"California judge" blocks President Trump order withholding funding to sanctuary cities

[bodecea]

Another damn activist judge.

why don't we just make these judges president?

California judge blocks Trump order on sanctuary city money

dang your boy can't win for losing, eh?

bigly sad

ICE just arrested 100 folks in 4 days. WE ARE WINNING. and you're losing.

95 arrested in Southeast Texas during 4-day ICE operation targeting criminal aliens, illegal re-entrants and immigration fugitives

Ooooooo! A 100 people. How many more to go while waiting for Mexico to pay for trump's wall?

 

[bodecea]

Only some beta male with tons of butt hurt would or could come up with that.

That would be why all the Trump-wimps are whining out their butthurt here in thread after thread.

It's strange. You'd think they'd be pleased about winning, but instead, the Trump-wimps constantly keep getting more whiny and butthurt. Every day they're here crying even harder about how the mean ol' liberals keep humiliating them and DearLeader.

You poor Trump-snowflakes. I suggest you all create a SafeSpace where you don't have to worry about those awful liberals laughing at you and triggering you with facts and evidence. Then you can retreat there, and do what conservative men always do when they're together out of the public eye.

Kate Steinle thought she was in a safe place!

Yeah but she was expendable...she is white.

Well, we now know you think white women are expendable.

 

[Bush92]

Only some beta male with tons of butt hurt would or could come up with that.

That would be why all the Trump-wimps are whining out their butthurt here in thread after thread.

It's strange. You'd think they'd be pleased about winning, but instead, the Trump-wimps constantly keep getting more whiny and butthurt. Every day they're here crying even harder about how the mean ol' liberals keep humiliating them and DearLeader.

You poor Trump-snowflakes. I suggest you all create a SafeSpace where you don't have to worry about those awful liberals laughing at you and triggering you with facts and evidence. Then you can retreat there, and do what conservative men always do when they're together out of the public eye.

Kate Steinle thought she was in a safe place!

Yeah but she was expendable...she is white.

Well, we now know you think white women are expendable.

The racist left wing media and politicians certainly do. If it was a White man that shot a illegal woman the press would go bat shit crazy.

 

[Bush92]

Another damn activist judge.

why don't we just make these judges president?

California judge blocks Trump order on sanctuary city money

dang your boy can't win for losing, eh?

bigly sad

ICE just arrested 100 folks in 4 days. WE ARE WINNING. and you're losing.

95 arrested in Southeast Texas during 4-day ICE operation targeting criminal aliens, illegal re-entrants and immigration fugitives

Ooooooo! A 100 people. How many more to go while waiting for Mexico to pay for trump's wall?

He just has to build it. Nobody expected Mexico to pay for it. But, if we shut down the border 100% and American factories would come home and bring millions with them.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It is, but only when executives and legislators fail to exercise good judgement in taking the actions they do. Even though those elected individuals are members of one party or another, they are nonetheless the representatives of all the citizens of the U.S. When one's favorability is as low as Trump's and the Congress', good judgment, in part, includes making and enforcing policy in a win-win way, not an "I say this is best; therefore it is" way.

And that said, how can anyone justify support for "Sanctuary" cities? We have a legal process for entering the country and these places are specifically engaged in circumventing those legal processes.

We are not allowed to pick and choose among the laws those with which we agree only....while ignoring those we disagree with.

how can anyone justify support for "Sanctuary" cities?

I'm sure there are several legitimate philosophical approaches that arrive at the stance you note. I briefly identified one of them here: The real reason sanctuary cities are so motivated to harbor illegal Mexicans?.

 

[Bush92]

What is the point of sanctuary cities? These fucking people are not escaping genocide in their homeland. They are bums sponging off our country.

 

[Bush92]

If Jake served, he was a potato peeler.

I think he played the skinflute in the band.

 

[JQPublic1]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

That is not true. The check and balance system is working. I don't necessarily agree with the Sanctuary City, BS ; however, it is good to see the Republicans don't have free rein over everything!

 

[Bush92]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

That is notCity, BS true. The check and balance system is working. I don't necessarily agree with the Sanctuary City, BS ; however, it is good to see the Republicans don't have free rein over everything!

GOP Congress will pass an "Act"...not a law, banning sanctuary cities...Trump will sign it.

 

[Flopper]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

That is what happens when you a have a president that violates the constitution or existing federal law. The courts have to act.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I say withhold the funds anyway, screw the psycho libtard judge.

That would be illegal and a violation of the Constitution.

No it would not. Quote the law that says that...

Then you quote from any Article of the US Constitution giving POTUS the power the totally circumvent law and IMPOUND congressionally appropriated Treasury funds signed into law without due process based solely upon an edict from his presidential thrown!!!! Further, that EO is tantamount to a 'line item veto' which has been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS in Clinton v. City of New York (1998).

 

[Bush92]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

That is what happens when you a have a president that violates the constitution or existing federal law. The courts have to act.

He is not violating the Constitution, or federal law.

 

[DarkFury]

I say withhold the funds anyway, screw the psycho libtard judge.

That would be illegal and a violation of the Constitution.

No it would not. Quote the law that says that...

Then you quote from any Article of the US Constitution giving POTUS the power the totally circumvent law and IMPOUND congressionally appropriated Treasury funds signed into law without due process based solely upon an edict from his presidential thrown!!!! Further, that EO is tantamount to a 'line item veto' which has been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS in Clinton v. City of New York (1998).

Immigration numbers and from where are set soley by the president.

 

[Bush92]

I say withhold the funds anyway, screw the psycho libtard judge.

That would be illegal and a violation of the Constitution.

No it would not. Quote the law that says that...

Then you quote from any Article of the US Constitution giving POTUS the power the totally circumvent law and IMPOUND congressionally appropriated Treasury funds signed into law without due process based solely upon an edict from his presidential thrown!!!! Further, that EO is tantamount to a 'line item veto' which has been ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS in Clinton v. City of New York (1998).

Those funds won't be there in September.

 

[JQPublic1]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

That is notCity, BS true. The check and balance system is working. I don't necessarily agree with the Sanctuary City, BS ; however, it is good to see the Republicans don't have free rein over everything!

GOP Congress will pass an "Act"...not a law, banning sanctuary cities...Trump will sign it.

well. the Republicans spearheaded the Sanctuary Cities phenomenon in the first place during the Reagan administration.

Public sanctuary[edit]
The Sanctuary Movement formed as a reaction to these policies. It originated along the border with Mexico. The first church to declare itself a sanctuary for Central American refugees was Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson, Arizona. The movement was sparked by the increased presence of Central American appearing at the US-Mexico border. In 1980, Jim Corbett, Jim Dudley, John Fife and other residents of Tucson, Arizona, began providing legal, financial and material aid to Central American refugees.[4]

Sanctuary drew on many aspects of Christian theology, but was centered on compassionate concern for those fleeing violent civil wars raging in Guatemala and El Salvador, but who met with routine deportation in the United States. As Jim Corbett recounts, the tradition of his Quaker faith, and its involvement in the Civil War-era Underground Railroad that assisted fugitive slaves, was--in part--what compelled him to take action. For others such as Gary Cook, associate pastor of the Central Presbyterian Church in Massillon, Ohio, the simple experience of personal interaction with desperate families required conscientious response: "We're a very conservative group of folks politically. But once we encountered the refugees face to face, we couldn't justify not taking them in."[5]

Sanctuary movement - Wikipedia

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

Breaking Update:

The order:

https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/filelibrary/3043/Order-Granting-Motions-to-Enjoin-9-a-of-Exec-O.pdf

The text of 8 USC 1373 is quite plain. It was written precisely to do what these Rat party operatives are trying to get away with: noncompliance with Federal immigration enforcement.

(a) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

(b) Additional authority of government entitiesNotwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:

(1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

(2) Maintaining such information.

(3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

(c) Obligation to respond to inquiries

The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

 

[Flopper]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

That is notCity, BS true. The check and balance system is working. I don't necessarily agree with the Sanctuary City, BS ; however, it is good to see the Republicans don't have free rein over everything!

GOP Congress will pass an "Act"...not a law, banning sanctuary cities...Trump will sign it.

Easier said than done. The 10th amendment, the state rights amendment so loved by conservatives also protect sanctuary cities. You can't pass a federal law that commandeers state and local officials to enforce federal immigration laws. Even a conservative judge would shoot that down.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Another damn activist judge.

why don't we just make these judges president?

California judge blocks Trump order on sanctuary city money

What is disgusting about this is that on one hand they say that "not giving these sanctuary cities funds will hurt these cities", but on the other hand they tell these same cities that if an illegal immigrant which they defend harms or kills a citizen, they cannot be sued and are protected from culpability. Which is it? Do these cities have responsibility for their actions or not? If not, they shouldn't be given a penny from the rest of the nation that opposes these cities

Arrogant and hypocritical. These "cities" want their cake and eat it too even though the vast majority of Americans are against their positions. Kate Steinles family should sue all the way to the Supreme Court. This is bothersome at the very least. One state or another impacting the entire nation by playing a political power play.

the federal govt LET THEM IN....not the States. If the federal govt did their jobs, the States/cities would not be faced with this predicament?

So?

Do we just roll over and suck our thumbs like a good liberal does?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

That is notCity, BS true. The check and balance system is working. I don't necessarily agree with the Sanctuary City, BS ; however, it is good to see the Republicans don't have free rein over everything!

GOP Congress will pass an "Act"...not a law, banning sanctuary cities...Trump will sign it.

Easier said than done. The 10th amendment, the state rights amendment so loved by conservatives also protect sanctuary cities. You can't pass a federal law that commandeers state and local officials to enforce federal immigration laws. Even a conservative judge would shoot that down.

They are not enforcing the law, you dim bulb!

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm not going to comment on whether the judge/panel is right or wrong, should or shouldn't have ruled as s/he/it did, etc. because I haven't read the decision, nor do I know off the top of my head what precedents and so on pertain to the matter, and, frankly, I don't feel like making the effort to find out. I will say, however, that at this rate, we're going to end up with the country being "run" by the judicial rather than by the executive branch.

That is notCity, BS true. The check and balance system is working. I don't necessarily agree with the Sanctuary City, BS ; however, it is good to see the Republicans don't have free rein over everything!

GOP Congress will pass an "Act"...not a law, banning sanctuary cities...Trump will sign it.

SCOTUS will have to decide on its constitutionality. The screaming and yelling here of the antifas does not meant a thing in the real world. Poor neo-fascist alt right snowflakes just melting away in all of their steam.