Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, Transborderwife said:

Bull spit.  He spoke about repealing DACA many many times.  In fact most former supporters that I know were most angry that he didn't repeal day 1 like he promised.

?Bull Spit?  you must be from the Prairies.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Trump is 0 for 2. My money is on 0 for 3 with the Courts on this one. The so called president is a loon, and sadly he and his supporters continue to deny he says what is on video, and recordings, or failing that explaining that he meant something else. Sad!

[Dashinka 25,864]

2 hours ago, ready4ONE said:

Trump is 0 for 2. My money is on 0 for 3 with the Courts on this one. The so called president is a loon, and sadly he and his supporters continue to deny he says what is on video, and recordings, or failing that explaining that he meant something else. Sad!

Doesn't the other side deny and/or justify what their leaders say on videos or recordings?  There are a lot of legal questions regarding the action Seattle is taking, and I don't think we know who will prevail.  There were laws signed by President Clinton in 1996 (§ 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193) and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, P.L. 104-208)) that essentially ban states from limiting local entities from maintaining immigration records or sharing it with the Feds, but this may not make so-called sanctuary cities illegal.  However, in this case, the AG is saying if you don't cooperate with us, we won't cooperate with you.  Since the money that is involved is minuscule based on other replies, why does Seattle need to sue.  Seems like a waste of Seattle money to me.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

7 hours ago, ccneat said:

?Bull Spit?  you must be from the Prairies.

Lol lived there for a couple of years 

[Transborderwife 4,666]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Doesn't the other side deny and/or justify what their leaders say on videos or recordings?  There are a lot of legal questions regarding the action Seattle is taking, and I don't think we know who will prevail.  There were laws signed by President Clinton in 1996 (§ 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193) and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, P.L. 104-208)) that essentially ban states from limiting local entities from maintaining immigration records or sharing it with the Feds, but this may not make so-called sanctuary cities illegal.  However, in this case, the AG is saying if you don't cooperate with us, we won't cooperate with you.  Since the money that is involved is minuscule based on other replies, why does Seattle need to sue.  Seems like a waste of Seattle money to me.

I believe that it's the principle that they're suing based on.   Not the end result

[IAMX 3,055]

21 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

 

It's a matter of principle. Trump can't rule America in the same way his sponsor runs Russia. He needs to come to terms that he doesn't rule America. He is just 1/3 of the appointed powers.

Enforcing US law = ruling like Russia. Only a leftist would think this. 

 

Also leftists clearly don't understand where the powers of immigration lie -- with the federal government, and through the Constitution the President can regulate all things immigration. The states and local jurisdictions have literally zero power when it comes to immigrants. Even their sanctuary city policies cannot prevent feds from coming in and nabbing illegals. ICE jurisdiction = United States. Of course, it's more evident the 9th circuit needs a re-education on how things work as well.

Edited March 31, 2017 by SRVT

[Dashinka 25,864]

3 minutes ago, Transborderwife said:

I believe that it's the principle that they're suing based on.   Not the end result

Agreed, it is a political action.  Therefore the mayor should be honest and tell his taxpaying constituents he is using their money for purely political purposes.

[IAMX 3,055]

7 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Agreed, it is a political action.  Therefore the mayor should be honest and tell his taxpaying constituents he is using their money for purely political purposes.

Yeah, I mean this is quite funny.

 

- Release illegals (already criminals) who've committed often violent crimes back into society to continue breaking Federal law by default by being there and pose a huge risk to that society (what kind of idiot mayor would allow this sort of risk to his own people?)

- Pay more for the state and local services they usurp taxpayer funds for

- Beg federal government to ignore their own laws and help fund this stupidity

 

I'm 100% on board with Trump, and not only does he have every legal authority to keep funds from these cities, I seriously hope he actually goes through with this promise as soon as possible. There's no way SCOTUS would rule against the President using powers delegated specifically to him by the Constitution. Liberals clearly fail to grasp this when a Republican President is in the White House.

Edited March 31, 2017 by SRVT

[Transborderwife 4,666]

3 minutes ago, SRVT said:

Yeah, I mean this is quite funny.

