Seattle sues Trump administration over ‘sanctuary cities’ order

Of course it does. It violates

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien
8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
8 U.S. Code § 1324(a) Offenses
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1324a-offenses

 

If the criminal case against sanctuary cities were as clear cut as you believe, then government officials would have prosecuted in one of the more than 300 cities that currently qualifies as such years ago.

 

Trump targeted terrorism, too many terrorist organizations are Islamist.
Smart people learn from their mistakes. But the real sharp ones learn from the mistakes of others.
Trump is a real sharp guy, he is learning from mistakes of European countries.

 

Since you hurt my feelings by saying I wasn't following federal law, I will sue you for forcing me to follow federal law. Makes sense, in liberal logic kind of way.

 

You can thank the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

 

How many citizens of the six countries targeted by Trump's moronic travel ban have killed U.S. Citizens on U.S. Soil?

And just so I can understand the trend line, would you break that down for the last 5 years, 10 years, and 15 years?

 

I am not sure what we are talking about here. The terror attacks have been executed across the Europe by Islamist groups. There is a belief that those attacks were caused by indiscriminate refugee policy. Some of the attacks were very sophisticated and could be done only with extensive logistical support and large number of dedicated people involved.
I cannot judge implementation of Trump's temporary travel suspension, but there was an obvious reason to establish some kind of protection measures for refuges from the countries where Islamist movement is strong but government institutions are weak. The number of death on U.S. soil is irrelevant, because it should always be zero, if government recognizes a risk in advance.

 

The fact that the current threat is zero should also be evaluated when deciding whether to implement a policy that is incredibly disruptive and hurts the ability of the Government to protect its citizens.

 

Current threat is zero? You go too far. I believe the travel ban as it was written was deplorable and biased since Saudi wasn't included. Even a more poor implementation. But zero threat? Your too far left Sorry.

Sanctuary cities are refusing to even deport criminals that are illegaly here too. That's absurd. I don't mind hard working honest law abiding illegals not being deported. But criminals?

 

Sure, saying that the threat is zero is a step too far. I should have said that the fact that there is zero instances of a US Citizen being killed on US Soil by any of the individuals from these countries over the last 15 years is really strong evidence that the threat is near zero.

As for not deporting illegal criminals, I would first note that cities are not tasked with deportation. They probably do not have the resources to engage in that behavior. The decision to not notify federal officials is also a rational decision given that they potentially subject themselves to massive legal costs or decreased cooperation on behalf of the immigrant population.

 

Saying the same thing differently doesn't make you right. It's naive at best to say it's strong evidence due to lack of attacks in X years that the threat is now zero from points of entry into the US. These measures and strict entry processes from at risk countries are just one of many deterrents we now use to protect our citizens. So. No. Your just wrong on this point

As far as your comments on not deporting criminals your argument is poor indeed. Cities don't have the resources to notify ICE? Probably don't.. you say. You mean a phone call? No phones? No empty office for interviews? Paper to help ICE officers process them? The Deportation is Federal money......... Yet those cities Do have the resources to have officers arrest, then process them into a jail, where they sit and we pay for their room and board, then trial costs then when convicted for less than a year that City pays to house them in their county jail until released to potentially do it all over again. I think they probably do.

You also throw around a lot of empty power words that don't make sense. It's a rational decision based on what massive legal costs? What lack of illegal immigrant cooperation? Are you suggesting that because we deport criminals that honest illegals will be less cooperative? How? Striking? To not put food on the table because illegal criminals get deported? That's absurd. Less cooperative by not.. Calling the police if a illegal criminal robs them or hurts them? Also Absurd. So. No. Your just wrong on this comment and point too.

You've in no way defended either position or provided adequate argument why illegal immigrants that are criminals should not be deported. You can't. There is none

 

Again, the threat is not zero. The threat is incredibly close to zero. The history of attacks, or lack thereof, supports that assertion.

I said the resources to deport them. Not the resources to communicate with ICE or do some paperwork.

In terms of the legal costs, I am specifically referencing the tort of false imprisonment or the constitutional violation against Due Process. In the situation where a city agrees to hold someone subject to a ICE detention request, the city runs the risk that the person being detained has been mistakenly identified. If that person is not an illegal immigrant, then the city has detained them under false pretenses or held them without due process. That can result in massive legal costs for the city.

In terms of the lack of cooperation, you can dismiss the notion as absurd or you can listen to actual police officers and immigrant officials. Or you can look to actual instances of immigrants dropping domestic violence charges because they don't want to risk being deported while going through the court system.

I was not attempting to make an argument for why illegal criminal immigrants should not be deported. I can make that argument by referencing the cost for society associated with rounding up and deporting individuals that are contributing members of society* as compared to the cost of offering them a path to citizenship and thereby obtaining increased value from them. But that is a subject for another time.

