Jump to content

Washington threatens funding cut to California, other 'sanctuary' areas


rooster59

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

State law enforcement does not do deportations.

You really are confused buddy. Once "criminally charged illegal immigrants" are released they should be remanded to immigration for deportation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

38 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Unfortunately, I don't think the President does need congressional approval.  

That's what I said.

"....President could unilaterally with congressional acquiencence ...."

But congress can stop him.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I'm not sure if he needs congressional acquiescence. I've been trying to find some reference to this but can't.

I had this link but lost it before I could reference it.

https://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html

 

"The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President's imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve."

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/04/2017 at 1:56 PM, Traveler19491 said:

I have to agree. I think the solution is to follow the bold leadership of someone like Sam Brownback who has fearlessly adopted the "trickle down" theory of that great, almost mythical leader, Ronald Reagan, whose economic policies exploded the deficit and the national debt. Never mind that Brownback has almost totally bankrupted his state. Just one more silly deflection from the left. The same with that fearless right wing pioneer, Scott Walker, and his ideological companion, Rick Snyder of Michigan. True champions of right wing ideology. The fact that their states are devoid of jobs, hanging on by a financial thread, and crumbling to dust as they fearlessly lead their states downward should not deter the mindless lemmings who believe in the Ayn Rand loving idiots on the right. The fact that "supply side" economics has, in almost 40 years, never once held true is nothing but shameless left wing bashing of a brilliant economic philosophy that, I'm sure given enough time, will lead us into a new day of economic prosperity. I, my kids, and my grandkids will probably never live to see it, but that doesn't mean that, given enough time, it won't work. One more tax cut for the wealthy will surely prove the truth of this great philosophy! The same with GOP intolerance of anyone not white, male, old, Christian, and rich. America was never, historically, populated by anyone not white and Christian. History books that point to native Americans settling long before white Europeans showed up and stole their land and violated every treaty they ever entered into are obvious fabrications of the left. And the fact that illegal immigrants contribute billions annually to the tax base, Social Security, Medicare, and other revenue streams, all while observing US laws and just trying to take care of their families, should never deter us from our God-called mission of making America a pure white nation. All hail to Mein Fuhrer Tiny Hands!!!

Only recently learned Ayn Rand died in poverty dependent on state benefits for survival.

 

The irony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, LazySlipper said:

You really are confused buddy. Once "criminally charged illegal immigrants" are released they should be remanded to immigration for deportation.

 

 

You've taken us full circle back to the original point of contention.  The state does now know if detainees are illegal immigrants, and in the case of sanctuary cities, doesn't care and/or won't bother to check.  Therefore, the position of the sanctuary city is, no they shouldn't be remanded.  You seem to disagree with this and are having a hard time coming up with reasons why a state should be forced to do something they don't want to do.

Edited by attrayant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LazySlipper said:

"The state does now know if detainees are illegal immigrants" WTH is this? -->did you mean "the state does not know" ???

 

 

You got it.  It's called a typo.  You did a good job of figuring it out from the context.

 

Quote

If the state is stupid enough that when they process the criminal they cannot find a social security number or a passport number  and they do not determine what the detainees citizenship status is, then they really deserve to have their funding cut for being so fracking stupid.

 

Why would they ask for a SS number?  Many Americans don't even have a passport.  According to the State Department, there were fewer than 132M valid passports in circulation in 2016.

 

Why do you think it's the state's responsibility to determine a person's citizenship status?  Citizenship is the purview of the federal government, and that is precisely what is being discussed here.  Some cities/states say they're not going to bother. I'm still waiting for you to show any federal statute that forces states to spend money and time enforcing federal immigration laws.  Your saying 'if they can't do that then they deserve to have their funding cut' is your opinion, and nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, attrayant said:

Most states have laws that give a prosecutor 72 hours to bring charges.  Otherwise, suspects must be released.

Pretty sure this applies to citizens of the US. Every prosecutor's office can send a simple request for to the local Federal office enquiring about citizenship.

The liberal interpretation of the constitution of the US that it was written for and covers everybody in the world is just ludicrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, attrayant said:

Why would they ask for a SS number?  Many Americans don't even have a passport.  According to the State Department, there were fewer than 132M valid passports in circulation in 2016.

