• 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!

Court Rules Trump Admin Can Withhold Federal Grants to NYC, Seven States over Sanctuary Policies

Michael Johnson

Michael Johnson

Libturd Destroyer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
5,818
Reaction score
924
Location
Hell's Kitchen - Where I cook Lying Libs for break
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
A federal court on Wednesday ruled that the Trump administration could withhold grants to New York City, as well as seven states, due to their refusal to cooperate with the federal immigration enforcement efforts.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled that the federal government could withhold funds from New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia and Rhode Island, over the states' "sanctuary" laws. The states currently contain a number of cities, including New York City, with laws preventing local authorities from notifying Immigration and Customs Enforcement when an illegal immigrant is about to be released from jail.
Click to expand...

Earlier this month current Attorney General William Barr announced the Justice Department would initiate a series of lawsuits against localities with "sanctuary" laws.

"Let us state the reality upfront and as clearly as possible," Barr said at an event in Washington, D.C. "When we are talking about sanctuary cities, we are talking about policies that are designed to allow criminal aliens to escape. These policies are not about people who came to our country illegally but have otherwise been peaceful and productive members of society. Their express purpose is to shelter aliens whom local law enforcement has already arrested for other crimes. This is neither lawful nor sensible."
Click to expand...

Great ruling. Now hopefully Trump will start arresting these thug loving scumbags. Because they have a stinking attitude with the President all of a sudden it's ok to disobey federal law. LOL

Court Rules Trump Admin Can Withhold Federal Grants to NYC, Seven States over Sanctuary Policies | National Review
 
It's baffling why a ruling like this was even needed.

There are cities in the US openly aiming to undermine the country in every way possible.
 
Michael Johnson said:
Great ruling. Now hopefully Trump will start arresting these thug loving scumbags. Because they have a stinking attitude with the President all of a sudden it's ok to disobey federal law. LOL

Court Rules Trump Admin Can Withhold Federal Grants to NYC, Seven States over Sanctuary Policies | National Review
Click to expand...

Sanctuary cities don't disobey federal laws. They just refuse to devote resources towards helping the federal government enforce those laws. It's the fed's job to deal with immigration issues, not NYC's.

Openly pining for political prisoners in the United States. How very freedom loving of you.
 
Erod said:
It's baffling why a ruling like this was even needed.

There are cities in the US openly aiming to undermine the country in every way possible.
Click to expand...

Is it possible that you've been misinformed about exactly what sanctuary cities are doing?
 
Erod said:
It's baffling why a ruling like this was even needed.

There are cities in the US openly aiming to undermine the country in every way possible.
Click to expand...

Yes, technically by the ruling all the states that have marijuana legalized are undermining federal law. I guess you don't care about states rights. Got it.
 
Digger said:
Sanctuary cities don't disobey federal laws. They just refuse to devote resources towards helping the federal government enforce those laws. It's the fed's job to deal with immigration issues, not NYC's.
Click to expand...

If that were the case the country would be split up into hundreds of thousands of independent lands.

It is the job of all levels of government in the country to comply with local, state, and federal laws. Municipalities don't get to choose which federal laws to abide by, which is why they're paying the price for it.



Openly pining for political prisoners in the United States. How very freedom loving of you.
Click to expand...

Openly advocating for local government officials breaking federal law to be arrested? How patriotic of me.
 
Michael Johnson said:
If that were the case the country would be split up into hundreds of thousands of independent lands.

It is the job of all levels of government in the country to comply with local, state, and federal laws. Municipalities don't get to choose which federal laws to abide by, which is why they're paying the price for it.
Click to expand...

No, that's really not true. Local police are not responsible for enforcing federal law. A locality can help if they want to, but are not required to. That's why, for instance, a local government can tell its police force to not enforce federal marijuana laws.

Openly advocating for local government officials breaking federal law to be arrested? How patriotic of me.
Click to expand...

What law are they breaking, exactly? Read the oath of office for local officials. They swear to uphold the constitution. They do not swear to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. That's what the President promises to do, because he's the executive of the federal government. You see, we've got this concept called state's rights. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Here's a good example.

MRSC - The Oath of Office for Local Elected Officials

"I, _____, do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington, and all local ordinances, and that I will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of the office of _____, according to the law and the best of my ability."
 
Last edited:
Digger said:
No, that's really not true. Local police are not responsible for enforcing federal law. A locality can help if they want to, but are not required to. That's why, for instance, a local government can tell its police force to not enforce federal marijuana laws.



