PDA

View Full Version : Sanctuary cities



garhkal
11-16-2016, 07:01 PM
So with trump's election, many mayors are coming out 'recommitting their cities and towns' to be safe havens for illegal immigrants, and we even have had one town Chief of police say his cops won't be used to enforce immigration laws..

Do you think Trump should remove federal funds from these cities?
Do you think for the cop(s) who refuse to follow the laws, should have the DOJ and AG come down on them???

Rainmaker
11-16-2016, 07:13 PM
So with trump's election, many mayors are coming out 'recommitting their cities and towns' to be safe havens for illegal immigrants, and we even have had one town Chief of police say his cops won't be used to enforce immigration laws..

Do you think Trump should remove federal funds from these cities?
Do you think for the cop(s) who refuse to follow the laws, should have the DOJ and AG come down on them???

Rainmaker's all for the States being able to do what they want.....But, he's also for the rest of us taxpayers, not having to pay to support millions of Foreign National Criminal Illegal Aliens (who refuse to follow our laws) anymore

Have to admit, that It's going to be extremely funny.......watching the Prog assholes (who are always hollering for Federal intervention into local affairs) crying as they have the force of the US Government, used against them for a change!

efmbman
11-16-2016, 07:54 PM
Do you think Trump should remove federal funds from these cities?

I wish that was possible, but this is another example of a promise made by Trump that he lacks the ability to deliver on. Naturally, voters believed it and, well... we know the results.

The Supreme Court ruled (sorry - I can't seem to find the case) that for <I><B>Congress</I></B> to impose conditions on the receipt of federal money by the states, the conditions must be reasonably related to the purpose of the money. For example, the feds threatened to withhold highway funds from any state that failed to adopt a 0.08 blood-alcohol limit: Both the limit and the highway funding were related to road safety. While a case may be made for some line item funding to be related to illegal alien sanctuary, it's clear from the articles I've seen that those cities will fight it in court. The cities in question span the country so how do you think the votes in Congress would be cast? Would a congressperson from that city honestly cast a vote that would eliminate federal funding from their district? Unlikely.

WILDJOKER5
11-16-2016, 08:28 PM
I wish that was possible, but this is another example of a promise made by Trump that he lacks the ability to deliver on. Naturally, voters believed it and, well... we know the results.

The Supreme Court ruled (sorry - I can't seem to find the case) that for <I><B>Congress</I></B> to impose conditions on the receipt of federal money by the states, the conditions must be reasonably related to the purpose of the money. For example, the feds threatened to withhold highway funds from any state that failed to adopt a 0.08 blood-alcohol limit: Both the limit and the highway funding were related to road safety. While a case may be made for some line item funding to be related to illegal alien sanctuary, it's clear from the articles I've seen that those cities will fight it in court. The cities in question span the country so how do you think the votes in Congress would be cast? Would a congressperson from that city honestly cast a vote that would eliminate federal funding from their district? Unlikely.

Federal funding cuts to schools who have illegals children attending schools. They threatened cutting funding till the states raised the drinking age from 18 to 21.

Bos Mutus
11-16-2016, 10:53 PM
Federal funding cuts to schools who have illegals children attending schools. .

That would be an interesting dilemma since; by law, schools must accept and educate illegals




The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plyler vs. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982)) that undocumented children and young adults have the same right to attend public primary and secondary schools as do U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Like other children, undocumented students are obliged under state law to attend school until they reach a mandated age. As a result of the Plyler ruling, public schools may not:

Deny admission to a student during initial enrollment or at any other time on the basis of undocumented status.
Treat a student differently to determine residency.
Engage in any practices to "chill" the right of access to school.
Require students or parents to disclose or document their immigration status.
Make inquiries of students or parents that may expose their undocumented status.
Require social security numbers from all students, as this may expose undocumented status.

Rainmaker
11-17-2016, 12:18 AM
That would be an interesting dilemma since; by law, schools must accept and educate illegals

Decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court can be overturned by either a constitutional amendment or by a future U.S. Supreme Court decision, according to HowStuffWorks. Supreme Court decisions can also be countered or circumvented by new legislation.

What's that? Countered by New legislation? Funny because, Rainmaker just received an email from his local, suddenly responsive Congress Critter about that....

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article115154383.html

The president-elect has vowed to cut federal funding to those cities as one of his first official actions following his Jan. 20 inauguration.

