Posted on 01/11/2018 1:16:06 PM PST by Reno89519
While President Trump is battling the judiciary, as much as anyone else, to end sanctuary cities and states, it seems to me that he, as president, has lots of room to act unilaterally. Why not, for example, simply issue an executive order that there is to be no unnecessary travel, meetings, or business held by any US government organization or employee in any state or city that declares sanctuary?
So simple. Seriously, how can a court tell the government where to travel to, where to hold a meeting, or conduct business? The impact would be immediate and local everywhere. Maybe this would give local business owners the push to challenge their elected officials to end these policies in their communities and states.
Your thoughts?
Even in sanctuary cities & counties, they let various federal agencies & entities know who they have picked up & are holding. When ICE takes an interest, they occasionally ask the jails to hold on to illegals in case they want to come get them. The problem, as far as the courts are concerned, is they do that without a warrant to detain them further. That's part of the solution - have ICE get those warrants. Then the jail has to hold them, sanctuary city or not.
I misspoke. That's why I should not operate from memory. It was Clinton, not Obama. The case is Printz v. U.S.
Scalia wrote the opinion, finding it unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment (which is where the anti-commandeering logic flows from).
I don’t see why they don’t file suit.
A few years back Arizona tried to enforce the immigration laws (because Obama wouldn’t). The Supreme Court ruled that Arizona can’t enforce the law unilaterally because immigration policy is set by the feds.
If it was set by the feds then it’s set by the feds now.
If they could wake Sessions up long enough, I don’t see also why they can’t issue warrants for the arrest of each and every illegal alien. Get them handed over. Plus, with warrants issued—30-60 million of them, let bounty hunters round them up as well.
Okay, no problem. I’m surprised Scalia did that, but it may be a sound tenet of law.
There has to be a way to get this taken care of.
Okay, good. Thanks. That sounds reasoned.
How about the Republican majority Congress pass laws, bill, measures to defund any and all funds possible from said sanctuary cities?
HUD issues CDBG (Community Development Block Grants) galore, for a wide range of social engineering purposes. Among them housing for “low/moderate income residents. And a whole lot more.
My point: The President cannot likely do much on his own. But Congress can pass laws, budgets,, etc.
It is called a Majority.
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local government) commits a federal felony when she or he:
* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him or her to obtain employment, or
* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or
* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
Did you mean this one that could easily be done by Congress?
> “Not one penny to any sanctuary city or state!”
Actually, it can go further than merely denying federal funds or withholding block grants. And note that withholding these funds from states is problematic politically; it’s easier said than done.
But there is a way that is clear and Constitutional.
First, the federal government has a responsibility to enforce the nation’s laws with respect to immigration and borders. To carry out this enforcement requires money and money requires either taxation or an appropriation via the issuance of debt. But let’s look at taxation first.
The original tax provisions of the US Constitution allow for a direct tax with apportionment to be levied on the States.
If Congress has a will reflected by the will of the America people to round up and deport illegal aliens within the Nation’s borders, it can pass a tax bill to take the following general steps:
1. Tax each state directly according to their population census for the purpose of enforcing US law against illegal aliens. The tax revenue collected will be used to pay a federal force to find, detain, process, and deport all illegal aliens inside each state. Whatever method each state decides to raise the federal enforcement tax is up to them. They can add an income tax or a state sales surtax or a toll tax, property tax, utility tax or a combination of taxes. And they can make it known and blatant that this a federal tax for enforcement against illegal aliens. State residents can grind their teeth all they want, but there will be a way out of such federal taxation if their state and local legislators choose a federal option.
2. Give states a federal option to assist in the enforcement of federal law governing illegal aliens. For cities, townships, counties, and state governments that choose to assist faithfully and fully the federal government in fulfilling its responsibility, the federal direct tax levied can be credited back to the state which in turn can provide full relief to its state residents. States can also be offered an option to immediately pledge to assist federal law enforcement and by doing so, they will be able to forgo any separate state legislation to collect the federal tax because they will have received an immediate full credit from the federal government, hence they won’t owe anything.
The above two steps will leave only ‘sanctuary states’ or states with ‘sanctuary cities’ having to raise the federal tax. They can’t plead unconstitutional targeting because the tax is applied directly to all states with apportionment, but the federal government has the option to credit back taxes to states that agree to pledge their own law enforcement resources to assist the federal enforcement effort.
Aberrant states like California who might choose to remain as a Sanctuary State will have a hard time blaming the federal government for its tax woes when all they need do is to reverse their uncooperative enforcement policies. Otherwise, its state taxpayers will know the price of harboring illegal aliens. This is all completely Constitutional and puts the burden on states that would choose to defy the will of Congress and the American people.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3609439/posts?page=536#536
And highlighted by LucyT here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3609439/posts?page=538#538
__________________________________________
Send the above to your House Representative and your US Senators. They should have no excuse for not introducing it as it is easily done.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3609827/posts?page=9#9
Repeal the 10th Amendment. That is obviously the way to tell local government what they can and cannot do.
Or, don’t repeal it. Just act like the 10th Amendment doesn’t exist.
When you see an ICE agent, buy their lunch and show these folks the respect they deserve.
simply with hold money from sanctuary entities.
a judge can decide the money must flow but he can not force the treasury to do what he says.
The money must be with held while the case is winding the way to SCOTUS. There will be chaos and destruction. Let it be
Local and state governments are providing a foothold for the foreign invasion and subsequent takeover of the United States...Does that sound like a 10th Amendment issue to you?
“simply with hold money from sanctuary entities.”
That won’t work...they’ll just run deficits until Trump is out of office. Dem pols need to be prosecuted for harboring illegal aliens. They need to see the inside of a jail cell before they will change their tune.
Instead of playing their game, drive the illegals out of the sanctuary cities, by directing ICE to conduct very visible programs to “reverse the flow” away from such cities.
In other words, let the illegals know that if they are caught in San Francisco, they will unceremoniously be deported and *barred from reentry*, which is a much stronger sanction.
However, if they go to a non-sanctuary city, enforcement will just be at normal levels.
Illegal immigration is as much driven by publicity as anything else.
We need to pay the police bounties to turn over illegals to ICE. No one will know.
The entities can not print money. Implied in your post is the fact that treasurers can meet with banks to float massive loans in a matter of hours or days or even weeks.
Good idea!
we’ll get the money to pay cops for doing their jobs from a 3% dedicated tariff.
The ICE agents will give them cash. Tax free!
You mean a state like California can’t run deficits and have debt without printing money? Who knew? /s Cal’s debt is about 2 trillion btw.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.