San Fran City sues Trumper admin over sanctuary cities

[owebo]

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.

No one is going to bother the families once they are deported....

 

[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?

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

Then we need to change immigration law. We're figuratively slapping legal immigrants in the face and calling them suckers for obeying our laws.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

Wrong, federal contracts all specify that the receiver be in full compliance with ALL federal laws.

 

[saveliberty]

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?

Active imagination there moron. It breaks existing federal law, end of story, since they admit breaking it in the suit.

 

[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.

"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.

NEGATIVE.
Deport all persons here illegally including all Guadalupe's who think their safe as they cling to their anchor named Pablo.
I'm gonna guess you don't communicate with many real Americans. Only your fellow illegals and those of recent illegal descent agree with you.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

We have a civil rights act. Only the national socialist right wing, prefers to be illegal to the laws.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

That is the whole point; we don't believe our current president is faithfully executing our federal Constitution.

Or, any of the civil rights acts.

how is President Trump not executing the federal constitution, and exactly what is the basis of your complaint for his not following any of the civil rights acts.

have you read any of them?

I have honestly seen nothing that is in violation of the constitution or the civil rights act yet. thats why Im asking. If you point them out I can look at them and then decide if its bullshit or if I should become upset with what he is doing.
For one, Ive been traveling for the last couple of weeks so Im just a bit behind on some of the news, I just got home yesterday as a matter of fact, I completed my trip by driving back to Maryland from Tampa Florida. Off topic, it is not as pleasant of a drive as you might like to think, should I do that again I think I will break it into two days driving instead of the straight through that I did. Im not 20 anymore and the age is starting to show when it comes to these things.
But, back to the point, what exactly did he do that obviously violates the constitution or the civil rights. I would be really pissed off to hear that he has set civil rights back at all, the fight to get here was entirely too hard for any ground to be lost at this point. Not being a registered member of either party and being open minded gives me the ability to change my opinion of President Trump at a moments notice. My loyalty is not to a party or any single man, my loyalty is to what I think is right.

Here is some background info:

In the 1960s, Americans who knew only the potential of "equal protection of the laws" expected the president, the Congress, and the courts to fulfill the promise of the 14th Amendment. In response, all three branches of the federal government--as well as the public at large--debated a fundamental constitutional question: Does the Constitution's prohibition of denying equal protection always ban the use of racial, ethnic, or gender criteria in an attempt to bring social justice and social benefits?--https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act

 

[danielpalos]

The city is suing to not follow the law. It is an omission [sic] of guilt from the beginning.

We have a Tenth Amendment. And, we have Government, limited by a Constitution, not "executive orders".

Defense of the nation against foreign attack is a responsibility that the Constitution explicitly assigns to the federal government, and therefore, which is not withheld from it by the Tenth Amendment.

State and city officials, committing treason by using the power of their positions to give aid and comfort to invading foreign criminals will find no defense in the Tenth Amendment.

Let me know when you put our alleged Wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; under Defense spending. Until then, fallacy is all You and those of the opposing view, have.

 

[danielpalos]

That is the whole point; we don't believe our current president is faithfully executing our federal Constitution.

Or, any of the civil rights acts.

Cities have no constitutional right to grants from the feds, in my opinion grants are unconstitutional on their face, kicking back federal monies to States to buy votes just ain't right.

The general government is obligated to Pay the Debts, of the several, United States, especially when establishing federal standards.

Feel free to point where the Constitution says that.

Just reading comprehension challenged?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Now child, read the remainder of Article 1, Section 8 to understand the limiting clauses. They tell you exactly what the authorized expenditures are.

I know what they are. Paying the debts, and providing for the common Defense (not the common Offense), and providing for the general welfare (not the general warfare).

Want to try again?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

just national socialist right wingers fantasizing about a unitary form of federal government?

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

If that's the case, how can the president be charged with faithfully executing the laws.

we have a Constitution and some lawful, federal laws.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

But they can withhold money form the schools police departments if they don't comply with federal law.

Why have a war on crime or poverty?

 

[danielpalos]

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.

we give up our violent criminals to the federal government or if they are wanted for federal, criminal law violations.

 

[danielpalos]

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!

Just national socialist right wing propaganda?

those licenses are valid for ID and driving Only.

States have no authority over immigration into the Union since 1808.

 

[OKTexas]

Cities have no constitutional right to grants from the feds, in my opinion grants are unconstitutional on their face, kicking back federal monies to States to buy votes just ain't right.

The general government is obligated to Pay the Debts, of the several, United States, especially when establishing federal standards.

Feel free to point where the Constitution says that.

Just reading comprehension challenged?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Now child, read the remainder of Article 1, Section 8 to understand the limiting clauses. They tell you exactly what the authorized expenditures are.

I know what they are. Paying the debts, and providing for the common Defense (not the common Offense), and providing for the general welfare (not the general warfare).

Want to try again?

Which clauses apply to the general welfare and what spending do they authorize?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

But they can withhold money form the schools police departments if they don't comply with federal law.

Why have a war on crime or poverty?

More deflection?

 

[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.

"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.

Fuck'em, they put themselves in their predicament, they can take responsibility for and the consequences of their decisions. They are all criminals.

 

[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.

Fuck'em, they put themselves in their predicament, they can take responsibility for and the consequences of their decisions. They are all criminals.

Nope, and the consequence will be the citizens and most of their relatives will stay. Do you think the great majority of the citizens are going to let you addle brained freeks have you way?

 

[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.

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

Wot's your point, 'sur???

 

[Flopper]

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.

No
The arrestee’s fingerprints, which are routinely collected during booking, is sent to the FBI (a process that has been in place for decades). The FBI in turn sends them to “ICE” (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement). This information-sharing program, overseen by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), goes by the name “Secure Communities.”

When ICE receives the fingerprints, they automatically check them against their databases, looking to see whether the individual is unlawfully in the United States or is otherwise removable due to an existing criminal conviction. A DHS officer, not a local or state policeman, makes the decision as to whether the Department should investigate.

If ICE determines that enforcement proceedings may be in order, they will place a “hold,” or a detainer, on the arrestee. The jail will hold the individual up to an additional 48 hours (excluding weekends) past the time that the individual would otherwise have been bailed out or released on his or her own recognizance (“OR”).

SF does all the above except they will not hold prisoners convicted of minor offenses for ICE to pickup. This procedure is part of Secure Communities federal program, an optional programs that states and cities are invited to participate. Since participation is optional, SF has opted not hold those convicted of low level crimes. If the federal goverment wants to make the program mandatory, they should do so.

Again, SF does not ask about immigration status when arrested. Fingerprints are sent to the FBI and forwarded to DHS who makes the immigration status determination, not the local police.
After arrest is Immigration Status checked by the booking officer? - Nolo.com

 

[Flopper]

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.

Wrong, federal contracts all specify that the receiver be in full compliance with ALL federal laws.

SF maintains they are in compliance with the law. There is no requirement in the law for local police to investigate, question immigration status, or maintain any records of such. If the federal government wants to require that, then congress should put in legislation.