Sanctuary Cities - Legit?

[heydaralon]

Well, as someone pointed earlier in the thread, this is example of the hypocrisy that both sides use when it comes to states rights. Republicans get outraged over sanctuary cities and state level marijuana legalization, while democrats hate the shit out of states rights in every other scenario. It is a little weird to see liberals who are absolutely enamored with HUD, eminent domain, and other efficient federal programs, suddenly become Ron Paul over a few fucking illegals.

Personally, I think the concept of sanctuary cities is fucking absurd. Someone posted a thread earlier about an illegal who using the help of a liberal judge, evaded ICE agents, went to a sanctuary city and committed murder. It is very mysterious why the legal machinery of this country prioritized the "rights" of a noncitizen over the safety of taxpayers, but I guess I'm just a bigoted white man for saying that.

What people don't get about this sanctuary city nonsense, is that we are not depriving ourselves by deporting illegal immigrants. Our country is a highly sought after immigration spot. We can set very high standards for who we let in, because people want to come here and are in no position to complain or negotiate for that matter. Our legal immigrants can be screened so we get the best people, and our illegal immigrants can be put on the curb, because chances are, they offer absolutely nothing. If they did, they would probably have a shot getting in legally. Of course, white guilt, and misplaced humanitarianism often fuck this up, and can create feelings of entitlement. I saw a Tucker Carlson interview where an illegal immigrant went to work for a bank using a fake social, and she had the audacity to criticize our country. Bitch go work for a fucking a Guadalajara bank if you don't like our immigration policy. I'm sure there are tons of taxpaying Americans and legal immigrants who would go through the proper channels to have your job, you linecutting barbacoa cunt.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Didn't we have a fucking war about this?

If said war is not mentioned in Harry Potter series or rebooted as a netflix superhero movie, no one under 35 will be aware of it.

Did you miss Captain America: Civil War? I think it was about states' rights... I was pretty high.

[Martin Hash]

Didn't we have a fucking war about this?

If said war is not mentioned in Harry Potter series or rebooted as a netflix superhero movie, no one under 35 will be aware of it.

Did you miss Captain America: Civil War? I think it was about states' rights... I was pretty high.

Hey, these kids don't even know Guns & Roses.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

If said war is not mentioned in Harry Potter series or rebooted as a netflix superhero movie, no one under 35 will be aware of it.

Did you miss Captain America: Civil War? I think it was about states' rights... I was pretty high.

Hey, these kids don't even know Guns N Roses.

FIFY... square.

[apeman]

Didn't we have a fucking war about this?

If said war is not mentioned in Harry Potter series or rebooted as a netflix superhero movie, no one under 35 will be aware of it.

Did you miss Captain America: Civil War? I think it was about states' rights... I was pretty high.

[de officiis]

Judge Blocks Trump Effort to Withhold Money From Sanctuary Cities

A judge in San Francisco on Tuesday temporarily blocked President Trump’s efforts to starve localities of federal funds when they limit their cooperation with immigration enforcement, a stinging rejection of his threats to make so-called sanctuary cities fall in line.

The judge, William H. Orrick of United States District Court, wrote that the president had overstepped his powers with his January executive order on immigration by tying billions of dollars in federal funding to immigration enforcement. Judge Orrick said only Congress could place such conditions on spending.

The ruling, which applies nationwide, was another judicial setback for the Trump administration, which has now seen three immigration orders stopped by federal courts in its first 100 days. And as with the rulings halting his two temporary bans on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, the president’s own words were used against him.

Though Justice Department lawyers argued in the case that the government did not intend to withhold significant amounts of money, the judge noted that the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions had suggested the punishment could be far greater.

[The Conservative]

Judge Blocks Trump Effort to Withhold Money From Sanctuary Cities

A judge in San Francisco on Tuesday temporarily blocked President Trump’s efforts to starve localities of federal funds when they limit their cooperation with immigration enforcement, a stinging rejection of his threats to make so-called sanctuary cities fall in line.