 

- Release illegals (already criminals) who've committed often violent crimes back into society

- Pay more for the state and local services they usurp taxpayer funds for

- Beg federal government to ignore their own laws and help fund this stupidity

 

I'm 100% on board with Trump, and not only does he have every legal authority to keep funds from these cities, I seriously hope he actually goes through with this promise as soon as possible. There's no way SCOTUS would rule against the President using powers delegated specifically to him by the Constitution.

You mean like they previously have vs Obama, Bush, Regan etc?

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, Transborderwife said:

You mean like they previously have vs Obama, Bush, Regan etc?

No context.

[CaliCat 3,957]

19 minutes ago, SRVT said:

Enforcing US law = ruling like Russia. Only a leftist would think this. 

 

Also leftists clearly don't understand where the powers of immigration lie -- with the federal government, and through the Constitution the President can regulate all things immigration. The states and local jurisdictions have literally zero power when it comes to immigrants. Even their sanctuary city policies cannot prevent feds from coming in and nabbing illegals. ICE jurisdiction = United States. Of course, it's more evident the 9th circuit needs a re-education on how things work as well.

 

It follows you must be a leftist by your own admission, when you make a statement that is completely off topic and unrelated to what you're trying to respond. In that you're not only a leftist, you're also wrong. 

 

You also contradict yourself when you say the state and local jurisdictions have literally zero power when it comes to immigrants. Run an internet search on Sheriff Arpaio and you will find that some states disprove your assumption. Going further, if as you say, the local and state jurisdictions have zero power, then you must also recognize they are not under any obligation to enforce immigration laws, and therefore the executive branch of the federal government (one of three branches) can't deny them funds on that basis. 

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

47 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

It follows you must be a leftist by your own admission, when you make a statement that is completely off topic and unrelated to what you're trying to respond. In that you're not only a leftist, you're also wrong. 

 

You also contradict yourself when you say the state and local jurisdictions have literally zero power when it comes to immigrants. Run an internet search on Sheriff Arpaio and you will find that some states disprove your assumption. Going further, if as you say, the local and state jurisdictions have zero power, then you must also recognize they are not under any obligation to enforce immigration laws, and therefore the executive branch of the federal government (one of three branches) can't deny them funds on that basis. 

 

 

While it's true I hold many views similar to leftists I don't associate with that group of idiots and can most certainly think for myself. 

 

For example.. this sheriff you cite gets the reputation he has because he wanted to assist the Feds using the maximum authority he had under state and county laws. There's nothing vile whatsoever about following the laws and ridding of criminals by handing them over to the Feds as federal law dictates. It doesn't give the sheriff more authority than any other..  he still has zero authority over immigration matters. Just because he has a lot of PR and that he's associated with doing his job doesn't delegate him more power than he has. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 minute ago, SRVT said:

While it's true I hold many views similar to leftists I don't associate with that group of idiots and can most certainly think for myself. 

 

For example.. this sheriff you cite gets the reputation he has because he wanted to assist the Feds using the maximum authority he had under state and county laws. There's nothing vile whatsoever about following the laws and ridding of criminals by handing them over to the Feds as federal law dictates. It doesn't give the sheriff more authority than any other..  he still has zero authority over immigration matters. Just because he has a lot of PR and that he's associated with doing his job doesn't delegate him more power than he has. 

 

In the same manner the city of Seattle may choose to leave immigration at the behest of the federal government. They are no more mandated to do something about it, than Arpaio is. 

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

 

In the same manner the city of Seattle may choose to leave immigration at the behest of the federal government. They are no more mandated to do something about it, than Arpaio is. 

Federal law is to hand them over. These policies flagrantly break federal law so the federal government needs to do all in its power to bring these jurisdictions within compliance of the laws they are bound by. Doesn't get any more simple than that. 

[CaliCat 3,957]

1 minute ago, SRVT said:

Federal law is to hand them over. These policies flagrantly break federal law so the federal government needs to do all in its power to bring these jurisdictions within compliance of the laws they are bound by. Doesn't get any more simple than that. 

 

Not in these United States, federal law can't tell a police officer what to do when it comes to immigration. A Seattle police officer can't arrest someone based on immigration status. That is the job of DHS.