Correct me if I wrong, but I recall Obama suing the state of Arizona because the state passed a law allowing law enforcement to ask for papers if they believed and individual was in the US illegally. The Obama administration argued that immigration was a federal issue and Arizona had no right to ask illegals for their papers. Great, then how do these assholes declare themselves Sanctuary Cities if immigration is dealt with at the Federal level? Its simple, Obama and all the left wing mayors who are pulling this stunt are completely full of shit. Trump better deal with these assholes swiftly.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Whats the Deal with Sanctuary cities?
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
NO NO NO, The law violated every original intent. They were to be allowed to ask anybody for their papers. It said anybody suspicious, but what does that mean, a Mexican who hasn't yet switched to baseball cap?Correct me if I wrong, but I recall Obama suing the state of Arizona because the state passed a law allowing law enforcement to ask for papers if they believed and individual was in the US illegally. The Obama administration argued that immigration was a federal issue and Arizona had no right to ask illegals for their papers. Great, then how do these assholes declare themselves Sanctuary Cities if immigration is dealt with at the Federal level? Its simple, Obama and all the left wing mayors who are pulling this stunt are completely full of shit. Trump better deal with these assholes swiftly.
Not marijuana.Easiest way to fix is to say you violate federal law, you lose all federal aid. That's basically what they do with programs like HUD and Dept of Education. Comply or die.
Not marijuana.
One issue is that under federal guidelines you only lose funds related to the particular "department" the city violated. For example, violate housing rules you lose HUD funds. Violate Education guidelines then you lose school funds. By law there is no cross-over. For example if you violate housing rules then you do not lose education funds.
This means that if you violated immigration law as a city then you are only going to lose funds related to immigration enforcement (which is minimal). The city will not lose federal funds for education, roads, housing, etc. -- maybe it is time to change these rules, but it is unlikely.
Secure the border then work on immigration reform? also not likely. The border will never be secure until it makes more sense to enter legally. I'm an open border libertarian.One issue is that under federal guidelines you only lose funds related to the particular "department" the city violated. For example, violate housing rules you lose HUD funds. Violate Education guidelines then you lose school funds. By law there is no cross-over. For example if you violate housing rules then you do not lose education funds.
This means that if you violated immigration law as a city then you are only going to lose funds related to immigration enforcement (which is minimal). The city will not lose federal funds for education, roads, housing, etc. -- maybe it is time to change these rules, but it is unlikely.