Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order

Both excellent points. I for one am happy these questions will be litigated.

Sounds about right.

Gosh, by this line of reasoning, it sounds as though our immigration laws should all be struck down, as they discriminate against non-citizens (which I'm sure can be actively and easily gleaned from the text of the statutes). Brings to mind something my dad always said to my brother and I: it's all fun and games until somebody gets hurt...

Seems the Justice Department should make the following argument: some areas want to be considered "sanctuary" areas? Ok, we're taking the money we normally give to them, and we're using it to hire more federal immigration people to police those areas. So those areas get away with not needing to enforce federal law, the feds don't have to give them money, and the number of people allocated to actually enforce immigration laws increases accordingly. So how will they argue against that?

Classic situation. The feds don't have a proper police force when it comes to immigration, so they rely on states to cooperate with their efforts. Some states don't want to do this. Seems like the feds should be able to stipulate that certain funds provided to states are for the express purpose of gaining their cooperation with enforcing federal law, and the feds should be able to keep back monies from those states which are unwilling to cooperate in ways consistent with federal law. I find it rather ludicrous for states to want to have it both ways: thumb their noses at the feds, even while they're enjoying what's being made available via the federal trough...

 

Non-citizens are not a protected class. Muslims are a protected class. Or more specifically, our immigration law does allow for, and is designed to, address non-citizens entering or visiting the country; however, the law does not allow you to decide which types of non-citizens you will permit based on a discriminatory purpose.

Seems like they would argue that point the same way they are arguing against the current threat. The Federal Government can not force a State or Municipality to enact or enforce Federal Law. Diverting funds that they would otherwise get has been deemed enough of a coercive effort.

I am highly suspicious of the concept that you can sequester out the funds that goes to these municipalities just to help enforce immigration law.

 

yes, politically charged non-elected politicians (so-called judges) made their decision based on the imaginary intent, completely ignoring the circumstances and conditions that led to Trump's campaign promise suspend immigration of Muslims.
His intent was to figure out what is a hell is going on, why terrorist activity in Europe and in other part of the world is connected to Muslim religion. It is still not clear why 99% of terrist acts executed on behalf of Islam. There is ZERO evidence that Trump has anything against Islam per se, but that have never been taken into consideration.

 

What circumstances and conditions? How many people from the six countries targeted by Trump have killed Americans on US Soil? And just so I can establish the trend line - break it down for me over the past 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years.

And Imaginary Intent? ZERO evidence? ROFL. Take that **** up with this guy:

 

Ah yes... refusing to denigrate... remember, Seattle city council passing regulation, forbidding city employees to call brown bag... a brown bag?

 

No. I don't.

 

Government workers in the city of Seattle have been advised that the terms "citizen" and "brown bag" are potentially offensive and may no longer be used in official documents and discussions.

KOMO-TV reports that the city's Office of Civil Rights instructed city workers in a recent internal memo to avoid using the words because some may find them offensive.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...or-ban-on-potentially-offensive-language.html

 

You're a legal professional, are you not?

Probably not

 

Who are the criminals?

 

You find it hard to follow along, huh? Obviously the lawbreaking leadership, breaking the law. I typed it as slow as I could for you.

 

That's not a regulation, nor is it a "ban" per your post in #30. I also fail to see how it is relevant to the notion of loving illegals or refusing to denigrate illegals.

I am...wait, are you doubting my profession because I have not heard about some internal memo from Seattle in 2013? Dude. Come on.

 

Again...what law are these guys breaking? They are setting a policy and obeying the current law. If they were violating any law, then Jeff Sessions would be sending them indictments rather than just threatening to withhold funding.

 

Sanctuary cities have got to be the dumbest idea I've heard of. That's like having a town in the US where a rapist can go to avoid prosecution. Illegalities should be met with consequences. If you come in this country illegally, expect to be thrown back over the fence.

 

I've never said it was a ban. And it is love which drives Liberals toward Illegals. Trust me.

 

This is your post:

Are you trying to hang your hat on the concept that forbidding something is not a ban?

And finally. No, unlike the Trumpets, I refuse to trust someone merely because they told me to do such.

 

Let me toss a couple of scenarios to see if it makes their decision any less dumb.

When you detain someone and agree to hold them per an ICE request, you run the risk that the person you detained is not an illegal immigrant and that you are holding them for an improper amount of time. That, in turn, subjects you to liability because you just violated the US Constitution. That liability could run in the millions of dollars for the city.

When you detain someone and agree to hold them per an ICE request or you go out of your way to try and enforce federal immigration law, you decrease the likelihood that immigrants will report other crimes and you decrease the likelihood that immigrants will cooperate with investigations related to crimes committed by other individuals.