Buchanan voiced his support for a bill that does just that, and another that would stiffen penalties for some people in the country illegally.

The “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act” cuts federal funding for communities that block local police from cooperating with federal immigration officers.

“Katie’s Law” imposes a mandatory five-year sentence for any illegal immigrant who re-enters the country illegally after previously being deported. The law is named for Kate Steinle, who was killed by a person in the country illegally who had been deported five times and convicted of seven felonies.


Hmmm.....Maybe we need to take a look at that map again?

https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/geographic-landslide1.png

garhkal
11-17-2016, 06:13 AM
Rainmaker's all for the States being able to do what they want.....But, he's also for the rest of us taxpayers, not having to pay to support millions of Foreign National Criminal Illegal Aliens (who refuse to follow our laws) anymore

Have to admit, that It's going to be extremely funny.......watching the Prog assholes (who are always hollering for Federal intervention into local affairs) crying as they have the force of the US Government, used against them for a change!

Difference is a lot of those things progs rail about the feds stepping into state stuff about is not something normally controlled at the fed level, unlike with border security and immigration..


I wish that was possible, but this is another example of a promise made by Trump that he lacks the ability to deliver on. Naturally, voters believed it and, well... we know the results.

The Supreme Court ruled (sorry - I can't seem to find the case) that for <I><B>Congress</I></B> to impose conditions on the receipt of federal money by the states, the conditions must be reasonably related to the purpose of the money. For example, the feds threatened to withhold highway funds from any state that failed to adopt a 0.08 blood-alcohol limit: Both the limit and the highway funding were related to road safety. While a case may be made for some line item funding to be related to illegal alien sanctuary, it's clear from the articles I've seen that those cities will fight it in court. The cities in question span the country so how do you think the votes in Congress would be cast? Would a congressperson from that city honestly cast a vote that would eliminate federal funding from their district? Unlikely.

In that case, he could withhold funds from medical facilities (since illegals get treated via medicare), welfare and law enforcement for failing to do their law required duties..


Federal funding cuts to schools who have illegals children attending schools. They threatened cutting funding till the states raised the drinking age from 18 to 21.

That is true.. He could also revoke federal funds from colleges that enable/accept illegals..


That would be an interesting dilemma since; by law, schools must accept and educate illegals
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plyler vs. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982)) that undocumented children and young adults have the same right to attend public primary and secondary schools as do U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Like other children, undocumented students are obliged under state law to attend school until they reach a mandated age. As a result of the Plyler ruling, public schools may not:

Deny admission to a student during initial enrollment or at any other time on the basis of undocumented status.
Treat a student differently to determine residency.
Engage in any practices to "chill" the right of access to school.
Require students or parents to disclose or document their immigration status.
Make inquiries of students or parents that may expose their undocumented status.
Require social security numbers from all students, as this may expose undocumented status.

Which to me was an unconstitutional decision by the Scotus.. So if needed it can be revisited and overruled..

efmbman
11-17-2016, 11:26 AM
Which to me was an unconstitutional decision by the Scotus.. So if needed it can be revisited and overruled..

That's possible. Having a new conservative appointee may overturn it. However, in some cases, a newly appointed justice will recuse himself or herself from a case if the policy at stake is being pushed by the same president that did the appointing. In addition, SCOTUS can be very picky about which cases they hear. Something novel and different must be addressed in the case for SCOTUS to hear a case that may reverse a previous ruling. Time will tell, but there are more obstacles on this path than assistance. Don't get me wrong - I hate sanctuary cities because they thrive on ignoring the rule of existing laws. I just don't think this is likely to change despite the speeches and rhetoric we heard for the last year.

Bos Mutus
11-17-2016, 01:22 PM
Decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court can be overturned by either a constitutional amendment or by a future U.S. Supreme Court decision, according to HowStuffWorks. Supreme Court decisions can also be countered or circumvented by new legislation.

Of course.


What's that? Countered by New legislation? Funny because, Rainmaker just received an email from his local, suddenly responsive Congress Critter about that....

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article115154383.html

The president-elect has vowed to cut federal funding to those cities as one of his first official actions following his Jan. 20 inauguration.

Buchanan voiced his support for a bill that does just that, and another that would stiffen penalties for some people in the country illegally.

The “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act” cuts federal funding for communities that block local police from cooperating with federal immigration officers.

