Sanctuary City Changes

GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Miami-Dade is dropping Sanctuary City Policy .....



Miami first to accept Trump’s call to end sanctuary cities


One of America’s biggest metropolitan areas has submitted to President Trump’s call for an end “sanctuary cities” — as the Mayor of Miami-Dade County has ordered his jails to comply with requests from federal immigration officials, according to a report.

Mayor Carlos Gimenez said he made the move for fear of Trump’s executive order threatening to cut funds to “sanctuary cities,” according to the Miami Herald.

“In light of the provisions of the Executive Order, I direct you and your staff to honor all immigration detainer requests received from the Department of Homeland Security,” Gimenez wrote to one of his top jail executives, the report said.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
One down...

How did these crazy "sanctuary cities" get started, anyway, and why did previous presidents allow them to ignore our immigration laws?
 
b23hqb

b23hqb

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
vraiblonde said:
One down...

How did these crazy "sanctuary cities" get started, anyway, and why did previous presidents allow them to ignore our immigration laws?
Click to expand...

In the US, it is believed to be Los Angeles in 1979. "to prevent police from inquiring about the immigration status of arrestees. The internal policy, "Special Order 40", states: "Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person. Officers shall not arrest nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code (Illegal Entry).

Gotta love Cali, right?
 
K

Kev_Russell

New Member
Someone will want to let the Mayor of Miami know that Trump's EO on sanctuary cities has serious constitutional issues:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...th-trumps-executive-order-on-sanctuary-cities

There are two serious constitutional problems with conditioning federal grants to sanctuary cities on compliance with Section 1373. First, longstanding Supreme Court precedent mandates that the federal government may not impose conditions on grants to states and localities unless the conditions are “unambiguously” stated in the text of the law “so that the States can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds.” Few if any federal grants to sanctuary cities are explicitly conditioned on compliance with Section 1373. Any such condition must be passed by Congress, and may only apply to new grants, not ones that have already been appropriated. The executive cannot simply make up new conditions on its own and impose them on state and local governments. Doing so undermines both separation of powers and federalism.
Click to expand...
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Kev_Russell said:
Someone will want to let the Mayor of Miami know that Trump's EO on sanctuary cities has serious constitutional issues:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...th-trumps-executive-order-on-sanctuary-cities
Click to expand...

If you're still reading the Washington Post, you are stuck on stupid and might want to smack yourself. Every single headline is some hysterical anti-Trump exclamation and every story is an op-ed. They aren't legit news anymore. Their nonsense is getting more and more outrageous and downright silly, and you'd think it would embarrass them to sink so low.

This particular story at least labels itself as opinion, so that's something, but your comment really should read, "Someone will want to let the Mayor of Miami know that some blogger thinks Trump's EO on sanctuary cities has serious constitutional issues:" That would be accurate and I'm sure the Mayor of Miami will really be upset about that.

Not.

Now, if you want to let some blogger do your thinking for you, be my guest. However, the text of the Constitution is right online, and you can surely find for yourself where it says A) the federal government must give states funds; B) cities have the right to break federal laws; and C) the US must take in another country's refugees and immigrants.

For extra knowledge, you can look up the Volokh Consipracy and Ilya Somin to get more information as to what they are about and where they are coming from. AND you can do it right from the comfort of your home with your favorite beverage in hand. No real effort required.

:cheers:
 
K

Kev_Russell

New Member
vraiblonde said:
If you're still reading the Washington Post, you are stuck on stupid and might want to smack yourself. Every single headline is some hysterical anti-Trump exclamation and every story is an op-ed. They aren't legit news anymore. Their nonsense is getting more and more outrageous and downright silly, and you'd think it would embarrass them to sink so low.

This particular story at least labels itself as opinion, so that's something, but your comment really should read, "Someone will want to let the Mayor of Miami know that some blogger thinks Trump's EO on sanctuary cities has serious constitutional issues:" That would be accurate and I'm sure the Mayor of Miami will really be upset about that.

Not.

Now, if you want to let some blogger do your thinking for you, be my guest. However, the text of the Constitution is right online, and you can surely find for yourself where it says A) the federal government must give states funds; B) cities have the right to break federal laws; and C) the US must take in another country's refugees and immigrants.

For extra knowledge, you can look up the Volokh Consipracy and Ilya Somin to get more information as to what they are about and where they are coming from. AND you can do it right from the comfort of your home with your favorite beverage in hand. No real effort required.

:cheers:
Click to expand...

I see .. so your objection to the piece doesn't have any legal basis, only an emotional one.

Noted for the record.
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Not being a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar I have no real opinion on the law, but I do know that funds have been held out to force states to pass laws in the past. I point to seat belt laws and helmet laws ,and laws forcing the 21 year old age limit for drinking.,as an example.
 
K

Kev_Russell

New Member
Hijinx said:
Not being a lawyer or a Constitutional scholar I have no real opinion on the law, but I do know that funds have been held out to force states to pass laws in the past. I point to seat belt laws and helmet laws ,and laws forcing the 21 year old age limit for drinking.,as an example.
Click to expand...

Not that you'll bother, but your confusion in this area could be cleared up by actually reading the piece.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Kev_Russell said:
I see .. so your objection to the piece doesn't have any legal basis, only an emotional one.

Noted for the record.
Click to expand...

I see...so you think the Constitution is "emotion-based" and has no legality. Well, that's a fairly common mind quirk these days, so at least you're not alone.

Or it's possible that you didn't even read my response.

OR it could be that reason is being drowned out by the voices in your head.

Only you know which it is.
 
K

Kev_Russell

New Member
vraiblonde said:
I see...so you think the Constitution is "emotion-based" and has no legality. Well, that's a fairly common mind quirk these days, so at least you're not alone.

Or it's possible that you didn't even read my response.

OR it could be that reason is being drowned out by the voices in your head.

Only you know which it is.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you didn't bother to read the piece either.
 
K

Kev_Russell

New Member
vraiblonde said:
I see...so you think the Constitution is "emotion-based" and has no legality. Well, that's a fairly common mind quirk these days, so at least you're not alone.

Or it's possible that you didn't even read my response.

OR it could be that reason is being drowned out by the voices in your head.

Only you know which it is.
Click to expand...

Your apparent sworn life enemy, Ilya Somin has argued considerably "that rational ignorance is a major problem for the successful functioning of democracy." (in the link I already posted), which is quite applicable to your posts:

Rational ignorance is refraining from acquiring knowledge when the cost of educating oneself on an issue exceeds the potential benefit that the knowledge would provide.
Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people, such as general elections, where the probability of any one vote changing the outcome is very small.
Click to expand...

I can understand why you don't like the dude.
 
Last edited:
PeoplesElbow

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
You know I was thinking that maybe instead of arresting deporting etc since some seem to just keep coming back why don't we just tax the undocumented until they just don't want to be here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top