*I assumed that you specified the criminal illegal immigrants because you don't want to include those who are criminals simply because they are illegal immigrants or because they have minor trafficking offenses on their record, but I did not want to delve too deeply into that distinction with this point.

 

1. Now its an incredibly close to zero chance of an attack via flight or point of entry simply because of lack of attacks? That's it? How arrogant and reckless that is. My suggestion would be make less assertions and research more. It's previous, ongoing, and future preventative measures that's actually stopping the attacks making it costly in monetary and body resources for terrorists to try. Simply put its not cost effective. We have to keep that on their mind.

2. Why would a city deport anyone? Your claiming knowledge on the subject and don't know the deportation process is via ICE? That means federal dollars. Not city.

3. Massive legal costs and lawsuits for false imprisonment because a city's processes and ID procedures might get a citizen versus an actual illegal? Pure straw grasping now. Then I guess those city cops should do their job better

4. Yes do assume I don't mean illegals with traffic offenses should be deported. Criminal illegals that are burdening our jails and threatening the common good with ANY felony drug w intent to distribute or assault or higher conviction, with white collar convictions being case by case... need to go to a plane and not jail. We'll hold them in the jail until you can fill the plane. Won't take long eh?

What I'm asking our government and you in this discussion is to apply a little bit of common sense to what our policies and thought processes should be. Sanctuary cities run by alt left zealots will come to heel and assist in the deportation of criminal illegals or suffer. It's a reasonable compromise.

No compromise needed on travel ban or other security measures taken in the interest of public safety. Yes rewrite/edit it ( that's what will happen) and implement it better but it's fine. Add the Saudis too. Love it

 

Next question.

Is there a chance that Congress can just stop the federal funds via legislation or would there not be enough votes to pull that off.

Ie: Introduce a bill that says cali loses x or y unless they do x or y. The

agree 100%.

(did the below w/o google's help so if I'm wrong then I apologize)

The last 15 years,
No US citizen on US soil has been killed by an exploding nuclear warhead.
No US citizen on US soil has been killed by a bazooka

Yet here we are, with these silly laws keeping those items out of the hands of

A path to citizenship is already on the table.
Leave: then apply for legal entry.
If you don't leave and get caught, we will help you leave then the legal entry will be delayed or denied.

 

If the DOJ can not withhold the funds due to a violation of the 10th amendment, then Congress can not pass a law which attempts to do the same.

Why don't you go ahead and compare the cost of preventing the sale and ownership of nuclear warheads/bazookas and preventing all travel from citizens of those countries or refugees from entering the country. Let me know which cost is greater.

Yea Ok.

 

I don't think its very pricey to restrict travel from certain countries...

How expensive is "no thank you, feel free to travel elsewhere" ?

 

Well, the U.S. News is predicting the travel ban and other Trump policies will cost the U.S. 18 Billion over the next two years.

So, pretty expensive.

 

us news has predicted a lot of things.

If there are people that won't travel to the US because they don't think we have enough Muslims, i'm OK with that, i'm sure they can find flights to Munich on Expedia.

 

Cities are incorporated entities, which poses a bit of a problem. mainly piercing the corporate veil.

States are a different matter. As the Supreme Court recently ruled in Arizona v United States:

The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation’s meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.

[see Section V]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-182

 

He didn't ban muslims, just people from 7 countries. There are 50 other muslim countries he did not ban people from.

As for terrorism related to from people from those 7 countries:

http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-countries-covered-trump-vetting-order

 

The tenth amendment only applies to things not delegated to the federal government. If you ever get the chance to read the constitution, you'll realize that the federal government has the job of immigration. So no one is being a hypocrite by advocating federal enforcement of immigration laws.

 

States may establish and maintain their own laws and policies so long as they do not conflict with the authority of the federal government. The Supreme Court has often used the Tenth Amendment to limit the authority of the federal government, particularly with regard to regulating commerce and with regard to taxation, but has generally stood firm on the supremacy of the national government and the U.S. Constitution.
Written By:
Brian P. Smentkowski for Encyclopedia Brittannica

 

I am an attorney in real life, so yes, I have read, studied, and been tested on my knowledge of the Constitution.

The Constitution does leave immigration within the purview of the Federal Government, but the 10th amendment also prevents the Federal Government from forcing the States to enforce a federal law that is within the sole purview of the Federal Government. The Federal Government is free and encouraged to enforce immigration law themselves. The Federal Government is prevented from forcing the States to enforce the federal law for them.

 

Yes. I agree. But the 10th amendment also prevents the Federal Government from forcing the States to enforce a federal program. That is primary reason why the Supreme Court struck down the forced Medicaid expansion from Obamacare. The law attempted to force states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold Medicaid dollars unless the States expanded. The Supreme Court ruled that was a violation of the 10th amendment. Instead, the Supreme Court said that Federal Government could attach conditions to the new Medicaid Dollars (i.e. get new Medicaid dollars if you expand Medicaid), but that they could not threaten to withhold all Medicaid funding without expansion.