“Katie’s Law” imposes a mandatory five-year sentence for any illegal immigrant who re-enters the country illegally after previously being deported. The law is named for Kate Steinle, who was killed by a person in the country illegally who had been deported five times and convicted of seven felonies.


Hmmm.....Maybe we need to take a look at that map again?

https://mishgea.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/geographic-landslide1.png


I would say that cutting federal funding for cities that do not allow/require police to cooperate with immigration officials is something that can be done easily and fairly immediately.

It's just your idea about cutting funding for schools that educate illegals that is the problem...because as of now, schools can not turn away illegals. So, you're basically saying you expect the federal government to cut funding to schools for obeying federal laws.

Bos Mutus
11-17-2016, 01:28 PM
Which to me was an unconstitutional decision by the Scotus. So if needed it can be revisited and overruled..

All laws can be changed, of course.

But, as of now...are you agreeing that schools should be withheld federal funding for obeying the federal law?

garhkal
11-17-2016, 05:48 PM
All laws can be changed, of course.

But, as of now...are you agreeing that schools should be withheld federal funding for obeying the federal law?

Obeying a wrongful scotus decision, but NOT obeying federal immigration laws..

Bos Mutus
11-17-2016, 09:50 PM
Obeying a wrongful scotus decision, but NOT obeying federal immigration laws..

It's not the school's job to enforce immigration laws.

garhkal
11-18-2016, 04:28 AM
It's not the school's job to enforce immigration laws.

Then why is it that it's their job to enforce the president's executive order on gays and bathrooms??

Rusty Jones
11-18-2016, 05:11 AM
Then why is it that it's their job to enforce the president's executive order on gays and bathrooms??

They're not enforcing it. They're obeying it.

garhkal
11-18-2016, 05:12 AM
They're not enforcing it. They're obeying it.

So why not obey the laws on immigration enforcement? OR are those optional?

Rusty Jones
11-18-2016, 05:21 AM
So why not obey the laws on immigration enforcement? OR are those optional?

Okay, let me break this down for you, so your pea brain can understand.

The POTUS says, "Schools, you have to let children use the restroom according to their gender identity."

The schools respond with "Yes sir, we'll get right on it."

I don't remember schools being told to do anything with regard to immigration. Do you?

Bos Mutus
11-18-2016, 01:08 PM
So why not obey the laws on immigration enforcement? OR are those optional?

What law are they disobeying? The schools have no role in immigration other than the fact that they are not allowed to ask about, investigate it, or turn away illegals.

Do you check the citizenship papers of all your customers at JoAnn's?

Let's pretend for a moment that you wanted to...because, you know, it's the law that illegals shouldn't be here. So, you start enforcing immigration laws by asking for documents.

Then...your manager comes to you and says, "Gark, under no circumstances are you to ask any of our customers for immigration papers. Illegal immigration might be a problem, but it's not our problem and we have no authority or responsibility to request documents of our customers."

Do you think obeying your manager is "not following the law"?

garhkal
11-18-2016, 08:12 PM
Do you think obeying your manager is "not following the law"?

If he's asking me to ignore the law, yes.

Bos Mutus
11-18-2016, 08:47 PM
If he's asking me to ignore the law, yes.

He isn't asking you to ignore it.

Nothing in the law requires fabric store security guards to check the immigration status of customers.

Now, if you were a school, it goes one step further...not only does the law not require to check immigration status, it specifically forbids you from doing so. Not only that, but should you stumble upon the knowledge that one of your students is illegal, the law requires you to educate them just as you would any other student.

Rusty Jones
11-18-2016, 09:43 PM
Garhkal, do you get pissed off when someone half a mile up the street ignores a "no turn on red sign," when there are no cars nearby?

Think about it for a second - such a person "broke the law," but because it didn't happen near you or (or anyone else for that matter), guess what? It's none of your goddamned business. If a cop saw him do it, then the cop will take care of that. What that driver did is strictly between himself and the law.

Immigration is no different. You're not an INS agent. Let the INS do their jobs. If someone is standing on US soil and they're not supposed to be, then that's between them and the law. Stay the fuck out of it.

garhkal
11-19-2016, 04:14 AM
Garhkal, do you get pissed off when someone half a mile up the street ignores a "no turn on red sign," when there are no cars nearby?

Think about it for a second - such a person "broke the law," but because it didn't happen near you or (or anyone else for that matter), guess what? It's none of your goddamned business. If a cop saw him do it, then the cop will take care of that. What that driver did is strictly between himself and the law.

