Via Twitter: President Trump can’t force “sanctuary cities” like the Big Apple to cooperate with immigration officers by withdrawing their federal funding, a federal judge in California ruled Tuesday.
In the first legal test of an executive order Trump issued five days after taking office, U.S. District Judge William Orrick III of San Francisco said the president was exceeding his constitutional authority by trying to punish local governments that disagreed with his immigration policies, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.
Orrick’s decision followed a hearing April 14 in federal court over San Francisco’s and Santa Clara County’s request for an injunction that would stop enforcement of Trump’s order, the paper’s website reported.
The two jurisdictions argued that the order threatened billions of dollars in federal funding.
But an attorney for the Justice Department, Chad Readler, said at a recent court hearing that it applied to a limited set of grants.
Federal law doesn’t define “sanctuary cities,” and the Trump administration has given differing descriptions of the policies it’s going after.
But more than 300 cities and counties nationwide have placed limits on how far their law enforcement agencies are allowed to cooperate with federal immigration officials looking to detain and deport immigrants for crimes or illegal entry.
In the first legal test of an executive order Trump issued five days after taking office, U.S. District Judge William Orrick III of San Francisco said the president was exceeding his constitutional authority by trying to punish local governments that disagreed with his immigration policies, The San Francisco Chronicle reported.
Orrick’s decision followed a hearing April 14 in federal court over San Francisco’s and Santa Clara County’s request for an injunction that would stop enforcement of Trump’s order, the paper’s website reported.
The two jurisdictions argued that the order threatened billions of dollars in federal funding.
But an attorney for the Justice Department, Chad Readler, said at a recent court hearing that it applied to a limited set of grants.
Federal law doesn’t define “sanctuary cities,” and the Trump administration has given differing descriptions of the policies it’s going after.
But more than 300 cities and counties nationwide have placed limits on how far their law enforcement agencies are allowed to cooperate with federal immigration officials looking to detain and deport immigrants for crimes or illegal entry.
(Link to more NY Post)
24 comments:
The Judiciary is discrediting themselves just as the MSM are in their all out war w/ Trump. They are destroying themselves. Trump just needs to let their self destruction continue.
I want to see Sessions set this up properly so they can reverse this bullshit at the Supreme Court.
How can a city or a state declare itself a sanctuary to illegality and not have the executive issue and edict that says, "if you continue to give illegality sanctuary, you can no longer receive the people's money."
WTF am I missing here? What sort of legal jiu-jitsu pretzeling did this judge justify his ruling with?
Impose martial law, arrest the mayors and city councils, try them for sedition, hang them if found guilty. They're not disagreeing with federal law, they're breaking the law.
Supposedly, another Justice is going down at SCUS in the near future, so the Lefties are trying to walk on water.
"the president was exceeding his constitutional authority by trying to punish local governments that disagreed with his immigration policies"
Kinda like those 11 Southern states that disagreed with Old Abe on the subject of secession.
Methadras said...
How can a city or a state declare itself a sanctuary to illegality and not have the executive issue and edict that says, "if you continue to give illegality sanctuary, you can no longer receive the people's money."
In a nutshell.
ampersand said...
Impose martial law, arrest the mayors and city councils, try them for sedition, hang them if found guilty. They're not disagreeing with federal law, they're breaking the law.
I doubt it's sedition, but it is malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance in office, among other things - including a law school definition of insurrection, what is meant by high crimes and misdemeanors.
This is basically what Reconstruction was.
WTF am I missing here? What sort of legal jiu-jitsu pretzeling did this judge justify his ruling with?
You missed the part about the so-called judges being paid lackeys controlled Democrat mayors. What's at stake is keeping the next generation of imported citizenry (D) to replace us disgruntles.
California's state government is every bit as partisan as the Reconstruction South's was. Same party in power too.
Meth: Didn't you think it odd that San Diego County went for Hillary Clinton last November? How do you think that happened?
The Wall battle is important but the Sanctuary city battle is more important and has to be won somehow first. Illegal immigration is already down, thanks in part to better enforcement and a better morale among Border Patrol agents. But to countenance outright judicial defiance -- defiance of the rule of law -- by the judiciary seems many times more dangerous. It must be suppressed. Sanctuary City defenders are people who put the interests of non-citizens above the interests of the citizenry. Pretty much every argument for open borders is bound to fail for the time being. But, the Mayors are loyal to the illegals.
For all you fans of the One True Ted (and you know who you are), he's got a great idea.
The El Chapo Act would use seized assets from drug kingpins to pay for the Wall.
Ya love it, right?
chickelit said...
But, the Mayors are loyal to the illegals
Who keeps them in office?