SSN's and passports have absolutely nothing to do with each other. For the past 30-40 years, every baby born in the US has been issued a SSN. It's part of the hospital's exit paperwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

SSN's and passports have absolutely nothing to do with each other. For the past 30-40 years, every baby born in the US has been issued a SSN. It's part of the hospital's exit paperwork.

Just to be clear, issuance of a SSN is not automatic. Getting a Social Security number for your newborn is voluntary.

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10023.pdf

Same applies to children of all ages and adults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Just to be clear, issuance of a SSN is not automatic. Getting a Social Security number for your newborn is voluntary.

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10023.pdf

Same applies to children of all ages and adults.

Just to be clearer:

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 required that every dependent age five or older listed on a tax return have their own Social Security number, which led to a spike in demand for Social Security numbers for children at earlier ages. The Social Security Administration developed an enumeration-at-birth process in 1987, which quickly became the way the majority of people apply for Social Security numbers. Now parents indicate on the birth certificate form whether they want a Social Security number assigned to their newborn child. When the state vital statistics office receives the request with the birth registration data from the hospital, it forwards the information to the Social Security Administration and a number and card are issued for the child.

You don’t have to apply for a Social Security number for your child at the hospital, but it’s generally easier if you do. If you wait and apply later at a Social Security office, you must provide proof of your child’s U.S. citizenship and age, such as a birth certificate, and wait for Social Security to verify the record with the office that issued it, which could take up to 12 weeks. Children age 12 or older must appear in person for a mandatory interview at a Social Security office in order to have a number assigned to them.

 

So, No, you don't HAVE to unless you want the benefits of having children and care about your child's future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Pretty sure this applies to citizens of the US. Every prosecutor's office can send a simple request for to the local Federal office enquiring about citizenship.

The liberal interpretation of the constitution of the US that it was written for and covers everybody in the world is just ludicrous.

Oh really?  You mean the people who wrote the 14th amendment were some sort of ignoramuses? This is why they used the word "persons" instead of citizens? It's been the case for over a hundred years that the 14th amendment's provision for due process applies to persons in the USA. Well before there was a liberal/conservative divide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Pretty sure this applies to citizens of the US. Every prosecutor's office can send a simple request for to the local Federal office enquiring about citizenship.

The liberal interpretation of the constitution of the US that it was written for and covers everybody in the world is just ludicrous.

1

Thank you for that brilliant discourse on Constitutional law. Just for your consideration, here are a couple of little tidbits you might not be aware of, written by minds admittedly far less enlightened than yours:

 

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (From the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution)

"that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage." (James Madison)

"(The) U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."

"The illegal aliens who are ... challenging the state may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection clause which provides that no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of the term ... the undocumented status of these children does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying benefits that the state affords other residents." (U. S. Supreme Court, Plylor v. Doe, 1982)

"A decade before Plyler, the court ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) that all criminal charge-related elements of the Constitution's amendments (the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th) such as search and seizure, self-incrimination, trial by jury and due process, protect non-citizens, legally or illegally present...In summary, the entire case of illegal aliens being covered by and protected by the Constitution has been settled law for 129 years and rests on one word: "person." It is the word "person" that connects the dots of "due process" and "equal protection" in the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution and it is those five words that make the Constitution of the United States and its 14th amendment the most important political document since the Magna Carta in all world history." (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights)

 

Granted, your use of the words "The liberal interpretation of the constitution of the US that it was written for and covers everybody in the world is just ludicrous." were intended as sarcastic hyperbole, however, the fact remains that everybody in the world IS, in fact, covered by the U. S. Constitution when they are within the legal borders of the U. S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

Thank you for that brilliant discourse on Constitutional law. Just for your consideration, here are a couple of little tidbits you might not be aware of, written by minds admittedly far less enlightened than yours:

 

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (From the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution)

"that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage." (James Madison)

"(The) U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."

"The illegal aliens who are ... challenging the state may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection clause which provides that no state shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of the term ... the undocumented status of these children does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying benefits that the state affords other residents." (U. S. Supreme Court, Plylor v. Doe, 1982)

"A decade before Plyler, the court ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) that all criminal charge-related elements of the Constitution's amendments (the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th) such as search and seizure, self-incrimination, trial by jury and due process, protect non-citizens, legally or illegally present...In summary, the entire case of illegal aliens being covered by and protected by the Constitution has been settled law for 129 years and rests on one word: "person." It is the word "person" that connects the dots of "due process" and "equal protection" in the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution and it is those five words that make the Constitution of the United States and its 14th amendment the most important political document since the Magna Carta in all world history." (http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights)

 

Granted, your use of the words "The liberal interpretation of the constitution of the US that it was written for and covers everybody in the world is just ludicrous." were intended as sarcastic hyperbole, however, the fact remains that everybody in the world IS, in fact, covered by the U. S. Constitution when they are within the legal borders of the U. S.

