Justice Department to withhold grants from sanctuary cities

[Ronnie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ag-jeff-sessions-takes-aim-sanctuary-cities-doj/story?id=46404503

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

They've been warned before.  Put up or don't put your hand out.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Got to love those small gov conservatives/s

[Dr. Arch]

If these cities stopped paying taxes, would that be okay then?

[publicunofficial]

States rights! Unless the states are run by liberals!

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I wonder if it's ever crossed his or his nominal boss' minds that telling the people who are the source of your tax money that you won't be giving any of it back has a built-in problem that appears once you escalate enough.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I wonder if it's ever crossed his or his nominal boss' minds that telling the people who are the source of your tax money that you won't be giving any of it back has a built-in problem that appears once you escalate enough.

"Who knew healthcare could be so complicated?" Answers your question

[Dereich]

If the amount of money being withheld is significant enough to force cities to comply this will have to be overturned under the Dole test. To me this looks like the government setting up another case its likely to lose.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Asking cities to comply with laws on the books is so radical. 

[Dereich]

Asking cities to comply with laws on the books is so radical. 

Well yes, the Federal government forcing states to spend local money and resources enforcing a fiat from Washington IS radical. If we believe in any individual state sovereignty at all, allowing the Federal government to co-opt officials hired and directed by the states and forcing them to enforce some other authority's laws is the end of that sovereignty. I assume there would be more of an outcry if the Feds decided to order local police departments in Colorado to enforce Federal drug law, but the issue is exactly the same.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Asking cities to comply with laws on the books is so radical. 

Well yes, the Federal government forcing states to spend local money and resources enforcing a fiat from Washington IS radical. If we believe in any individual state sovereignty at all, allowing the Federal government to co-opt officials hired and directed by the states and forcing them to enforce some other authority's laws is the end of that sovereignty. I assume there would be more of an outcry if the Feds decided to order local police departments in Colorado to enforce Federal drug law, but the issue is exactly the same.

^This^

[Famous Mortimer]

Asking cities to comply with laws on the books is so radical. 

Well yes, the Federal government forcing states to spend local money and resources enforcing a fiat from Washington IS radical. If we believe in any individual state sovereignty at all, allowing the Federal government to co-opt officials hired and directed by the states and forcing them to enforce some other authority's laws is the end of that sovereignty. I assume there would be more of an outcry if the Feds decided to order local police departments in Colorado to enforce Federal drug law, but the issue is exactly the same.

States' rights, the last refuge of someone who can't get their policies enacted on a national level.

[Dereich]

Asking cities to comply with laws on the books is so radical. 

Well yes, the Federal government forcing states to spend local money and resources enforcing a fiat from Washington IS radical. If we believe in any individual state sovereignty at all, allowing the Federal government to co-opt officials hired and directed by the states and forcing them to enforce some other authority's laws is the end of that sovereignty. I assume there would be more of an outcry if the Feds decided to order local police departments in Colorado to enforce Federal drug law, but the issue is exactly the same.

States' rights, the last refuge of someone who can't get their policies enacted on a national level.

Not really? State sovereignty has allowed plenty of policies to be tested and improved before the political will to implement them existed on the national level. Women's suffrage, worker's rights, and abolitionism all started as state level policies and grew from there. I'm not sure if its what you specifically are doing, but attacking state's rights because they interferes with one immediate federal policy is a pretty short-sighted way of thinking. I much prefer the potential diversity of political action that the federal system allows.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Asking cities to comply with laws on the books is so radical.  

They're demanding cities to comply with laws that cities have never had any jurisdictional expectation of enforcing. It's not the city's job to dip into its own pocketbook and reallocate funds earmarked for local level expenditures and shift them towards enforcing federal laws instead. Cities have no duty to transform themselves into the outsourced labor bin for what should be the federal government's job.

[I Won - Get Over It]

Asking cities to comply with laws on the books is so radical. 

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I wonder if it's ever crossed his or his nominal boss' minds that telling the people who are the source of your tax money that you won't be giving any of it back has a built-in problem that appears once you escalate enough.

"Who knew healthcare could be so complicated?" Answers your question

I can see it now. "Who knew all those pesky liberal-leaning cities produced so much and paid so many taxes?"

Which would probably mutate into "urban liberals were hiding their wealth" within a couple of Trumpcycles.  (A Trumpcycle being the time it takes a Redhat cultist to reject reality and adopt a substitute from the gilt messiah or the other cult leaders.)

[DavidB.]

I typically hate the term 'common sense policy' but I don't think it has ever made sense for cities to blatantly break federal law and expect to receive funding regardless. Good move by the administration. Sanctuary cities are wrong.

[I Won - Get Over It]

I can't see Trump lose here.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[SteveRogers]

Asking cities to comply with laws on the books is so radical. 

These cities aren't violating any laws on the books.

[Dereich]

I typically hate the term 'common sense policy' but I don't think it has ever made sense for cities to blatantly break federal law and expect to receive funding regardless. Good move by the administration. Sanctuary cities are wrong.

It's not an issue of "breaking the law"; the federal government doesn't have the authority to make the local administrations act. Its an issue of cooperation: ICE conducts its Federal immigration duties separately and states/cities choose to spend their time and money helping ICE or not. Sanctuary cities can't stop the federal government from acting within their limits, but they can choose the extent of cooperation they want their own agencies to have with federal authorities.

And the popularity of the move is kind of beside the point; if its unconstitutional it doesn't matter how popular it is, the courts are going to strike it down.

[SteveRogers]

I typically hate the term 'common sense policy' but I don't think it has ever made sense for cities to blatantly break federal law and expect to receive funding regardless. Good move by the administration. Sanctuary cities are wrong.

They aren't breaking any federal law.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

There's a difference between refusing to aid ICE and actively sabotaging. What several cities are doing under far-left leaders crosses the line into the latter. That's not states' rights, that's nullification.

[SteveRogers]

There's a difference between refusing to aid ICE and actively sabotaging. What several cities are doing under far-left leaders crosses the line into the latter. That's not states' rights, that's nullification.

Examples?

[KingSweden]

The weird obsession with "sanctuary cities" on both sides is kind of ridiculous. Police forces exist to enforce local ordinances. ICE exists to enforce immigration law. Nobody can prevent ICE from arresting or investigating suspected undocumented residents. Nobody is breaking any federal laws here, and the talking point that they are is silly and, frankly, just pandering to the immigration restriction right.

THAT SAID, the championing of "sanctuary" status by progressives rankles me too, though not nearly as much. ICE doesn't care if your city is "compassionate" and "welcoming" and neither will anyone who has their door kicked in and gets deported. It's a silly marketing gimmick to promote their progressive bonafides when all it really means is the police are encouraged to focus on what they should be focusing on regardless

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

There's a difference between refusing to aid ICE and actively sabotaging. What several cities are doing under far-left leaders crosses the line into the latter. That's not states' rights, that's nullification.

Examples?

Bill De Blasio refusing to honor warrants from ICE for known gang criminals and choosing to release them into the general public rather than ICE custody.