PDA

View Full Version : Sanctuary Cities Argue it is Unconstitutional for Trump to cut their Federal Funding




charrob
01-25-2017, 08:45 PM
Politicians in New York, Seattle and other "sanctuary cities" that protect immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally declared Wednesday they won't be intimidated by a move by President Donald Trump to cut off millions in federal funding to such communities.

Many cities vowed legal action, arguing that the threatened punishment would be unconstitutional. Boston Mayor Marty Walsh promised to let immigrants who feel threatened by the administration's actions take shelter in City Hall if necessary.

"This city will not be bullied by this administration," Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said, adding that he instructed city departments to rework their budgets to prepare for the possibility that federal dollars could be lost. "We believe we have the rule of law and the courts on our side."

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee called Trump's executive orders on immigration mean-spirited and unnecessary. California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Los Angeles Democrat, tweeted: "See you in court."

In New York, Trump's hometown, city officials said the administration's action could take away over $150 million in law enforcement funding mainly for counterterrorism efforts, protecting international missions and dignitaries and, arguably, safeguarding Trump Tower, city officials said.

"Here in New York City and in cities across this nation, this order could in fact undermine public safety," Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio said at a news conference Wednesday evening — a concern echoed by District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser.

While there is no formal definition of the term "sanctuary city," it generally refers to jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal immigration officials.

In some cases, these cities tell police not to inquire about the immigration status of those they encounter, or they decline requests from immigration officials to keep defendants in custody while they await deportation.

Others say they do cooperate with such "detainer" requests as long as they're backed by court-issued warrants, but won't allow local officers to enforce federal immigration law.

Advocates say such noncooperation policies protect people who may not have exhausted their rights to apply for U.S. residency. They also say that crime victims and witnesses are more likely to cooperate with police if they are not afraid of being deported.

"We're not going to sacrifice any of our folks here in Providence," said Jorge Elorza, the mayor of Providence, Rhode Island. "My job is to represent every single resident in the city of Providence, and we will continue to do that."

Supporters of a crackdown on sanctuary cities point to cases like the fatal shooting of Kate Steinle in 2015 on a San Francisco pier. A man who had been previously deported and had been released by local law enforcement was charged in her death.

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said the Trump administration is going to "strip federal grant money from the sanctuary states and cities that harbor illegal immigrants."

Trump signed an executive order that appeared more limited than that. It referred to withholding Justice Department and Homeland Security funds from only those jurisdictions that bar local officials from communicating with federal authorities about someone's immigration status.

Peter L. Markowitz, a professor at Cardozo Law School in New York, said such an attempt to cut off funding would face strong legal challenges.

"The Constitution prohibits the president from defunding jurisdictions that won't do his bidding," Markowitz said. "There's nothing in federal law that requires localities or states to participate in federal immigration enforcement. Second, the Constitution grants Congress — not the president — the power to determine how federal dollars are spent."

In California, local law enforcement officials are barred from holding immigrants arrested on lesser crimes for deportation purposes.

More than 100 immigration rights advocates crowded on the steps of San Francisco City Hall, holding signs that said "Undocumented & Unafraid" and "Don't let hate Trump our values."

"When we know that there is a violation of human rights here, this is where we excel," San Francisco Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer said to cheers. "This is where we lead the nation and we say, 'We will not back down and we will stand up for what we believe is right.'"


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/sanctuary-cities-undaunted-trump-move-cut-funding-45049390

PatriotOne
01-25-2017, 08:50 PM
Boston Mayor Marty Walsh promised to let immigrants who feel threatened by the administration's actions take shelter in City Hall if necessary.

hahaha...let me know how that turns out Marty :D.

seapilot
01-25-2017, 08:55 PM
They sure are hoping something in the the Constitution that they always ignored will protect them from losing federal money. Maybe those Commie mayors and governors will change their tune when it comes to individuals and the bill of rights actually protected in the contitution? No did not think so, they can go suck eggs.

oyarde
01-25-2017, 09:23 PM
Cities receiving federal funds is UnConstitutional . Not covered in Article 1 , Section 8 . Illegal and treasonous .

