- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 54,650
- Reaction score
- 11,963
No, because its an easy to understand concept that has already been addressed.
Social Sanctuary Cities: N.Y Released Illegal Immigrant Who Then Raped & Killed 92 Year Old Woman
- Thread starter Arkain2K
- Start date
No, because its an easy to understand concept that has already been addressed.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 517
- Reaction score
- 5
Where is your argument snowflake? Where is your argument that federal detainers for violent illegal aliens violates 'states rights'?
Otherwise, take the L and move on.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 54,650
- Reaction score
- 11,963
Thats not the argument that i made, this only shows that you dont even know what a sanctuary city is.
- Joined
- May 11, 2016
- Messages
- 16,971
- Reaction score
- 11,167
There some contradiction there because he also said he wouldn't cut funding for law enforcement. But in some "sanctuary cities" the bulk of the federal funding they receive goes to law enforcement.
The best argument I've heard from the sanctuary cities' perspective is that it is illegal for the federal government to require that states to do its job. If they want to deport people, OK, send in the Feds to round them up. But they can't just delegate that task to whoever they deem fit. I believe there are SCOTUS decisions that support this.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 517
- Reaction score
- 5
Interesting angle for this argument. Who knows. IANAL but it seems pretty cut and dry to me. ICE detainers have been used since 2002 and are totally legal. Also, South Dakota v. Dole upheld the constitutionality of withholding federal funds to dipshit states.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2007
- Messages
- 517
- Reaction score
- 5
The issue seems to be heating up. That's fucking Massachusetts lmao
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/03/...ary-cities-massachusetts-illegal-immigration/
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/03/...ary-cities-massachusetts-illegal-immigration/
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2014
- Messages
- 3,521
- Reaction score
- 0
The flaw with the Mexicans' argument is that they claim that most of the illegals were of South Asia and Chinese descent. Despite this, I just saw some Mexican supremacists on the news saying that "whites, blacks, and Hispanics" are one and need to unite in order to save illegal (Mexicans) from getting deported. Funny how I saw no India or China flag in the background waving. All I see is the flag of poverty.
This is even further prove that the Mexicans are bullies as always and enjoy using South Asians/Chinese as convenient scapegoats.
This is even further prove that the Mexicans are bullies as always and enjoy using South Asians/Chinese as convenient scapegoats.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 28,152
- Reaction score
- 2
Liberals crying 'states rights' prove they know nothing about the Constitution because one cities are not states so they do not get to claim 'states rights' secondly, states have no authority over the federal government in terms of immigration laws so this is not a 10th amendment issue.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,356
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm sure Austin being a liberal city has nothing to do with thisNo funds for "sanctuary city" Austin, says Texas governorAUSTIN, Texas -- Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott blocked funding over so-called “sanctuary cities” for the first time Wednesday after Austin’s sheriff said the city’s jails would no longer honor most federal immigration detainers.
At left, Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez after being sworn into office in Austin, Texas, on January 4, 2017
At right, Governor Greg Abbott at a joint press conference February 18, 2015 in Austin, Texas.
The move begins a crackdown Abbott wants in Texas over criminal suspects who are in the country illegally, which comes as he pushes to sign new laws that could go even further than President Donald Trump’s new executive actions against sanctuary policies.
Travis County leaders condemned losing $1.5 million in grant money earmarked for crime victim services, courts and other programs. They stood by Sheriff Sally Hernandez, an elected Democrat in Texas’ most liberal city, who announced after Trump’s inauguration that her jails going forward would only honor immigration holds in murder, aggravated sexual assault and human trafficking cases.
Travis County Judge Sarah Eckhardt wrote in a letter to Abbott that she was confident the sheriff is within the law.
“I am certain you have come to the same conclusion; else you would not be seeking to change current State law to put all Texas Sheriffs in the service of the United States Department of Homeland Security,” Eckhardt wrote.
