The Sanctuary City fight (1 Viewer)

[GroveDiesel]

Congress controls the purse strings. I see no way Trump could pull all federal funds from a state/city for not committing their own funds to enforcing federal law.

Although, I could possibly see where he could cut off specific funding for police departments that's "national security" funds or make those jurisdictions ineligible for certain grants. 

Think about lawsuits/complaints over No Child Left Behind where states sued saying that they were being required to do certain things but that the federal government didn't fund it. The argument over Sanctuary Cities would be sort of the reverse of that: the federal government provides federal funds to police departments in order to allow the local police to enforce federal regulations. If the federal government determines that the local police aren't using the funds for that end, then I would think that they could pull whatever funds are marked for that.

I would think that the optics of defunding local police would be horrible though and a PR bloodbath. Not that Trump has let that stop him so far.

 

[zeamax]

Maybe we should downsize the role of the federal government, then this wouldn't even be an issue.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Different situation, Tim, it is.

You might think so, but that is exactly the argument being made in NYC. An over educated friend of mine posted this to FB yesterday:

"The undocumented immigrants are the modern day SLAVES of this country. We need to fight for their rights, not deport them."

 

[GroveDiesel]

I work at a small, Catholic university in a near-west suburb of Chicago.  We have a large Hispanic population, many from Chicago, and quite a number of undocumented individuals.  Many students are very concerned.  Our Board has affirmed our campus as a sanctuary site, although I don't think we'll know the implication of that unless things get ugly.  The intent is essentially to potentially protect our (law abiding) students if Trump goes nuclear on all illegal immigrants.  And I told my students yesterday that I've got their back as well. Rather sad that Trump is disrupting so many lives with his bluster. 

Universities are a different animal. If Trump decides to pull their funding, he probably can, up to and including all Stafford loans and Pell grants. GCC v. Bell is pretty rough precedent in regards to federal funding and colleges/universities complying with federal law.

 

[The Commish]

So could these same rules be applied to the sale of marijuana? I mean, marijuana is now legal in California for recreational use but it's still illegal in the eyes of the Feds.

This is a fantastic question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

 

[Black Box]

Congress controls the purse strings. I see no way Trump could pull all federal funds from a state/city for not committing their own funds to enforcing federal law.

Although, I could possibly see where he could cut off specific funding for police departments that's "national security" funds or make those jurisdictions ineligible for certain grants. 

Think about lawsuits/complaints over No Child Left Behind where states sued saying that they were being required to do certain things but that the federal government didn't fund it. The argument over Sanctuary Cities would be sort of the reverse of that: the federal government provides federal funds to police departments in order to allow the local police to enforce federal regulations. If the federal government determines that the local police aren't using the funds for that end, then I would think that they could pull whatever funds are marked for that.

I would think that the optics of defunding local police would be horrible though and a PR bloodbath. Not that Trump has let that stop him so far.

This is my (under-informed) understanding as well.

I would love it if these sorts of federalism cases that liberals like lead to stronger States' rights though. That would be a great outcome IMHO.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

This is a fantastic question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

I really want to know, as most of my friends on facebook who are so ecstatic over funding being pulled are also just as ecstatic over their ability to legally smoke weed.

 

[jonessed]

So: Federalism.

eta - I think the problem here is that liberals and progs are by and large supporting the sanctuary cities but they're not very comfortable relying on the federalist / states powers argument necessary to justify it.

They also don't honor ICE detainers.  It's not just a passive stance.

 

[The Commish]

This is a fantastic question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

I really want to know, as most of my friends on facebook who are so ecstatic over funding being pulled are also just as ecstatic over their ability to legally smoke weed.

exactly...it's why I asked a similar question earlier.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

So could these same rules be applied to the sale of marijuana? I mean, marijuana is now legal in California for recreational use but it's still illegal in the eyes of the Feds.

Is the question whether the federal government can cut funding to states where pot has been decriminalized?

 

[The Commish]

Is the question whether the federal government can cut funding to states where pot has been decriminalized?

