U.S. judge unlikely to remove block on Trump sanctuary city order

[webfact]

U.S. judge unlikely to remove block on Trump sanctuary city order

By Dan Levine

 

A protester against the Texas state law to punish "sanctuary cities" stands outside the U.S. Federal court in San Antonio, Texas, U.S., June 26, 2017. REUTERS/Jon Herskovitz

 

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Wednesday said he was "very much inclined" to maintain a court order that blocks President Donald Trump's administration from carrying out a policy designed to threaten federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities.

 

At a hearing in San Francisco federal court, U.S. District Judge William Orrick III said a recent memo from the Justice Department that appeared to narrow the scope of Trump's executive order on sanctuary cities did not remove the need for an injunction.

 

Trump issued the order in January directing that funding be slashed to all jurisdictions that refuse to comply with a statute that requires local governments to share information with immigration authorities.

 

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

 

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

 

The Republican president's moves to crack down on immigration have galvanized legal advocacy groups, along with Democratic city and state governments, to oppose them in court.

 

After Trump issued the sanctuary cities executive order earlier this year, Santa Clara County - which includes the city of San Jose and several smaller Silicon Valley communities - sued, saying it was unconstitutional. San Francisco filed a similar lawsuit.

 

In a ruling in April, Orrick said Trump's order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.

 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions then issued a memo which formally endorsed a narrower interpretation of Trump's order, saying that the only funds the government intended to withhold were certain grants tied to law enforcement programs.

 

In court on Wednesday, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said the Sessions memo meant less than a million dollars were now at risk for Santa Clara County and San Francisco, so the injunction was no longer needed.

 

But Orrick said an injunction was still necessary because Trump could always order Sessions to issue new, broader guidance.

"The attorney general still has the ability to change that memo," Orrick said.

 

The judge said he would also likely reject a Justice Department request to dismiss other claims by Santa Clara and San Francisco.

 

(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-13

[just.a.thought]

Why would they not handover criminal illegal immigrants for deportation?

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, just.a.thought said:

Why would they not handover criminal illegal immigrants for deportation?

When the US government has a warrant to obtain custody for the illegal immigrant, local jurisdictions do comply. But these are requests.  And the federal government can't compel localities to, in effect, become part-time employees of the Federal government. Being strong believers in Federalism, conservatives on the Supreme Court are, or at least were, very ferocious backers of this position.

[jb61]

Surprise Surprise, the judge was appointed by none other than, wait for it; Pres. Obama.

[Redline]

2 hours ago, jb61 said:

Surprise Surprise, the judge was appointed by none other than, wait for it; Pres. Obama.

That's irrelevant.  The Federal government can't make local governments do immigration enforcement.

 

Besides, if LA, NYC, Chicago, Boston, Austin...and many other cities see a problem with it, ummm, maybe there is a problem.  The White House does not have control of Federal funds anyway

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, jb61 said:

Surprise Surprise, the judge was appointed by none other than, wait for it; Pres. Obama.

As you apparently don't know, this doctrine of Feds not being able to compel State or local employees to do the work of the Federal govt is actually a conservative one, based on the principles of Federalism. And why am I not surprised surprised that you don't know this?

[Trouble]

I guess what needs to happen is that Homeland Security issues warrants for everyone that has overstayed a visa, etc. Get them on a list, get them to the state and local authorities and then if they don't comply, take action. Certainly it won't catch all the ones who have crossed illegally but it would certainly create a problem for local enforcement everytime they stopped someone for a traffic ticket. Obviously this is no longer the United States of America so if San Francisco and other jurisdictions don't want to take responsibility for helping the Feds maybe the Feds should just put FBI, Drug Enforcement, etc. resources elsewhere in communities that want to help enforce the law.

 

On another note,  I quite honestly don't know why the Federal Government collects Federal taxes only to give grants to state and local jurisdictions.  The imbalance must be horrendous when every jurisdiction is begging for funds.  If the Feds would reduce the taxes and let the local jurisdictions pay for their own needs it might prove a better system.  The Feds should only step in where there are areas of excess poverty and little tax base.  All the big cities should be able to fund their own needs.  This grant system is too full of inequities and like everything else has become a bloated bureaucracy it and of itself. We have a system where there are certain states rights and their should be certain states responsibilities as well.  