The revoked funds came a day after Abbott used his State of the State address to declare a “sanctuary city” ban an urgent priority for lawmakers. A Senate committee on Thursday is expected to vote on a bill that would deny state grant funds to jurisdictions that discourage “inquiring into the immigration status of a person under lawful detention or arrest.” Abbott has also called for the power to remove locally elected officials if they don’t comply.
Mr. Trump signed an order last week to withdraw funding from sanctuary cities that decline to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. It didn’t specify what kind of money could be pulled. In California, San Francisco officials sued over the order, saying it was unconstitutional and an invasion of the city’s sovereignty.
The federal government cannot “put a gun to the head of localities,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said, arguing that the order violates states’ rights and the law.
Meanwhile, Cincinnati voted Wednesday to become a sanctuary city, with Councilman Wendell Young saying he would not make “a liar of the Statue of Liberty,” CBS affiliate WKRC reports.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sanctuary-city-austin-funding-greg-abbott-texas-governor/
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2016
- Messages
- 4,356
- Reaction score
- 0
Who has ever said that? What retard claimed that?
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 28,152
- Reaction score
- 2
Well it seems like liberal cities are the only ones protecting their voter base...i mean being 'sanctuary cities'
D
Deleted member 491001
Guest
So I heard on KQED (San Francisco NPR/public radio) that California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Léon has introduced a bill to make California a Sanctuary State...
http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...riffs-say-sanctuary-1488828617-htmlstory.html
"California sheriffs say 'sanctuary state' bill would prevent immigration officials from going after violent offenders"
http://www.latimes.com/politics/ess...riffs-say-sanctuary-1488828617-htmlstory.html
"California sheriffs say 'sanctuary state' bill would prevent immigration officials from going after violent offenders"
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2014
- Messages
- 3,521
- Reaction score
- 0
Some Mexican activists in California. Whether they are just random outspoken members or actual figureheads, I'm not sure. I did saw it on the news the other day.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 33,424
- Reaction score
- 5,685
Seattle Sues Trump Administration Over 'Sanctuary City' Threat
Bill Chappell | March 30, 2017
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray says his city filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its move to pull federal funds over immigration law enforcement.
Bill Chappell | March 30, 2017
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray says his city filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its move to pull federal funds over immigration law enforcement.
Saying that Attorney General Jeff Sessions' threat to strip billions in federal grant money from so-called "sanctuary cities" is illegal and unconstitutional, the city of Seattle has sued President Trump and his administration, in a lawsuit that names Trump, Sessions and Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly.
"We are not breaking any laws and we are prioritizing safety," Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said, according to member station KUOW. "Bullying and misstating the facts will not stand in the way of how the real laws of this country are enforced."
On Monday, Sessions said the Justice Department plans to withhold up to $4.1 billion from "sanctuary cities" — a blanket term for many areas that refuse immigration agents' requests to detain immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency deems at least 118 jurisdictions as sanctuaries.
"Such policies cannot continue," Sessions said Monday. "They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on our streets."
Seattle is asking a federal court to declare that it's not breaking the law by refusing to join the Trump administration's effort to strictly enforce federal immigration laws.
In its lawsuit, Seattle is also asking a judge to rule on whether the executive branch is in breach of the 10th Amendment, which limits the government's power to commandeer state entities to enforce federal regulations. And the city says the Trump administration is violating the Constitution's Spending Clause by placing coercive conditions on the funding.
States' rights in how the Spending Clause is interpreted were recently affirmed, due to the Supreme Court's ruling on a challenge to the Affordable Care Act over Medicaid expansion in 2012. From an article in the Yale Law Journal: "Scholars have generally suggested that NFIB v. Sebelius shifted power to states and away from agencies in the grant relationship."
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ump-administration-over-sanctuary-city-threat
I don't understand how anyone could back this without a shitload of cash being thrown at them.
Immigration is a federal issue. The supremacy clause of the constitution makes sure rogue states can't go full retard.
ICE should get the authority over state and municipal officers to charge them with crimes for this 'sanctuary city' bullshit.
