permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Mote point new that the trump ban has been blocked, but read to the end to see how a law put into effect by Obama was used in the trump attemlpt to stop funding to these cities..


Washington (CNN)A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from enforcing a threat to take away funds from sanctuary cities -- the latest blow from the federal judiciary to President Donald Trump's immigration agenda.

In a ruling delivered Thursday, Judge William H. Orrick sided with Santa Clara, the city of San San Francisco and other cities, who argued that a threat to take away federal funds from cities that do not cooperate with some federal immigration enforcement could be unconstitutional.
In granting a nationwide injunction, Orrick blocked the government from enforcing a key portion of Trump's January executive order on immigration, which ordered the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department to block cities who do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement from receiving federal funds.

While Orrick's ruling does not find the policy unconstitutional, he did find that the counties and cities that challenged the law demonstrated they could face "immediate irreparable harm" if the policy were allowed to be put into place, and that their constitutional challenge could succeed once the case is fully heard.
He did leave the government some wiggle room, saying that his order does not block the government from enforcing conditions on federal grants nor does it block the government from creating a definition of sanctuary jurisdictions -- but the government will not be able to block federal funds from going to those cities as Trump ordered.
"The Counties have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to Section 9(a) of the Executive Order, that they will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction, and that the balance of harms and public interest weigh in their favor," Orrick wrote.
Threats to defund sanctuary cities have been a key piece of Trump's immigration agenda in the beginning of his administration, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent letters last week to nine cities requiring them to verify they are compliant with a piece of US law mentioned in the executive order as a pre-condition of their receiving law enforcement grants they applied for.
That pre-condition was actually put in place by the Obama administration, and mayors have said that piece of law is something they actually comply with that law, which requires communication of citizenship status of individuals, even if they don't cooperate with other requests from federal immigration law enforcement.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Can't for the life of me figure out why you would be for this judges ruling. American citizens lose and illegals win with a Sanctuary City. Have not heard one liberal on OPP give me a good reason why Sanctuary Cities are a good thing.

bahmer

Lets see Judge William H. Orrick was appointed by Barack Obama and raised a substantial amount of money for Obama I would guess that he is a died in the wool liberal like Obama. I still don't see why doing something illegal wouldn't keep you from being cut off of federal money. If you are doing something illegal I would hardly expect that you would be rewarded for such behavior. Maybe I am missing something here.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Just more activist judges. They need impeached. If you say you are for the poor and down trodden like a good little liberal you would never stand for finite resources our own poor could use going to illegal criminals who add nothing to America.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

J,

About the only reason I support the "sanctuary" cities is that the origin was to have the local cops do the work of the ICE... The locals were not and are not now given additional money or manpower to do this. they can not afford to do the work which falls to the federal agents..

Also, the law of point is only a misdemeanor.. When and if the local cops hold an illegal in the county jail, very often no response comes from the feds to come and look into this minor misdemeanor violation.. They also have limited funds and man power..

So in the end, it is about a huge amount of work and expense over what is a very minor violation.

It is the way the laws are written.. For many people, this illegal immigrants are a big deal. Perhaps the laws should be rewritten and enforcement given a higher priority..

Also, going to court, enforcing and jailing people... Results in around a $250 fine.. Very expensive to enforce and little consequence for the action..

Now, I have to add that we do have differing violations under conditions which may apply...

But for the great majority, only a misdemeanor is the violation..


To be clear, the most common crime associated with illegal immigration is likely improper entry. Under federal criminal law, it is misdemeanor for an alien (i.e., a non-citizen) to:

Enter or attempt to enter the United States at any time or place other than designated by immigration officers;
Elude examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempt to enter or obtain entry to the United States by willfully concealing, falsifying, or misrepresenting material facts.
The punishment under this federal law is no more than six months of incarceration and up to $250 in civil penalties for each illegal entry. These acts of improper entry -- including the mythic "border jumping" -- are criminal acts associated with illegally immigrating to the United States.

Like all other criminal charges in the United States, improper entry must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict.

- See more at: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence.html#sthash.QehWlbN4.dpuf

pickmeup Loc: Mid Michigan

the town I am in found it to complicated and risky to dub themselves a sanctuary city. So they call them selves a welcoming city. Kind of makes my tummy turn

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Well then why have local cops enforce drug laws, (DEA) gun laws (BATFE) or any other of the seventeen jillion, six hundred eighty five gabillion federal laws? Your argument holds no water with Archie! Try again Permi!

snowbear37 Loc: MA.

As usual, liberals want to cherry pick the laws they obey.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Because the drug and gun laws are also on the local law agenda.. found under state and local jurisdiction..

archie bunker Loc: Texas

So......if the city, or county I live in decides it's OK for us to have machine guns, hand grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, tanks, etc. That would be Ok? I mean the federal background check to buy a weapon is a pain in the ass, so we don't need it either.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

gee, nice pick archie,

I would have to say it goes back to money.

When the misdemeanor guy sits in city jail waiting for ICE to show up and take him into custody, the cost of feeding him goes on. No compensation for the time and money spent by the locals.

But the key is the expectation that the locals enforce a minor offence that carries little penalty and little action by the federal forces..

It is demanding that the local police extend beyond the scope of expectations..Keeping the city halfway safe and solving robberies, killings, and beatings..

If the feds don`t care, why should the locals have to do it?

archie bunker Loc: Texas

It isn't about money, and you know it. Also, the previous administration told the feds NOT to do their jobs.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

So what's your point perm? Let em go? Trump administration hasn't been targeting many misdemeanors. I personally don't care what the offense is. If they're illegal ship them back, especially if they're in jail already. We don't extend sanctuary to our own citizen criminals. This makes no sense.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

Votes. Just follow the votes. They vote early and often, that's all these 'sanctuary Democrats' need to know.

3jack

Drug and gun laws are enacted by individual states and they differ greatly from state to state. Immigration laws are federal laws ONLY and they do not differ from state to state. See the difference?