Koh Samui hide ‘n’ seek: Fugitive’s 19-year retreat ends in arrest

[webfact]

U.S. judge blocks Trump order to restrict funding for 'sanctuary cities'

By Dan Levine

REUTERS

 

Immigrant-rights advocates protest near the U.S.-Mexico border wall over a visit to the border by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly in San Ysidro, a district of San Diego, California, U.S., April 21, 2017. REUTERS/Mike Blake

 

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities, dealing another legal blow to the administration's efforts to toughen immigration enforcement.

 

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.

 

The Republican president's moves on immigration have galvanized legal advocacy groups, along with Democratic city and state governments, to oppose them in court. The administration suffered an earlier defeat when two federal judges suspended executive orders restricting travel from several Muslim-majority countries. The government has appealed those decisions.

 

Representatives for the U.S. Justice Department and the White House were not immediately available for comment on the sanctuary ruling.

 

Sanctuary cities generally offer safe harbour to illegal immigrants and often do not use municipal funds or resources to advance the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Dozens of local governments and cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, have joined the growing "sanctuary" movement.

 

Supporters of the sanctuary policy argue that enlisting police cooperation in rounding up immigrants for removal undermines communities' trust in local police, particularly among Latinos.

 

The Trump administration contends that local authorities endanger public safety when they decline to hand over for deportation illegal immigrants arrested for crimes.

 

The executive order by Trump, who made cracking down on illegal immigration a cornerstone of his 2016 presidential campaign, directed such funding to be restricted once the Homeland Security Department determines what constitutes a sanctuary city.

 

Santa Clara County, which includes the city of San Jose and several smaller Silicon Valley communities, sued in February, saying Trump's order was unconstitutional. San Francisco filed a similar lawsuit.

 

'CRUMBLING UNDER THE WEIGHT'

 

The U.S. Justice Department threatened last week to cut some funding to California as well as eight cities and counties across the United States.

 

The department singled out Chicago and New York as two cities "crumbling under the weight of illegal immigration and violent crime," even though New York City is experiencing its lowest crime levels in decades and experts say Chicago's recent spike in violent crime has little to do with illegal immigration.

 

Santa Clara County receives about $1.7 billion in federal and federally dependent funds annually, about 35 percent of its total revenues. The county argued it was owed millions of dollars of federal funding every day and that its budgetary planning process had been thrown into disarray by the order.

 

The Justice Department said the counties had taken an overly broad interpretation of the president's order, which it said would affect only Justice Department and Homeland Security funds, a fraction of the grant money received by the counties.

 

In his ruling, Orrick said the language of the order made it clear it sought to withhold funds beyond law enforcement.

 

"And if there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments," Orrick wrote.

 

The judge cited comments from Trump calling the order "a weapon" to use against jurisdictions that disagree with his immigration policies.

 

"Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves," Orrick wrote.

 

Dave Cortese, president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, said in a statement: "The politics of fear emanating from the Trump White House has just suffered a major setback."

 

(Additional reporting by Julia Edwards Ainsley in Washington; Editing by Chris Reese and Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-26

[darksidedog]

Is there no one in this administration who actually bothers to check the Constitution before coming up with these ideas?

Being the boss of a company and being POTUS are entirely different. Donald needs to understand the President can not simply bully people the way he has done in business.

There are very strict rules governing Government behaviour, and it is embarrassing that no one in the White House currently seems to respect this.

[dcutman]

14 minutes ago, darksidedog said:

Is there no one in this administration who actually bothers to check the Constitution before coming up with these ideas?

Being the boss of a company and being POTUS are entirely different. Donald needs to understand the President can not simply bully people the way he has done in business.

There are very strict rules governing Government behaviour, and it is embarrassing that no one in the White House currently seems to respect this.

Seems equally embarrassing that law enforcement in these so called cities do not enforce (completely ignore)  immigration laws  that are on the books.

All Fed funding should stop to these cities until theses laws are enforced.

[Rhys]

Don't mess with the low riders... vato

[Dagnabbit]

Unbiased judge obviously

- appointed by Obama

- donated to Obama's 2008 campaign

- worked in the justice dept while Obama was suing Arizona over their immigration laws (allowing police to ask about immigration status when stopped)

 

Another judge that should have recused himself but instead deciding to enforce his political opinions. 

