PDA

View Full Version : Number of sanctuary cities nears 500



Peter1469
03-14-2017, 04:02 PM
Number of sanctuary cities nears 500 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/14/number-sanctuary-cities-nears-500-report/)
Cut off federal aid to these cities. Now.


Nearly 500 jurisdictions are now sanctuary cities, according to a group that’s tracked the issue for more than a decade, and who said there’s been a massive surge in the number of places trying to thwart federal immigration agents since President Trump’s election.

The Ohio Jobs & Justice Political Action Committee has (http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp) added more than three dozen new cities and counties to its list in 2017 alone, as jurisdictions rush to try to shield illegal immigrants from what they expect to be a new push for deportations under Mr. Trump.


“More will be coming,” said Steve Salvi (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/steve-salvi/), founder of OJJ. “A lot of communities now, there’s resolutions in the works and citizens groups encouraging city councils to pass them.”



Perhaps just as surprising, though, are the four cities OJJ has removed from its list or is poised to remove, once it gets final confirmation of cooperation with Homeland Security officials. Two of those are in Alaska, while the other two are Dayton, Ohio, and Miami, Florida.

Read more at the link.

Scrounger
03-14-2017, 05:06 PM
The following link illustrates what happens to Americans when single issue activists do not understand the importance of legal precedents:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/03/06/sanctuary-cities-have-law-their-side/AAmVsF94Jw2IXATCOXv9PN/story.html

stjames1_53
03-14-2017, 05:11 PM
The following link illustrates what happens to Americans when single issue activists do not understand the importance of legal precedents:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/03/06/sanctuary-cities-have-law-their-side/AAmVsF94Jw2IXATCOXv9PN/story.html
says the guy with one set of tracks for wild abandon immigration. The No Fences Guy.......

Peter1469
03-14-2017, 05:17 PM
The following link illustrates what happens to Americans when single issue activists do not understand the importance of legal precedents:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/03/06/sanctuary-cities-have-law-their-side/AAmVsF94Jw2IXATCOXv9PN/story.html
Ask a lawyer to help you out rather than play lawyer on the internet.

The federal government hands out money to states and cities via grants and contracts. That money can be conditioned of almost anything.

Ask the states that fought seat beat laws and speeding limits that the fed demanded of them.

FindersKeepers
03-14-2017, 05:23 PM
The following link illustrates what happens to Americans when single issue activists do not understand the importance of legal precedents:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/03/06/sanctuary-cities-have-law-their-side/AAmVsF94Jw2IXATCOXv9PN/story.html

Oh, I think everyone understands that local communities have rights, but there are still things that can be done -- such as cutting federal funding for the sheriff's department, if a local sheriff refuses to abide by the US law.

It's really a pretty simple concept.

Peter1469
03-14-2017, 06:59 PM
Oh, I think everyone understands that local communities have rights, but there are still things that can be done -- such as cutting federal funding for the sheriff's department, if a local sheriff refuses to abide by the US law.

It's really a pretty simple concept.

Globalists seek to destroy borders and cultures. Watch out for them.

NapRover
03-14-2017, 07:53 PM
Maybe cutting off aid to these cities could fund trumpcare

Scrounger
03-14-2017, 08:08 PM
says the guy with one set of tracks for wild abandon immigration. The No Fences Guy.......

You have issues with the truth. Best advice: don't respond to my posts and I won't respond to yours.

Scrounger
03-14-2017, 08:11 PM
Oh, I think everyone understands that local communities have rights, but there are still things that can be done -- such as cutting federal funding for the sheriff's department, if a local sheriff refuses to abide by the US law.

It's really a pretty simple concept.
You really need to READ the article. The point is made that, while you "can" do things, it can have far reaching effects (none of which would be related to immigration issues.) Do yourself a favor, read the article.

You can brush your teeth with Drano and they will be lily white. You will also be poisoned.

Captain Obvious
03-14-2017, 08:12 PM
Maybe cutting off aid to these cities could fund trumpcare

Replacing the ACA should save. That article that 26m will lose coverage by 2026 or whatever also silently states that the plan revision should reduce the deficit.

If it's done right, that's the big question now.

Green Arrow
03-14-2017, 08:18 PM
No cutting off federal funding unless you don't use tax money from those cities to support those federal funds.

Captain Obvious
03-14-2017, 08:21 PM
No cutting off federal funding unless you don't use tax money from those cities to support those federal funds.

How do cities have the right to exempt themselves from federal law though?

Green Arrow
03-14-2017, 09:10 PM
How do cities have the right to exempt themselves from federal law though?

It's derived from the theory of nullification, first advanced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The idea is basically that the states have a right to nullify federal laws that they don't believe are appropriate or constitutional. It's a method for the states (and, in this case, municipalities) to check the power of the federal government.

FindersKeepers
03-15-2017, 03:52 AM
You really need to READ the article. The point is made that, while you "can" do things, it can have far reaching effects (none of which would be related to immigration issues.) Do yourself a favor, read the article.

You can brush your teeth with Drano and they will be lily white. You will also be poisoned.

I read the article, I suspect that you're reading more into it than is actually there.

Here's the deal -- while I agree the effects can be far-reaching, the point is that they don't have to be. Not as long as these cities abide by our immigration laws. You are quick to point an accusing finger at the federal government if they pull funding, but you fail to understand that if those cities abide by the laws, no funding will be pulled, hence, no far-reaching effects.

The article is bogus in the sense that it insinuates Trump is the first President to enforce the deportation laws. It forgets to report that Obama deported a record number of illegals. How did the writer miss that one? And the parallel to the Fugitive Slave Act is nothing short of histrionics and snowflakiness.

Boston is a very wealth community, they can probably survive some funding cuts, but if their residents start whining -- they may change their minds about protecting illegals.