Immigration is no different. You're not an INS agent. Let the INS do their jobs. If someone is standing on US soil and they're not supposed to be, then that's between them and the law. Stay the fuck out of it.

As a member of the mil who swore an oath to uphold the law and defend the constitution, i CAN'T as ignoring it is to me, as bad as CONDONING the crime..

Rusty Jones
11-19-2016, 04:40 AM
As a member of the mil who swore an oath to uphold the law and defend the constitution, i CAN'T as ignoring it is to me, as bad as CONDONING the crime..

You sound like a fucking overzealous elementary school hall monitor/safety patrol right now, you know that? Unless the government is paying you to do the job, then leave that job to the people who ARE getting paid to do that job.

If you see someone "breaking the law," and you feel the need to do something, then whip out your phone and call 911. Though, I'm pretty sure that you're fully aware that calling 911 isn't going to yield the result that you want; which is probably why that option isn't on the table for you.

efmbman
11-19-2016, 09:54 AM
As a member of the mil who swore an oath to uphold the law and defend the constitution, i CAN'T as ignoring it is to me, as bad as CONDONING the crime..

I may have found a way for you to do your part and make a difference:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/photos/border-patrol-volunteers-43621527/image-43621894

The Arizona Border Recon (AZBR) is one of several armed groups of that stage reconnaissance and surveillance operations in remote areas along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Tim Foley, a U.S. Army veteran, is the group’s director. "We have two main goals," he said. “The first is to help the Border Patrol secure the border by giving them intelligence during our operations on the border. Second, we want people to understand that the border is not safe and secure. It's just not, and a lot of Americans don't get that from what they hear in the media."

Mjölnir
11-19-2016, 11:28 AM
Citizens aiding law enforcement is fairly norm. Granted, there are degrees of involvement / aid that are individual and situationally defendant, I would say that generally if life or limb is not in danger, direction action is likely not warranted. I would not go so far as to say "mind your own business", because we all do have a responsibility to maintain our society, sticking our head in the sand is no good ... Being overzealous is also no good.

Just as an example: should BLM, the ACLU, SPLC or a variety of other groups disband and forego their efforts because what they are advocating for falls under the cognizance of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice? I would say "no".

-Do I stop people/report people I see roll through a stop sign in my neighborhood? No.
-Did I block the exit to my road a couple weeks ago when I observed the paper delivery guy doing well over the 20mph limit early in the morning and remind him it is a residential area and regardless of time he was being dangerous to people out walking & jogging and needed to slow down or I would be calling the police? Yes.

Citizens I getting involved in immigration enforcement can be problematic because ... How do you ID an illegal immigrant? There are some indicators that law enforcement would use, the average layman would likely racially profile.

As far as our military oaths and the issue, we swear to support and defend the Constitution. That oath nor our various ranks and authorities grant us law enforcement powers nor responsibility outside a military environment absent of martial law and/or specific guidance (usually disaster relief etc. -- think post-hurricane Katrina).

Bos Mutus
11-19-2016, 06:34 PM
As a member of the mil who swore an oath to uphold the law and defend the constitution, i CAN'T as ignoring it is to me, as bad as CONDONING the crime..

It's against the law for schools to refuse to educate illegals

Rusty Jones
11-19-2016, 07:45 PM
Citizens aiding law enforcement is fairly norm. Granted, there are degrees of involvement / aid that are individual and situationally defendant, I would say that generally if life or limb is not in danger, direction action is likely not warranted. I would not go so far as to say "mind your own business", because we all do have a responsibility to maintain our society, sticking our head in the sand is no good ... Being overzealous is also no good.

Just as an example: should BLM, the ACLU, SPLC or a variety of other groups disband and forego their efforts because what they are advocating for falls under the cognizance of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice? I would say "no".

-Do I stop people/report people I see roll through a stop sign in my neighborhood? No.
-Did I block the exit to my road a couple weeks ago when I observed the paper delivery guy doing well over the 20mph limit early in the morning and remind him it is a residential area and regardless of time he was being dangerous to people out walking & jogging and needed to slow down or I would be calling the police? Yes.

Citizens I getting involved in immigration enforcement can be problematic because ... How do you ID an illegal immigrant? There are some indicators that law enforcement would use, the average layman would likely racially profile.