[tonray]

14 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said:

Unbiased judge obviously

- appointed by Obama

- donated to Obama's 2008 campaign

- worked in the justice dept while Obama was suing Arizona over their immigration laws (allowing police to ask about immigration status when stopped)

 

Another judge that should have recused himself but instead deciding to enforce his political opinions. 

It works both ways, the checks and balances the founders created have been perverted by money and power. The Judiciary has been politicized and will only get worse. As I said it works both ways so it's OK to be indignant now but you also need to look at decisions that come from the right because of political opinions.

Edited April 26, 2017 by tonray

[mamypoko]

Thank you President Obama for appointing this judge.

NorCal 1

Trump strike 3

[boomerangutang]

                 Like some other big issues, limiting immigration is a divisive issue with many facets.  

 

                 In a nutshell, it boils down to: Are individual Americans open to immigrants or not?  Anyone who was schooled in the US as a child, knows that openness-to-immigration is a basic building block of America. It's as infused as Buddhism is for Thais.

 

                    Of course there are drawbacks to being so open (crime, etc), but do the drawbacks overwhelm the advantages (diversity, etc) ?

 

               My father, a Dane, came to the US during the Great Depression.  I was 'naturalized' at age 12. Trump's grandfather came to the US awhile ago, and got his first wads of income by working as a pimp, .....and so it goes with millions of other peoples' stories.   The only true native Americans, are...... Native Americans, and even they came from elsewhere, if you go back far enough in time.

 

                    When I think of immigration in the US, I tend to dwell on the diversity - most of which is good.  Immigrants generally want to establish families and are willing to work hard within challenging conditions.  In contrast, many white folks who trace their lineage back generations, tend to be fat, sedentary, and expect/get gov't handouts.  Granted, I'm generalizing, but if a person looks at the reality, it's evident everywhere in the US.  

 

 

 

 

[dcutman]

10 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                 Like some other big issues, limiting immigration is a divisive issue with many facets.  

 

                 In a nutshell, it boils down to: Are individual Americans open to immigrants or not?  Anyone who was schooled in the US as a child, knows that openness-to-immigration is a basic building block of America. It's as infused as Buddhism is for Thais.

 

                    Of course there are drawbacks to being so open (crime, etc), but do the drawbacks overwhelm the advantages (diversity, etc) ?

 

               My father, a Dane, came to the US during the Great Depression.  I was 'naturalized' at age 12. Trump's grandfather came to the US awhile ago, and got his first wads of income by working as a pimp, .....and so it goes with millions of other peoples' stories.   The only true native Americans, are...... Native Americans, and even they came from elsewhere, if you go back far enough in time.

 

                    When I think of immigration in the US, I tend to dwell on the diversity - most of which is good.  Immigrants generally want to establish families and are willing to work hard within challenging conditions.  In contrast, many white folks who trace their lineage back generations, tend to be fat, sedentary, and expect/get gov't handouts.  Granted, I'm generalizing, but if a person looks at the reality, it's evident everywhere in the US.  

 

 

 

 

You and your kind are so dramatic!

Other than ''Bad Guys'' and terrorists, just about everybody on this planet is eligible to immigrate to the US. Just put in the paperwork and pay the fee's and wait just like every other person does that wants to come here legally..

[WaywardWind]

1 hour ago, dcutman said:

Seems equally embarrassing that law enforcement in these so called cities do not enforce (completely ignore)  immigration laws  that are on the books.

All Fed funding should stop to these cities until theses laws are enforced.

It is not the role of local law enforcement (municipal police, county sheriffs, etc) to enforce Federal law, any more than it is the role of Federal law enforcement - FBI, CBP, Secret Service, etc - to enforce local and state laws. When was the last time you saw an FBI agent handing out traffic tickets and making arrests for shoplifting, burglary, and the like?

Edited April 26, 2017 by WaywardWind
fix typo

[dcutman]

16 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

It is not the role of local law enforcement (municipal police, county sheriffs, etc) to enforce Federal law, any more than it s the role of Federal law enforcement - FBI, CBP, Secret Service, etc - to enforce local and state laws. When was the last time you saw an FBI agent handing out traffic tickets and making arrests for shoplifting, burglary, and the like?