I think it's more a concept question.  That concept being "a state being under no obligation to aid in or apply federal laws".  There seems to be a significant double standard with CGRdrJoe points out.  People are up in arms that cities/states aren't cooperating to get illegal immigrants out of the country, but have no problem with states/cities turning a blind eye to recreational pot sales etc.  You're either ok with the concept or you aren't.  Personally, I think it's on the federal government to enforce their rules.  It's not up to the states.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think it's more a concept question.  That concept being "a state being under no obligation to aid in or apply federal laws".  There seems to be a significant double standard with CGRdrJoe points out.  People are up in arms that cities/states aren't cooperating to get illegal immigrants out of the country, but have no problem with states/cities turning a blind eye to recreational pot sales etc.  You're either ok with the concept or you aren't.  Personally, I think it's on the federal government to enforce their rules.  It's not up to the states.

Yeah, lots of people like legal pot but dislike undocumented immigrants.  I think that's your explanation.

 

[The Commish]

I think it's more a concept question.  That concept being "a state being under no obligation to aid in or apply federal laws".  There seems to be a significant double standard with CGRdrJoe points out.  People are up in arms that cities/states aren't cooperating to get illegal immigrants out of the country, but have no problem with states/cities turning a blind eye to recreational pot sales etc.  You're either ok with the concept or you aren't.  Personally, I think it's on the federal government to enforce their rules.  It's not up to the states.

Yeah, lots of people like legal pot but dislike undocumented immigrants.  I think that's your explanation.

Probably....tough to take that sort of person seriously though.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Yeah, lots of people like legal pot but dislike undocumented immigrants.  I think that's your explanation.

:analysis:

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

They also don't honor ICE detainers.  It's not just a passive stance.

And so? I'm a tad confused here, I would not have picked you for someone arguing that the feds can just order the local police to do what they say.

I'm putting this hand in hand with Trump's threat to 'send in the Feds!' in Chicago. It seems like Trump supporters are arguing for a ridiculous expansion of federal powers in a most non-conservative, non-GOP way.

It's bizarre to me, at least from those in the GOP camp. The avowed nationalists, I get.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I alluded to this further up, but I live in a sanctuary city. I'm not particularly in favor of that policy, BUT given the amount of crime around here, and the amount of construction (needing illegal labor often), I'm not sure I really get our NOPD running around tagging Hispanic looking guys waiting to get picked up for work near gas stations and Home Depots.

And again these people showed the hell up when we needed it for truly existential work that needed getting done.

Meanwhile, there was a gruesome murder committed by an illegal alien a few years back.... in very Republican, very pro Trump nearby conservative Kenner, where they very much do enforce the immigration laws to the hilt. In Kenner they pull you over with 3 cop cars for so much as going 5 miles over the speed limit. How this guy escaped their notice I have no idea, but it obviously did not help in that instance.

 

[jon_mx]

It's rare, but sure of course you're correct. If I were living in 1850, I'd support the abolitionists who helped slaves on the Underground Railroad, and I'd applaud cities who refused to help the federal government catch those slaves and return them to their owners. Wouldn't you? 

Well when the pro-life movement or the pro-gun movement adopts this tactic, I hope you remember.  Sanctuary cities for automatic assault weapons with zero waiting periods!  yeah

 

[GroveDiesel]

I think it's more a concept question.  That concept being "a state being under no obligation to aid in or apply federal laws".  There seems to be a significant double standard with CGRdrJoe points out.  People are up in arms that cities/states aren't cooperating to get illegal immigrants out of the country, but have no problem with states/cities turning a blind eye to recreational pot sales etc.  You're either ok with the concept or you aren't.  Personally, I think it's on the federal government to enforce their rules.  It's not up to the states.

But what if the federal government is giving money to the states/cities to enforce those rules and the states/cities decide not to enforce the rules?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You might think so, but that is exactly the argument being made in NYC. An over educated friend of mine posted this to FB yesterday:

"The undocumented immigrants are the modern day SLAVES of this country. We need to fight for their rights, not deport them."

It's an interesting discussion over beers (early but I have coffee)...