As far as our military oaths and the issue, we swear to support and defend the Constitution. That oath nor our various ranks and authorities grant us law enforcement powers nor responsibility outside a military environment absent of martial law and/or specific guidance (usually disaster relief etc. -- think post-hurricane Katrina).

Except I wouldn't compare what garhkal is doing to any of this. Garhkal is trying to act with authority that he has not been legally granted.

And, let's be real here: this isn't out of blind reverence for "the law." He has PERSONAL reasons for what he's trying to do.

garhkal
11-20-2016, 04:43 AM
It's against the law for schools to refuse to educate illegals

But its also against the law to help/harbor or otherwise aid illegals.. Which is why i say that ruling BY The scoutus (ruling, not law), is wrong..

Mjölnir
11-20-2016, 10:52 AM
Except I wouldn't compare what garhkal is doing to any of this. Garhkal is trying to act with authority that he has not been legally granted.

To be honest, I am not sure based on this thread what garhkal is or isn't doing. The United States does allow for a warrantless arrest by individual members of the community for certain crimes committed in their presence (citizen's arrest). Specifics vary state to state. A big caveat on that situation is criminal and civil liability when the citizen making the arrest is wrong. What I don't know is if I observed someone walking down the street I knew to be an illegal immigrant (for arguments sake let's avoid how I know), is them just being present a crime or was the illegal entry into the country the crime -- how do I back up my detaining them? I don't know that a citizen's arrest would be valid, especially if based on suspicion. if not ... The way the illegal immigrant came into custody could invalidate their detention, and then of course get you sued for violating someone's rights.


And, let's be real here: this isn't out of blind reverence for "the law." He has PERSONAL reasons for what he's trying to do.

It may be, that would not negate the fact that an illegal immigrant is in the country illegally. I doubt that many conservatives or progressives are purely altruistic in their motivations.

All that aside, I am personally conflicted on schools teaching / offering services to illegal immigrants. The vast majority of these kids ... Yes kids ... are here because of their parents. They (the kids) are far from hardened criminals, but they also do create a drain / expenditure on already limited resources. What are we willing to not fund in order to fund education of illegal immigrants? While an illegal immigrant child will not keep a citizen or legal immigrant from a seat in a public school, they do add to the student : teacher ratio, which depending on where you are in the US, can be heavily populated with illegal immigrants. Of anyone that I would consider consider an amnesty immigration policy to be the right thing ... It is the kids. I do believe a solution exists that is compassionate and respects and maintains the law, that requires compromise; too few are willing to compromise.

BT BT

On sanctuary cities, they do create a problem, from both a 'respect for the law' perspective and an economic perspective. When local, county, or state law enforcement refuses to enforce federal law, they risk the safety and security of their constituency. Also, while many illegal immigrants and do actually pay taxes, many do not. Sanctuary cities tend to be areas where they do not, and these cities are already generously providing multitudes of social and public services. If the overhead cost of running the city is going to go up, that has to be paid for ... By taxes or bonds, usually by taxes, which means taxes go up. This is not good for the individual since they see an increase in their individual tax burden as well as the increase in corporate and business taxes passed on to them in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

Mjölnir
11-20-2016, 11:05 AM
But its also against the law to help/harbor or otherwise aid illegals.. Which is why i say that ruling BY The scoutus (ruling, not law), is wrong..

Do you believe it is the law or the intent of the lawmaker that governs?

I don't know if you have read much on the ruling. The case was Plyler v. Doe and is very interesting from the standpoint of 'literal, non-interpretive interpretation of the law' -- I heard the late Justice Scalia (a strict 'textualist') talk about it a few years ago.

The Court based its ruling on the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Equal Protection Clause. “No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Use of the word "person" vice "citizen" is key. When Scalia talked about it, he disagreed with the concept, but conceded that his own views on the literal wording of the law meant that it applied to anyone in the jurisdiction, not just citizens. His option was that we should not so much interpret literal writings of the law, but if we did not like the law, draft, propose and legislate a new law.



In Plyler v. Doe the Court held that if states provide a free public education to U.S. citizens and lawfully present foreign-born children, they cannot deny such an education to undocumented children without “showing that it furthers some substantial state interest.” The Court found that the school district had no rational basis to deny children a public education based on their immigration status, given the harm the policy would inflict on the children themselves and society as a whole. “By denying these children a basic education,” the Court said, “we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation.” The Court also said that holding children accountable for their parents’ actions “does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.”