What law are they breaking, exactly? Read the oath of office for local officials. They swear to uphold the constitution. They do not swear to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. That's what the President promises to do, because he's the executive of the federal government.
Click to expand...

facepalm!!!!!!!
 
Not even Trump is saying that they're breaking the law. He's just saying he gets to retaliate. The federal government retaliating against states for asserting their right not to cooperate in enforcing federal laws they disagree with. I mean, what could go wrong with a precedent like that?

When a Democrat comes into office and the federal government stops keeping all of these impoverished red states afloat with social spending because they won't enforce federal voting rights laws, we're gonna see some howling from the hypocrites who only believe in state's rights when it's their state's rights to oppress Black people.
 
Digger said:
No, that's really not true. Local police are not responsible for enforcing federal law. A locality can help if they want to, but are not required to. That's why, for instance, a local government can tell its police force to not enforce federal marijuana laws.



What law are they breaking, exactly? Read the oath of office for local officials. They swear to uphold the constitution. They do not swear to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. That's what the President promises to do, because he's the executive of the federal government. You see, we've got this concept called state's rights. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Here's a good example.

MRSC - The Oath of Office for Local Elected Officials

I, _____, do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington, and all local ordinances, and that I will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of the office of _____, according to the law and the best of my ability.
Click to expand...

Let me help you--federal money, federal strings. Don't want the strings, don't expect the money.
 
Drawdown said:
Let me help you--federal money, federal strings. Don't want the strings, don't expect the money.
Click to expand...

OK man. Trump is in charge and they're packing the courts and you get to have it your way for now. Just remember this when the chickens come home to roost. New York has the second highest GDP/capita. I'm pretty sure they'll be OK.

And do you think you could talk to your compatriots about all of the threats of jailing political prisoners? It makes me feel uncomfortable.
 
Last edited:
Digger said:
OK man. Trump is in charge and they're packing the courts and you get to have it your way for now. Just remember this when the chickens come home to roost.

Can you imagine the howling about states rights if the shoe were on the other foot?
Click to expand...

Grants are allocated for specific purposes on specific conditions. If the shoe were on the other foot, then grants would be allocated for specific purposes on specific conditions. It really is that simple.
 
Digger said:
No, that's really not true. Local police are not responsible for enforcing federal law. A locality can help if they want to, but are not required to. That's why, for instance, a local government can tell its police force to not enforce federal marijuana laws.



What law are they breaking, exactly? Read the oath of office for local officials. They swear to uphold the constitution. They do not swear to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. That's what the President promises to do, because he's the executive of the federal government. You see, we've got this concept called state's rights. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Here's a good example.

MRSC - The Oath of Office for Local Elected Officials

"I, _____, do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Washington, and all local ordinances, and that I will faithfully and impartially perform and discharge the duties of the office of _____, according to the law and the best of my ability."
Click to expand...

States and localities ARE required to assist federal enforcement efforts with regard to immigration. Read 8 U.S.C. §1373. Understand, this was passed by congress. If you don't like it, you'll need to get congress to write new law.
 
Digger said:
Not even Trump is saying that they're breaking the law. He's just saying he gets to retaliate. The federal government retaliating against states for asserting their right not to cooperate in enforcing federal laws they disagree with. I mean, what could go wrong with a precedent like that?

When a Democrat comes into office and the federal government stops keeping all of these impoverished red states afloat with social spending because they won't enforce federal voting rights laws, we're gonna see some howling from the hypocrites who only believe in state's rights when it's their state's rights to oppress Black people.
Click to expand...
They are literally violating our federal immigration laws. Period.
 
Digger said:
No, that's really not true. Local police are not responsible for enforcing federal law. A locality can help if they want to, but are not required to.
Click to expand...

Local governments are legally required to obey all federal laws. They cannot choose which laws to abide by.

That's why, for instance, a local government can tell its police force to not enforce federal marijuana laws.
Click to expand...

A local government cannot disobey federal laws without consequences.

What law are they breaking, exactly? Read the oath of office for local officials. They swear to uphold the constitution. They do not swear to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. That's what the President promises to do, because he's the executive of the federal government. You see, we've got this concept called state's rights. Perhaps you've heard of it?
Click to expand...

Federal law trumps any local government. Every mission of every local government is to uphold all laws of the country. The Constitution is federal law.

Those people are immigrants who are breaking federal law by illegally living on federal land.

