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’s Sanctuary Cities Order Blocked by Federal Judge

page: 1
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   

A San Francisco judge barred enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order withholding funds from so-called sanctuary cities that fail to comply with federal immigration demands by shielding undocumented immigrants.

Source

I personally have a problem with sanctuary cities. They prevent my government from doing a job that I feel benefits this country and the simple fact that they violate federal law.

8 U.S. Code § 1324


(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation

While they indirectly,


(iv) encourage or induce an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law

I’ll be happy to agree to disagree.



San Francisco and its Silicon Valley neighbor, Santa Clara County, on Tuesday both won preliminary injunctions blocking the Jan. 25 edict by Trump who declared that sanctuary jurisdictions cause “immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our republic." The city and county argued the president’s order violated the Constitution and threatened to deprive them of funding for local programs.

What a bunch of hypocrites!!


ILLEGAL “IMMIGRANTS” ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION!!!

The claim that Trump’s order would deprive them of local funding is a vague statement and needs to be backed up with numbers and facts. You know, those silly little things that get in the way, lol.

The article states that this victory could help reinforce similar policies in some of the nation’s largest cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Anything for that winning ticket!!!


The win bolsters California’s aspirations to lead the so-called resistance against the Trump administration’s agenda. This month, the state Senate passed the California Values Act, a measure that would give the entire state sanctuary status by prohibiting its agencies from sharing certain information with U.S. counterparts or detaining individuals on orders from Washington.

Sadly, certain (D) bags rely on this type of behavior, attempting to create a dense voter block of progressive disciples. I just don't believe there are enough warm blooded AMERICANS willing to side with such a mentality. In my opinion, someone that illegally benefits from a lawless micro-society at the expense of law abiding citizens should be removed.

What's next, a tax sanctuary for the rich?


edit on 25-4-2017 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Screw the Fed, they shouldn't meddle in states affairs, anyway.


+14 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

So a judge from a sanctuary city says nuh uh you have to keep giving us money.

Am I reading this correctly?


+3 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

The Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of government are separate but EQUAL. The Constitution is explicit on this point to avoid dictatorships and corruption.

If you belief in the Constitution, you agree the President cannot rule by decree.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: eisegesis

The Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of government are separate but EQUAL. The Constitution is explicit on this point to avoid dictatorships and corruption.

If you belief in the Constitution, you agree the President cannot rule by decree.



We the people voted on that... (rips large fart)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Screw the Fed, they shouldn't meddle in states affairs, anyway.


Very true, to include NOT providing Federal funding to the sanctuary cities...Federal funding needed because their Democrat controlled city governments couldn't pass a sixth grade word problem related to budget. For example,
'if you have $50.00 this week to feed your family and $40.00 of it goes to other people NOT in your family, how much does your American citizen family have left to buy shelter, food, and healthcare while the ILLEGAL neighbors get four times better shelter, food, and healthcare?" Democrats and Liberals need not try to solve since their answer will always be..."Too much! The illegals get $49.99 and you get .01...suck it up, we're all in this together!"
edit on 25-4-2017 by Lab4Us because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: eisegesis

So a judge from a sanctuary city says nuh uh you have to keep giving us money.

Am I reading this correctly?


Yeah, pretty much, and this appeal will go 9th Circuit, so you know which way they'll swing too.


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Screw the Fed, they shouldn't meddle in states affairs, anyway.


I agree. No reason for federally collected tax dollars to be used for state programs. That said, if sanctuary states/cities are going to be allowed, then the federal government needs to withdraw the border patrol and HLS back to the good side of those state's and city borders to defend their problems from becoming our problems. (and by "our" I mean those of us in states which haven't elected Captain Bendovers as our leadership and actually place value on securing America from illegal aliens.)


+1 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: eisegesis

The Legislative, Judicial and Executive branches of government are separate but EQUAL. The Constitution is explicit on this point to avoid dictatorships and corruption.

If you belief in the Constitution, you agree the President cannot rule by decree.



He's not. He's ruling by the law. The sanctuary cities, one and all, are in flagrant violation of it. If they want to break federal law, then they don't need to be paid by tax dollars to do it. This is an old solution to such problems and is hardly new to Trump.