Rusty Jones
11-20-2016, 03:23 PM
But its also against the law to help/harbor or otherwise aid illegals.. Which is why i say that ruling BY The scoutus (ruling, not law), is wrong..

"Harboring" specifically means to hide them from law enforcement. Kind of hard to do that in public buildings (i.e., public schools) and cities where mayors have announced to the world that they're "sanctuary cities."

I'm going to say this again: this isn't about "the law." Every last one of us has laws that we disagree with, and we all pick and choose which laws we're going to obey. Every one of us does, including YOU.

This is exactly why when anyone says "because it's the law," you know they're full of shit.

Bos Mutus
11-20-2016, 04:08 PM
. Which is why i say that ruling BY The scoutus (ruling, not law), is wrong..

SCOTUS rulings are law

MikeKerriii
11-20-2016, 05:24 PM
So with trump's election, many mayors are coming out 'recommitting their cities and towns' to be safe havens for illegal immigrants, and we even have had one town Chief of police say his cops won't be used to enforce immigration laws..

Do you think Trump should remove federal funds from these cities?
Do you think for the cop(s) who refuse to follow the laws, should have the DOJ and AG come down on them???

Congress can remove the funding but Trump simply does not have the authority to do so

It is a basic legal fact the Local cop have no obligation to enforce federal law unless there is a direct requirement but into that particular law, and that is not the case in any of the laws we are talking about, the DOJ and the AG can not come down on them becae no laws are being broken,

MikeKerriii
11-20-2016, 05:44 PM
In that case, he could withhold funds from medical facilities (since illegals get treated via medicare), welfare and law enforcement for failing to do their law required duties.. I would love trump to try those wine most f his base would be calling for impeachment withing the day, and any congress critter that ever wanted to be reelected would be eager to do so with a nearly imaginal alacrity. So what do we do with the medicare patients and medicaid patents currently in most of the hospitals in the US? throw them out on the steet?

Stopping medicare and medicare payments to almost every hospital in the US would go over well //s


That is true.. He could also revoke federal funds from colleges that enable/accept illegals... You think that stopping a majority of the people using the GI bill from getting an education is a good idea. the only positive effect would be to get the jackass impeached.




Which to me was an unconstitutional decision by the Scotus.. So if needed it can be revisited and overruled..Whatt paragraph or section of the ruling was technical, constitutionally or legally incorrect? What did you find in the Constitution that the many challenges of that ruling were unable to find? What Article of the Constitution was violated?

MikeKerriii
11-20-2016, 05:51 PM
Obeying a wrongful scotus decision, but NOT obeying federal immigration laws.. 4th grade civic: You can not violate the constion to enforce law, and the SC ruling was a binding constitutional ruling,

Mjölnir
11-20-2016, 08:00 PM
Congress can remove the funding but Trump simply does not have the authority to do so

Trump, as the head of the Executive Branch could remove federal grant money, which is appropriated by Congress to the various Executive Branch agencies for various uses. Once appropriated the grant is at the discretion of the Agency (Executive Branch) ... it would not cut all federal funding, but could remove funding for discretionary programs for housing and community programs.


It is a basic legal fact the Local cop have no obligation to enforce federal law unless there is a direct requirement but into that particular law, and that is not the case in any of the laws we are talking about, the DOJ and the AG can not come down on them becae no laws are being broken,

That is actually incorrect.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution is the Supremacy Clause, it establishes that the Constitution and federal laws are the supreme law of the land except for issues specifically left to the states. It provides that state courts are bound and obligated to supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law. This doesn't mean that state and local law enforcement go about investigating violations of federal law, but do have an obligation to enforce it when they are aware of violations.

Rusty Jones
11-20-2016, 09:14 PM
In the case of immigration, the DoJ specifically excluded state and local law enforcement from enforcing immigration laws.

