Trump losing Sanctuary City battle?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: seeker1963

Yea that's what I mean. What else is there to do when cities or States go rogue?

Soon there won't be a United States of anything.

Empowering local government implicitly means giving them the ability to tell DC to go to hell.

I guess you're not a states rights fan?

Immigration is a federal responsibility. Check the 9th and 10th amendments.

well, if they are allowed to ignore immigration law and not enforce it but still get federal money then they should be allowed to not enforce any laws and still be entitled to federal money.

isn`t that what the judge is saying?

originally posted by: Aazadan
Empowering local government implicitly means giving them the ability to tell DC to go to hell.

I guess you're not a states rights fan?

The federal government determines immigration policy and border security, not the states. Since these people have crossed our national borders, that very much makes it a federal issue.

originally posted by: Tardacus
well, if they are allowed to ignore immigration law and not enforce it but still get federal money then they should be allowed to not enforce any laws and still be entitled to federal money.

isn`t that what the judge is saying?

The 'judge' is saying whatever fits his activist paradigm.

The Spirit Of The Laws

a reply to: vor78

It's up to judges to decide cases brought before them, not run around playing Judge Dredd and rule on everything, as entertaining as that might be. In this case, even the DOJ lawyers representing the government conceded their case was very weak.

It's not Judge Orrick's fault portions of the executive order don't pass constitutional muster. That's the President's responsibility, and he blew it.

Trump may have lost this round, but he still has both the power and the duty to enforce federal law, and his executive orders are just an opening move in a much longer game.

Sanctuary cities cite a variety of legal doctrines to justify their positions, some stronger than others. But their positions have problems of their own, including, for example, potential conflicts with existing laws in their respective states. The DOJ may be able to take advantage of these and other weaknesses inherent to sanctuary cities.

A common theme among sanctuary cities is that they do not consider themselves responsible for enforcing federal law, and there's precedent for that. Indeed, under President Obama, Arizona was sued for doing essentially that when they tired of federal malfeasance on immigration, so that's probably a dead-end to pursue under current law.

I suspect Trump's best next move will be to work with Congress to make various forms of federal grants available only to cities and states that cooperate on immigration enforcement. Once such terms are embedded in legislation, they can legally be enforced.

There's already ample historical precedent for that, even including forcing states to pass laws such as the 55 MPH National Speed Limit back in the Dark Ages to receive federal highway funds, so lawsuits against such stipulations are very likely to fail, and Trump wins -- IF Congress goes along.

Very big IF.

The Powers That Be

Parallel to that, since sanctuary cities have flatly declared they won't cooperate with federal law enforcement efforts, the President would be justified in seeking additional funds for immigration enforcement in sanctuary cities and intensifying efforts there. If he can get enough ICE agents in place, he can make sanctuary cities less safe for illegal immigrants than other communities, rendering their ideological stances moot.

In addition, President Trump can take their insistence that only "feds" can enforce federal law to heart by instructing the DOJ and FBI to aggressively investigate and prosecute anyone in these jurisdictions, including city or state officials on probable cause, for violations of federal law related to immigration, including harboring, aiding or conspiring to violate said laws. Most of these violations would be felonies punishable by federal imprisonment, which would be another way to handle problem areas.

I'm not personally a big fan of big government or an all-powerful federal government, but it is firmly established in law that immigration enforcement falls to the feds. If more feds are needed due to historical malfeasance and local opposition, then so be it.

Sanctuary cities have set themselves up for a game of hardball, and it is traditional for the President to throw out the first pitch.

We'll see soon enough if Trump is little league or big league.

It's legal to be illegal.

o_0

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Immigration is a federal responsibility. Check the 9th and 10th amendments.

Then perhaps the feds should go to those cities and enforce it themselves.

a reply to: Byrd

It's okay, because he didn't write it anyway.

Trump's definitely a piece of work, and I can't blame anyone for despairing of him being President, but he did give a voice to millions of Americans that were tired of being ignored. The monumental middle finger his election gave to both major parties and the establishment in general was worth the price of admission in my book, and he continues to entertain.

My expectation is that America will still fall apart, but differently than it would have under Hillary, and hopefully in a better way. I guess we'll see.

Pass the popcorn.

a reply to: Majic

Very well thought out and spoken. Bravo!

Yes popcorn please.

I don't mind state laws until state laws are breaking other laws.

Every state is different, but we need to be working semi in the same direction.