- Unpaid labor forced from another region, held by force, literally owned, subject to sever corporal punishment with no due process, denied citizenship even if their family had been here for generations.

Vs.

- Paid labor, who came here voluntarily knowing the risks and knowingly breaking the law, free to leave, largely unharassed in many places (if careful), entitled to due process, with citizenship available should they follow the procedures.

The moral argument is not remotely equivalent.

However, I also think it's contradictory that Dred Scott was a bunch of supposed conservatives making a groundbreaking creation of federal power between and over the states, with the Northern/Free states declaring their powers under the 10th Amendment preeminent yet losing.

And here we have the states again declaring that they are free and constitutionally free to act, while supposed conservatives are declaring that federal power can even reach to the level of policing to tell states and cities who they must arrest.

There may be a comp but I don't think it's the one that Tim is thinking of.

 

[Boston]

It's rare, but sure of course you're correct. If I were living in 1850, I'd support the abolitionists who helped slaves on the Underground Railroad, and I'd applaud cities who refused to help the federal government catch those slaves and return them to their owners. Wouldn't you? 

Were the illegal aliens brought to this country against their free-will?

 

[The Commish]

But what if the federal government is giving money to the states/cities to enforce those rules and the states/cities decide not to enforce the rules?

Stop giving them money  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But what if the federal government is giving money to the states/cities to enforce those rules and the states/cities decide not to enforce the rules?

If there is someny specifically dedicated to immigration enforcement, I think it's an approach like the ACA approach to expanding Medicaid - make the states or cities declare if they are participating, if not then they don't get the money. Seems like a very similar situation to me. My guess is the parish/county authorities who run the jails will find this a particularly sticky situation.

 

[BobbyLayne]

It's an interesting discussion over beers (early but I have coffee)...

- Unpaid labor forced from another region, held by force, literally owned, subject to sever corporal punishment with no due process, denied citizenship even if their family had been here for generations.

Vs.

- Paid labor, who came here voluntarily knowing the risks and knowingly breaking the law, free to leave, largely unharassed in many places (if careful), entitled to due process, with citizenship available should they follow the procedures.

The moral argument is not remotely equivalent.

However, I also think it's contradictory that Dred Scott was a bunch of supposed conservatives making a groundbreaking creation of federal power between and over the states, with the Northern/Free states declaring their powers under the 10th Amendment preeminent yet losing.

And here we have the states again declaring that they are free and constitutionally free to act, while supposed conservatives are declaring that federal power can even reach to the level of policing to tell states and cities who they must arrest.

There may be a comp but I don't think it's the one that Tim is thinking of.

I just wish they would be open to a Reagan style amnesty. I know that will never happen in the current climate, but I have several friends who I think absolutely ought to be given a path to permanent residency if not citizenship. 

1. Came here as an infant from S Korea. Educated in NYC public schools K-12. Graduated from Parsons, now a designer for a major label. No legal status (not sure the details, but parents returned to Korea.) Terrified she could lose everything overnight.
   
2. Came here from Columbia three years ago. Works as a model, highly sought after. No legal status, overstayed her visa. She has a good lawyer but basically lives in fear every day.
   
3. Came here as a student from Japan, after receiving masters degree took adjunct position with a major NYC university, has several writing credits (digital music projects.) Has applied for an O-1 visa which is a long shot.
   
4. Came here from a central American country, worked as a cleaning lady for 7 years before saving enough to open a small restaurant. Now has three restaurants (one on the UES that has been reviewed in the NYT), works about 20 hours a day - must nap during the day, she goes from 9 a.m. to 5 a.m. every day. Has no legal status.
   

I could go on and on with anecdotes, but my point is it's crazy that these successful, creative people who pay taxes, contribute greatly to our society, work harder than most, cannot find a legal path to staying here. Up until now they've been relatively safe because they live in a sanctuary city which will provide them with a photo ID and basic services. All of which could end because of overzealous federalism. 

 

[jonessed]

And so? I'm a tad confused here, I would not have picked you for someone arguing that the feds can just order the local police to do what they say.

