Sancuary cities

I hear talk that if Trump comes to deport illegal, many Dim run cities say that they will defy this and continue being a sanctuary city.

I also remember Arizona wanting to implement the laws on the books regarding illegals to deport them, but stopped by Obama through the courts because the Federal governments role was to execute the laws on the books, and Arizona was forced to stand down.

So how do states now have the legal capacity to seemingly do what
Arizona attempted to do?

Sh? How could the defend themselves legally?

Originally posted by whodey
I hear talk that if Trump comes to deport illegal, many Dim run cities say that they will defy this and continue being a sanctuary city.

I also remember Arizona wanting to implement the laws on the books regarding illegals to deport them, but stopped by Obama through the courts because the Federal governments role was to execute the laws on the books, and ...[text shortened]... to seemingly do what
Arizona attempted to do?

Sh? How could the defend themselves legally?

I'm sure as an avid defender of "State Rights", you'll be happy to know that there are significant legal and constitutional roadblocks to King Donald I's outrageous executive order (ALL executive orders were "outrageous" usurpations of power when Obama did them, weren't they?) regarding "sanctuary cities":

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/sanctuary-cities-and-immigration-detainers-a-primer/

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm sure as an avid defender of "State Rights", you'll be happy to know that there are significant legal and constitutional roadblocks to King Donald I's outrageous executive order (ALL executive orders were "outrageous" usurpations of power when Obama did them, weren't they?) regarding "sanctuary cities":

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/sanctuary-cities-and-immigration-detainers-a-primer/

They can assert their rights!
He can withhold federal funds!

Next!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
They can assert their rights!
He can withhold federal funds!

Next!

Depends on the law authorizing the disbursement of the federal funds:

The two most likely federal agencies that could cut off funding are Justice and Homeland Security. They provide grants for local law enforcement agencies to hire officers; bolster prosecutions, courts and jails; provide drug treatment, prepare for terrorist attacks, and assist crime victims and witnesses.

The Trump administration has the power to cut off much of that funding. For example, Justice's State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP, distributed $165 million in 2015 to local agencies that detained undocumented immigrants in its jails.

Laurie Robinson, a former assistant attorney general under Presidents Clinton and Obama who headed the Office of Justice Programs, which oversees grants, said the statute implementing SCAAP gives an attorney general broad power to decide who gets money.

"They could cut off drug programs, domestic violence grants, violence against women grants," she said.

Other grants won't be as easy to end. Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services program distributed $208 million in 2015 to local agencies. But that money is distributed using a formula established by Congress, meaning an attorney general can't revoke grants without lawmakers' approval.

"Unless Congress were to change something, the executive branch cannot really decide on its own to cut off a grant that is by statute designated to go to a local jurisdiction," said Robinson, now a criminology professor at George Mason University.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/01/25/donald-trump-sanctuary-cities-immigration/97043106/

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm sure as an avid defender of "State Rights", you'll be happy to know that there are significant legal and constitutional roadblocks to King Donald I's outrageous executive order (ALL executive orders were "outrageous" usurpations of power when Obama did them, weren't they?) regarding "sanctuary cities":

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/sanctuary-cities-and-immigration-detainers-a-primer/

This mess is because Obama decided not the uphold the law to begin with.

The US is a banana republic.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm sure as an avid defender of "State Rights", you'll be happy to know that there are significant legal and constitutional roadblocks to King Donald I's outrageous executive order (ALL executive orders were "outrageous" usurpations of power when Obama did them, weren't they?) regarding "sanctuary cities":

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/sanctuary-cities-and-immigration-detainers-a-primer/

I thought the law of the land was to detain illegal aliens and deport them if need be.

Writing an Executive Order to counter that law seems outrageous to me. What happened to the Executive Branch executing the laws of the land?

Writing an Executive Order to uphold that seems redundant to me.

Originally posted by whodey
I thought the law of the land was to detain illegal aliens and deport them if need be.

Writing an Executive Order to counter that law seems outrageous to me. What happened to the Executive Branch executing the laws of the land?

Writing an Executive Order to uphold that seems redundant to me.

BA. NA. NA

BAANAANAA

BANANA

Hopefully trump can fix it.

Originally posted by Eladar
BA. NA. NA

BAANAANAA

BANANA

Hopefully trump can fix it.

It it takes Trump to fix it, then that is the very essence of 'Banana republic'.

Of course the US is not a Banana republic economically, but then you probably don't know what the term means.

YouTube

Mayor De blasio on sanctuary cities.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
They can assert their rights!
He can withhold federal funds!

Next!

no he can't.

Originally posted by Eladar
This mess is because Obama decided not the uphold the law to begin with.

The US is a banana republic.

dumbass, obama deported a record number of illegals.

Originally posted by whodey
I hear talk that if Trump comes to deport illegal, many Dim run cities say that they will defy this and continue being a sanctuary city.

I also remember Arizona wanting to implement the laws on the books regarding illegals to deport them, but stopped by Obama through the courts because the Federal governments role was to execute the laws on the books, and ...[text shortened]... to seemingly do what
Arizona attempted to do?

Sh? How could the defend themselves legally?

Arpaio was using tactics that pulled people over for the crime of "driving while brown". Zero probable cause. He was told numerous times that he couldn't do this.

He also said numerous times that he couldn't "pick and choose what laws to enforce", and yet after every single raid on businesses suspected of employing undocumented workers, he arrested every single one of the undocumented workers, and yet, in all his time as sheriff, he NEVER ONCE hauled in the owner of those businesses for hiring those workers, even though the same law that let him arrest those working without documentation also included provisions to arrest those who hired them. Oh, he was doing plenty of "picking and choosing" which laws, and even which provisions to enforce.

He went so far as to try and get his officers ICE certification so that he could deport people. He never understood that only the Feds could enforce Federal law.

Thank God that jackass is now tending his flowers in Fountain Hills.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
They can assert their rights!
He can withhold federal funds!

Next!

Cali can stop funding the Federal Government too.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/01/29/california-just-threatened-stop-paying-taxes-trump-cuts-federal-funding-sanctuary-city-status/

In fact, a 2014 study by The Atlantic found that California is one of the few states to get a negative return on investment by actually paying more federal taxes than receiving benefits in return.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Cali can stop funding the Federal Government too.

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/01/29/california-just-threatened-stop-paying-taxes-trump-cuts-federal-funding-sanctuary-city-status/

In fact, a 2014 study by The Atlantic found that California is one of the few states to get a negative return on investment by actually paying more federal taxes than receiving benefits in return.

I'd love to see states saying screw you to the fed.

Would you support this action by a state if Obama was in office?