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

a reply to: namehere

Every State is "funded" by the federal government. Thats why we all pay federal taxes.

You do pay your taxes, don't you?

more fuel to help spark California's zealous endeavor to secede.


the man knows how to negotiate.

a reply to: odzeandennz

the man knows how to negotiate.

Negotiation by edict?

originally posted by: reldra

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?

No.
It was not a campaign promise.

a reply to: PlasticWizard

I remember reading about them threatening to defund programs as well. Details are fuzzy but they've done it before.

Yes, based on laws. Highway funding, Title IX.

Apparently there is no law which links funding of any particular thing to enforcement of federal immigration laws. Maybe Congress should think about that. In the meantime, Trump can issue yet another EO which will certainly go through the courts.

originally posted by: namehere
why is a state like california being funded by the government when nearly half this country is falling apart?

The USA is only "falling apart" emotionally. The people are cracking up. The economy isn't so bad.

a reply to: Phage

Trump can issue yet another EO which will certainly go through the courts.

Is there any reason you think the existing EO signed on Jan 25th will not cover this situation?

a reply to: D8Tee

Can you help me out and provide the index number?
Can you do the research and see if it applies to States?

a reply to: Phage

Admittedly I am learning this as necessary, however....harboring ILLEGAL aliens has always been a crime.

Lets start with that. ANYONE found entering the USA currently without a valid USA issued VISA is in non-compliance with our immigration laws. Anyone overstaying their LEGAL visa is also in violation of this countries laws.

Last I read cities, municipalities, ect... that knowing shielded, aided, immigrants in the USA without a proper visa or extended their stay are out of compliance with Federal Law. I recognize that Federal funding "can be withheld if a city, municipality or state willfully violates Federal statutes regarding immigration law.

It do realize that get it gets all "legal" and lawyerfied with what we think of as one thing may means another, however ....

Certain cities in Cali have not only flouted the established long standing immigration laws, but bragged about it in knowling and willful defiance .
If the Federal government can and has the will thru any branch of the Federal government to legally withold funding I can't see your problem?

Compliance with the law is paramount, a country without laws devolves into anarchy.

a reply to: Caver78

Compliance with the law is paramount, a country without laws devolves into anarchy.

Toward the latter, there are plenty of laws.
Toward the former, there were laws which prohibited blacks from marrying whites. There were laws which prohibited blacks from using the same restroom as whites. Was compliance paramount?

Why is he even trying to do this through funding? Aren't these people technically aiding and abedding? Stop with the stupid too much social status to have the laws enforced on them nonsense and start throwing these people in jail for breaking the law which they technically are. Arrest them, fine them, and get the money that way. No reason to punish the populace, just punish the #ers in government breaking the goddamn law. So sick of having a government position meaning you can ignore the #ing law.

Oh right, because if these people actually started doing this, there's a risk their law breaking could come back to bite them in the ass as well. If these people all started arresting each other for the laws they break, then we'd hardly have a government left.

a reply to: Puppylove

Stop with the stupid to much social status to have the laws enforced on them nonsense and start throwing these people in jail for breaking the law which they technically are.

That would seem to be the problem. What law are they in violation of, exactly? If you are talking about the officials, that is.

a reply to: Phage

Aiding and Abedding. They are knowingly and with malice towards our government, refusing to enforce our laws in order to protect and help people breaking the laws of our nation and helping them to get away with it. They are doing this openly and without remorse. They are mocking the very laws of our country.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee

Can you help me out and provide the index number?
Can you do the research and see if it applies to States?

Link to Whitehouse EO

(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.

The word "jurisdiction" is also used to refer to a state or political subdivision generally, or to its government, rather than to its legal authority.[6]
Is that good enough for you?
Many members like to paint Trump as incompetent.
The historic record may show otherwise.
I see no need for 'yet another EO', do you?
Again, it will be a matter for the courts.

a reply to: D8Tee

Yup. That covers it.

So, he was forgetful then. We'll see what happens if the EO is applied.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee

Yup. That covers it.

So, he was forgetful then. We'll see what happens if the EO is applied.

In what way was he forgetful?
I'm missing something here.

Succession is being proposed by the looney left, not Trunp.
a reply to: reldra

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BlueAjah

I don't see how defunding law enforcement in California would fight illegal immigration.

Seems like overkill. Bigly.

Its a fair point you are making.

I would ask though, did you feel the same about Obamas threats to cut off funding for not enforcing his gender bathroom guidelines?

I mean don't schools do more than.... I don't know, let people pee where they want?

a reply to: D8Tee

Forgetful, or redundant.
Why reiterate the threat contained in the EO? Why not simply act on it like he did with the "protection" EO? Is he not as confident of the legality?

NM