I'm putting this hand in hand with Trump's threat to 'send in the Feds!' in Chicago. It seems like Trump supporters are arguing for a ridiculous expansion of federal powers in a most non-conservative, non-GOP way.

It's bizarre to me, at least from those in the GOP camp. The avowed nationalists, I get.

He can't order the local police.  

I'm just addressing the argument that this is just because local law enforcement doesn't have the time.  It's more than that.

 

[jonessed]

Were the illegal aliens brought to this country against their free-will?

Anyone making an argument to try and conflate illegal immigration with slavery is an idiot

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Up until now they've been relatively safe because they live in a sanctuary city which will provide them with a photo ID and basic services. All of which could end because of overzealous federalism. 

Well IMO it would end because of a lack of respect for federalism.

I'm a believer in local democracy, cities and states often know what's best for them, with obvious limited exceptions. See Jefferson.

I have several friends who I think absolutely ought to be given a path to permanent residency if not citizenship. 

I grew up around a pretty sizeable Cuban population here and again the Hispanic/Latino sector showed up and helped us rebuild our city and state, and this happened in Houston too when they were hit with floods and hurricane, Florida too. Great people, contributors to society. Scratch an American you find an immigrant with a similar story.

This problem has occurred because the federal government has not done its job in regulating immigration properly.

I just wish they would be open to a Reagan style amnesty. I know that will never happen in the current climate,

I actually think even more importantly than the moral or policy issue of what is best, it's had a seriously deleterious issue on our national culture and polity.

If Democrats had been willing to allow some enforcement, or if Republicans had been willing to allow a pathway or some limited amnesty, we would not right now be going through this insanity with Trump. It's corrosive for Democrats, it's corrosive for Republicans, it's harmful to Indies, everyone has been hurt.

We need to revisit democracy and figure out how to solve things. The one thing I love about federalism is that hey at least CA and cities can find their own path and their own business but some in DC - many weirdly calling themselves conservatives - think knows what's best for these places.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

He can't order the local police.  

I'm just addressing the argument that this is just because local law enforcement doesn't have the time.  It's more than that.

I think that's fair. If I understand your point you're talking about local jails who do arrest illegal aliens - in the commission of whatever crime, but still won't hold them for ICE. Yeah I don't get that either. When local authorities start prioritizing whatever notion they have about the wrongness of deportation over the safety of their citizens, I don't get that. But again, it is their city/state. I'd be ticked on a local level, but then here in NO we don't hold the American citizens we arrest properly either. Our local jail is a revolving door.

 

[BobbyLayne]

@Ramsay Hunt Experience - am I misreading this? Seems like the case you cited (Reno v. Condon) is upholding commandeering. I'll admit to being confused.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rivkin-foley-sanctuary-city-20161207-story.html

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

@Ramsay Hunt Experience - am I misreading this? Seems like the case you cited (Reno v. Condon) is upholding commandeering. I'll admit to being confused.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rivkin-foley-sanctuary-city-20161207-story.html

I cited Printz, not Condon.  I think there's some real outcome oriented analysis in that editorial.  It's hard to equate the federal government seeking notification of the immigration status of people detained for the select purpose of enforcing the immigration laws as akin to a "mere request for information not tied to the enforcement of a federal statute in Condon. 

 

[jon_mx]

I just wish they would be open to a Reagan style amnesty. I know that will never happen in the current climate, but I have several friends who I think absolutely ought to be given a path to permanent residency if not citizenship. 

1. Came here as an infant from S Korea. Educated in NYC public schools K-12. Graduated from Parsons, now a designer for a major label. No legal status (not sure the details, but parents returned to Korea.) Terrified she could lose everything overnight.
   
2. Came here from Columbia three years ago. Works as a model, highly sought after. No legal status, overstayed her visa. She has a good lawyer but basically lives in fear every day.
   
3. Came here as a student from Japan, after receiving masters degree took adjunct position with a major NYC university, has several writing credits (digital music projects.) Has applied for an O-1 visa which is a long shot.
   