Total BS

If a federal law is broken all local and state police are obligated to make an arrest of anybody breaking federal law.

For example. If a international child sex trafficker escapes federal custody  is Washington DC and winds  up in San Fransisco, any/all law enforcement agencies  are obligated to arrest that person.

Edited April 26, 2017 by dcutman

[WaywardWind]

Just now, dcutman said:

Total BS

If a federal law is broken all local and state police are obligated to make an arrest of anybody breaking federal law.

For example. If a international child sex trafficker escapes federal custody  is Washington DC and winds  in San Fransisco, any/all law enforcement agencies  are obligated to arrest that person.

That is absolute nonsense - there is NO legal obligation for state and local law enforcement officers to enforce Federal law. Use you head - if such an obligation existed, do you not think that Trump and his merry band of misfits would use that for justification instead of blackmailing the sanctuary cities?

 

If you know of a statute imposing such an obligation, you should post a link.

[Langsuan Man]

1 minute ago, dcutman said:

Total BS

If a federal law is broken all local and state police are obligated to make an arrest of anybody breaking federal law.

For example. If a international child sex trafficker escapes federal custody  is Washington DC and winds  in San Fransisco, any/all law enforcement agencies  are obligated to arrest that person.

Another Constitutional scholar here at Thai Visa,  Please inform us from which University you obtained your degree in Constitutional Law

 

The obligation is only when based upon a properly presented Federal Warrant 

[dcutman]

1 minute ago, WaywardWind said:

That is absolute nonsense - there is NO legal obligation for state and local law enforcement officers to enforce Federal law. Use you head - if such an obligation existed, do you not think that Trump and his merry band of misfits would use that for justification instead of blackmailing the sanctuary cities?

 

If you know of a statute imposing such an obligation, you should post a link.

WOW!

Your Trump hate has clouded your mind.

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, dcutman said:

Total BS

If a federal law is broken all local and state police are obligated to make an arrest of anybody breaking federal law.

For example. If a international child sex trafficker escapes federal custody  is Washington DC and winds  up in San Fransisco, any/all law enforcement agencies  are obligated to arrest that person.

First of all, if the Feds send the local police a warrant they will detain the person. But localities are not required to cooperate with a mere request which is what the Trump administration is trying to enforce. In fact it was the 5 conservative judges on the Supreme Court who ruled that local law enforcement authorities are not required to cooperate with the feds in cases like this. They did this in the name if Federalism. Oddly enough, the 4 liberal judges disagreed. Gorsuch, the new justice, is a strong supported of Federalism Presumably, if the case does go to the court, once again it will be shot down. Now I bet you're sorry Merrick Garland didn't make it to the Supreme Court.

[Jingthing]

Great news. He's trying to punish regions that didn't vote for him. Continue to block.

[WaywardWind]

Just now, dcutman said:

WOW!

Your Trump hate has clouded your mind.

The link to a credible source for your assertion? Waiting...

 

Not contesting that I despise Trump for the damage he and his administration is doing to the United States, but my replies pointing out the errors of your ways are far more based in my 5 years as a police officer in a US city and 40 years as a lawyer...

[attrayant]

Vox: How Sanctuary Cities Actually Work

 

 

[hawker9000]

1 hour ago, Dagnabbit said:

Unbiased judge obviously

- appointed by Obama

- donated to Obama's 2008 campaign

- worked in the justice dept while Obama was suing Arizona over their immigration laws (allowing police to ask about immigration status when stopped)

 

Another judge that should have recused himself but instead deciding to enforce his political opinions. 

Yeah, they're painting themselves on the skyline with their predictable wingnut efforts to thwart democracy and the rule of law. These cases need to start making their way to the SC sooner rather than later.  Obamockracy will have created quite a backlog I expect however.

Edited April 26, 2017 by hawker9000

[ilostmypassword]

12 minutes ago, hawker9000 said:

Yeah, they're painting themselves on the skyline with their predictable wingnut efforts to thwart democracy and the rule of law. These cases need to start making their way to the SC sooner rather than later.  Obamockracy will have created quite a backlog I expect however.

Once again. The conservative justices on the Supreme Court have already ruled that the Feds can't compel state officers to supply information without a warrant.  When a warrant is presented then states must and do comply.