P
Pwent
Guest
it makes zero sense for california to try to override federal immigration law, but the politicians are just trying to get mexican votes by virtue signalling and "standing up to trump"
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2015
- Messages
- 9,939
- Reaction score
- 0
3million illegal alien voters
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 33,424
- Reaction score
- 5,685
California Senate Passes 'Sanctuary State' Bill
Katy Steinmetz | Apr 03, 2017
After heated debate, the California Senate passed a so-called “sanctuary state” bill on Monday. While many Republicans argued that the bill would lead to dangerous criminals being let loose on the streets — warning that the measure would draw the ire of President Donald Trump — Democrats said that California had to take a stand in defense of “hardworking” immigrants that have become part of the country’s cultural and economic backbones.Katy Steinmetz | Apr 03, 2017
The bill, formally known as Senate Bill 54, would prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from using resources to investigate, detain, report or arrest persons for the purposes of immigration enforcement.
The Senate voted 27 to 12 along party lines to pass the measure, which will next be considered by the state Assembly before possibly going to the governor’s desk. California “cannot be intimidated” by threats from Trump to deny sanctuary jurisdictions of federal funds, said state Sen. Kevin de León, the bill’s author. “This is about making our communities safer, not less safe … We don’t grovel and put our hand out so we can get a little money and buy a police car,” he said. “Our role and responsibility is to protect all individuals.”
In an interview for a previous story, León told TIME that the bill will help ensure that all the state’s residents report violent crimes and feel safe enough to interact with government systems such as schools, hospitals and courts. Aggressive immigration enforcement policies have a "chilling effect," he said.
“We don’t have to collaborate and use our local tax dollars to enforce federal immigration laws,” he said in that interview. “If they want to go after the bad guys, the violent felons and drug dealers, we are more than happy to continue to work with them. But if they want to split families up and deport the nanny, that’s not what America’s about and that’s not what California is about.”
Republicans argued on Monday that immigration policy is the domain of the federal government and the bill amounts to the state overstepping its bounds, saying that the measure would also make California a “magnet” for those who commit crimes.
Promising to deport undocumented immigrants was one of Trump's key campaign promises. Since taking office, Trump has issued orders directing that immigration laws be enforced more aggressively and expanding the definition of “criminal aliens” who are targeted for deportation. Before taking office, Trump vowed to create a “deportation force” to carry out such work.
“You’ll be kicking the president right in the groin,” Republican state Sen. Jeff Stone said of the bill, “and I imagine he’s going to strike back.”
The ACLU’s Jennie Pasquarella, director of immigrants’ rights in California, told TIME that the bill is “critical because the only way for the federal government to carry out the kind of mass deportations that they are threatening is through cooperation with local law enforcement.”
While immigrant advocates and some law enforcement officials have expressed support for the measure, arguing that trust between immigrants and local officials is important for public safety, California sheriffs have said it could allow criminals to “slip through the cracks.” In advance of the vote, León amended his bill to allow local law enforcement agents to notify federal authorities about the release of violent criminals.
A new poll conducted by the University of California at Berkeley found that there is bipartisan support in the state when it comes to providing a pathway to citizenship and opposing Trump’s proposed wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, yet there are deep divides about sanctuary status. And those can grow deeper depending on how the notion of being a “sanctuary city” is described.
When asked whether they support cities declaring sanctuary status, meaning that local police and enforcement officials do not “automatically turn undocumented immigrants over to federal immigration officers,” 56% of California voters support that position – including 74% of Democrats but only 20% of Republicans.
When the Berkeley researchers framed the issue as an act of withholding – with sanctuary status meaning that cities can “ignore requests” to detain undocumented immigrants who have been arrested and are about to be released – those numbers essentially flip, with fewer Democrats supporting sanctuary status and even more Republicans opposed.
President Trump’s promises to crack down on illegal immigrants have caused fear and panic in many California communities. About 10 million immigrants live in California, and some estimates suggest that 25% of them may be undocumented. Churches have been lining up to offer sanctuary for immigrant residents, as some individuals have cowered in their homes, worried to answer the door for fear that immigration agents might be on the other side.