Since it's still federal law, garhkal will still use that to go around Paul Blart-ing anyone he thinks is an illegal immigrant.

https://media.tenor.co/images/1897e9c3631e754d14c24672b50166e6/raw

MikeKerriii
11-21-2016, 02:25 AM
That is actually incorrect.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution is the Supremacy Clause, it establishes that the Constitution and federal laws are the supreme law of the land except for issues specifically left to the states. It provides that state courts are bound and obligated to supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law. This doesn't mean that state and local law enforcement go about investigating violations of federal law, but do have an obligation to enforce it when they are aware of violations. If you look at that precisdent yo will find that it only pp applies to conflicts of federal law and State/local law in a COURT,

the obligation to enforce federal laws in the street has been answered in the negative many times and it is proved to be invalid daily every time a local cop drives by a legal MJ shop or medical MJ dispensary.

garhkal
11-21-2016, 02:46 AM
What I don't know is if I observed someone walking down the street I knew to be an illegal immigrant (for arguments sake let's avoid how I know), is them just being present a crime or was the illegal entry into the country the crime -- how do I back up my detaining them? I don't know that a citizen's arrest would be valid, especially if based on suspicion. if not ... The way the illegal immigrant came into custody could invalidate their detention, and then of course get you sued for violating someone's rights.


That is a valid question. I honestly don't know if I as a citizen (or you, or rusty), have the right or even obligation under the 'rules of citizens arrests' when it comes to illegal immigrants.
BUT that has no bases in whether Sanctuary cities are or are not breaking the law.


but they also do create a drain / expenditure on already limited resources. What are we willing to not fund in order to fund education of illegal immigrants?

And when your state income taxes, property taxes (and sometimes even county income taxes) go up in relation to how much schools need funding to COPE with the # of illegal immigrant children in their jurisdiction, it DOES have a big impact.



On sanctuary cities, they do create a problem, from both a 'respect for the law' perspective and an economic perspective. When local, county, or state law enforcement refuses to enforce federal law, they risk the safety and security of their constituency.

Which is why i often feel those state Governors, town/city mayors who are coming OUT and stating that they will be treating their city/town/state as a sanctuary and illegal immigrants have no fear from them of upholding federal laws (or detainers etc), they should be charged with aiding and being an accessory to EVERY Crime those illegal aliens get caught doing while in said town/city/state.. Such as that lass shot on the pier by the illegal immigrant that stirred up all the chatter back in March (iirc), the mayor and chief of police who BOTH have come out and said they won't enforce the immigration laws, should have been charged with being an accessory to that murder imo..


Also, while many illegal immigrants and do actually pay taxes, many do not.

And since technically they are not even allowed or supposed to have a job to PAY income taxes on, there are quite a few who DO work, do so cause they are using either fake IDs or stolen IDs..


Do you believe it is the law or the intent of the lawmaker that governs?

I am more of a literal written rule, than intent of the rule/who made the rule person.. I also feel that something core into the constitution/articles of founding, such as Federal immigration rule, should take precedence over an amendment that came 200+ years later (the 14th amendment)..
But again, that's me..


Congress can remove the funding but Trump simply does not have the authority to do so

It is a basic legal fact the Local cop have no obligation to enforce federal law unless there is a direct requirement but into that particular law, and that is not the case in any of the laws we are talking about, the DOJ and the AG can not come down on them becae no laws are being broken,

Actually (as Mjoilner mentioned) he can.. Its as simple as not singing the budget till funding for that state gets removed (or city).. So when say they put up a budget for law enforcement/schooling or the like, he can say "Re-write this to remove funding to XYZ sanctuary city, or i am not signing it".

Mjölnir
11-21-2016, 08:40 AM
I am more of a literal written rule, than intent of the rule/who made the rule person.. I also feel that something core into the constitution/articles of founding, such as Federal immigration rule, should take precedence over an amendment that came 200+ years later (the 14th amendment).. But again, that's me..

The Constitution does not address immigration outside of discussion of naturalization; immigration was rarely addressed by Congress and was not considered a federal responsibility until 1875 when the first federal law on immigration limits (interesting fact: barred prostitutes and criminals).

The 14th Amendment took effect in 1868, 79 years after the Constitution and 7 years before the federal government took on immigration as a federal function. Since it is an amendment it legally changed the Constitution, it has the same legal authority as the original document.


Actually (as Mjoilner mentioned) he can.. Its as simple as not singing the budget till funding for that state gets removed (or city).. So when say they put up a budget for law enforcement/schooling or the like, he can say "Re-write this to remove funding to XYZ sanctuary city, or i am not signing it".

