9TH due to no federally appointed judges? Seems the 9th covers AK, HI, CA, OR, WA, MT, ID, NV and AZ, most of which backed Clinton.

It's amazing how many falsehoods you can pack into such a small space. But for now, let's just deal with your ludicrous call for firing these judges. It's clear you're not aware that the Constitution of the United States does not allow for this.  And you're complaining about the rule of law?

Since these "sanctuary cities" are too pressed to spare the manpower. maybe President Trump could order the National Guard into service and use them to hunt down and arrest the illegals.

That would be federally funded manpower enforcing federal law.

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

It's amazing how many falsehoods you can pack into such a small space. But for now, let's just deal with your ludicrous call for firing these judges. It's clear you're not aware that the Constitution of the United States does not allow for this.  And you're complaining about the rule of law?

"Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the president."

ETA: Senators have traditionally played the key role in selecting U.S. attorneys for their states, especially when their party controls the White House. The practice is much the same for federal district judges. Senators recommend candidates to serve as the U.S. attorney or a judge, and the president usually accepts those suggestions.

Just now, mrwebb8825 said:

"Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the president."

 

Wherever did you come up with the notion that United States Attorneys are Federal Judges?

21 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Allow me to educate you a bit:

Large portions of the American West were once Mexican territories. Texas won independence from Mexico in 1836 and was annexed by the U.S. as a state in 1845. After losing the Mexican-American War, Mexico ceded the land that would become California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and parts of Colorado and New Mexico for $15 million

 And that war with Mexico? Why? " ...the forcible incorporation of almost one-half of Mexico's national territory as an event foreordained by providence, fulfilling Manifest Destiny to spread the benefits of U.S. democracy to the lesser peoples of the continent. Because of its military victory the United States virtually dictated the terms of settlement."

 One factor that led to Texas revolution was the Anglos wanted the freedom to keep slaves (humm). Mexico outlawed it in 1829. There were also issues of Americans coming to Texas and not learning, Spanish, and not becoming Catholic (both part of immigration agreement). Sounds a bit like many farangs here in Thailand. Mexico was also more or less a dictatorship at the time. I doubt if farangs here will lead a revolt over that issue, however....