On March 27, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Department of Justice would be withholding grants from sanctuary cities and attempt to "claw back" any past grants. He cited crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, including the 2015 shooting of Kate Steinle in San Francisco. (Republicans brought up her name in the debate on Monday. "How many more Kate Steinle’s do we need?" said Sen. Stone.)
In late January, San Francisco became the first to sue the federal government over promises to starve sanctuary cities of federal funding, and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed a brief supporting that lawsuit following Sessions’ remarks. “Threatening to take away resources from sheriffs and police officers in order to promote misguided views on federal immigration policy is reckless and puts public safety at risk,” Becerra said in a statement.
California has emerged as one of the most powerful seats of resistance to conservative policies coming out of Washington since the election. Earlier in the day, lawmakers debated another measure that would help fund legal representation for immigrants in deportation proceedings, who can be left without counsel when they are unable to afford it.
While some Republicans lawmakers criticized the measure, saying taxpayers should not foot bills for immigrants who did not come through “the front door," Democrats still found the votes to pass it in the Senate, 28 to 11, arguing that it was basic due process for a population that is crucial to the country.
“Immigrants are under attack,” said Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, expressing support for the bill. “It’s really important for California, for our government, for this legislature, to send a clear signal to our immigrant communities that we have your back.”
http://time.com/4724121/california-sanctuary-state-bill-passes-senate-immigration/
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Messages
- 32,728
- Reaction score
- 9,860
No funds for "sanctuary city" Austin, says Texas governorAUSTIN, Texas -- Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott blocked funding over so-called “sanctuary cities” for the first time Wednesday after Austin’s sheriff said the city’s jails would no longer honor most federal immigration detainers.
At left, Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez after being sworn into office in Austin, Texas, on January 4, 2017
At right, Governor Greg Abbott at a joint press conference February 18, 2015 in Austin, Texas.
The move begins a crackdown Abbott wants in Texas over criminal suspects who are in the country illegally, which comes as he pushes to sign new laws that could go even further than President Donald Trump’s new executive actions against sanctuary policies.
Travis County leaders condemned losing $1.5 million in grant money earmarked for crime victim services, courts and other programs. They stood by Sheriff Sally Hernandez, an elected Democrat in Texas’ most liberal city, who announced after Trump’s inauguration that her jails going forward would only honor immigration holds in murder, aggravated sexual assault and human trafficking cases.
Travis County Judge Sarah Eckhardt wrote in a letter to Abbott that she was confident the sheriff is within the law.
“I am certain you have come to the same conclusion; else you would not be seeking to change current State law to put all Texas Sheriffs in the service of the United States Department of Homeland Security,” Eckhardt wrote.
The revoked funds came a day after Abbott used his State of the State address to declare a “sanctuary city” ban an urgent priority for lawmakers. A Senate committee on Thursday is expected to vote on a bill that would deny state grant funds to jurisdictions that discourage “inquiring into the immigration status of a person under lawful detention or arrest.” Abbott has also called for the power to remove locally elected officials if they don’t comply.
Mr. Trump signed an order last week to withdraw funding from sanctuary cities that decline to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. It didn’t specify what kind of money could be pulled. In California, San Francisco officials sued over the order, saying it was unconstitutional and an invasion of the city’s sovereignty.
The federal government cannot “put a gun to the head of localities,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said, arguing that the order violates states’ rights and the law.
Meanwhile, Cincinnati voted Wednesday to become a sanctuary city, with Councilman Wendell Young saying he would not make “a liar of the Statue of Liberty,” CBS affiliate WKRC reports.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sanctuary-city-austin-funding-greg-abbott-texas-governor/
We also hate California an always do the opposite of them. Sooo we are probably gonna continue going threw with the ban on Sanctuary citys
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2009
- Messages
- 16,641
- Reaction score
- 4,650
It's possible many of your state's illegal populace will head out the Californi-way. Maybe you Texans will benefit from this. Cross your fingers.