For example, PREA is a federal law that all local prisons, jails, and mental health facilities must abide by. They cannot disregard that, else they run the risk of being sued, fined, and possibly shut down.
 
Drawdown said:
Grants are allocated for specific purposes on specific conditions. If the shoe were on the other foot, then grants would be allocated for specific purposes on specific conditions. It really is that simple.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, simple. That's why it took 3 years of wrangling in the courts to settle it. No, this is legal precedent. And you will have to deal with the repercussions of this expansion of federal power later.
 
humbolt said:
States and localities ARE required to assist federal enforcement efforts with regard to immigration. Read 8 U.S.C. §1373. Understand, this was passed by congress. If you don't like it, you'll need to get congress to write new law.
Click to expand...

OK, I read it. Not hard. It's 3 paragraphs long. Can you quote the part that supports your point? Because I don't see it. These localities are not in any way "restricting or attempting to restrict" the federal government. They just aren't spending any local resources to cooperate. The law does not say that they have to.
 
ITT a bunch of conservatives demonstrate that they don't understand or don't care about state's rights when it's not their states.

Enjoy bossing around the liberals while you've got the upper hand, boys. I'm going to have very little sympathy for you when you complain later.
 
Digger said:
OK, I read it. Not hard. It's 3 paragraphs long. Can you quote the part that supports your point? Because I don't see it. These localities are not in any way "restricting or attempting to restrict" the federal government. They just aren't spending any local resources to cooperate. The law does not say that they have to.
Click to expand...

They do have that responsibility. You need to understand that congress gave the president the authority to determine what constitutes national interest with regard to immigration enforcement - not states or localities. This is described in 8 U.S.C. §1182 (f). This isn't moving goal posts. It's a matter of reading and understanding the illegality of the sanctuary effort.

A gaggle of federal activist judges cannot change the letter of the law. Only congress can do that.
 
Digger said:
Oh yeah, simple. That's why it took 3 years of wrangling in the courts to settle it. No, this is legal precedent. And you will have to deal with the repercussions of this expansion of federal power later.
Click to expand...

Yawn. the repercussions will be use the money for specific purposes on specific conditions and you are fine.
 
humbolt said:
They do have that responsibility. You need to understand that congress gave the president the authority to determine what constitutes national interest with regard to immigration enforcement - not states or localities. This is described in 8 U.S.C. §1182 (f). This isn't moving goal posts. It's a matter of reading and understanding the illegality of the sanctuary effort.

A gaggle of federal activist judges cannot change the letter of the law. Only congress can do that.
Click to expand...

Oh come on, dude. The first law you posted didn't say what you wanted it to say. So now you post a tldr law instead. Yes, the federal government has the authority to enforce immigration laws. But local governments don't have to help. You quote where in that law it says the federal government has the authority to force local governments to help. I'm not going to read through that whole law on the off chance that somewhere in there it supports your point. If you've already read the law, and you know it supports your point, it should be easy for you to tell me where and quote it.
 
Drawdown said:
Yawn. the repercussions will be use the money for specific purposes on specific conditions and you are fine.
Click to expand...

But Congress gets to do it. Congress says where to spend money, not the President. Congress chooses which strings to attach. Well, until now. It used to be, if the federal government wants to attach strings to, say, federal highway spending, it could force states to, say, have emissions standards. But in order to do that, Congress needs to pass a law giving the government authority to do so. So you had robust debate and different power centers and the filibuster in the Senate. You know, checks and balances. A Republic, if you can keep it.

Now the President can just do it. Expansion of the executive branch's power to unilaterally expand federal power. What could go wrong?
 
Last edited:
Digger said:
Oh come on, dude. The first law you posted didn't say what you wanted it to say. So now you post a tldr law instead. Yes, the federal government has the authority to enforce immigration laws. But local governments don't have to help. You quote where in that law it says the federal government has the authority to force local governments to help. I'm not going to read through that whole law on the off chance that somewhere in there it supports your point. If you've already read the law, and you know it supports your point, it should be easy for you to tell me where and quote it.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm trying to educate you to no effect, so I'll cut to the chase. States and localities aren't responsible for the enforcement of federal law, but they are responsible for cooperation with federal authorities with regard to enforcement activities. Specifically, they can not prohibit cooperation, which is precisely what sanctuary cities are doing. I hope that's clear enough for you. These aren't my opinions. They're the rulings of federal courts.

Geeze. Give a guy a hammer and a nail, and the next thing is he wants you to drive the damn nail for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom