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

[webfact]

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

By Dan Levine

 

President Donald Trump reacts as he attends a "Made in America" products showcase event. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

 

(Reuters) - A U.S. judge on Thursday refused to revisit a court order that blocks President Donald Trump's administration from carrying out a policy designed to threaten the granting of federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities.

 

U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco ruled that 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 a court-ordered injunction.

 

Orrick wrote that the memo is not binding and the attorney general can revoke it at any time.

 

A Justice Department spokeswoman could not immediately be reached for comment.

 

Trump issued the order in January, shortly after he was inaugurated, directing that funding be slashed to all jurisdictions that refuse to comply with a statute that requires local governments to share information with U.S. immigration authorities.

 

Sanctuary cities generally offer safe harbour to illegal immigrants and often do not use municipal funds or resources to enforce 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.

 

After Trump issued the sanctuary cities executive order, California's 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.

 

The Justice Department asked Orrick to revisit that ruling, after Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo which said the only funds the government intended to withhold were certain grants tied to law enforcement programs.

 

Orrick voiced scepticism at a hearing earlier this month.

 

(Reporting by Dan Levine; Editing by Leslie Adler)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-07-21

[darksidedog]

Please Donald, read the laws of the land and the Constitution at least once while you are in office, and they try to introduce legislation that complies. The courts are busy enough already without you unnecessarily adding to the workload with ill thought out, morally questionable, mean and racist rubbish that has no chance of passing.

[LannaGuy]

1 hour ago, darksidedog said:

Please Donald, read the laws of the land and the Constitution at least once while you are in office, and they try to introduce legislation that complies. The courts are busy enough already without you unnecessarily adding to the workload with ill thought out, morally questionable, mean and racist rubbish that has no chance of passing.

Nice to see you agree that some cities can protect people illegally and refuse to comply with immigration enforcement. What has become of America? 

[boomerangutang]

I'm against Trump, and I'm almost tired of winning so much. 

[Credo]

15 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

Nice to see you agree that some cities can protect people illegally and refuse to comply with immigration enforcement. What has become of America? 

It is not the remit of the local police to enforce immigration law.   It is the responsibility of the Federal Gov't, that is what America has always been and hopefully will continue to be.   

[LannaGuy]

3 minutes ago, Credo said:

It is not the remit of the local police to enforce immigration law.   It is the responsibility of the Federal Gov't, that is what America has always been and hopefully will continue to be.   

That's right... and certain cities refuse to cooperate with ICE... correct? 

Edited July 21, 2017 by LannaGuy

[Damrongsak]

It's nice to know that judges and local authorities "feel" that what they are doing supersedes the law. So they cock-block others, ignore the spirit of the law and go home at night feeling smug and put their consciences to bed.  Probably after counting their salary, benefits and how many days they have until a cushy retirement.

[Credo]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

That's right... and certain cities refuse to cooperate with ICE... correct? 

I am not sure what your talking about.   If there is an arrest warrant, then the cities will pick up and detain a person.   Does ICE pick up people for speeding?   Do they apprehend drug dealers?   Perhaps they arrest people for animal abuse and answer calls for domestic violence?

 

 

[tonray]

1 hour ago, Damrongsak said:

It's nice to know that judges and local authorities "feel" that what they are doing supersedes the law. So they cock-block others, ignore the spirit of the law and go home at night feeling smug and put their consciences to bed.  Probably after counting their salary, benefits and how many days they have until a cushy retirement.

No...what the judges are doing is making sure that legislation or executive orders do not violate the protections and provisions of the Constitution (not that Trump cares about that)

[Trouble]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

It is not the remit of the local police to enforce immigration law.   It is the responsibility of the Federal Gov't, that is what America has always been and hopefully will continue to be.   

