|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
12th April 2017, 01:04 AM | #1 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
|
The Sanctuary-Cities Executive Order Is Trump’s Next Legal Train Wreck
This article makes a very persuasive case why the federal government (and certainly not Trump by his own power) can't try to force state and local authorities to help them enforce immigration laws.
Quote:
|
12th April 2017, 08:30 AM | #2 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,788
|
Simple fix. Send the feds to arrest cops who give sanctuary. It's called "harboring a fugitive" or "aiding and abetting violation of federal immigration laws". Which one would depend on whether the alien is a wanted criminal.
|
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced idea is indistinguishable from idiocy to those who don't actually understanding the concept. |
|
12th April 2017, 10:09 AM | #3 |
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
|
The courts have ruled time and again the states don't have to enforce federal laws because the feds have no constitutional authority to commandeer states. All the feds can do is dangle money in front of the states to get them to pass laws to help.
And this issue has been dealt with by the courts in detail -- specifically, the only time the executive branch can withhold federal funds is in conjunction with what the law granting the money specifies, and only in ways the law specifically calls out. Since basically no federal laws lavishing money on states dictate the states may lose money for doing this, it's a non-starter legally. It's even more so given the localities that offer sanctuary state they will do the "minimum legally required to comply", thus protecting themselves even further, as they are not, on the surface anyway, deliberately disobeying any laws. And now, the punch line. Would that all those slamming their fists down screeching this principle continue to do so in other contexts. |
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? |
|
12th April 2017, 10:12 AM | #4 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
Give me some examples. For the most part, smart incentive structures can take care of this problem, but I can certainly see issues involving Civil Rights where I would want the federal government to put a lot of pressure on localities.
Now, procedurally, that should go through Congress to pass a new law, but I can't come up with a situation off the top of my head that I would approve of that wouldn't be covered by enforcement of the 14th Amendment. Maybe some environmental issues, but they have their own long history of litigation and legislation. |
12th April 2017, 10:44 AM | #5 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
|
It's stupid. If worse comes to worse, the cities can officaly repeal the Sanctuary statement, but just give enforcing the immigratation laws the lowest priority.
|
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. |
|
12th April 2017, 11:04 AM | #6 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
|
Do you think Congress is unwilling to enact such laws? They've done it before.
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
12th April 2017, 02:36 PM | #7 |
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
|
|
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? |
|
12th April 2017, 02:41 PM | #8 |
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
|
The Civil Rights stuff was direct legality, and not threats by withholding money. A close example might be the Carter 1970s law mandating states pass 55 MPH speed limits under threat of loss of highway money. Then people in favor of it, most of whom now probably support sanctuary cities, ran around with raging wood at the joy of twisting the states' arms this way. Presumably this was spelled out in the law itself, and wasn't an invention of Carter's off the cuff. |
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? |
|
12th April 2017, 03:18 PM | #9 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,095
|
That's a brilliant idea. I don't know if it's legal, but assuming it is, what could possibly go wrong with armed Federal agents setting out to arrest armed local law enforcement?
The entertainment value would only be increased by the cognitive dissonance in the Oath Keeper types; I could see a whole bunch of heads asplodin'. |
12th April 2017, 06:20 PM | #10 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,624
|
I don't think it's only about the law, otherwise they wouldn't be proclaiming themselves "Sanctuary Cities", they'd just do what they want anyways. No, these people have an agenda. Claiming yourself a Sanctuary City is a statement. I believe that statement is "vote for me next election, I care". If not, I'm at a loss for what good this does anyone. |
__________________
Why bother? |
|
12th April 2017, 06:29 PM | #11 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,624
|
Sanctuary Cities don't even necessarily help the illegals.
