San Fran City sues Trumper admin over sanctuary cities

[saveliberty]

The US already has the strictest vetting process for immigrants in the world.

Your point? Also, its a sack of crap lie. Try getting into North Korea.

 

[peabody]

The US already has the strictest vetting process for immigrants in the world.

Your point? Also, its a sack of crap lie. Try getting into North Korea.

I heard it on CNN (it's true, I did, although I swear I only watch CNN for entertainment. I'll try to find out where they sourced it from

 

[saveliberty]

The US already has the strictest vetting process for immigrants in the world.

Your point? Also, its a sack of crap lie. Try getting into North Korea.

I heard it on CNN (it's true, I did, although I swear I only watch CNN for entertainment. I'll try to find out where they sourced it from

Vatican City is tough on immigration too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

City Of San Francisco Sues Trump Administration | Hoodline

The strategy, I think, is to drag this out and protect immigrants until Trump is impeached, leaves office, or dies normally, which ever comes first.

SF will get their little fagot asses kicked on this one. Federal law requires, as a condition to receiving grants, that the recipient be in compliance with federal laws. If they aren't in compliance they are not eligible for the grants to begin with. Just because other administrations haven't enforced that law, doesn't prevent Trump form doing so.

Nope, the courts will tie up the eligibility, leaving the status quo the way it was. Trump is not going to do anything about this as long as he is in office.

Your're right his DHS and DOJ will. The laws are already on the books, the supreme court said providing information to the feds is NOT commandeering, and if you really want to get technical, SF has no standing to file the suit because as of today there have been no reductions in funding.

Since you are not a lawyer and don't know what your talking about, we will move right along. The judge obviously disagrees with you.

 

[Flopper]

The CA constitution (which for some reason suddenly has its pages down online), says that all areas within CA must abide by federal law and not attempt to break from the Union. Telling the Union on a vital issue such as immigration that the Union is less powerful than it, is against the law.

It seems the suit is based on the premise that the city should not be required to expend funds and violate city and state laws in order to enforce federal laws. This does seem reasonable.

 

[OKTexas]

City Of San Francisco Sues Trump Administration | Hoodline

The strategy, I think, is to drag this out and protect immigrants until Trump is impeached, leaves office, or dies normally, which ever comes first.

SF will get their little fagot asses kicked on this one. Federal law requires, as a condition to receiving grants, that the recipient be in compliance with federal laws. If they aren't in compliance they are not eligible for the grants to begin with. Just because other administrations haven't enforced that law, doesn't prevent Trump form doing so.

Nope, the courts will tie up the eligibility, leaving the status quo the way it was. Trump is not going to do anything about this as long as he is in office.

Your're right his DHS and DOJ will. The laws are already on the books, the supreme court said providing information to the feds is NOT commandeering, and if you really want to get technical, SF has no standing to file the suit because as of today there have been no reductions in funding.

Since you are not a lawyer and don't know what your talking about, we will move right along. The judge obviously disagrees with you.

Really, what judge has heard the case?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Since you are not a lawyer and don't know what your talking about, we will move right along. The judge obviously disagrees with you.

Really, what judge has heard the case?

See, I told you did not know about what you were talking. The right question is which judge has put it on hold?

 

[BrokeLoser]

City Of San Francisco Sues Trump Administration | Hoodline

The strategy, I think, is to drag this out and protect immigrants until Trump is impeached, leaves office, or dies normally, which ever comes first.

Congratulations Gavin Newsom...for stepping up and totally fucking yourself! Good job, you will now be made an example of by the Trump admin. Precedent will be set starting with your shithole city full of whack-jobs...hahaha

 

[OKTexas]

Since you are not a lawyer and don't know what your talking about, we will move right along. The judge obviously disagrees with you.

Really, what judge has heard the case?

See, I told you did not know about what you were talking. The right question is which judge has put it on hold?

You dumb fuck, the SF suit was just filed today, it hasn't been heard by any court so you don't know what a judge will say, much less that the judge disagrees with me. I do know the supreme court says to have standing you have to demonstrate harm, and as I said, to this point SF has not been harmed in any way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

BrokeLoser and OKTexas are babbling about things they don't understand. OK does not understand what "harm" means in the law.

Trump can do nothing to San Fran. The judge put the action on hold, and there is nothing that can be done until the case is heard.

That means, OK, the city is safe for a long time as the case winds it way up the appellate route.

Trump will be impeached, defeated, or long dead by the time it gets to SCOTUS.

 

[OKTexas]

BrokeLoser and OKTexas are babbling about things they don't understand. OK does not understand what "harm" means in the law.

Trump can do nothing to San Fran. The judge put the action on hold, and there is nothing that can be done until the case is heard.

That means, OK, the city is safe for a long time as the case winds it way up the appellate route.

Trump will be impeached, defeated, or long dead by the time it gets to SCOTUS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once you document your nonsense. You began it. Show us what "harm" has do with this OP.

If you can't, then you admit you are lying yet again.

 

[EverCurious]

Some journalist asked our Mayor a question that essentially painted Anchorage as a "sanctuary city" Dude was pissing himself, "No, no, NO! Anchorage is /not/ a 'Sanctuary city' - that's a made up term!" I lol'ed.

 

[OKTexas]

Once you document your nonsense. You began it. Show us what "harm" has do with this OP.

If you can't, then you admit you are lying yet again.

Deflecting again, I want to know what judge put the EO on hold. And as far as harm goes try reading the text of the suit, it can be found in your link.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once you document your nonsense. You began it. Show us what "harm" has do with this OP.

If you can't, then you admit you are lying yet again.

Deflecting again, I want to know what judge put the EO on hold. And as far as harm goes try reading the text of the suit, it can be found in your link.

No, you made an undocumented statement, I corrected you, and you want me to document you are wrong. That is not how it works.

You made the statement. Support it. All you have to do is stop lying. But when you do, I will get you every time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All you have to do is support your statement, OK, but you don't know about what you are talking.

Do some research. I will check in the morning to see if you found it.

 

[OKTexas]

Once you document your nonsense. You began it. Show us what "harm" has do with this OP.

If you can't, then you admit you are lying yet again.

Deflecting again, I want to know what judge put the EO on hold. And as far as harm goes try reading the text of the suit, it can be found in your link.

No, you made an undocumented statement, I corrected you, and you want me to document you are wrong. That is not how it works.

You made the statement. Support it. All you have to do is stop lying. But when you do, I will get you every time.

The judge put the action on hold

Fuck off and die asshole, you said a judge put the EO on hold, prove it or admit you lied.

 

[OKTexas]

All you have to do is support your statement, OK, but you don't know about what you are talking.

Do some research. I will check in the morning to see if you found it.

I've done the research, the case hasn't been heard by any judge.

 

[EverCurious]

Yeah Republican's already tried this angle many many times - they were told to fuck off and suck it up.

Lets see what I can remember off hand;

As I recall Obama threatened NC and Virginia with a removal of fed funds (the latter to public education as I recall) over the bathroom stupidity.

Fed highway funds were withheld from Alaska over marijuana (even despite it's very clear Constitutional provision for allowing pot for personal use,) other states have faced the same threats Michigan for sure, probably others.

Montana, and I believe others, had their highway funds taken defying national speed limit of 55.

MANY states were threatened with the withholding of federal funds over making the drinking age 21.

Feds threatened fed funding withholding over Motorcycle Helmets - more recently texting while driving came up.

New Jersey was threatened with withholding if they refused to accept some testing requirements in state schools.

Some states have been threatened with fund withholding for refusing to change the "legally drunk" breathalyzer measurement.

The seat belt law was passed nationwide through threats of withholding federal funds.

I'm sure I could come up with a /ton/ more but I'm pretty sure that's enough to prove the point yea?

 

[EverCurious]

Pondering here; given the situation Fed's have a legal case to withhold from public education and welfare over illegal usage and I suspect they could tag business credits and subsidies for the possibility of hiring illegals, and I suppose housing subsidies for illegal usage as well. Not so sure about highway funds though as the connection is rough, I think they'd have to successfully argue that illegals cause traffic accidents and/or don't have auto insurance to fly that one.

Edit oh hey, mandatory auto insurance is another states were threatened with fed withholding over.