That is not entirely true.  There has always been cooperation between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in apprehending people who break the law regardless of jurisdiction. It is a more complicated issue than simply yes or no regarding immigration issues.  While it is the responsibility of the Federal Government, there are many overlapping rules and regulations which complicate the issue. The fact that some cities are flat out protecting illegal aliens from deportation is a extremely bad practice in that choosing which laws an entity is going to assist in enforcing is treading on dangerous ground.  Suppose the Feds decide to put law enforcement resources elsewhere and not pass on information to local authorities which may pertain to local criminality but not a direct violations of Federal law? Who suffers?  It is a big mess and choosing which laws one might assist in enforcing is ludicrous. Seems like there is no societal right or wrong anymore but just what one person or another thinks is right or wrong.

[impulse]

2 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

Nice to see you agree that some cities can protect people illegally and refuse to comply with immigration enforcement. What has become of America? 

 

That's pretty much how it's supposed to work.  Feds pass laws that other entities (states, cities, individuals) believe violate their constitutional rights.  

 

The most expeditious way to test the constitutionality is to violate the laws and take them to court.  That's what's happening.  Fortunately, the guys testing the laws have real deep pockets and are pretty much immune to personal liability for doing so.  

 

The ones I feel for are individuals whose rights are violated, and they don't have the means to protect themselves.  Edit:  Rosa Parks comes to mind as one example of someone who broke a law that was wrong...

 

It's slow.  It's frustrating.  And a lot of people don't agree with one side or the other.  But that's what the founding fathers gave us.

 

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by impulse

[Credo]

47 minutes ago, Trouble said:

That is not entirely true.  There has always been cooperation between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in apprehending people who break the law regardless of jurisdiction. It is a more complicated issue than simply yes or no regarding immigration issues.  While it is the responsibility of the Federal Government, there are many overlapping rules and regulations which complicate the issue. The fact that some cities are flat out protecting illegal aliens from deportation is a extremely bad practice in that choosing which laws an entity is going to assist in enforcing is treading on dangerous ground.  Suppose the Feds decide to put law enforcement resources elsewhere and not pass on information to local authorities which may pertain to local criminality but not a direct violations of Federal law? Who suffers?  It is a big mess and choosing which laws one might assist in enforcing is ludicrous. Seems like there is no societal right or wrong anymore but just what one person or another thinks is right or wrong.

Quite right; they do cooperate, but they don't do each others job.   If ICE has a hold order or a deportation order, then local officials will apprehend and hold them.   In the situations that I am aware of, they have been held for the maximum amount of time allowed, but ICE never picked them up, so they were released.   

 

The Administration and ICE need to realize that no everyone is going to do their job for them.  

 

 

 

[LannaGuy]

2 minutes ago, Credo said:

Quite right; they do cooperate, but they don't do each others job.   If ICE has a hold order or a deportation order, then local officials will apprehend and hold them.   In the situations that I am aware of, they have been held for the maximum amount of time allowed, but ICE never picked them up, so they were released.   

 

The Administration and ICE need to realize that no everyone is going to do their job for them.  

 

 

 

Yup only in good 'Ole America. 

[348GTS]

1 hour ago, tonray said:

No...what the judges are doing is making sure that legislation or executive orders do not violate the protections and provisions of the Constitution (not that Trump cares about that)

 

I am pretty sure the American Constitution was set up to protect and provide for American citizens, not illegal aliens who are already breaking the law for being in the country illegally, as well as being in police detention for another crime or multiple crimes. The problem is that the police in so-called sanctuary cities have been told by the local powers-that-be to not check the immigration status of their prisoners and not report them to ICE. On top of that, there have been cases where ICE have requested certain prisoners be held until ICE come to fetch them and have been released on to the street in defiance of this, often to re-offend.

 

Let's leave the Trump Derangement Syndrome out of this thread, this has to do with US federal laws that are being deliberately broken by Democrat run cities who think the laws don't apply to them if they personally don't agree with them. Nothing good will come from promoting and aiding illegals to commit crimes.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

Nice to see you agree that some cities can protect people illegally and refuse to comply with immigration enforcement. What has become of America? 

Some of you people sure are stubborn in your error-ridden ways. No, it is not illegal for states or cities not to comply with Federal requests to turn over undocumented aliens. The conservatives on the Supreme Court unanimously support that view since the Feds would, in effect, be making states or local workers, employees of the Federal government. As ardent Federalists, conservative justices don't approve. State and city law enforcement agencies do turn over undocumented aliens if the Feds present them with a warrant.