4. Came here from a central American country, worked as a cleaning lady for 7 years before saving enough to open a small restaurant. Now has three restaurants (one on the UES that has been reviewed in the NYT), works about 20 hours a day - must nap during the day, she goes from 9 a.m. to 5 a.m. every day. Has no legal status.
   

I could go on and on with anecdotes, but my point is it's crazy that these successful, creative people who pay taxes, contribute greatly to our society, work harder than most, cannot find a legal path to staying here. Up until now they've been relatively safe because they live in a sanctuary city which will provide them with a photo ID and basic services. All of which could end because of overzealous federalism. 

When you look at the aging demographics of this country, it does not make sense to be kicking out people who can positively contribute to society.  That said, the last part is important to ensure.  There has to be some legitimate method in choosing the good ones over the bad ones. 

 

[timschochet]

I am not comparing the illegal immigration issue to slavery. But there are comparisons to be made in terms of federals insisting that locals help them enforce the law: the Anthony Burns case is a good example. 

However even that was not my intent. I was responding to Jon Mx's challenge about whether or not it's ok to support those who disobey the law. I said in rare instances yes and I used as my example the abolitionists. I could just as easily cite many other examples both from a conservative or progressive perspective. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

However even that was not my intent. I was responding to Jon Mx's challenge about whether or not it's ok to support those who disobey the law. I said in rare instances yes and I used as my example the abolitionists. I could just as easily cite many other examples both from a conservative or progressive perspective. 

Overtly Christian bakers might be one.

 

[Short Corner]

I notice you didn't source this. Why is that? 

That's rich coming from you.

 

[ren hoek]

What's the difference between a legal and illegal alien really?  Other than being rubberstamped into the system and having a basic understanding of English I don't see what's so great about one versus the other.  Seems like the only real benefit is ensuring they can't draw from the system without making some sort of contribution to it on paper.  I'd like to see some sort of cost/benefit analysis between people that are undocumented but provide overwhelmingly cheap labor vs. a run of the mill American citizen.  I doubt there is much loss there, if any.  The US economy is not suffering because of illegal immigrants working #### jobs to send money back to their families.  If anything we've probably benefited on net from the last demographic left that isn't subject to minimum wage laws.  

 

[Righetti]

DeBlasio was on Chris Hayes show last night and was girding for the fight.  Apparently, our fine city has half a million illegals.  Removing them all would basically cause the city to grind to a standstill.  Should be "fun".

WNYC had a piece where they said that the federal funding that could be cut are for the lunch programs in schools for kids.   The effect would be that all deserving kids in NYC could lose their lunch.   

 

[Boston]

I am not comparing the illegal immigration issue to slavery. But there are comparisons to be made in terms of federals insisting that locals help them enforce the law: the Anthony Burns case is a good example. 

However even that was not my intent. I was responding to Jon Mx's challenge about whether or not it's ok to support those who disobey the law. I said in rare instances yes and I used as my example the abolitionists. I could just as easily cite many other examples both from a conservative or progressive perspective. 

Who gets to decide when it is OK to break the law?

 

[Boston]

What's the difference between a legal and illegal alien really?  Other than being rubberstamped into the system and having a basic understanding of English I don't see what's so great about one versus the other.  Seems like the only real benefit is ensuring they can't draw from the system without making some sort of contribution to it on paper.  I'd like to see some sort of cost/benefit analysis between people that are undocumented but provide overwhelmingly cheap labor vs. a run of the mill American citizen.  I doubt there is much loss there, if any.  The US economy is not suffering because of illegal immigrants working #### jobs to send money back to their families.  If anything we've probably benefited on net from the last demographic left that isn't subject to minimum wage laws.  

Here is an article (from a conservative source) that details some negatives...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants-will-cost-america/2013/05/06/e5d19afc-b661-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html?utm_term=.9d44e35cd552

 

[DocHolliday]

Who gets to decide when it is OK to break the law?

That is the biggest problem with this situation for me.  

 

[RCon]

I am not comparing the illegal immigration issue to slavery. But there are comparisons to be made in terms of federals insisting that locals help them enforce the law: the Anthony Burns case is a good example. 