+4 more 
posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Where the heck were these activist judges when Obama threatened to cut federal funding to any state who refused to allow pedophiles predators to get naked in front of little girls in showers and bathrooms?

Hypocrites.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Where the heck were these activist judges when Obama threatened to cut federal funding to any state who refused to allow pedophiles predators to get naked in front of little girls in showers and bathrooms?

Hypocrites.


They were supporting Obama because they're liberal activist judges. They want federal funds withheld to ensure compliance with the liberal thought police, not funds withheld to ensure compliance with the actual law.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Leonidas

I understand your point.


But, there is a gray area...


According to the Congressional Research Service, there is no direct “definition of executive orders, presidential memoranda, and proclamations in the U.S. Constitution, there is, likewise, no specific provision authorizing their issuance.”

But Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests executive powers in the President, makes him the commander in chief, and requires that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Laws can also give additional powers to the President.

While an executive order can have the same effect as a federal law under certain circumstances, Congress can pass a new law to override an executive order, subject to a presidential veto.

Link

It appears that we're in a catch-22 based on one's (in this case, a federal judge's) interpretation of the issue. Can we at least get those with criminal records out of the way before we start granting amnesty?

edit on 25-4-2017 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: eisegesis
In my opinion, this blatant disregard for the law...

Can there be any more blatant disregard for law (especially when it interferes with his enrichment) than Trump's?



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Just cut ALL federal funding to the entire state that has sanctuary cities. By all, I mean evict section 8, food stamps, Medicaid matching funds, and especially politician retirement funds and payroll.


When Bill Clinton doesn't get his check for being an ex-president then some stuff will get done PDQ.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

I was thinking similar. California has been wanting to exit? Well, fine. Let them exit, only we can exit them. They're more or less acting like the Confederate states of the union were prior to the Civil War anyhow.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

However to take that to it's next logical step, would that State not then attempt to stop any taxes flowing out of their state to the Federal government?

That would give the states with big economies more power than smaller states creating an untenable inequality. It seems to me that would ultimately lead to a defacto break-up of the country.
edit on 25-4-2017 by Leonidas because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Asking as I truly don't know... Are there other actions aside from cutting funding that the Feds can do at their level to have States enforce immigration laws? Am I correct in thinking the argument from States and individual cities is that it's Federal law and it's only up to the Feds to enforce those laws?

Personally, I oppose sanctuary cities. But I'm still trying to wrap my head around how a local government can decide to refuse to enforce... heck not even enforce, but assist with enforcement of the law in this regard. The negative impact of failing to enforce it seems quite obvious to me. But I'm happy to learn and would like to understand more.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: eisegesis

None of this matters because Gorsuch was appointed to the SCOTUS.

This means that it is only a matter of time before Trump reinstates his travel ban and dismantles sanctuary cities.

At the end of the day it's the $ that talks, Trump knows this, Sessions knows this.

I'm all in favor of stripping sanctuary cities of their federal funding.


edit on 4/25/2017 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: eisegesis

None of this matters because Gorsuch was appointed to the SCOTUS.

This means that it is only a matter of time before Trump reinstates his travel ban and dismantles sanctuary cities.

At the end of the day it's the $ that talks, Trump knows this, Sessions knows this.

I'm all in favor of stripping sanctuary cities of their federal funding.

.

Isnt it sad that is how it works. GOP got to pack the court, so no matter how things turn out they get to shaft the country for years with Gorsuch rulings.



posted on Apr, 25 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: eisegesis

None of this matters because Gorsuch was appointed to the SCOTUS.

This means that it is only a matter of time before Trump reinstates his travel ban and dismantles sanctuary cities.

At the end of the day it's the $ that talks, Trump knows this, Sessions knows this.

I'm all in favor of stripping sanctuary cities of their federal funding.

.

Isnt it sad that is how it works. GOP got to pack the court, so no matter how things turn out they get to shaft the country for years with Gorsuch rulings.


You say that as if the Court didn't have the exact same balance of justices with Gorsuch's predecessor there.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join