Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Sanctuary Cities Argue it is Unconstitutional for Trump to cut their Federal Funding

  1. #1

    Sanctuary Cities Argue it is Unconstitutional for Trump to cut their Federal Funding

    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/s...nding-45049390



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    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 .

  4. #3
    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.
    USE THIS SITE TO LINK ARTICLES FROM OLIGARCH MEDIA:http://archive.is/ STARVE THE BEAST.
    More Government = Less Freedom
    Communism never disappeared it only changed its name to Social Democrat
    Emotion and Logic mix like oil and water

  5. #4
    Cities receiving federal funds is UnConstitutional . Not covered in Article 1 , Section 8 . Illegal and treasonous .
    Last edited by oyarde; 01-25-2017 at 11:44 PM.
    Do something Danke

  6. #5
    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.

  7. #6
    "Unconstitutional" has become a catchall term for "anything i dont agree with".

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    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?
    “…I believe that at this point in history, the greatest danger to our freedom and way of life comes from the reasonable fear of omniscient State powers kept in check by nothing more than policy documents.”

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by DGambler View Post
    I can get behind this, think we can bully them into it before it's too late?
    Hope to .
    Do something Danke



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Oh my; libtard constitutionalists now!
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    ...I believe that when the government is capable of doing a thing, it will.
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    which one of yall fuckers wrote the "ron paul" racist news letters
    Quote Originally Posted by Dforkus View Post
    Zippy's posts are a great contribution.




    Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    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.
    “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” (Heller, 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2822.)

    How long before "going liberal" replaces "going postal"?

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    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.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    I swear on this day, that if Trump causes the union to disband, I might vote for him next time.
    Hear, hear!

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    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.
    "The Patriarch"

  16. #14

    Federal Court has already ruled federal funds can be cut off

    Quote Originally Posted by seapilot View Post
    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.

  17. #15
    Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and federal funding; our basic rights!

  18. #16
    Jan2017
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by Scrapmo View Post
    "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 . . .




  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    What do they know about the constitution?

    Gulag Chief:
    "Article 58-1a, twenty five years... What did you get it for?"
    Gulag Prisoner: "For nothing at all."
    Gulag Chief: "You're lying... The sentence for nothing at all is 10 years"



  21. #18
    Jan2017
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by brushfire View Post
    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/boul...sanctuary-city



Similar Threads

  1. Poll: 74 Percent of Californians Want to End Sanctuary Cities
    By CaseyJones in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-27-2017, 07:46 PM
  2. Sanctuary Cities
    By Schifference in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-13-2016, 08:26 PM
  3. Ben Carson: Trump is right on Sanctuary Cities
    By AuH20 in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-02-2016, 12:30 AM
  4. Rand Paul Comes Out Swinging Against Sanctuary Cities
    By AuH20 in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 07-13-2015, 06:17 PM
  5. Sanctuary cities - for or against?
    By Rekonn in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 10-17-2009, 05:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •