San Fran City sues Trumper admin over sanctuary cities

[Flopper]

The Department of education can pull the accreditation of ANY SCHOOL, or school district it deems to have violated any of the educational or federal regulations including the civil rights of any group of students. KACHING liberal universities that deny freedom of expression CAN lose their accreditation. FEDERAL money can be used as the congress wishes, and regulations can be enforced at the Presidents will by executive orders. The National Guard can be federalized, and placed into any vanue to FORCE Federal compliance, As in the James Meredith \ Mississippi State Brown Vs Board of Education ETC. Get over your crazy fantasy liberals, YOU will comply or go to jail, or my favorite solution >>> DIE.

Proving the university denies freedom of expression can be a tall order. In this case, university officials can easy claim it was a public safety issue.

 

[OKTexas]

Section 1324 if title 8 of the US code says it's a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here and the mayors of all these sanctuary cities are clearly doing that. Trump needs to makes some arrests and all this nonsense will stop.

The courts have interpreted encourage to mean offer of a job, counseling an illegal immigrant to remain in the country, offer of assistance to evade authorities, etc. If the mayor is guilty then so is anyone who advocates against deportation or amnesty.

The cities by not providing information required by law to ICE are providing assistance in evading authorities. Now they have actually allocated a defense fund to help them do so.

A city that does not collect and maintain citizenship information can not be required to provide what it does have and it can not be required to collect it under existing law.

Setting up a defense fund can not be considered encouragement because such funds are used to provide a defense for the accused. If providing a defense fund is considered encouragement to illegal immigration then certainly providing a defense would also thus all immigration attorneys would be guilty.

They are however required to provide ICE information on illegals they arrest. And anyway you look at it, if a city tells illegals if they make it to their city they will defend them against the government is aiding, abetting and encouraging illegals to remain in the country, a clear violation of federal law.

 

[Flopper]

Section 1324 if title 8 of the US code says it's a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here and the mayors of all these sanctuary cities are clearly doing that. Trump needs to makes some arrests and all this nonsense will stop.

The courts have interpreted encourage to mean offer of a job, counseling an illegal immigrant to remain in the country, offer of assistance to evade authorities, etc. If the mayor is guilty then so is anyone who advocates against deportation or amnesty.

The cities by not providing information required by law to ICE are providing assistance in evading authorities. Now they have actually allocated a defense fund to help them do so.

the general government has no police power over the several States.

Only true, national socialists, do that.

Good quote. So I guess when DumBama ordered the defunding of schools who didn't let weirdos into girls locker rooms and showers, that was okay by your standards. That was not a "national socialist" policy.

It was federal law. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sexual discrimination. Congress may not have had restrooms in mind when they passed the law, but the law is clear. You have a Republican government now so they can make sexual discrimination in schools legal again.

 

[oreo]

It takes a special kind of stupid to sue in order to avoid the law.

The "Law" in Nazi Germany said it's OK to gas Jews. It takes a special kid of stupid to blindly abide by all laws without ever asking questions. This is another reason why Libs are always calling you guys fascists. You have those tendencies

Last time I checked, progressives and fascists were hand in hand, praising each other.

It doesn't surprise me, "libs" are calling everyone else every name that they used to be.

I imagine San Francisco will win this suit. "Sanctuary Cities" have not been legally "defined" by congress. Congress first has to define what a Sanctuary City is--guidelines for being classified as a Sanctuary city--and that has yet to be done.

So if there is any financial harm done to San Francisco prior to this process, then the courts will come back and make the Federal Government PAY, (meaning YOU) for any damages.

It's the equivalent of you getting pulled over and a cop fines you for something and there's no recorded LAW that you broke. And if your car was impounded, broken into and trashed during the process guess who would be responsible for it?

 

[Flopper]

Section 1324 if title 8 of the US code says it's a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here and the mayors of all these sanctuary cities are clearly doing that. Trump needs to makes some arrests and all this nonsense will stop.

The courts have interpreted encourage to mean offer of a job, counseling an illegal immigrant to remain in the country, offer of assistance to evade authorities, etc. If the mayor is guilty then so is anyone who advocates against deportation or amnesty.

The cities by not providing information required by law to ICE are providing assistance in evading authorities. Now they have actually allocated a defense fund to help them do so.

A city that does not collect and maintain citizenship information can not be required to provide what it does have and it can not be required to collect it under existing law.

Setting up a defense fund can not be considered encouragement because such funds are used to provide a defense for the accused. If providing a defense fund is considered encouragement to illegal immigration then certainly providing a defense would also thus all immigration attorneys would be guilty.

They are however required to provide ICE information on illegals they arrest. And anyway you look at it, if a city tells illegals if they make it to their city they will defend them against the government is aiding, abetting and encouraging illegals to remain in the country, a clear violation of federal law.

Not if they don't collect and store the information. The law only requires that they share the information they have. Furthermore it is not the responsibility of local police to determine the immigration status or citizenship of those they arrest. That's the job of federal government. If we want to require that local police collect and store this information, it should be in the law.

 

[OKTexas]

Section 1324 if title 8 of the US code says it's a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here and the mayors of all these sanctuary cities are clearly doing that. Trump needs to makes some arrests and all this nonsense will stop.

The courts have interpreted encourage to mean offer of a job, counseling an illegal immigrant to remain in the country, offer of assistance to evade authorities, etc. If the mayor is guilty then so is anyone who advocates against deportation or amnesty.

The cities by not providing information required by law to ICE are providing assistance in evading authorities. Now they have actually allocated a defense fund to help them do so.

A city that does not collect and maintain citizenship information can not be required to provide what it does have and it can not be required to collect it under existing law.

Setting up a defense fund can not be considered encouragement because such funds are used to provide a defense for the accused. If providing a defense fund is considered encouragement to illegal immigration then certainly providing a defense would also thus all immigration attorneys would be guilty.

They are however required to provide ICE information on illegals they arrest. And anyway you look at it, if a city tells illegals if they make it to their city they will defend them against the government is aiding, abetting and encouraging illegals to remain in the country, a clear violation of federal law.

Not if they don't collect and store the information. The law only requires that they share the information they have. Furthermore it is not the responsibility of local police to determine the immigration status or citizenship of those they arrest. That's the job of federal government. If we want to require that local police collect and store this information, it should be in the law.

They collect and store the information at the time of booking. And citizenship verification is part of verifying the persons identity. The law requires them to provide that information to ICE. The supreme court has said that requirement is perfectly legal.

 

[oreo]

The courts have interpreted encourage to mean offer of a job, counseling an illegal immigrant to remain in the country, offer of assistance to evade authorities, etc. If the mayor is guilty then so is anyone who advocates against deportation or amnesty.

The cities by not providing information required by law to ICE are providing assistance in evading authorities. Now they have actually allocated a defense fund to help them do so.

A city that does not collect and maintain citizenship information can not be required to provide what it does have and it can not be required to collect it under existing law.

Setting up a defense fund can not be considered encouragement because such funds are used to provide a defense for the accused. If providing a defense fund is considered encouragement to illegal immigration then certainly providing a defense would also thus all immigration attorneys would be guilty.

They are however required to provide ICE information on illegals they arrest. And anyway you look at it, if a city tells illegals if they make it to their city they will defend them against the government is aiding, abetting and encouraging illegals to remain in the country, a clear violation of federal law.

Not if they don't collect and store the information. The law only requires that they share the information they have. Furthermore it is not the responsibility of local police to determine the immigration status or citizenship of those they arrest. That's the job of federal government. If we want to require that local police collect and store this information, it should be in the law.

They collect and store the information at the time of booking. And citizenship verification is part of verifying the persons identity. The law requires them to provide that information to ICE. The supreme court has said that requirement is perfectly legal.

The point still is you can't break a law that has yet to be written. Sanctuary cities--has yet to be "legally defined" by congress.

This is why San Francisco would win the suit.

 

[OKTexas]

The cities by not providing information required by law to ICE are providing assistance in evading authorities. Now they have actually allocated a defense fund to help them do so.

A city that does not collect and maintain citizenship information can not be required to provide what it does have and it can not be required to collect it under existing law.

Setting up a defense fund can not be considered encouragement because such funds are used to provide a defense for the accused. If providing a defense fund is considered encouragement to illegal immigration then certainly providing a defense would also thus all immigration attorneys would be guilty.

They are however required to provide ICE information on illegals they arrest. And anyway you look at it, if a city tells illegals if they make it to their city they will defend them against the government is aiding, abetting and encouraging illegals to remain in the country, a clear violation of federal law.

Not if they don't collect and store the information. The law only requires that they share the information they have. Furthermore it is not the responsibility of local police to determine the immigration status or citizenship of those they arrest. That's the job of federal government. If we want to require that local police collect and store this information, it should be in the law.

They collect and store the information at the time of booking. And citizenship verification is part of verifying the persons identity. The law requires them to provide that information to ICE. The supreme court has said that requirement is perfectly legal.

The point still is you can't break a law that has yet to be written. Sanctuary cities--has yet to be "legally defined" by congress.

This is why San Francisco would win the suit.

They are already breaking laws that are in place, there's no need to legally label them further to withhold grants. And no, they won't win because the supremes have said requiring the cities to provide information they have anyway does not meet the commandeering threshold. The same applies to holding someone already in their custody, the government isn't requiring them to go looking for the folks, just hold them for ICE.

 

[EverCurious]

I believe I mentioned before, that I think this is why CA was falling over themselves to ditch the 'illegal' tag on their DL's.

It'd be a twofer, investigate voter fraud and deportation!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The cities by not providing information required by law to ICE are providing assistance in evading authorities. Now they have actually allocated a defense fund to help them do so.

A city that does not collect and maintain citizenship information can not be required to provide what it does have and it can not be required to collect it under existing law.

Setting up a defense fund can not be considered encouragement because such funds are used to provide a defense for the accused. If providing a defense fund is considered encouragement to illegal immigration then certainly providing a defense would also thus all immigration attorneys would be guilty.

They are however required to provide ICE information on illegals they arrest. And anyway you look at it, if a city tells illegals if they make it to their city they will defend them against the government is aiding, abetting and encouraging illegals to remain in the country, a clear violation of federal law.

Not if they don't collect and store the information. The law only requires that they share the information they have. Furthermore it is not the responsibility of local police to determine the immigration status or citizenship of those they arrest. That's the job of federal government. If we want to require that local police collect and store this information, it should be in the law.

They collect and store the information at the time of booking. And citizenship verification is part of verifying the persons identity. The law requires them to provide that information to ICE. The supreme court has said that requirement is perfectly legal.

The point still is you can't break a law that has yet to be written. Sanctuary cities--has yet to be "legally defined" by congress.

This is why San Francisco would win the suit.

It doesn't have to have a legal definition or title. The Trump administration can decide how to define it. If you do X, X, or X, we consider you to be a sanctuary city even if you don't call yourself one. Funds withheld.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It takes a special kind of stupid to sue in order to avoid the law.

The "Law" in Nazi Germany said it's OK to gas Jews. It takes a special kid of stupid to blindly abide by all laws without ever asking questions. This is another reason why Libs are always calling you guys fascists. You have those tendencies

Last time I checked, progressives and fascists were hand in hand, praising each other.

It doesn't surprise me, "libs" are calling everyone else every name that they used to be.

I imagine San Francisco will win this suit. "Sanctuary Cities" have not been legally "defined" by congress. Congress first has to define what a Sanctuary City is--guidelines for being classified as a Sanctuary city--and that has yet to be done.

So if there is any financial harm done to San Francisco prior to this process, then the courts will come back and make the Federal Government PAY, (meaning YOU) for any damages.

It's the equivalent of you getting pulled over and a cop fines you for something and there's no recorded LAW that you broke. And if your car was impounded, broken into and trashed during the process guess who would be responsible for it?

Apples and oranges. A better comparison would be the local cops bust somebody that has federal drug charges pending, and they refuse to inform the feds they have the person in custody.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Section 1324 if title 8 of the US code says it's a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here and the mayors of all these sanctuary cities are clearly doing that. Trump needs to makes some arrests and all this nonsense will stop.

The courts have interpreted encourage to mean offer of a job, counseling an illegal immigrant to remain in the country, offer of assistance to evade authorities, etc. If the mayor is guilty then so is anyone who advocates against deportation or amnesty.

The cities by not providing information required by law to ICE are providing assistance in evading authorities. Now they have actually allocated a defense fund to help them do so.

the general government has no police power over the several States.

Only true, national socialists, do that.

Good quote. So I guess when DumBama ordered the defunding of schools who didn't let weirdos into girls locker rooms and showers, that was okay by your standards. That was not a "national socialist" policy.

It was federal law. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sexual discrimination. Congress may not have had restrooms in mind when they passed the law, but the law is clear. You have a Republican government now so they can make sexual discrimination in schools legal again.

Really? Then why did the courts stop it?

 

[DigitalDrifter]

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.

The term is "ILLEGAL" immigrants.
Why can't you leftists get this right?

 

[Mac1958]

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.

The term is "ILLEGAL" immigrants. Why can't you leftists get this right?

Yep. They know. But they know they have to be dishonest about this.

And they wonder how Trump could have won.
.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

It takes a special kind of stupid to sue in order to avoid the law.

The "Law" in Nazi Germany said it's OK to gas Jews. It takes a special kid of stupid to blindly abide by all laws without ever asking questions. This is another reason why Libs are always calling you guys fascists. You have those tendencies

All's we are asking for is the entire country to work together to enforce our immigration laws.
WTF is the problem with that?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't know how much federal aid that California based Universities get but Trump should double down and cut off federal aid to Berkley until they get control over the students.

You can not deprive a state university, or a school district of federal funds because a city in the state refuses to cooperate with the federal government on immigration or because the president just doesn't like what the university is doing.

However, if S.F. refuses to render the specific cooperation specified in federal law, then some funds related to law enforcement could be withheld from the city. What funds are questionable? If an entity, say a school district receives federal funds for a project but fails to do that project or meet the requirements of the project the federal government can be take action. What the federal government can't do is to take funds from a project which is completely unrelated to immigration or from a totally different goverment entity.

What are you talking about? Democrats have done that all the time.

 

[Flash]

God Bless Texas! Abbott is doing the right thing. Next it needs to be done at the Federal level.

In "sanctuary" fight, Abbott cuts off funding to Travis County

In "sanctuary" fight, Abbott cuts off funding to Travis County

Gov. Greg Abbott has followed through on his threat to cut off state funding for Travis County over its new "sanctuary" policy.

I hope you're not a taxpayer of any other county in Texas, because there's going to be one hell of a lawsuit you're going to lose and end up paying for.

Sometimes these governors can cost the taxpayers millions, because they do stupid things like this.

A "Sanctuary city" has not even been defined by law.

Remember the history when South Carolina decided it wanted to be a sanctuary and not adhere to Federal regulations?

Sorry Moon Bat but either we are going to have a Federal government or not. You Moon Bats have to decide whether you want to adhere to the law or not. If not fine, then we can have an opt out procedure. I chose to opt out of paying Federal income taxes and adhering to any oppressive Federal gun law. You can opt out of adhering to immigration laws.

It is really ironic to see Moon Bat opposition to the Federal government when you understand that you stupid Moon Bats love the Federal government more than anything else else in the world (except maybe Muslims).

 

[Flash]

God Bless Texas! Abbott is doing the right thing. Next it needs to be done at the Federal level.

In "sanctuary" fight, Abbott cuts off funding to Travis County

In "sanctuary" fight, Abbott cuts off funding to Travis County

Gov. Greg Abbott has followed through on his threat to cut off state funding for Travis County over its new "sanctuary" policy.

I hope you're not a taxpayer of any other county in Texas, because there's going to be one hell of a lawsuit you're going to lose and end up paying for.

Sometimes these governors can cost the taxpayers millions, because they do stupid things like this.

A "Sanctuary city" has not even been defined by law.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal government has supremacy when it comes to immigration laws. Are you suggesting that the cities can ignore the law?

 

[hadit]

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.

"Protect immigrants'?

Can we at least be honest here and stipulate that we're NOT talking about those who went through the process of immigrating legally to this country and have no need to fear the INS? Please?

 

[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.

"Protect immigrants'? Can we at least be honest here and stipulate that we're NOT talking about those who went through the process of immigrating legally to this country and have no need to fear the INS? Please?

Deport the violent criminals, and leave the children citizens with their families alone. The vast number of Americans do not agree with you.