It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump to Fox News: I may defund California as 'a weapon' to fight illegal immigration

page: 7
75
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Why would you still qualify for federal funding if you don't follow federal law?




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Option 3:

Federal ICE agents are present at all police stations, and they spot check on patrols.

National Guard does spot checks and round-ups.

Is that what California wants?




posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BlueAjah


It's interesting that you are so worried about the people in these cities, but you were not so worried about how children would be affected when you supported Obama cutting federal funding of schools for not following his bathroom gender rules.

Is there a law which says States cannot receive funding if they do not enforce federal laws?


I don't have a clear cut answer about that.

I think, could definitely be wrong, that would relate to the Supremacy Clause. Article 6, clause 2. In the express powers sense anyways.

Through the Supremacy Clause the federal court can require a state to halt behavior that conflicts with federal law. That covers the behavior part but I think the financial part might be able to be considered under the guise of implied powers. Maybe.

I know the federal government can halt funding for federal-state programs but I'm not sure that applies to this issue.

I do believe such a thing shouldn't be done quickly or lightly and is a matter for the courts to decide. They have a different way of reading laws and statutes than many are privy to.

Overall, I think a state choosing not to follow the constitution should have some kind of tangible penalty. Otherwise that could be a very real beginning of the breaking up of the union.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

It depends. If there is a law which says you will not, you will not.

Is there a law that says that if a State (or city) does not enforce federal law (which, btw, is different from following federal law) it does not qualify for federal funding? Is there a law which links funding to such?

edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:34 PM
link   
No more free ride, boo-hoo!



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Is about darn time, is a sad thing that the state of California has been taken by political corruption.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Noncents




That covers the behavior part but I think the financial part might be able to be considered under the guise of implied powers. Maybe.

And the president can throw in his two bits as well.

As I said, another interesting court case.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kromlech
No more free ride, boo-hoo!


Californians don't pay federal taxes?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BlueAjah



It's interesting that you are so worried about the people in these cities, but you were not so worried about how children would be affected when you supported Obama cutting federal funding of schools for not following his bathroom gender rules.

Is there a law which says States cannot receive funding if they do not enforce federal laws?


8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS GUIDANCE REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH 8 U.S.C. 1373


Your personnel must be informed that notwithstanding any state or local policies to the
contrary, federal law does not allow any government entity or official to prohibit the sending
or receiving of information about an individual’s
citizenship or immigration status with any
federal, state or local government entity and officials.

May a state make a subgrant to a city that the state knows to be violating an applicable
law or regulation (e.g. Section 1373), or a programmatic requirement?

A. No. A JAG grantee is required to assure and certify compliance with all applicable
federal statues, including Section 1373, as well as all applicable federal regulations, policies,
guidelines and requirements. This requirement passes through to any subgrants that may be
made and to any subgranteees that receive funds under the grant.
...
A grantee is responsible to the federal government for the duration of the award. As the
primary recipient of the award, the grantee is responsible for ensuring that subgrantees
assure and certify compliance with federal program and grant requirements, laws, or regulations
(e.g. Section 1373).
If a grantee or subgrantee has policies or practices in effect that violate
Section 1373, the grantee or subgrantee will be given a reasonable amount of time to remedy
or clarify such policies to ensure compliance with applicable law. Failure to remedy any
violations could result in the withholding of grant funds or ineligibility for future OJP grants
or subgrants, or other administrative,
civil, or criminal penalties, as appropriate.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

So if Mississippi says tomorrow, hey cali doesn't have to follow the law and still gets money. We decide we are going to jail all the LGBT community because our state reps deem same sex relations a crime. You would still be asking the same ridiculous questions about if fed funding can be withdrawn if a state is noncomplient with federal law?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
I agree fully. I don't watch many court cases any more but I'd be glued to that one as much as possible.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Awesome. Now we're getting somewhere. Your source:

Section 1373 does not impose on states and localities the affirmative obligation to collect information from private individuals regarding their immigration status, nor does it require that states and localities take specific actions upon obtaining such information. Rather, the statute prohibits government entities and officials from taking action to prohibit or in any way restrict the maintenance or intergovernmental exchange of such information, including through written or unwritten policies or practices.



Sounds shaky for Trump.

edit on 2/5/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
There's an executive order dealing with this.

Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States

Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States. These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.


(a) In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary. The Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law.


(c) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is directed to obtain and provide relevant and responsive information on all Federal grant money that currently is received by any sanctuary jurisdiction.


DONALD J. TRUMP


THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 25, 2017.
edit on 5-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BlueAjah

Awesome. Now we're getting somewhere. Your source:

Section 1373 does not impose on states and localities the affirmative obligation to collect information from private individuals regarding their immigration status, nor does it require that states and localities take specific actions upon obtaining such information. Rather, the statute prohibits government entities and officials from taking action to prohibit or in any way restrict the maintenance or intergovernmental exchange of such information, including through written or unwritten policies or practices.

www.bscc.ca.gov...(A)%20-%20OJP%20Guidance%20on%20Compliance%20with%208%20U%20S%20C%20%20%C2%A7%201373.pdf


Of course they do not need to go door to door collecting information about citizenship from private citizenship.
But they are required to communicate the information if they have it, such as someone who is incarcerated.

The exact wording of the law:


(a) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
(b) Additional authority of government entities Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
(1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2) Maintaining such information.
(3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.
(c) Obligation to respond to inquiries

The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.


This clearly states that if INS requests information, they are obligated to provide it.


edit on 2/5/17 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noncents
a reply to: Phage
I agree fully. I don't watch many court cases any more but I'd be glued to that one as much as possible.


I used to watch court cases, until my life changed.

It's very interesting to see how its really done. Not the TV sitcom versions.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah


nor does it require that states and localities take specific actions upon obtaining such information.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
This is the "so called" law that so called "sanctuary cities" are bucking is Secure Communities and administrative immigration policies


Secure Communities is an American deportation program that relies on partnership among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.[1][2] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the interior immigration enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is the program manager.


When a local jail has an undocumented immigrant serving time for a crime, ICE and Homeland Security are notified. When that prisoner has served their time for the crime they've been convicted of, ICE is supposed to come and get them. If they don't the federal government expects the local jails to keep these prisoners, indefinitely, until they get around to them. This puts a burden on the local jail that has to house, cloth and feed that prisoner. That's why they're letting these prisoner go. ICE never showed up to get them, and the city said "enough!".

Also, local jails can't afford to just keep people, indefinitely, who haven't committed any crime other than being undocumented. Undocumented people who have been identified through their children's school, or for reporting a crime, for example, are being detained at local jails until ICE gets around to them. Cities don't want this responsibility are aren't being compensated.

The Secure Communities program needs a little tweaking and funding issues need to be addressed.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Well then, lets see if this soon to secede nation state can do without the rest of us mortals as they proclaim.

What do they care. They have fields of grapes spilling wine and olives seeping fine oil like heavens dew....all the beauty in the world to attract all the wealth in it....


edit on 2 5 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: reldra

I'm all about pro state rights, but don't expect federal funding if you bow up and tell the Feds you aren't following the law.


A lot have, with marijuana. Should we defund them, too?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Annee

How does that have to do with the thread?


That Trump thinks its just fine to turn off people's heat and electricity to get what he wants?

Seems to fit perfectly to me.

However, a president of a country is about the people.


Well, recent polls showed the majority of California residents were against sanctuary cities.

So expect recall votes for the criminal elected officials in California failing to represent their citizens.



new topics

top topics



 
75
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join