It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 27 2017 @ 11:42 PM
Trump should try to pass a national law that sanctuary cities are financially responsible for all crimes committed by illegal aliens that have been arrested by those cities and not passed on to INS

So the victims of crimes would be able to sue the sanctuary cities when crimes are committed by those criminals they are trying to protect

Think about the financial aspects of this.

posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 02:51 AM

originally posted by: carewemust

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?

A "so-called" judge. The judges on TV are more legitimate than this one. Judge Orrick personally raised $200,000 for President OBAMA.

This has to be so frustrating for Donald Trump. A businessman who is not used to having his requests and orders ignored, or slapped down, like he's now experiencing as the President.

What is a "so-called" judge anyways? Is he some guy posing as a judge? Was the judge not nominated and approved properly? Does he not hold a law degree?

posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 06:42 AM

originally posted by: Konduit

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: eisegesis

That is incorrect. Anyone trying to enter the country or currently in the country citizen or otherwise is protected by the Constitution. PLUS there are also international laws regarding human treatment that need to be obeyed as well.

If it's unconstitutional why do they start backing off when Trump threatens to bring them to the Supreme Court? This is nothing but delay tactics by a bunch of spiteful losers.

Who is Trump bringing to the Supreme Court and what does that have to do with me stating the people the Constitution covers?

posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 02:26 AM
July 21, 2017

Did the same so-called Judge block the order again today?

""In a seeming act of defiance toward the Trump administration, a federal judge in San Francisco has refused to reinstate the president’s sanctuary cities order.  

The bold move to not reinstate President Donald Trump's executive order -- which sought to slash funding to cities that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities -- comes amid a battle between the State Department and local governments across the country over the edict from Washington.""

Full Article:

posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 04:05 AM
Living across the pond, I am no expert in US laws or the intricate workings of the US government, except for that I read everywhere.
That said, it seems a clear cut case in this issue. For example, the laws governing immigration at a federal level have been in place for a very long time, way before a certain Mr. Donald Trump appeared on the scene. It would appear that over time, previous administrations, rather than officially relax the rules, have chosen, for one reason or another, to openly ignore them.

So now we get to today and see a Federal Judge, basically refusing to uphold laws that are already in place, and federally mandated? Is that not a good enough reason to immediately disbar the judge? I mean, if he refuses to uphold the law, then surely he is not worthy of his position!

The laws have been in place for a long time, as I too was stopped on 2 trips to the US, in 2003 and 2004, as I was unemployed at the time, and the angle they took was that I was possibly there to look for work and stay beyond my allowable time. So, the rules seem to be applied to people arriving in the country via the official / legal channels and so should apply more so to anyone having entered the country via illegal / unofficial channels. Right?

Maybe I am missing something here, it all seems so clear cut yet many seem to be getting their panties in a twist, blaming Trump for upholding longstanding laws that already existed.

As for the withdrawal of Federal money to the state refusing to uphold the law, they have congressmen and senators who are a part of the Federal government system and who should know that it is their duty to uphold the law. Failure to do so should always have consequences, and rightly so!

posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 04:15 AM

originally posted by: ketsuko
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.

Once they exit, the US can invade them and take it back, removing all State officials and replacing them.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in