Anti Federalist
01-25-2017, 09:36 PM
Oh, now they hate Executive orders.

There is an answer, much better than making teh lawyers rich wrangling about it in court.

CalExit

MassExit.

IllExit

NewYorkExit.

Bye.

Scrapmo
01-25-2017, 09:56 PM
"Unconstitutional" has become a catchall term for "anything i dont agree with".

DGambler
01-25-2017, 10:10 PM
Oh, now they hate Executive orders.

There is an answer, much better than making teh lawyers rich wrangling about it in court.

CalExit

MassExit.

IllExit

NewYorkExit.

Bye.

I can get behind this, think we can bully them into it before it's too late?

oyarde
01-25-2017, 11:45 PM
I can get behind this, think we can bully them into it before it's too late?

Hope to .

NorthCarolinaLiberty
01-25-2017, 11:55 PM
Oh my; libtard constitutionalists now! :eek:

mrsat_98
01-26-2017, 06:15 AM
Cities receiving federal funds is UnConstitutional . Not covered in Article 1 , Section 8 . Illegal and treasonous .

Sorry Charlie, there are only federal officials in federal states all subject to Article 1 Section 8 clause 17-18 and 4-3-2. Because the ends justify the means in spite of Rochin vs California.

otherone
01-26-2017, 06:42 AM
Oh, now they hate Executive orders.

There is an answer, much better than making teh lawyers rich wrangling about it in court.

CalExit

MassExit.

IllExit

NewYorkExit.

Bye.

I swear on this day, that if Trump causes the union to disband, I might vote for him next time.

tod evans
01-26-2017, 06:52 AM
I swear on this day, that if Trump causes the union to disband, I might vote for him next time.

Hear, hear!

Origanalist
01-26-2017, 07:51 AM
I swear on this day, that if Trump causes the union to disband, I might vote for him next time.

I would gladly vote for Trump for President of the Disbanded States.

johnwk
01-26-2017, 07:54 AM
They sure are hoping something in the the Constitution that they always ignored will protect them from losing federal money. Maybe those Commie mayors and governors will change their tune when it comes to individuals and the bill of rights actually protected in the contitution? No did not think so, they can go suck eggs.

Their own laws are now coming back to bite them in the butt!

See: The State of Nevada, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Samuel K. Skinner* Secretary of Transportationfor the United States; and A.j in which federal highway funds can be cut off if states do not reduce speed limit to 55 mph.

Nevada has pegged its attack on the national speed limit on the wobbly legs of the coercion test. While we strongly doubt the vitality of that theory, we conclude that, alive or dead, it is of no consequence here. Congress could have mandated a national speed limit under its Commerce power: that it chose to enact a lesser restraint, by cutting off highway funds to states unwilling to adopt the designated limit, does not render its actions unconstitutional.

AFFIRMED.

dean.engelhardt
01-26-2017, 08:08 AM
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and federal funding; our basic rights! :D

Jan2017
01-26-2017, 08:22 AM
"Unconstitutional" has become a catchall term for "anything i dont agree with".
Well I'll agree but in the sense that it has been that way pretty much all along . . . name the topic/issue/situation
and then lawyers sort it out - sometimes dissenting in different Federal Circuits and then the Supreme Court eventually gets involved (or not).

Great prospects in immigration law I guess for a few years . . .


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEULVyg1O_8

brushfire
01-26-2017, 08:28 AM
What do they know about the constitution?

Jan2017
01-26-2017, 08:50 AM
What do they know about the constitution?
Lawyers are the ones that'll argue the constitutionality or unconstitutionality in the Federal Courts . . .

This is what it is gonna be like . . . a protected border with illegals already here seeking sanctuary in municipalities
that wish the influx of cheap labor or whatever the attraction. Local headline today :

Boulder vows firm stance as Trump threatens sanctuary city crackdown
City made longtime policy official earlier this month
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_30750852/boulder-vows-firm-stance-trump-threatens-sanctuary-city