[iReason]

4 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

Nothing good will come from promoting and aiding illegals to commit crimes.

That is shocking.

 

That's something I've not read.

 

Who is doing this?

 

Who is "promoting and aiding illegals to commit crimes."?

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

I am pretty sure the American Constitution was set up to protect and provide for American citizens, not illegal aliens who are already breaking the law for being in the country illegally, as well as being in police detention for another crime or multiple crimes. The problem is that the police in so-called sanctuary cities have been told by the local powers-that-be to not check the immigration status of their prisoners and not report them to ICE. On top of that, there have been cases where ICE have requested certain prisoners be held until ICE come to fetch them and have been released on to the street in defiance of this, often to re-offend.

 

Let's leave the Trump Derangement Syndrome out of this thread, this has to do with US federal laws that are being deliberately broken by Democrat run cities who think the laws don't apply to them if they personally don't agree with them. Nothing good will come from promoting and aiding illegals to commit crimes.

Clearly you are not familiar with the 14 Amendment of the United States. The laws protect all people in the USA. Not just citizens. And see above about Federalism and conservative justices.

[tonray]

8 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

I am pretty sure the American Constitution was set up to protect and provide for American citizens, not illegal aliens who are already breaking the law for being in the country illegally, as well as being in police detention for another crime or multiple crimes. The problem is that the police in so-called sanctuary cities have been told by the local powers-that-be to not check the immigration status of their prisoners and not report them to ICE. On top of that, there have been cases where ICE have requested certain prisoners be held until ICE come to fetch them and have been released on to the street in defiance of this, often to re-offend.

 

Let's leave the Trump Derangement Syndrome out of this thread, this has to do with US federal laws that are being deliberately broken by Democrat run cities who think the laws don't apply to them if they personally don't agree with them. Nothing good will come from promoting and aiding illegals to commit crimes.

the ruling is about defunding the cities ..stick to the issue 

[348GTS]

3 minutes ago, tonray said:

the ruling is about defunding the cities ..stick to the issue 

 

Well it kinda is the issue actually. If there were no sanctuary cities deliberately flaunting federal law and aiding illegals to continue to commit crimes, then there would not be the situation we have now where the government has to step in and threaten them with defunding.

[tonray]

1 minute ago, 348GTS said:

 

Well it kinda is the issue actually. If there were no sanctuary cities deliberately flaunting federal law and aiding illegals to continue to commit crimes, then there would not be the situation we have now where the government has to step in and threaten them with defunding.

We have a wonderful system of checks and balances to ensure that no single branch of government can arbitrarily do what they want. Should the President believe he has a good case he can appeal all the way to the highest court. The system is working exactly as it should.

[348GTS]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Clearly you are not familiar with the 14 Amendment of the United States. The laws protect all people in the USA. Not just citizens. And see above about Federalism and conservative justices.

 

I don't doubt that, however, many people are of the opinion that these actions put actual citizens at risk and in many cases have done so. Santuary cities appear to put the safety and well-being of illegal aliens over that of their own citizens. And therein lies the problem.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

I don't doubt that, however, many people are of the opinion that these actions put actual citizens at risk and in many cases have done so. Santuary cities appear to put the safety and well-being of illegal aliens over that of their own citizens. And therein lies the problem.

So you didn't write the following?

"Let's leave the Trump Derangement Syndrome out of this thread, this has to do with US federal laws that are being deliberately broken by Democrat run cities who think the laws don't apply to them if they personally don't agree with them"

 

[smotherb]

3 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

Nice to see you agree that some cities can protect people illegally and refuse to comply with immigration enforcement. What has become of America? 

You mean the America that violates the constitution?

[impulse]

9 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

I don't doubt that, however, many people are of the opinion that these actions put actual citizens at risk and in many cases have done so. Santuary cities appear to put the safety and well-being of illegal aliens over that of their own citizens. And therein lies the problem.