I read a story a few days ago about a guy from Mexico who came here illegally 20 years ago, now owns a restaurant, and was recently deported. He avoided going legal because he thought he'd have to go back to Mexico first. Sanctuary cities want to give safe haven to these people, but this actually hurts them sometimes. The law finally caught up with this guy and he got deported. Maybe if the laws were enforced he would have come here legally in the first place, or eventually got his green card. Instead, by ignoring the laws, we enabled this guy to bury himself deeper and deeper until he was finally caught. ETA: Yes Trump will probably screw this up. ETA2: LOL @ "probably" |
__________________
Why bother? |
|
12th April 2017, 06:30 PM | #12 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
Yeah, I think there are better procedural ways to accomplish goals like that. I get what you're saying - complaining about a process in one context only to support it in another - both parties have indulged in that throughout our nation's history.
I have very little respect for state sovereignty as a value in its own right, but I do think there are superior ways to promote better policy. |
12th April 2017, 06:50 PM | #13 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Calling them sanctuary cities is poor marketing, poor framing. They aren't offering sanctuary as a church might offer sanctuary. They merely separate their police forces from ICE and it makes perfect sense.
The pro-deport them all camp thinks somehow undocumented immigrants are safe from ICE like the police would stand in front of ICE coming for the immigrants. No, the cities just want undocumented immigrants to be free to call for police assistance without fear of being deported. That makes us all safer. |
13th April 2017, 12:32 AM | #14 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,657
|
That would probably work really well in some places. Don't think it would fly in LA or San Francisco. Supporters of sanctuary city policies here don't just to prevent local cops from being roped into doing ICE's job, they also want cops to be prevented from being able to make immigration-related inquiries of suspects even when the local cops might want to.
Anecdotally (so take it for what it's worth) I've been told that a lot of LAPD officers generally support the idea of not getting mixed up in immigration issues but absolutely love being able to team up with ICE to after gangbangers. |
15th April 2017, 10:02 PM | #15 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
|
25th April 2017, 05:29 PM | #16 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
|
So Trump's Sanctuary City EO was blocked by the courts. What a shocker.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/politi...es-injunction/ |
25th April 2017, 05:34 PM | #17 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
|
25th April 2017, 05:37 PM | #18 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
|
|
25th April 2017, 06:09 PM | #19 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 21,398
|
|
__________________
Gunter Haas, the 'leading British expert,' was a graphologist who advised couples, based on their handwriting characteristics, if they were compatible for marriage. I would submit that couples idiotic enough to do this are probably quite suitable for each other. It's nice when stupid people find love. - Ludovic Kennedy |
|
25th April 2017, 06:25 PM | #20 |
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,246
|
|
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black. Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon |
|
25th April 2017, 06:53 PM | #21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
All of this winning, I wonder if Trump and his supporters are tired of it yet.
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
25th April 2017, 07:06 PM | #22 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:07 PM | #23 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:14 PM | #24 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
|
|
25th April 2017, 07:26 PM | #25 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
25th April 2017, 08:02 PM | #26 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
|
25th April 2017, 09:07 PM | #28 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
|
|
25th April 2017, 09:59 PM | #29 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,488
|
|
25th April 2017, 11:52 PM | #30 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,396
|
|
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk. |
|
26th April 2017, 07:34 AM | #31 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
|
|
26th April 2017, 07:40 AM | #32 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
|
26th April 2017, 07:43 AM | #33 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
Highway funding tied to drinking age. The principle upheld in South Dakota v dole.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole |
26th April 2017, 07:45 AM | #34 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
|
26th April 2017, 07:46 AM | #35 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
If only there were only conservatives, right? That way, nothing would ever change and those uppity ******* would go back to picking cotton while the fags would stop buying wedding cake and pregnant women would pay dearly for daring to have sex. Meanwhile those towel heads would all be sent back to their country or run into the ocean, the rich would pay no taxes at all, and America would be a glorious white nation.
A man can dream. |
26th April 2017, 07:47 AM | #36 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
26th April 2017, 07:48 AM | #37 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
26th April 2017, 07:50 AM | #38 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
|
|
26th April 2017, 07:53 AM | #39 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
|
Right!
Quote:
|
26th April 2017, 07:53 AM | #40 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|