The judge, William H. Orrick of United States District Court, wrote that the president had overstepped his powers with his January executive order on immigration by tying billions of dollars in federal funding to immigration enforcement. Judge Orrick said only Congress could place such conditions on spending.

The ruling, which applies nationwide, was another judicial setback for the Trump administration, which has now seen three immigration orders stopped by federal courts in its first 100 days. And as with the rulings halting his two temporary bans on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, the president’s own words were used against him.

Though Justice Department lawyers argued in the case that the government did not intend to withhold significant amounts of money, the judge noted that the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions had suggested the punishment could be far greater.

And that Judge is going to find himself in a lot of hot water later. On a side note, if you read his ruling upon why, it's opinion...not based off of fact at all, and if goes to the SC, Trump is going to win.

[kybkh]

The animating contest of .... federalism?

Awesome!

What is this light-weight twaddle?
OPINE, man.
OPINE.

What are your thoughts on this? How can cities tell the Federal government "No, you can't decide NOT to give us money simply because we're in open defiance of you"?

HOW?

TBH, I thought the threat that Obama rolled out there about denying Federal funds to force the AFFH upon communities to be probably the most concerning policy ever promoted by the Federal Govt.

AFFH obligates any local jurisdiction that receives HUD funding to conduct a detailed analysis of its housing occupancy by race, ethnicity, national origin, English proficiency, and class (among other categories). Grantees must identify factors (such as zoning laws, public-housing admissions criteria, and “lack of regional collaboration”) that account for any imbalance in living patterns. Localities must also list “community assets” (such as quality schools, transportation hubs, parks, and jobs) and explain any disparities in access to such assets by race, ethnicity, national origin, English proficiency, class, and more. Localities must then develop a plan to remedy these imbalances, subject to approval by HUD.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/42 ... nley-kurtz

However, this ain't that. There is a precedent set for using Federal funding as a tool to bring states into line with the Federal Law.

Four Times the Government Held Highway Funding Hostage

In the past, the government has used federal highway funding as a way to leverage states to comply with driving-related laws — establishing a speed limit in Montana, for example — as well as more tangentially related laws. Under the 10th Amendment, powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved for the states. But under its authority to regulate interstate commerce, Congress can threaten to withhold essential federal funding for highway infrastructure if states do not comply.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ge/454167/


TBF, if Californians want to become a province of Mexico I could give a fuck as long as there are Federal Voting Guidelines implemented to ensure every voter must present an ID at the ballot box in order to ensure their citizenship and be allowed to vote.

[clubgop]

The fact they are using the 10th Amendment to dispute this is particularly galling.

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.

I wonder if the constitution says anything about the immigration. Hmm.

Also, perhaps our nation will devolve into city states.

That it is the sole domain of the federal government?

[apeman]

Judge Blocks Trump Effort to Withhold Money From Sanctuary Cities

A judge in San Francisco on Tuesday temporarily blocked President Trump’s efforts to starve localities of federal funds when they limit their cooperation with immigration enforcement, a stinging rejection of his threats to make so-called sanctuary cities fall in line.

The judge, William H. Orrick of United States District Court, wrote that the president had overstepped his powers with his January executive order on immigration by tying billions of dollars in federal funding to immigration enforcement. Judge Orrick said only Congress could place such conditions on spending.

The ruling, which applies nationwide, was another judicial setback for the Trump administration, which has now seen three immigration orders stopped by federal courts in its first 100 days. And as with the rulings halting his two temporary bans on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, the president’s own words were used against him.

Though Justice Department lawyers argued in the case that the government did not intend to withhold significant amounts of money, the judge noted that the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions had suggested the punishment could be far greater.

The plan: 3 branches, checks and balances
But: Congress abdicates
Then: Courts making ever effort to lose their legitimacy, force constitutional crisis
Finally: Executive becomes the de-facto sole branch of govt