Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order

Agree completely. I'm sick and tired of the liberal BS. Time to get it over with.

 

They don't deport anyone, they turn them over to ICE. Seems these cities have plenty of resources to give to the illegals.

 

No...because those individuals are committing a crime that is not within the exclusive purview of the federal government and/or when they do commit such a crime, they are detained by federal police officials.

Does that help explain the difference?

 

I already addressed this issue. Sanctuary cities who turn these individuals over to ICE risk the potential liability because they illegally detained someone that is not actually an illegal citizen.

 

Looks like another case of Trump attempting dictatorial practices and being b*tch slapped in return by our wonderfully robust system of checks and balances.

 

No expert here, so maybe im way off base here, but for sake of argument, are you saying that immigration is the only federal law on the books?

Ie: John smith who is a citizen, steals x dollars from the feds via embezzlement for example, then gets caught stealing a car in California. When he's due to be released for the car theft, cali would/should ignore a federal detain request from federal marshalls?

Should they be a sanctuary for all criminals?

 

No, I am saying that immigration law, and the enforcement of it, is something that is solely in the purview of the federal government. As such, the States and municipalities may cooperate with the immigration law, but they are not allowed to supplant the federal government or be coerced into enforcing the federal law.

If he is being detained for a violation of a State Law and has been paroled or otherwise deemed eligible for release for that crime, and should be released but for a federal detention letter from someone who has not shown up before the State is ready to release, then yes, the State seems justified in releasing that individual. Like I said, if it turns out that the individual is not the correct person and the State has held them longer than necessary to adjudicate the State action, then the State may be liable for false imprisonment or a violation of Due Process.

 

It sounds like you are advocating for states and municipalities being able to disregard federal laws which they find objectionable. This is unacceptable; here's the wikipedia entry that explains why:

I believe that what is required, and what we will eventually receive, is a clear ruling on whether or not federal immigration laws fall within the federal preemption mandate. If they do not, we need some clearly delineated reasons as to why they don't, and hopefully some statutory precedents to back up those reasons.

 

Well said, but I disagree with your ethical / legal stance , if we were liable then we would have been sued 10's of thousands of times already.

Also a quick Google helped expand my partial list. I don't think immigration is unique and has its own criteria that should be used.

If you love them, set them free?

Even if the DEA, secret service, FBI, IRS wants to come pick them up?

federal crimes include mail fraud, aircraft hijacking, carjacking,kidnapping, bank robbery, child pornography, credit card fraud, identity theft, computer crimes, violations of federal hate crimes, violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), obscenity, tax evasion.

 

In a way I hope the cities win. Then that mean nullification of federal law by the states, counties, cities, towns is real.

 

States and municipalities may not take actions which undermine federal laws. Allowing and encouraging illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses or other valid State identification, register to vote, open bank accounts, and take other actions clearly undermines and subverts federal laws.

 

If your argument needs to include the word "clearly," then your argument is probably not that clear.

 

You didn't refute my point.

 

I figured that the point was understood, but OK.

Allowing an encouraging illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses or other valid State identification, register to vote, open bank accounts, and take other actions does not clearly undermine and subvert federal laws.

The relevant federal law is being in the country illegally. There are some other laws that may apply to certain aspects of the list you made - like voting in a federal election - where you may be correct. But there is nothing in the federal law, implied or express, which prevents a State from taking actions like issuing a driver's license or opening a bank account. Those actions have direct benefits for the State, like ensuring that the person driving has taken and passed minimal driving safety training, and they do not hinder or prevent the federal government from enforcing the federal law.

 

I think there is plenty of precedent for withholding federal funds to push federal law on states. It usually is a threat to withhold transportation funds, but it is the same concept.

 

The federal government gives funds to the state to offset the cost of assisting in enforcing federal law. If the state doesn't wish to assist in enforcing federal law then they don't get the money. Simple enough.

The same way the Federal government sets regulations on driving age, drinking age, etc. and gets the states to adopt them by tying transportation funds to following the federal guidelines.

 

Which 'Communist agenda' might that be? The one in your fertile imagination, perhaps?

 

While that is a good example of a proper use of the 10th amendment, I believe that the threat to withhold federal funding was used as an incentive to get the States to pass their own State laws, not to enforce a federal law or statute. In this situation, the DOJ is not asking the States or Municipalities to pass immigration law, but to help the federal government enforce the federal law.

 

So you would be OK so long as the DOJ demanded the state be required to pass and enforce immigration laws based on Federal guidelines in exchange for federal funding? How is this different than tying federal funding to following federal guidelines? If Michigan passed a law eliminating the drinking age they would lose federal funding by the exact same mechanism that Washington State would lose funding passing sanctuary city laws. They would pass a law contrary to the federal guideline.

 

I get the analogy that you are trying to make, but it is distinguishable in this situation. Whether I would be OK with the federal government going about immigration differently - i.e. using the DOJ funds as incentive to force the municipalities to enact their own immigration laws - is largely irrelevant. With that said, I would tend to not accept that what's constitutionally acceptable for one situation (drinking age laws) is good for the other situation (immigration law) given that the later is imminently more complex and actually discussed in the US Constitution.

Also, as an aside, "sanctuary city laws" are not really a thing to my knowledge. The term itself is largely a term of art, without legal definition, that is used to apply to any city or municipality that does not actively encourage law enforcement to report potential immigration issues directly to ICE.

 

There's no fooling you libs. If you can't see where the left are trying to take us, you are being willfully ignorant.

 

His answers seem pretty rational to me.

Perhaps its you who doesn't understand islam....

 

"Rational" for you. "Discriminatory Intent" for me and the judiciary.

 

discriminatory? how so?

Should we let just anyone pile over the boarder or should they go threw a process of immigration, which "discriminates" based on various qualifications?

 

It directly targets a religion. We happen to live in a country that frowns upon the notion that the Government should support or demonize particular religions.

And stop it with the false choice bullshit. I don't have to choose between Trump's idiotic Islam ban and total anarchy.