[Credo]

3 hours ago, Trouble said:

I guess what needs to happen is that Homeland Security issues warrants for everyone that has overstayed a visa, etc. Get them on a list, get them to the state and local authorities and then if they don't comply, take action. Certainly it won't catch all the ones who have crossed illegally but it would certainly create a problem for local enforcement everytime they stopped someone for a traffic ticket. Obviously this is no longer the United States of America so if San Francisco and other jurisdictions don't want to take responsibility for helping the Feds maybe the Feds should just put FBI, Drug Enforcement, etc. resources elsewhere in communities that want to help enforce the law.

 

On another note,  I quite honestly don't know why the Federal Government collects Federal taxes only to give grants to state and local jurisdictions.  The imbalance must be horrendous when every jurisdiction is begging for funds.  If the Feds would reduce the taxes and let the local jurisdictions pay for their own needs it might prove a better system.  The Feds should only step in where there are areas of excess poverty and little tax base.  All the big cities should be able to fund their own needs.  This grant system is too full of inequities and like everything else has become a bloated bureaucracy it and of itself. We have a system where there are certain states rights and their should be certain states responsibilities as well.  

This actually goes to a core of GOP philosophy and that is the limiting of power to the Federal Government.    It seems that a lot of people only want to limit it when it is convenient.   

 

If the Federal Gov't wants to enforce immigration laws, then it is their responsibility to do so.   The states and cities do not have the financial resources to deal with holding people who are illegal and have no other charge.   In a routine traffic stop, should a police officer be forced to have someone prove they are a citizen?   A Driver's License does not prove citizenship, neither does a social security card.   Should the police hold everyone until they prove they are a citizen?   

 

If ICE wants a hold order, it will be enforced, but ICE has a limited amount of time to pick up the person.   Local police cannot hold people indefinitely.   

 

Some time ago, in Phoenix, AZ, the sheriff was forced to release 8 serious felons who had served their time for the felony, but who were held for the amount of time specified by law for ICE to pick them up.   They all had deportation orders, but were not picked up.   Legally, the local authorities could not hold them any longer, so they were released after their pictures were shown on the local news and the sheriff explained why they were release them.   Oh, and the jail had reached maximum capacity.   If there was a lawsuit, it would be the local gov't sued, not the Feds.   

 

As for the grants, this is the candy that is given to various congressmen to take back to their constituents to show how they are 'working for the people.'   

[ilostmypassword]

It would take a massive amount of money to expand the court system and add on additional agents to make the system work. The question is who should pay for it. Right now, the Feds, in effect, want the states to pay. If this is so important to the Trump administration, let them put the funds in the budget to pay for it.

[mrwebb8825]

There are multiple military bases in every state. As commander and chief, he should reassign 2,000-3,000 soldiers from the nearest bases to these sanctuary cities armed with a list of overstay visa violations, as special ICE units with an ICE agent in charge and start a sweep. No extra money needed as the military is  sworn to defend the laws against enemies both foreign and domestic.

The POTUS also has the right to issue an order of martial law during the sweeps and set up checkpoints as the illegals would surely be running like rats from sinking ships. He should also leave the northern border open and let as many as possible slip into Canada. 

[Credo]

33 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

There are multiple military bases in every state. As commander and chief, he should reassign 2,000-3,000 soldiers from the nearest bases to these sanctuary cities armed with a list of overstay visa violations, as special ICE units with an ICE agent in charge and start a sweep. No extra money needed as the military is  sworn to defend the laws against enemies both foreign and domestic.

The POTUS also has the right to issue an order of martial law during the sweeps and set up checkpoints as the illegals would surely be running like rats from sinking ships. He should also leave the northern border open and let as many as possible slip into Canada. 

For once I completely agree with you.   I would like to see Trump put troops on the Streets and start stopping everyone and checking for illegals.   I'd also like to see him declare martial law.   

 

I wonder how his right wing, state's rights people would feel about him then?   I wonder how the rest of the country would feel about it?   Perhaps he could consult with Erdogan from Turkey on how to do it up big.   