Do either of those situations make sense to you?

 

You're bending the constitution. However, I think ICE reqs should be based on warranted evidence. That way a detainee is the suspect and there's every right to hold them.

Not to set up safe haven cities for criminals

 

Individuals are entitled to a Due Process which prevents someone from being held for an excessive amount of time without a hearing. The municipalities who hold someone strictly based on an ICE request are not getting that hearing regarding their potential deportation until after ICE shows up. And like I said, if ICE shows up and the person was not properly identified, then the municipality is in trouble.

They are also just subject to liability under the tort of false imprisonment.

Does that point and the point regarding potential hindrance to cooperation with police - do those make the decision to make a city into a "sanctuary" city just a bit more rational for you?

 

Right. But if you have warranted evidence to hold someone, and they turn out to be illegal, they should immediately be shipped back. Not held in safety in a city where it's legal to be illegal.

 

Cities and States do not have the resources or the manpower to deport illegals. That is a federal law and federal law enforcement have the manpower and the resources to do the deporting. Hell, determining that someone is in the country illegally is a determination under federal law.

Asking cities and states to cooperate with a law that is exclusively under the purview of the federal government is one thing. Forcing them to do such is quite possibly a violation of the 10th amendment.

 

We have two different interpretations of the constitution.

 

I agree with you that the law does not allow that. Where I disagree with you (and the justices) is in interpreting an order banning citizens trying to enter the United States from a specific country as being the same as banning a person based on their religion. It would be a different matter if the President actually issued a ban stating that Muslims couldn't enter the country, or if he attempted to ban people from all Muslim countries from entering the U.S. He did neither of these things, and so I find it an incredible stretch to say that the President's order somehow represents a ban of a protected class

For situation one, I hope to see the opposite start happening: when these jurisdictions don't hold a person for ICE and that person goes out and kills someone (think Kate Steinle), that jurisdiction should be held civilly (and possibly criminally) responsible for their inaction, and I hope the liability runs into the millions of dollars for the city.

For situation two, there is already a mechanism in place which protects people here illegally who need to report a crime being committed against them. It is called the U Visa. The U non-immigrant visa was established for victims of crimes who have endured mental or physical abuse and are willing to help law enforcement and government officials investigate and prosecute the abuser (because of their non-citizen status). This mechanism was established in 2000, but did not take full effect until 2007. Again, its purpose is to persuade illegal immigrants living within the U.S. to report violent crimes.

The eligibility requirements for U Visa usage is as follows:

1. The victim/applicant must have endured physical or mental abuse from a qualifying criminal activity.
2. The victim/applicant is able to provide information regarding the particular criminal activity.
3. He/She must be helpful during the investigation or prosecution phase of the crime.
4. The crime must violate the laws of the United States.
5. The crime must have occurred in the U.S.

Those who work within the legal system (and particularly with illegal immigrants) are well aware of this mechanism and what it affords the victim.

Nope. Not rational at all. Are you saying that the ICE folks are asking for people to be detained for longer than what is allowed by law? Seriously? There are specific time limits set for detention scenarios, and I know of no situation of anyone believing that an open-ended detention is reasonable or necessary. As a specific example, if an immigration judge enters a final order for a person's removal, under s.241 INA, ICE must take reasonable efforts to remove them within 90 days of that order, and cannot hold them for over 180 days. After 180 days, if ICE is unable to remove them to their country or a 3rd country that will accept them, they must be released in accordance with the law. The idea that someone can be held without Due Process for an excessive amount of time represents a completely specious argument.

 

Yes. And the other half of the story is that the Federal government does not have the resources or the manpower to police every city and state in the country, so they have to rely on the cities and states to cooperate with federal efforts to restrict illegal immigration. It used to be that this expectation was fairly well understood, but for some mysterious reason that is no longer the case. So be it. But if you want to go an change the equation, you can't simply say that you're going to take away the cooperation, without expecting the federal government to take away something in return. An equation must contain both sides of the equal sign...

 

Curious...
Does that same logic apply to other crimes?

Money laundering?
Identity theft?
Drug dealing?
Or 99 other examples?

Why detain anybody, ever?

 

I was going to jump in but this is what it breaks down to, this is the typical 9th circuit court argument and there is no point banging your head against a wall.

Keeps wanting to bend the wording around as in to say it will hurt "Muslims" or "Mexicans" or some class he deems is protected. Instead of just answering yes to the earlier post of "it will hurt somebody".

Let's just do this civil war thing already and call it a day