Social Sanctuary Cities: N.Y Released Illegal Immigrant Who Then Raped & Killed 92 Year Old Woman

[GhostZ06]

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.

seems like the case

 

[Seano]

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.

The fact that its a federal issue shouldn't be a license for state's to ignore those laws. Forcing cooperation is one thing, refusing cooperation is another.

 

[Arkain2K]

Why isn't 'California Sanctuary State' bill being voted on by general public?
Giacomo Luca | April 05, 2017

Lawmaking is one of the key powers given to state legislators when voted into office.

California lawmakers have given initial approval to a measure that prevents law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officials.

It makes California a statewide sanctuary for many people who are in the country illegally. The state Senate passed the measure on a 27-12 vote Monday, sending it to the Assembly.

Some viewers on the ABC10 Facebook page asked the question -- Why doesn’t the California public vote on this bill?

We reached out to a California politics expert, Steve Boilard, with California State University Sacramento (CSUS) who explains California government has a form of direct democracy that allows the public to have say by voting on certain laws.

He explained there are generally three ways the public has a vote on changes in law in the state of California.

One way is if a legislator proposes a bill and it passes through both the state Senate and general Assembly and becomes a law. The California Values Act is an example of this method form of law proposals.

The next way is when a member of the general public proposes new law. The person would need to get a certain number of signatures, based on a percentage of the most recent Governor’s election, to be place on the ballot. For example, California’s proposition 64 that legalized the recreational use of marijuana became law by members of the general public.

If the public doesn’t like a law enacted by the state legislature, there is also a way to have it removed by referendum. A member of the general public would need to propose the referendum and collect a certain amount of signatures to have it decided on in the next general election.

Also, any time there is a proposal to amend the state constitution, it also must be taken to a public vote in a general election.

http://www.abc10.com/news/why-isnt-...tate-voted-on-by-the-general-public/428878889

 

[Arkain2K]

San Francisco judge blocks President Trump's order on sanctuary city money
April 25, 2017​

​

A California judge on Tuesday blocked President Trump’s executive order that sought to withhold federal funds from so-called “sanctuary cities.”

The ruling from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco said that Trump's order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments, and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.

The decision will block the measure for now, while the federal lawsuit works its way through the courts.

The news comes on the heels of the Department of Justice threatening on Friday to cut off funding to eight so-called “sanctuary cities,” unless they were able to provide proof to the federal government that they weren’t looking the other way when it came to undocumented immigrants.

San Francisco and Santa Clara County argued that the administration warning threatened billions of dollars in funding for each of them, making it difficult to plan budgets.

"It's not like it's just some small amount of money," John Keker, an attorney for Santa Clara County, told Orrick at the April 14 hearing.

Chad Readler, acting assistant attorney general, said the county and San Francisco were interpreting the executive order too broadly. The funding cutoff applies to three Justice Department and Homeland Security Department grants that require complying with a federal law that local governments not block officials from providing people's immigration status, he said.

The order would affect less than $1 million in funding for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco, Readler said.

Readler argued the Trump administration was using a “bully pulpit” to "encourage communities and states to comply with the law.”

In his ruling, Orrick sided with San Francisco and Santa Clara, saying the order "by its plain language, attempts to reach all federal grants, not merely the three mentioned at the hearing."

"The rest of the order is broader still, addressing all federal funding," Orrick said. "And if there was doubt about the scope of the order, the president and attorney general have erased it with their public comments."

He said: "Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves."

The judge clarified that the injunction “does not impact the Government’s ability to use lawful means to enforce existing conditions of federal grants … nor does it restrict the Secretary from developing regulations or preparing guidance on designating a jurisdiction as a “sanctuary jurisdiction.”

The Trump administration says sanctuary cities allow dangerous criminals back on the street and that the order is needed to keep the country safe. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities say turning local police into immigration officers erodes trust that's needed to get people to report crime.

The order also has led to lawsuits by Seattle; two Massachusetts cities, Lawrence and Chelsea; and a third San Francisco Bay Area government, the city of Richmond. The San Francisco and Santa Clara County suits were the first to get a hearing before a judge.

San Francisco and the county argued in court documents that the president did not have the authority to set conditions on the allocation of federal funds and could not force local officials to enforce federal immigration law.