 

Oh, and I wonder how Congress will react?

 

 

Edited July 15, 2017 by Credo

[ncc1701d]

Ok... I think Trump is a complete buffoon - completely out of his depth and has early onset dementia.

 

But... I have a friend in Florida who loves him. When I asked her why, these sanctuary cities is one of the areas she is against. When she explained it to me, I find it hard to fault her position. 

 

why do they even exist and why are they being defended?

[Credo]

5 hours ago, ncc1701d said:

Ok... I think Trump is a complete buffoon - completely out of his depth and has early onset dementia.

 

But... I have a friend in Florida who loves him. When I asked her why, these sanctuary cities is one of the areas she is against. When she explained it to me, I find it hard to fault her position. 

 

why do they even exist and why are they being defended?

They exist, in part, because the local gov'ts do not wish to get extensively involved in the issue of immigration and who is or isn't an illegal alien.   They also exist because the local law enforcement needs the information from the immigrant community in order to solve serious or violent crimes.  

 

It is difficult for local police to gain the cooperation if they start questioning the status of people.   If, in the course, of arresting someone it becomes apparent the person is undocumented, they will let the ICE know and they can take over processing the person for deportation.   

 

It is a policy of not questioning a persons status in the ordinary performance of their duties.    

[ncc1701d]

8 minutes ago, Credo said:

They exist, in part, because the local gov'ts do not wish to get extensively involved in the issue of immigration and who is or isn't an illegal alien.   They also exist because the local law enforcement needs the information from the immigrant community in order to solve serious or violent crimes.  

 

It is difficult for local police to gain the cooperation if they start questioning the status of people.   If, in the course, of arresting someone it becomes apparent the person is undocumented, they will let the ICE know and they can take over processing the person for deportation.   

 

It is a policy of not questioning a persons status in the ordinary performance of their duties.    

Makes sense. It's ironic then that the illegal immigrants are being used to arrest actual Americans doing illegal stuff! Lol

[Credo]

1 hour ago, ncc1701d said:

Makes sense. It's ironic then that the illegal immigrants are being used to arrest actual Americans doing illegal stuff! Lol

I don't know that they are being used, it's just a matter of not questioning a persons status when pursuing criminals.   I am also pretty sure that it's not just 'actual Americans' doing the illegal stuff.   

[mrwebb8825]

8 hours ago, Credo said:

They also exist because the local law enforcement needs the information from the immigrant community in order to solve serious or violent crimes

It would seem that they are working counter productively then. If there were no immigrant communities, there would be no serious or violent crimes committed in them.

Doesn't anyone believe that the 1 of the biggest reasons people are wanting illegals out is because of immigrant communities that refuse to become part of the country they wish to live in?

It's not like it's never happened before which is why we have areas like Watts, Queens, Harlem, etc. so why does the history of failure need to be repeated several times over before anyone realizes what's going on?

[Credo]

26 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

It would seem that they are working counter productively then. If there were no immigrant communities, there would be no serious or violent crimes committed in them.

Doesn't anyone believe that the 1 of the biggest reasons people are wanting illegals out is because of immigrant communities that refuse to become part of the country they wish to live in?

It's not like it's never happened before which is why we have areas like Watts, Queens, Harlem, etc. so why does the history of failure need to be repeated several times over before anyone realizes what's going on?

Why would they be working counter productively?   When you get stopped for speeding, do the police ask to show proof that you paid your federal tax?  No, because that is not their job, that one belongs to the IRS.   

 

Not all immigrants live in immigrant communities and not all refuse to become a part of the community.   My family is located in a very mixed neighborhood.   It's not a cheap neighborhood and about 40% of those living there are 1st or 2nd generation immigrants.   They all (except one person) speak English, but often converse in their native language.   All their children speak English to native level.   

 

Watts and Harlem are mostly populated with native born US citizens.   I think their ancestors didn't necessarily immigrate willingly, though.   

[mrwebb8825]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

Why would they be working counter productively?   When you get stopped for speeding, do the police ask to show proof that you paid your federal tax?  No, because that is not their job, that one belongs to the IRS.  