 

I think a lot of cities believe (and some have demonstrated) that a heavy handed policy toward suspected illegals actually puts their citizens (as well as the city employees) at greater risk.  

 

There are layers of complexity to an issue like this including the benefit of cooperation from legal immigrant communities with the police to fight crime, and how that's affected with heavy handed tactics.

 

Edit:  And there's always the issue of an unfunded Federal mandate when the cities have to incarcerate, feed and provide humanitarian services to the detained while waiting for ICE to take them.  None of that's free, and most cities' budgets are pretty stretched already.

 

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by impulse

[smotherb]

2 hours ago, Damrongsak said:

It's nice to know that judges and local authorities "feel" that what they are doing supersedes the law. So they cock-block others, ignore the spirit of the law and go home at night feeling smug and put their consciences to bed.  Probably after counting their salary, benefits and how many days they have until a cushy retirement.

Are you even aware of the function of the Judicial branch of the US government?

[348GTS]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

So you didn't write the following?

"Let's leave the Trump Derangement Syndrome out of this thread, this has to do with US federal laws that are being deliberately broken by Democrat run cities who think the laws don't apply to them if they personally don't agree with them"

 

 

What's your point?  The comments are not related. People seem to forget that millions of people agree with Trump on this issue and making absurd comments like Trump doesnt care about the constitution do nothing to further the debate and are a symptom of TDS.

[smotherb]

1 hour ago, Trouble said:

That is not entirely true.  There has always been cooperation between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in apprehending people who break the law regardless of jurisdiction. It is a more complicated issue than simply yes or no regarding immigration issues.  While it is the responsibility of the Federal Government, there are many overlapping rules and regulations which complicate the issue. The fact that some cities are flat out protecting illegal aliens from deportation is a extremely bad practice in that choosing which laws an entity is going to assist in enforcing is treading on dangerous ground.  Suppose the Feds decide to put law enforcement resources elsewhere and not pass on information to local authorities which may pertain to local criminality but not a direct violations of Federal law? Who suffers?  It is a big mess and choosing which laws one might assist in enforcing is ludicrous. Seems like there is no societal right or wrong anymore but just what one person or another thinks is right or wrong.

Gee, maybe that is one of the reasons courts make the rulings with debatable issues. 

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, 348GTS said:

 

What's your point?  The comments are not related. People seem to forget that millions of people agree with Trump on this issue and making absurd comments like Trump doesnt care about the constitution do nothing to further the debate and are a symptom of TDS.

The point is that you claim that cities run by democrats breaking the law when they refuse to comply with Federal requests to detain undocumented aliens. The fact is you are wrong. They are not breaking the law. They are not breaking the law. They are not breaking the law. Has it sunk in now?

[smotherb]

32 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

I am pretty sure the American Constitution was set up to protect and provide for American citizens, not illegal aliens who are already breaking the law for being in the country illegally, as well as being in police detention for another crime or multiple crimes. The problem is that the police in so-called sanctuary cities have been told by the local powers-that-be to not check the immigration status of their prisoners and not report them to ICE. On top of that, there have been cases where ICE have requested certain prisoners be held until ICE come to fetch them and have been released on to the street in defiance of this, often to re-offend.

 

Let's leave the Trump Derangement Syndrome out of this thread, this has to do with US federal laws that are being deliberately broken by Democrat run cities who think the laws don't apply to them if they personally don't agree with them. Nothing good will come from promoting and aiding illegals to commit crimes.

Gee, maybe you ought to offer your services to the Trumpets; they seem to need someone who can straighten out those rascally courts who think they know best.

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, 348GTS said:

 

What's your point?  The comments are not related. People seem to forget that millions of people agree with Trump on this issue and making absurd comments like Trump doesnt care about the constitution do nothing to further the debate and are a symptom of TDS.

 

Not disagreeing with all your points, but millions of people would also agree with shipping all black people off to Africa.  (Having lived and traveled extensively in the south, I've personally met thousands of 'em)  That doesn't make it good policy, or legal under the constitution.