They also said Trump's order applied to local governments that didn't detain immigrants for possible deportation in response to federal requests, not just those that refused to provide people's immigration status.

The Department of Justice responded that the city and county's lawsuits were premature because decisions about withholding funds and what local governments qualified as sanctuary cities had yet to be made.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ocks-trump-order-on-sanctuary-city-money.html

 

[Quipling]

Neutral article on the content:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...nctuary-cities-order-blocked-by-federal-judge

One thing everyone needs to recognize: This is not a final ruling on the constitutionality. Instead, it simply says that plaintiffs have shown that they have a reasonable chance to succeed. Another is that several of these challenges could have been avoided through better drafting (especially 1, 4, 5), and some were inevitable because the purpose of the order ran headlong into spending clause and 10th amendment issues.

Here is the district judge's order. https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/IM-CA-0089-0024.pdf I encourage you to read at least the first 4 pages.

Long walkthrough of the important law (start at page 35).

First, it ruled that section 9(a) is unconstitutional because it reaches federal funding unrelated to immigration enforcement, and uses that to compel states to use their resources to support enforcement of federal policy. As a basis for this determination, it noted that the text of the statute says so, and Sessions, Spicer, and Trump have said that it would apply to most federal funding, and used to compel compliance.

The plaintiffs challenged the order on 5 constitutional grounds. First, they argue that as written, violates separation of powers (Congress) by interfering with the disbursement of funds with which the executive does not have discretion to interefere. The court agreed - see pages 35-37.

Congress has intentionally limited the ability of the President to withhold or “impound” appropriated funds and has provided that the President may only do so after following particular procedures and after receiving Congress’s express permission. See Impoundment Control Act of 1974, 2 U.S.C. §§ 683 et seq.

Second, they argue that the order violates the Spending Clause by attempting to force states to act in support of federal law, and attempts to leverage pre-established grants to do so. (Pages 37-41). I've quoted the most relevant parts:

The Executive Order likely violates at least three of these restrictions: (1) conditions must be unambiguous and cannot be imposed after funds have already been accepted; (2) there must be a nexus between the federal funds at issue and the federal program’s purpose; and (3) the financial inducement cannot be coercive.
. . .
When Congress places conditions on federal funds “it must do so unambiguously” so that states and local jurisdictions contemplating whether to accept such funds can “exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation.” Dole, 483 U.S. at 203 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because states must opt-in to a federal program willingly, fully aware of the associated conditions, Congress cannot implement new conditions after-the-fact. See Nat’l Fed. of Indep. Bus. v . Sebelius (“NFIB”), 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2602-04 (2012). “The legitimacy of Congress’s exercise of the spending power thus rests on whether the state voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the contract” at the time Congress offers the money. Id. at 2602.

The Executive Order purports to retroactively condition all “federal grants” on compliance with Section 1373. As this condition was not an unambiguous condition that the states and local jurisdictions voluntarily and knowingly accepted at the time Congress appropriated these funds, it cannot be imposed now by the Order.
. . .
“Congress may condition grants under the spending power only in ways reasonably related to the purpose of the federal program.” Dole, 483 U.S. at 213.
The Executive Order’s attempt to condition all federal grants on compliance with Section 1373 clearly runs afoul of the nexus requirement: there is no nexus between Section 1373 and most categories of federal funding, including without limitation funding related to Medicare, Medicaid, transportation, child welfare services, immunization and vaccination programs, and emergency preparedness.
. . .
Congress cannot offer “financial inducement . . . so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns to compulsion.” Dole, 483 U.S. at 211 (internal quotation marks omitted). Legislation that “coerces a State to
adopt a federal regulatory system as its own” “runs contrary to our system of federalism.” NFIB, 132 S. Ct. at 2602.

. Notably, the bolded case was written by Roberts when he struck down a section of Obamacare.


Third, the plaintiff's challenged the executive order under the 10th amendment. This is closely tied to the spending clause challenge.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, “The Federal Government cannot compel theStates to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.” New York, 505 U.S.at 188. The Government cannot command them to adopt certain policies, id. at 188, command them to carry out federal programs, Printz, 521 U.S. at 935, or otherwise to “coerce them into adopting a federal regulatory system as their own,” NFIB, 132 S. Ct. at 2602. To the extent the Executive Order seeks to condition all federal grants on honoring civil detainer requests, it is likely unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment because it seeks to compel the states and local jurisdictions to enforce a federal regulatory program through coercion.

Fourth, plaintiff's challenged the order as vague. This is a drafting issue. Basically, the issue here is that

The Order directs the Attorney General to take “appropriate enforcement action” against any jurisdiction that “hinders the enforcement of Federal law.”

without actually defining what enforcement action is appropriate, or what funds are available - and per Spicer/Trump/Sessions's comments, all of them are . . . and it also fails to define sanctuary city:

But, at least as of two months ago, the Secretary himself stated that he “do[esn’t] have a clue” how to define “sanctuary city.” Harris Decl. ex. D (Dep’t of Homeland Sec., Pool Notes from Secretary Kelly’s Trip to San Diego , Feb. 10, 2017) at 3 (SC Dkt. No. 36-4). If the Secretary has unbounded disc
retion to designate “sanctuary jurisdictions” but has no idea how to define that term, states and local jurisdictions have no hope of deciphering what conduct might result in an unfavorable “sanctuary jurisdiction” designation.

Finally, there's a due process issue, which is again from bad drafting. Essentially, the order not only lacks any mechanism for determining who it applies to, it also lacks any procedural mechanism for letting them know it applies, and allowing them to either correct their action, or to contest it.

It does not direct the Attorney General or Secretary to provide “sanctuary jurisdictions” with any notice of an unfavorable designation or impending cut to funding. And it does not set up any administrative or judicial procedure for states and local jurisdictions to be heard, to challenge enforcement action, or to appeal any action taken against them under the Order. This complete lack of process violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process requirements. Matthew v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 349 (1976) (“The essence of due process is the requirement that a person in jeopardy of serious loss be given notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.”) (internal alterations and quotations omitted).

 

[Seano]

I can't believe anyone supports sanctuary cities. It boggles me.

 

[FIMN]

A poorly thought out EO from an unqualified and ham fisted president?

Surely not.

 

[HomerThompson]

A poorly thought out EO from an unqualified and ham fisted president?

Surely not.

Boggles the mind.

 

[7437]

A poorly thought out EO from an unqualified and ham fisted president?

Surely not.

Surely not from the greatest businessman of all time. The smartest man ever.

 

[Concrete Whale]

I can't believe anyone supports sanctuary cities. It boggles me.

Evil is real and must be confronted.

If these politicians love Africans so much perhaps they should be sent to Africa. All Africans, all the time - no evil white racists. Sounds like a win-win for everyone.

 

[7437]

Evil is real and must be confronted.

If these politicians love Africans so much perhaps they should be sent to Africa. All Africans, all the time - no evil white racists. Sounds like a win-win for everyone.

 

[Quipling]

I can't believe anyone supports sanctuary cities. It boggles me.

How would you define sanctuary city? One of the issues with the order is that the Trump administration gave vague and contradictory definitions.

Also, you can support or oppose a goal and still find problems with the means used to get there. Do you have any thoughts on the order, or just that you don't like sanctuary cities?

 

[Rational Poster]

I can't believe anyone supports sanctuary cities. It boggles me.

I can't believe you don't support our constitution.

 

[Cirris]

The Judge probably has a perfectly good argument for his decision.....
*ninth circuit court*
....... Oh well never mind then.

 

[Jim Bob]

The wall just got 10ft. Taller!

 

[ripskater]

Evil is real and must be confronted.

If these politicians love Africans so much perhaps they should be sent to Africa. All Africans, all the time - no evil white racists. Sounds like a win-win for everyone.

 

[superpunch]

Liberal judges are just virtue signalling from the bench. They should judge on the law, not their own opinions! Trump should just do what Andrew Jackson did and say "oh yeah, you and what army? LOL I control the army!" and ignore them.

 

[RetiredWisFighter]

What a poorly drafted EO regarding refugees again? You don't say

 

[Quipling]

The Judge probably has a perfectly good argument for his decision.....
*ninth circuit court*
....... Oh well never mind then.

1.) He's not a 9th circuit judge. He's a district judge.
2.) His rationale is in the OP. If you want to know what it is, all you need to do is read. I've even quoted important sections.

 

[goldennirvana]

I can't believe anyone supports sanctuary cities. It boggles me.

The left does, because they operate purely on emotion rather than logic.