What in the heck does getting caught speeding and being an illegal alien have to do with each other? 

Nobody is asking locals to do anything more than an extra phone call to ICE when an arrested person can't provide proof of residency or citizenship.

1 hour ago, Credo said:

Not all immigrants live in immigrant communities and not all refuse to become a part of the community.

Then I guess my post wouldn't have included them as I clearly stated "Immigrant Communities". 

1 hour ago, Credo said:

Watts and Harlem are mostly populated with native born US citizens.   I think their ancestors didn't necessarily immigrate willingly, though.   

Hence the reference to History Repeating Itself.

Edited July 23, 2017 by mrwebb8825

[iReason]

2 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

If there were no immigrant communities, there would be no serious or violent crimes committed in them.

Doesn't anyone believe that the 1 of the biggest reasons people are wanting illegals out is because of immigrant communities that refuse to become part of the country they wish to live in?

It's not like it's never happened before which is why we have areas like Watts, Queens, Harlem, etc.

 

"If there were no immigrant communities, there would be no serious or violent crimes committed in them."

 

Hyperbolic, inflammatory, contentious nonsense.

 

"Doesn't anyone believe that the 1 of the biggest reasons people are wanting illegals out

is because of immigrant communities that refuse to become part of the country they wish to live in?

 

*See first answer above.

 

"It's not like it's never happened before which is why we have areas like Watts, Queens, Harlem, etc."

 

Areas with those "darkies" eh?

Got it.

[Credo]

39 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

What in the heck does getting caught speeding and being an illegal alien have to do with each other? 

Nobody is asking locals to do anything more than an extra phone call to ICE when an arrested person can't provide proof of residency or citizenship.

Then I guess my post wouldn't have included them as I clearly stated "Immigrant Communities". 

Hence the reference to History Repeating Itself.

So, when someone is picked up and has a Driver's License, they should be forced to show citizenship?   The License will have Residency, but that has nothing to do with whether or not you are a citizen.   Should they call your name in?  

 

I don't think you realize the number of people who are legally in the US, but are not citizens.   There are a lot of foreign students, guest workers, people with work permits, temporary workers etc..  

 

If someone is charged with a crime, their name will go into a computerized system.   If ICE has a warrant or order for deportation, it will be quickly discovered, just as if there is an outstanding warrant for another jurisdiction.  

 

Sanctuary cities do not provide a safe haven.   They simply do not inquire about the status of a person when they are being questioned, stopped or aiding in an investigation.   Once your charged with a crime, their days are numbered, if ICE bothers to pick them up once they have served their time. 

[ncc1701d]

Do they pay taxes?

[Langsuan Man]

On 7/14/2017 at 4:34 PM, mrwebb8825 said:

There are multiple military bases in every state. As commander and chief, he should reassign 2,000-3,000 soldiers from the nearest bases to these sanctuary cities armed with a list of overstay visa violations, as special ICE units with an ICE agent in charge and start a sweep. No extra money needed as the military is  sworn to defend the laws against enemies both foreign and domestic.

The POTUS also has the right to issue an order of martial law during the sweeps and set up checkpoints as the illegals would surely be running like rats from sinking ships. He should also leave the northern border open and let as many as possible slip into Canada. 

Someone has never heard of the posse comitatus act which is a federal statute prohibiting use of the military in civilian law enforcement

 

Once again this administration just can't seem to frame  executive orders that will pass court challenges.  Maybe they should be filling the swamp with Harvard graduates instead of fund managers from Goldman Sachs    

Edited July 23, 2017 by Langsuan Man

[mrwebb8825]

14 hours ago, Langsuan Man said:

posse comitatus act

you may want to reread that:

"Although the president has constitutional power to use the military to protect the nation in time of emergency and to repel invasions, in the Civil Disturbance Statutes Congress expressly authorized the president to use the armed forces under emergency circumstances. Where there is an insurrection in a state against its government, the president may, in addition to calling out the militia, "use such of the armed forces as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection." Also, the president may use the armed forces to suppress a rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, or unlawful conspiracy that obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or deprives the people of the United States from their constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities. These statutes were relied on to authorize the use of federal troops to enforce federal court orders for school desegregation in Arkansas (1957), Mississippi (1962), and Alabama (1963), as well as to assist the National Guard in quelling urban riots.