It's their choice -- just as it is the choice of every sanctuary city. But, should they decide not to enforce the law, they might find themselves up-creek-without-a-paddle. It's not the responsibility of the federal government to pander to them should they decide to remain in violation.

The ball's in their court.

FindersKeepers
03-15-2017, 03:57 AM
It's derived from the theory of nullification, first advanced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The idea is basically that the states have a right to nullify federal laws that they don't believe are appropriate or constitutional. It's a method for the states (and, in this case, municipalities) to check the power of the federal government.

It is, and I support the concept. But, at the same time, what they are doing by violating these specific federal laws is detrimental to American citizens who don't live within their state borders, so it's fair game to pull funding.

They can continue to have their sanctuary cities -- on their own dime.

They cannot, however, stop enhanced border control.

We're witnessing some interesting developments -- ones that could send ripples in motion that could affect us for years to come.

Peter1469
03-15-2017, 04:37 AM
No cutting off federal funding unless you don't use tax money from those cities to support those federal funds.

No law allows those cities to withhold federal tax dollars.

Peter1469
03-15-2017, 04:38 AM
It's derived from the theory of nullification, first advanced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The idea is basically that the states have a right to nullify federal laws that they don't believe are appropriate or constitutional. It's a method for the states (and, in this case, municipalities) to check the power of the federal government.

Your last sentence catches the problem: nullification is done at the state level. Not city level.

stjames1_53
03-15-2017, 04:44 AM
they don't want the illegals to leave. I think it's a great idea. But they should never get one dime of federal money. Not for welfare, roads, poverty control, and definitely local/state disasters.
And NO loans.............Let's see how long they can hold out.

AeonPax
03-15-2017, 05:04 AM
Your last sentence catches the problem: nullification is done at the state level. Not city level.
`
Further explanation;
`

"Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States), repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)#cite_note-2) The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause) of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_III_of_the_United_States_Constitution), the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws." - Source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution))

Bethere
03-15-2017, 05:26 AM
Your last sentence catches the problem: nullification is done at the state level. Not city level.

Nah. Read Cooper v Aaron. There is no such thing as nullification.

No need to thank me, it was my pleasure.

Bethere
03-15-2017, 05:30 AM
No law allows those cities to withhold federal tax dollars.

No law allows the executive to either.

Read the impoundment control act of 1974.

Thanks.

Green Arrow
03-15-2017, 06:30 AM
It is, and I support the concept. But, at the same time, what they are doing by violating these specific federal laws is detrimental to American citizens who don't live within their state borders, so it's fair game to pull funding.

They can continue to have their sanctuary cities -- on their own dime.

They cannot, however, stop enhanced border control.

We're witnessing some interesting developments -- ones that could send ripples in motion that could affect us for years to come.

If you're going to withhold federal funding, give them back the taxes they paid to the federal government.

Green Arrow
03-15-2017, 06:30 AM
Your last sentence catches the problem: nullification is done at the state level. Not city level.

There's no logical reason why it would be appropriate at the state level but not at the municipal level.

Green Arrow
03-15-2017, 06:35 AM
No law allows the executive to either.

Read the impoundment control act of 1974.

Thanks.
Which portion of the Act says that? I don't recall reading it.

FindersKeepers
03-15-2017, 07:16 AM
If you're going to withhold federal funding, give them back the taxes they paid to the federal government.

I believe the funding is only going to be withheld in specific areas -- such as federal funding for the sheriff's dept., if that department refuses to do its part. On the other hand, I've heard proposals to give extra funding to departments that go the extra mile to help in following ICE rules.

I don't think anyone is advocating pulling ALL federal funding. That would be akin to shoving a state out of the Union.

Peter1469
03-15-2017, 02:48 PM
Nah. Read Cooper v Aaron. There is no such thing as nullification.

No need to thank me, it was my pleasure.

I understand the federal power structure rejects it.

Peter1469
03-15-2017, 02:48 PM
There's no logical reason why it would be appropriate at the state level but not at the municipal level.

States are sovereigns (other than what was ceded to the federal government). Cities are not. Although some have been granted a lot of autonomy.

Green Arrow
03-15-2017, 05:02 PM
States are sovereigns (other than what was ceded to the federal government). Cities are not. Although some have been granted a lot of autonomy.

Again, though, there's no logical reason to make that distinction. There's plenty of historical precedent throughout many different cultures of sovereign cities.

Peter1469
03-15-2017, 05:03 PM
Again, though, there's no logical reason to make that distinction. There's plenty of historical precedent throughout many different cultures of sovereign cities.

I was talking about the United States. Not ancient Greece.

:smiley:

Green Arrow
03-15-2017, 05:07 PM
I was talking about the United States. Not ancient Greece.

:smiley:

I know, I'm just saying the founders never openly opposed (as far as I can recall) sovereign cities, and quite a few of them opposed sovereign states, not to mention the arguments in favor of sovereign states and state nullification can be logically applied to cities.

Don
03-15-2017, 05:16 PM
It's derived from the theory of nullification, first advanced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The idea is basically that the states have a right to nullify federal laws that they don't believe are appropriate or constitutional. It's a method for the states (and, in this case, municipalities) to check the power of the federal government.

Its for the federal government when it exceeds its constitutional authority. Immigration control is the responsibility of the federal government. I believe in nullification where needed but not use it as an excuse for whatever the flavor of the day is. If any laws need changed it should be laws that protect state or city government officials from being sued for criminal negligence when they do something that endangers their citizens. To be honest I don't think these "sanctuary city" activists give a rats ass about illegals. They do it because they hate president Trump and will do anything and everything they can to derail or roadblock his administration. People are already getting sick of them.