Let me put it to you guys in physical terms: From the illegal's POV, the Wall is the barrier but the Sanctuary City is the goal.
From our perspective, destabilizing the goal will automatically raise the barrier. Win-win for us.
Sessions needs to get his ass in gear. If he's not up to it he should step aside and let a more vigorous man or woman take over the DOJ.
ed asks: Who keeps them in office?
Speaking only about the sanctuary city mayors, it's illegals, illegals sympathizers, and the monied interests who benefit from/exploit those people.
The question was rhetorical.
Rabel said...
Sessions needs to get his ass in gear. If he's not up to it he should step aside and let a more vigorous man or woman take over the DOJ.
Sessions seems willing to go the distance. The issue is the Federal bench, which needs a thorough shake out.
I don't think you can blame Sessions for this. The ruling just came down. He will appeal. Most likely lose in the very liberal Appeals court for that District.
I think President Trump has to just ignore this ruling. Just cut the funds. Arrest anyone who interferes and charge them with obstruction of justice. Jug them. That includes the tiny dancer and De Blasio. Full speed ahead.
""the president was exceeding his constitutional authority by trying to punish local governments that disagreed with his immigration policies"
Funny how judges never see the irony in such a statement when they try to impose their personal opinion on the masses.
I disagree with some of you. Illegals do not keep these mayors in office. Illegals have no elective power. Don't let your fellow retarded citizens off the hook by blaming someone else. American citizens elect and protect these assholes mayors. The illegals are just pawns and symbols in the process. They are even more abused by this stupidity than the rest of us. They just have a good reason for putting up with it: staying in this country. What justification do the American citizen assholes who vote for these guys have to explain themselves? Nothing. You have to accurately identify the problem to fix it. Blame the people who vote.
Trump can certainly order a "training week" for all TSA agents at those cities' airports. He can also order one for CBP agents (Customs and Immigration at international ports and airports), Air Traffic Controllers, and other Federal workers these cities depend on for their economies. Nobody would think he's bluffing, and all of those lefties would cave before the deadline.
What sort of legal jiu-jitsu pretzeling did this judge justify his ruling with?
"The judge, William H. Orrick...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."
Why doesn't the R controlled congress could pass a bill that would strip funding? I know everyone hates congress, but the trend in the past 30 or 40 years has been for them to give up their powers to the executive, or just throw up their hands when a court checks them. I'd really like to see the congress (or even just the freedom caucus) assert their powers. I've always said I was a constitutionalist- I'd like to see the system in action.
Ilya Somin agrees that it's up to Congress to tie the Federal Money apron strings, not the President by EO. So, it's a bad EO according to Law, and Jeff Sessions is to blame.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/25/federal-court-rules-against-trumps-executive-order-targeting-sanctuary-cities
It all comes down to votes for democrats. cheap labor - yes, but votes for democrats are what the illegal person is all about.
First - get illegals a drivers license - next - anyone with a drivers license can vote. Boom - masses of illegals voting for the D.
Not that I need to tell you.
I won't vote for Trump in 2020 if he caves on the wall. I want a big, beautiful wall just like he promised in the campaign. Illegal immigration steals resources from every American citizen.
I also want a weekly report on crimes committed by illegals. I seem to remember Trump promised that a few months ago - why hasn't that been done yet?
I also want Susan Rice on the stand and I want Sessions to find out what the Obama admin did with those billions in bank fines - rumor has it he doled it out to a bunch of his liberal special interest groups. How could he do that legally when Trump can't even divert a measly $1 Billion for the wall?
It's important to understand just how law enforcement has changed in the past decade. My bride was a Federal Probation Officer. Federal detainers were ROUTINE. She retired in 2006 and can't believe what she now sees. All people of her era are equally incredulous. This is INSANE. My bride will rant about the injustice of sanctuary cities, and she is not one to rant.
As far as having to go to Congress....why don't the FEDS have to do that when they withhold money from Colleges who don't comply with Title IX provisions. They hold back money all the time for discrimination, affirmative action bullshit. So how come the courts decided to stop this one?
It is because it protects American Citizens that's why. The corrupt judge that did this is an Obama fund raising bundler who got his judgeship by raising campaign contributions for the Jug Eared Jesus.
The local Republican party should file ethics charges against him forthwith.
A Harvard/Harris poll found 80%, yes EIGHTY % oppose sanctuary cities. Engaging the public and doing Willy Horton type ads will help, but it's time for hardball. Have US Marshall's go into County Jails and take illegal inmates in sanctuary cities to jurisdictions that abide deatainers. Trump has support for hardball steps.
Post a Comment