Other laws allow the president to direct the armed forces actively to enforce specific federal laws."

 

 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

you may want to reread that:

"Although the president has constitutional power to use the military to protect the nation in time of emergency and to repel invasions, in the Civil Disturbance Statutes Congress expressly authorized the president to use the armed forces under emergency circumstances. Where there is an insurrection in a state against its government, the president may, in addition to calling out the militia, "use such of the armed forces as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection." Also, the president may use the armed forces to suppress a rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, or unlawful conspiracy that obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or deprives the people of the United States from their constitutional rights, privileges, and immunities. These statutes were relied on to authorize the use of federal troops to enforce federal court orders for school desegregation in Arkansas (1957), Mississippi (1962), and Alabama (1963), as well as to assist the National Guard in quelling urban riots.

Other laws allow the president to direct the armed forces actively to enforce specific federal laws."

 

 

So do we have a rebellion or insurrection in California at the moment?

[dutchisaan]

18 hours ago, ncc1701d said:

Do they pay taxes?

Do you pay taxes???

[mrwebb8825]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

So do we have a rebellion or insurrection in California at the moment?

in·sur·rec·tion

ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/

noun

noun: insurrection; plural noun: insurrections

1. a violent uprising against an authority or government.

   "the insurrection was savagely put down"

   synonyms:

   rebellion, revolt, uprising, mutiny, revolution, insurgence, riot, sedition, subversion;

    

   Where there is an insurrection in a state against its government, the president may, in addition to calling out the militia, "use such of the armed forces as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection."

    

   unlawful conspiracy that obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States

    

   By states and sanctuary cities refusing to uphold the Laws of the United States Federal Government via conspiracy although blatantly, he has the authority to use the military on a temporary basis to re-enforce the federal agents of ICE.

[ncc1701d]

2 hours ago, dutchisaan said:

Do you pay taxes???

I'm not an illegal immigrant, so yeah, I pay taxes. Not sure what you're getting at.

 

if illegal immigrants were using my tax money to support them in my country, I too would not be happy about it. Especially if they didn't pay taxes.

Edited July 24, 2017 by ncc1701d

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

in·sur·rec·tion

ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/

noun

noun: insurrection; plural noun: insurrections

1. a violent uprising against an authority or government.

   "the insurrection was savagely put down"

   synonyms:

   rebellion, revolt, uprising, mutiny, revolution, insurgence, riot, sedition, subversion;

    

   Where there is an insurrection in a state against its government, the president may, in addition to calling out the militia, "use such of the armed forces as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection."

    

   unlawful conspiracy that obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States

    

   By states and sanctuary cities refusing to uphold the Laws of the United States Federal Government via conspiracy although blatantly, he has the authority to use the military on a temporary basis to re-enforce the federal agents of ICE.

That is no answer, just implied there is no insurrection. Please answer the question or if you can't, don't pretend to do so by quoting.

Edited July 24, 2017 by stevenl

[Scott]

On 7/23/2017 at 7:48 PM, ncc1701d said:

Do they pay taxes?

Many do pay taxes and social security, although they may never be able to collect SS.   A lot of the illegals with regular employment are using someone else's SS #.   It should also be noted, that many illegals have a SS # of their own.   You do not have to be a citizen to have one and they may have gotten one when they were in the country legally.  

 

For many of the day laborers, I doubt they pay taxes, unless there is an automatic withholding, but most would be under the official poverty level.  

[mrwebb8825]

On 7/25/2017 at 0:09 AM, Scott said:

Many do pay taxes and social security, although they may never be able to collect SS.   A lot of the illegals with regular employment are using someone else's SS #.   It should also be noted, that many illegals have a SS # of their own.   You do not have to be a citizen to have one and they may have gotten one when they were in the country legally.  

 

For many of the day laborers, I doubt they pay taxes, unless there is an automatic withholding, but most would be under the official poverty level.  

A slight correction: Non-US Citizens are issued a TIN, not a SSN.