• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Chicago scores legal victory in sanctuary city battle with Sessions

I think its ironic that a lot of those who kiss the asses of illegals argue that illegal immigration is a federal issue while supporting states that grant sanctuary to illegals.

While you look at this issue as black-and-white (undocumented immigrants, bad; those who want to deport undocumented immigrants, good) the issue is far more nuanced than that. Local authorities instruct local law enforcement officials to not investigate the immigration status of suspects or prisoners in their custody, because of the rational thinking is that such restraint will make victims and witnesses more likely to help police. If these people knew that if they came forward they'd be targets of deportation, they would head underground and law enforcement would lose their witnesses.

Then, of course, is the matter of federalism. James Madison wrote in Federalist 45 that the powers delegated to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution, are few and defined. What happens when the federal government goes beyond those limited and enumerated powers? One powerful check is provided by the judiciary, which Madison described to Congress in 1789 as "an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive." If only his description of the courts held true in more cases. Another key check is provided by the states. Madison wrote in Federalist 46, "Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular states, which would seldom fail to be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand."

This is a federalism issue because the federal government has no constitutional authority to command state officials to carry out federal whims. The federal courts clearly support the states in this fight. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia observed in his 2007 majority opinion in Printz v. United States, "the Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program."

I object to upholding constitutional principles as, "kiss the asses of illegals."
 
And your spelling is a fail as well, want to go for 3 for 3 champ? Or [are] you done loosing

How rich...................................champ
 
While you look at this issue as black-and-white (undocumented immigrants, bad; those who want to deport undocumented immigrants, good) the issue is far more nuanced than that. Local authorities instruct local law enforcement officials to not investigate the immigration status of suspects or prisoners in their custody, because of the rational thinking is that such restraint will make victims and witnesses more likely to help police. If these people knew that if they came forward they'd be targets of deportation, they would head underground and law enforcement would lose their witnesses.
Suspects and prisoners are not vicitims and witnesses. Those vicitims and witnesses from what I understand already get certain protections.

Then, of course, is the matter of federalism. James Madison wrote in Federalist 45 that the powers delegated to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution, are few and defined. What happens when the federal government goes beyond those limited and enumerated powers? One powerful check is provided by the judiciary, which Madison described to Congress in 1789 as "an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive." If only his description of the courts held true in more cases. Another key check is provided by the states. Madison wrote in Federalist 46, "Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular states, which would seldom fail to be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand."

This is a federalism issue because the federal government has no constitutional authority to command state officials to carry out federal whims. The federal courts clearly support the states in this fight. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia observed in his 2007 majority opinion in Printz v. United States, "the Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program."

This is a criminal issue not a regulatory issue.
 
I don't recall conseratives (sic) who believe in limited government included the Constitutional mandated federal authority over immigration in that. Can you point me to a few?

On federalism and states rights, conservatives have been on both sides, depending upon the issue. On immigration, when Obama was President, Arizona passed their own immigration law, and conservatives cheered. Obama sued, stating that immigration is a constitutionally federal domain.

When the issue was whether a brain dead woman (Teri Schiavo) could be unplugged from life-support, which was a decision that many courts in her State of Florida granted, Congress passed a special law to usurp authority. The federal court in Tampa and the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta threw out that law.
 
Suspects and prisoners are not vicitims and witnesses. Those vicitims and witnesses from what I understand already get certain protections.



This is a criminal issue not a regulatory issue.
It's not an issue of who is the victim. It's an issue as to who decides local matters. The local governments are not bound to cooperate with the edicts of the federal government unless it is a 14th Amendment issue.

Local authorities have a rational basis for their decisions and they have every right to carry out their duties as they see fit. They are not under the command of the U.S. Attorney General.
 
Whether or not states or cities are required by Federal laws to report known illegal aliens to the Federal government is relevant to the ruling and issue in general.

One of the requirements for obtaining funding is maintained compliance with Federal laws.

But was not a part of the actual ruling. The reason the judge ruled as he did is one of those kinda important things.
 
Early legal "victories" are usually suspect when you're talking about a case that inevitably will reach the Supreme Court. With the new makeup of the Supreme Court, it's likely that respect for the law of the land will once again reign supreme.

I do find it passing strange, however, that so many on the left are champions of those who break society's laws. What possesses you to side with illegal aliens and those municipalities that coddle them over your country's sovereignty and national integrity? What possesses city councils to pass regulations favouring non-citizens over those whose property and other taxes fund those councils and cities?

When leaders, political and otherwise, flaunt the laws of the land, is it any wonder that young people grow up thinking it's okay to ignore laws they don't like or respect.
 
On federalism and states rights, conservatives have been on both sides, depending upon the issue. On immigration, when Obama was President, Arizona passed their own immigration law, and conservatives cheered. Obama sued, stating that immigration is a constitutionally federal domain.

"641 F. 3d 339, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded."

Yes there were some constitutional issues involved and some not, this conservative agreed there was some overstepping.

When the issue was whether a brain dead woman.......

What does that have to do with anything? BTW the vote was

Voting yes were 156 Republicans and 47 Democrats, while 53 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted no. It almost got Democrat support too. It was an emotional issue not a partisan issue and should never have been before the Congress. Other than that a diversion here.

We conservatives strive to be on the side of the Constitution, at least me.
 
It's not an issue of who is the victim. It's an issue as to who decides local matters.

You said

to not investigate the immigration status of suspects or prisoners in their custody, because of the rational thinking is that such restraint will make victims and witnesses more likely to help police.

This is not about the victims and witnesses, just the suspects or prisoners in their custody.
The local governments are not bound to cooperate with the edicts of the federal government unless it is a 14th Amendment issue.

Local authorities have a rational basis for their decisions and they have every right to carry out their duties as they see fit.

It is their duty to harbor and protect criminals in their custody? Where does that derive from?

They are not under the command of the U.S. Attorney General.

Like when the federal government commanded the states to desegregate public schools and federal troops were sent in?

Actually they can be and are and have been, what if it was kidnapper, kidnapping is a federal crime, what it a city council decided to be a sanctuary city for kidnappers? Bank robbers? Spies?
 
Whether or not states or cities are required by Federal laws to report known illegal aliens to the Federal government is relevant to the ruling and issue in general.

One of the requirements for obtaining funding is maintained compliance with Federal laws.

But was not a part of the actual ruling. The reason the judge ruled as he did is one of those kinda important things.

Huh? The ruling did not deal with whether Chicago was required to notify the Feds when releasing aliens?

Are you sure?
 
Huh? The ruling did not deal with whether Chicago was required to notify the Feds when releasing aliens?

Are you sure?

I put this in an earlier post. This is what the judge stated he was looking at in making his ruling:

  1. Did Congress authorize the Attorney General to impose substantive conditions on the Byrne JAG grant?
  2. If so, did Congress have the power to authorize those conditions under the Spending Clause?
  3. And finally, does Section 1373 violate the Tenth Amendment?
 
Sure what does that have do do with this?
It had to do with your comment about the 55 mph speed limit and the 21 yr age drinking limit.



Its not, the feds are not asking the states to arrest and prosecute anyone. Like if a local police officer stops someone and there is an outstanding federal warrant for kidnapping they detain the person for the feds to come and get them.
Yeah, they tried that with the Fugitive Slave Act...except instead of illegal immigrants it was runaway slaves. It didn't work out too well.
 
I note the irony and hypocrisy of those that champion 'state's rights,' when it matches their own biases but not the concept in general.
That criticism cuts both ways because it's just as hypocritical for many on the left to be defending state sovereignty when they trample all over it when they are in agreement with federal law.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
That criticism cuts both ways because it's just as hypocritical for many on the left to be defending state sovereignty when they trample all over it when they are in agreement with federal law.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Oh no that is just not the way it works these days, the Left can be highly duplicitous while the Right is held to the strictest misconstrued standards.
 
It had to do with your comment about the 55 mph speed limit and the 21 yr age drinking limit.

And?

If the federal government sends funds to localities to help enforce federal law and that locality refuses to enforce federal law why should the federal government not be allowed to withhold those funds?



Yeah, they tried that with the Fugitive Slave Act.

Sorry but not going back to the Fugitive Slave Act here which has nothing to do with this matter. Again what if the crime were kidnapping orr bank robbery both FEDERAL CRIMES. What if a city said "no if we catch someone with federal warrants for kidnapping and/or bank robbery. we will not alert the FBI nor detain them" should the federal government be able to say OK then no federal crime fighting funds for you?
 
Last edited:
I put this in an earlier post. This is what the judge stated he was looking at in making his ruling:

  1. Did Congress authorize the Attorney General to impose substantive conditions on the Byrne JAG grant?


  1. And/or does the Executive Branch have the authority to disburse those funds as IT see fit under the criteria it sets such as is this particular locality cooperating with federal crime prevention and prosecution including immigration law. And yes the Congress gives great latitude to the Executive branch in the actual dispersion of such funds. But even in the end that is just a technical matter. What let's say the courts say it has to be explicit to each act and this is not so then the Congress amendments the law to give such authority. What say you then?

    [*]If so, did Congress have the power to authorize those conditions under the Spending Clause?

    Sure why not? Congress puts LOTS of stipulations on dispearsement of government funds, where would this violate the Tax and Spend Clause as it is properly known?

    [*]And finally, does Section 1373 violate the Tenth Amendment?

    There is no section 1373 of the Tenth Amendment.

    The Tenth Amendment is simply

    "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.[5]"

    The powers over immigration is delegated to the United States, the federal government, and particular the Executive Branch with the Legislative Branch by statute granting in almost exclusive authority. Congress general keeps out of such matters.
 
And?

If the federal government sends funds to localities to help enforce federal law and that locality refuses to enforce federal law why should the federal government not be allowed to withhold those funds?
When the States agreed to accept the Federal funds it was for a specific reason...such as enforcing the 55 mph speed limit in exchange for funds for roads. The federal government can't come back later and change the agreement by withholding the road funding because the State won't enforce some another law that they didn't agree to or get funding for.

Sorry but not going back to the Fugitive Slave Act here which has nothing to do with this matter. Again what if the crime were kidnapping orr bank robbery both FEDERAL CRIMES. What if a city said "no if we catch someone with federal warrants for kidnapping and/or bank robbery. we will not alert the FBI nor detain them" should the federal government be able to say OK then no federal crime fighting funds for you?
It was a valid comparison. You don't have to debate it, you just have to understand that it set precedent for what we are discussing now...state and local enforcement of federal laws.

If the crime was kidnapping or robbery and after there is a trial and a conviction, then I suppose they could notify ICE to pick the illegal immigrant up...but not before they are convicted.
 
When the States agreed to accept the Federal funds it was for a specific reason...such as enforcing the 55 mph speed limit in exchange for funds for roads. The federal government can't come back later and change the agreement by withholding the road funding because the State won't enforce some another law that they didn't agree to or get funding for.

They didn't agree they were forced to do so else lose the funding and they are threatening to withhold road funds nownit funds for law enforcement because they are not aiding in law enforcement.

It was a valid comparison. You don't have to debate it, you just have to understand that it set precedent for what we are discussing now...state and local enforcement of federal laws.

Yes enforcement and that was a specious stretch on your part.

If the crime was kidnapping or robbery and after there is a trial and a conviction, then I suppose they could notify ICE to pick the illegal immigrant up...but not before they are convicted.

No I'm talking about an American citizen wanted for either.......but then you knew that. What if a city decides to give safe harbor to those who commit those federal laws?

How about a city that says we will not detain an abortion clinic bomber, another federal crime.
 
While you look at this issue as black-and-white (undocumented immigrants, bad; those who want to deport undocumented immigrants, good) the issue is far more nuanced than that. Local authorities instruct local law enforcement officials to not investigate the immigration status of suspects or prisoners in their custody, because of the rational thinking is that such restraint will make victims and witnesses more likely to help police. If these people knew that if they came forward they'd be targets of deportation, they would head underground and law enforcement would lose their witnesses.

Then, of course, is the matter of federalism. James Madison wrote in Federalist 45 that the powers delegated to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution, are few and defined. What happens when the federal government goes beyond those limited and enumerated powers? One powerful check is provided by the judiciary, which Madison described to Congress in 1789 as "an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive." If only his description of the courts held true in more cases. Another key check is provided by the states. Madison wrote in Federalist 46, "Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular states, which would seldom fail to be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand."

This is a federalism issue because the federal government has no constitutional authority to command state officials to carry out federal whims. The federal courts clearly support the states in this fight. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia observed in his 2007 majority opinion in Printz v. United States, "the Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program."

I object to upholding constitutional principles as, "kiss the asses of illegals."
I hear that bull **** from those who kiss the asses of illegals all the time. The we can't help ICE because crimianals won't help in turning in other criminals malarkey.
 
Back
Top Bottom