[jerojero]

Unbiased judge obviously
- appointed by Obama
- donated to Obama's 2008 campaign
- worked in the justice dept while Obama was suing Arizona over their immigration laws (allowing police to ask about immigration status when stopped)
 
Another judge that should have recused himself but instead deciding to enforce his political opinions. 

And the Republicans manipulation of the supreme court Justice appointment is not biased. Right.

[dazzz]

4 hours ago, darksidedog said:

Is there no one in this administration who actually bothers to check the Constitution before coming up with these ideas?

Being the boss of a company and being POTUS are entirely different. Donald needs to understand the President can not simply bully people the way he has done in business.

There are very strict rules governing Government behaviour, and it is embarrassing that no one in the White House currently seems to respect this.

Is there no one in the law courts who bother to check the laws  before coming up with crazy blocks .
 Being a snowflake leftie is not the same as being a mayor or judge  . Mayors and judges need to understand that they cannot bully the population the way the liberal left does . There are very strict  clear  laws governing the usa  and it is embarrassing that nobody in the law courts  or mayors departments seem to respect this

[MyFriend You]

Seriously, Sant Clara gets $1.7 Billion a year for Law Enforcement??  What if the Fedss just don't write the check for $1.7 B, write it for $100, claiming it needs the money to build the wall instead.  He wouldn't be with holding $$  just giving them what they deserve. 

 

 They held up Arizona's Federal Highway Money for half a year because they were the last state to acknowledge Martin Luther King's Birthday as a State Holiday, I didn;t see any Fed Judge blocking that one..........just saying.   

Edited April 26, 2017 by TunnelRat69

[ilostmypassword]

27 minutes ago, dazzz said:

Is there no one in the law courts who bother to check the laws  before coming up with crazy blocks .
 Being a snowflake leftie is not the same as being a mayor or judge  . Mayors and judges need to understand that they cannot bully the population the way the liberal left does . There are very strict  clear  laws governing the usa  and it is embarrassing that nobody in the law courts  or mayors departments seem to respect this

How is refusing to comply with a federal request bullying the population?  

What strict clear laws are these exactly?

[lovelomsak]

I cannot believe America. A judge can intervene with leadership of the country. If a judge dislikes something the president does the judge simply blocks what the president did.Bad judges or personal interest judges can stop any and everything  they want be it for the better of the people or not. I am so happy I am not American.

[khwaibah]

On 4/26/2017 at 2:29 PM, lovelomsak said:

I cannot believe America. A judge can intervene with leadership of the country. If a judge dislikes something the president does the judge simply blocks what the president did.Bad judges or personal interest judges can stop any and everything  they want be it for the better of the people or not. I am so happy I am not American.

 

 

We are very very very happy that your not an American.

[ilostmypassword]

On 4/26/2017 at 2:29 PM, lovelomsak said:

I cannot believe America. A judge can intervene with leadership of the country. If a judge dislikes something the president does the judge simply blocks what the president did.Bad judges or personal interest judges can stop any and everything  they want be it for the better of the people or not. I am so happy I am not American.

 

On 4/26/2017 at 2:33 PM, khwaibah said:

 

 

We are very very very happy that your not an American.

Everybody wins!

[tonray]

9 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Yeah, they're painting themselves on the skyline with their predictable wingnut efforts to thwart democracy and the rule of law. These cases need to start making their way to the SC sooner rather than later.  Obamockracy will have created quite a backlog I expect however.

 

Perhaps there would not be such a backlog if the Republicans did not block hearings on Obama's SC nominee.

[elgordo38]

11 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Great news. He's trying to punish regions that didn't vote for him. Continue to block.

Trump has a long memory on who is for and against him. yes its payback time. 

[elgordo38]

On 4/26/2017 at 2:45 PM, ilostmypassword said:

  6 hours ago, lovelomsak said:

I cannot believe America. A judge can intervene with leadership of the country. If a judge dislikes something the president does the judge simply blocks what the president did.Bad judges or personal interest judges can stop any and everything  they want be it for the better of the people or not. I am so happy I am not American.

And if you have a lousy president who can intervene??? Your really only making a personal observation which is your righ. You better hope Trump is good for America because if he is not it does not really matter what country your a citizen of.