If not we are going to have a big time mess on our hands. I think at least.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
It's legal to be illegal.

o_0

It's hip to be square.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Immigration is a federal responsibility. Check the 9th and 10th amendments.

Then perhaps the feds should go to those cities and enforce it themselves.

Careful what you wish for, you just may get it.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Immigration is a federal responsibility. Check the 9th and 10th amendments.

Then perhaps the feds should go to those cities and enforce it themselves.

Careful what you wish for, you just may get it.

they could just use national guard and swear them in as U S marshalls to go clean house skirting the law about soldiers on U S soil.

originally posted by: tkwasny
A federal judge has no authority to demand and require the federal government to disperse grant money to anyone, anywhere, any time.

A Federal Judge does have the authority to demand that the Federal government abide by it's stated agreements on funding to states and cities without randomly trying to impose new policy by using funding as a weapon..

It was conservative SCOTUS John Roberts that ruled that an Administration can not use funding as a weapon...That the 10th Amendment was "Sacred"...

But of course that was a ruling about Medicaid funding and Obamacare ...a ruling that conservatives cheered.

Trumps EO violated the 5th (Due Process) and the 10th amendments..

And ...PSSSST...For those as civics challenged as our current POTUS...The power of the purse strings resides in Congress, not the WH...

The EO also was a violation of separation of powers..

a reply to: tkwasny

Neither does the president. Congress has the purse and legislative powers. When are you guys going to get it. All these EO's mean nothing without congress doing their job and disperse funds or change the laws.

originally posted by: [post=22166209]Majic

I'm not personally a big fan of big government or an all-powerful federal government, but it is firmly established in law that immigration enforcement falls to the feds. If more feds are needed due to historical malfeasance and local opposition, then so be it.

Sanctuary cities have set themselves up for a game of hardball, and it is traditional for the President to throw out the first pitch.

I'd say the "first pitch" was a wild one and hit the umpire.

Yes immigration is an a federal issue, but once the fed has failed, does not the local state have a right to govern as best they can in the context of that failure?

Congress can try to embed some mechanism for enforcement in legislation, but how do you define the standard is a specific and legal way? "Sanctuary City" is a political/rhetorical phrase without actual criteria or definition. No one in local or federal government fully knows what qualifies as a "sanctuary city"..

And yes Congress is the place to settle it...they hold the purse strings, not the President...

There is also a reasonable argument to be made that over-zealous arrests and deportations of unlawful immigrants actually increases crime..Police in most cities rely on unlawful immigrants to cooperate in reporting crimes and criminals in those communities...that would immediately end. A serial rapist continues to rape when it is not reported due to fear of deportation...Violent gang members find shelter in immigrant communities because no one will report their crimes for fear of deportation..etc. etc.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: tkwasny

Neither does the president. Congress has the purse and legislative powers. When are you guys going to get it.

They could always go the way of Turkey and pass an amendment absolving separation of powers and giving Trump unlimited authority over government?

originally posted by: neo96
I gotta hand it to Trump haters.

Using the law to break the law, and keep money coming in when they intentionally disregard the law.

Tha'ts a special kind something.

Just a macro version of welfare recipients demanding their handouts while wallowing in the dirty bed they've made.

a reply to: Indigo5

question how does a STATE have a 5th amendment right? A person does but not a state. And if th e10th was so sacred then how come Lincoln was not Impeached for his abuse of it in his time?

Pitch And Yaw

a reply to: Indigo5

Actually, on further analysis, the executive order "first pitch" may not be as wild as Judge Orrick suggests, and may ultimately prevail on appeal given its language. Specifically, in the case of grants whose provisions explicitly stipulate federal cooperation as a requirement, the administration's position is well-supported by established precedent. We'll see.

As for what constitutes a "sanctuary city" -- aside from self-labeling -- an actionable legal definition would be those cities which do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. That would include not honoring detainer requests, as an example.

Of course, a strong and sensible case has already been made that cities are not responsible for enforcing federal law, so they are well within their rights to declare as much, in my opinion. In return, however, Congress is well within its constitutional authority to make federal grants contingent upon cooperation by cities with federal enforcement efforts.

If it's written into law, it's the law. While cities disqualified by such requirements could challenge them, their odds of successfully doing so are poor unless the language of those laws somehow violates the Constitution, and precedent is firmly against the cities on that.

a reply to: Majic

And the tape with Trump in an interview saying how would "weaponize" withholding funds?