Given what you have written/quoted then, Diplomatic Immunity is in direct violation of the constitution as they are aliens residing inside the borders of the US for whom No Laws apply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Given what you have written/quoted then, Diplomatic Immunity is in direct violation of the constitution as they are aliens residing inside the borders of the US for whom No Laws apply?

The USA is a signatory to the Vienna Convention. The Vienna Convention guarantees diplomatic immunity. According the the Constitution, treaties are the law. Of course it could be challenged, Treaties have the status of Federal statutes, and do not rise to the level of consitutional law. It's an interesting question but not relevant to whether constitutional protections can be denied to persons inside the USA..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

Given what you have written/quoted then, Diplomatic Immunity is in direct violation of the constitution as they are aliens residing inside the borders of the US for whom No Laws apply?

 
 

Apart from the facts quoted by ilostmypassword in response to your assertion regarding diplomatic immunity, diplomatic immunity is not an abrogation of due process, but is the granting of immunity from prosecution for actions that would otherwise immediately afford the alleged offender access to due process, and as such is therefore not in violation of the Constitution. As ilostmypassword has noted, however, the U. S. is a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (U. N., 1961). Were your assertion regarding constitutionality true, then no prosecutor, local, state or Federal, could ever offer immunity to any alleged defendant. And your little snipe about "no laws apply" is little more than a "straw man". The laws of the U. S. and its several states apply to every individual residing within its borders. If anyone, including a diplomat, violates those laws, they become subject to our government. In the case of a diplomat, he/she may be expelled from the country, should the offense be significant enough to warrant such action. The U. S. government chooses to grant immunity to diplomats as a matter of expedient reciprocity, to guarantee that our own diplomats abroad are not hassled or prosecuted falsely as a means of intimidation by hostile governments.

Edited by Traveler19491
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You're confused. It isn't the matter that's in question, it's the reasoning.

 

 

I am not confused. Thanks.

Please feel free to enlighten me on your opinion on the reasoning behind both threats, or not. 

Edited by kevkev1888
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kevkev1888 said:

I am not confused. Thanks.

Please feel free to enlighten me on your opinion on the reasoning behind both threats, or not. 

Okay. The Trump administration wants to deny funds to state or local law enforcement agencies to suborn then into complying with extrajudicial requests. In effect they want non-federal government workers to work for the Federal government. This is a violation of Federalist principles and a Constitutional issue.

The Obama administration wants to deny funds to educational systems that deny recognition of the status of trans gender children.  This is done under Title IX and is not in violation of Federalist principles and is not a constitutional issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 This is done under Title IX and is not in violation of Federalist principles and is not a constitutional issue.

Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 is a federal law that states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

 

Since when does taking a crap have anything to do with "any education program or activity"?

 

This goes back to my earlier point of very liberal interpretations of the constitution.

 

To the point of the states, the constitution says "aliens" (non-citizens of the US) may apply for permission to enter the US through various means for various reasons. Sneaking in makes you an illegal and therefore, by definition, a fugitive. Harboring a fugitive, aiding and abetting a fugitive are crimes at every level of law enforcement.

States receiving Federal Funds are doing so at their word that they will uphold and/or assist in the upholding of Federal Laws.

 

So, when Obama was in charge and he threatened the Federal Funding to a Republican state and the government of that state asked for federal court assistance, the 9th did nothing.

Now that Trump is in charge and he threatens the Federal Funding of a Democrat state, all hell breaks loose and it's suddenly unconstitutional.

 

It's going to be interesting when Congress goes ahead and breaks up the 9th and CA, OR, WA, HI all become the 13th leaving NV, AZ, ID and MT as the ruling 9th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

 

 

So, when Obama was in charge and he threatened the Federal Funding to a Republican state and the government of that state asked for federal court assistance, the 9th did nothing.

 

Wow, you and Trump are similarly geographically challenged. I got news for you. North Carolina isn't on or near the West Coast of the USA.  The Ninth Circuit has no jurisdiction there.  Truly an amazing post! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...