However even that was not my intent. I was responding to Jon Mx's challenge about whether or not it's ok to support those who disobey the law. I said in rare instances yes and I used as my example the abolitionists. I could just as easily cite many other examples both from a conservative or progressive perspective. 

The obvious problem with the bolded is determining which instances qualify.  It's a matter of opinion.  Morally, that's fine.  Legally, it's obviously not good policy to allow each individual to choose for themselves which laws are so wrong that they need not be obeyed.

But then, you already knew that.  Remember this? https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/721079-official-hillary-clinton-2016-thread/?do=findComment&comment=18172877

Don't worry, I'll quote it for you.

OK look guys, I'm not crazy, I'm not a moron, and I'm not unprincipled.

I agree that logically, if I defend sanctuary cities, then I also have to defend anybody else who decides to break the law. I get it. So I guess I can't defend sanctuary cities. I concede, I lose the argument.

But I still am sympathetic to sanctuary cities. What am I to do?

 

[Boston]

That is the biggest problem with this situation for me.  

It is huge...no matter how you feel about this you have to realize that setting a precedent that it's OK to break the law is traveling a very slippery slope...this can not turn into the wild west...

 

[DocHolliday]

It is huge...no matter how you feel about this you have to realize that setting a precedent that it's OK to break the law is traveling a very slippery slope...this can not turn into the wild west...

Exactly.  It is too bad that our government is so dysfunctional because there needs to be a practical solution put in place.  Stop the illegals from entering.  Create a pathway for the law abiding illegals.  Deport any illegal that is arrested and convicted of a crime.  All this would take manny years but even a long-term solution is better than the annoying bickering while nothing is done.  

 

[Boston]

Exactly.  It is too bad that our government is so dysfunctional because there needs to be a practical solution put in place.  Stop the illegals from entering.  Create a pathway for the law abiding illegals.  Deport any illegal that is arrested and convicted of a crime.  All this would take manny years but even a long-term solution is better than the annoying bickering while nothing is done.  

I think many people get leery of amnesty due to what happened under Reagan...that was supposed to put an end to illegal immigration but it got worse...the promise of all the enforcement never really materialized...I do believe a lot of people are willing to talk about some form of amnesty but not until they have seen the enforcement part enforced first...and I think that is a very reasonable position...

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

"Law abiding illegal"

 

[DocHolliday]

"Law abiding illegal"

Yeah. That doesn't make sense but you know what I mean. There is no way to deport all of the illegals at this point but I don't know what else to call them. 

 

[Paulymaggs]

Just build the stupid wall already and this stuff become a moot point.

 

[Mario Kart]

Sanctuary Cities, which is a stupid, fearmongering name for them, are legal per the 10th as well as per the Constitution as well as per the ideals of America. 

We the People, first and foremost, fight for equality around the world as well is in our own country. We the people stand and fight for the minority, that is the majorities responsibility. We the people stand for freedom and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We the people does not equal, "if you're born here." We the people consists of every human that walks the planet, background, religion, creed, orientation, be damned. We the people, remember this phrase since it's the basis of our ideals and way of life. 

 

[derek245583]

So where did this end up?

Looks like Cincinnati is a sanctuary city now.

 

[Quez]

Tampa is a skanktuary city.

 

[jonessed]

Seems like sanctuary colleges would be easy pickings.  He has a lot more power in that regard.  Pulling federal grant and loan money would send quite a few into a rapid tailspin.

If threatening funds for cities can get liberals to acknowledge the 10th Ammendment maybe threatening college monies could get California to start funding the UC and State system adequately again.

 

[timschochet]

Seems like sanctuary colleges would be easy pickings.  He has a lot more power in that regard.  Pulling federal grant and loan money would send quite a few into a rapid tailspin.

If threatening funds for cities can get liberals to acknowledge the 10th Ammendment maybe threatening college monies could get California to start funding the UC and State system adequately again.

I doubt the courts will allow it. And even if they do it will cause massive protests. 

But the bigger question is why even try? Are you that obsessed about undocumented people that you want local governments and law enforcement to spy on and report them?