That likely wouldn't happen since it would negatively impact the entire government, and would not impact mandatory spending lines ... only discretionary spending. The easiest & most likely way would be for the Legislative Branch (Congress) to pass a budget (establish a 301a allocation), and then Congress passes the Appropriations Bill (301b allocation). The budget establishes how much can be spent, the Appropriations Bill says how much and on what things will be spent. The Appropriations Bill would fund various federal grants ... which are administered by the various government agencies (which are part of the Executive Branch -- headed by the President). The agencies could change eligibility for receiving grants with some type of wording that cities receiving funds for [pick a name] grant could not be designated by the Department of Justice as a 'Sanctuary City'.

This would not remove all federal funding, but significant portions. I read over the weekend that Los Angeles' yearly budget is about 15% federal grant money.

The same tact is how we have avoided the DoJ & other federal agencies (INS, FBI etc.) from enforcing federal immigration law for several years; the enforcement agencies are part of the Executive Branch and have been directed to not enforce those laws. The President does exercise significant authority within the various federal agencies he leads.

Bos Mutus
11-21-2016, 02:52 PM
I also feel that something core into the constitution/articles of founding, such as Federal immigration rule, should take precedence over an amendment that came 200+ years later (the 14th amendment)..
But again, that's me..

So, let me get this straight.

It is your belief that the original Constitution should take precedence over subsequent actions to amend it???

That makes no sense.

garhkal
11-21-2016, 06:47 PM
The same tact is how we have avoided the DoJ & other federal agencies (INS, FBI etc.) from enforcing federal immigration law for several years; the enforcement agencies are part of the Executive Branch and have been directed to not enforce those laws. The President does exercise significant authority within the various federal agencies he leads.

So if obama ordered these groups to in essence NOT follow the law and enforce immigration laws, then trump should be easily ok to order them to go BACK TO enforcing them properly!


So, let me get this straight.

It is your belief that the original Constitution should take precedence over subsequent actions to amend it???

That makes no sense.

I will compare it to the UCMJ/naval regs, and some shipboard regs that say command X puts out.. COmmand X can make a regulation that is MORE STRINGENT than what the UCMJ/Mil Regs calls for, but cannot make one that is more lienient.. The same applies imo to the initial constitution and amendments.. An amendment can be MORE strict, but not less..

Rusty Jones
11-21-2016, 06:55 PM
I will compare it to the UCMJ/naval regs, and some shipboard regs that say command X puts out.. COmmand X can make a regulation that is MORE STRINGENT than what the UCMJ/Mil Regs calls for, but cannot make one that is more lienient.. The same applies imo to the initial constitution and amendments.. An amendment can be MORE strict, but not less..

LOL, I'd get another infraction if I told you what I thought of you for saying this.

Bos Mutus
11-21-2016, 07:35 PM
I will compare it to the UCMJ/naval regs, and some shipboard regs that say command X puts out.. COmmand X can make a regulation that is MORE STRINGENT than what the UCMJ/Mil Regs calls for, but cannot make one that is more lienient.. The same applies imo to the initial constitution and amendments.. An amendment can be MORE strict, but not less..

Wow...just, no.

Amendments are not subordinate to the Constitution, they are changes to it. Once an amendment is passed, then it is the Constitution.

You know how like the original Constitution did not allow women to vote or allowed slavery...but, then in later years we all decided to change that...so that now it is illegal to own slaves...and illegal for states to ban women from voting.

Amendements to the Constitution are more like updates to the UCMJ....it supercedes the previous UCMJ.

Command X might then have to change their regulations to comply with the new one...whether or not in their opinion the old one should take precedence, it doesn't.

Mjölnir
11-21-2016, 08:36 PM
So if obama ordered these groups to in essence NOT follow the law and enforce immigration laws, then trump should be easily ok to order them to go BACK TO enforcing them properly!

Correct. That is entirely in his purview as the Chief Executive.


I will compare it to the UCMJ/naval regs, and some shipboard regs that say command X puts out.. COmmand X can make a regulation that is MORE STRINGENT than what the UCMJ/Mil Regs calls for, but cannot make one that is more lienient.. The same applies imo to the initial constitution and amendments.. An amendment can be MORE strict, but not less..

Bad analogy. Amendments are changes to the Constitution... There is no legal stipulation that requires they only strengthen an existing law. Naval Regulations do change and subordinate units must update their regs to remain current, regardless if the new version of Naval Regulations is more of r less stringent.

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments, drafted after several states objected that the Constitution did not sufficiently protect individual rights; I am not sure you would want these rolled back because they are Amendments:


THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.