RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Court says Trump allowed to withhold money from sanctuary cities and s - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Court says Trump allowed to withhold money from sanctuary cities and s Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   MTP Reggie 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 37,707
  • Joined: 13-January 04

Posted 27 February 2020 - 07:26 AM

Court says Trump allowed to withhold money from sanctuary cities and states
FEBRUARY 26, 2020
LAURA WIDENER
American Military News

<More Here>

A federal court ruled in favor of the Trump administration on Wednesday to withhold federal grants to states who vowed not to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan's decision overturned a previous decision by a lower court which has forced the Trump administration to release the federal grants to New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia and Rhode Island, as well as New York City.

The lower court had decided that 8 U.S.C. § 1373 was unconstitutional. That specific law requires communication between federal, state, and local law enforcement or government agencies and ICE regarding citizenship or immigration information on all individuals in the U.S.

However, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law "does not violate the anticommandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment as applied here to a federal funding requirement."

New York City and the seven states had sued the U.S. Department of Justice in 2017 after the department decided in 2017 that it would be withholding the grant money from states and localities refusing to provide ICE notice regarding illegal immigrants' impending release from jails, as well as access to those jails.

The court determined that the Department of Homeland Security's responsibilities of controlling illegal immigration were impeded by the states' lack of compliance with U.S. immigration law.

(snip)

<More Here>
0

#2 User is offline   Taggart Transcontinental 

  • <no title>
  • View gallery
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 28,950
  • Joined: 22-October 03

Posted 27 February 2020 - 07:42 AM

WOW! Now there is a shocker! You mean the Federal Government can withhold funds if the state isn't doing what it's supposed to do in accordance with the requirements of that grant? What a shocking development. I guess DJT is really President as opposed to being 1/2 POTUS.
0

#3 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,037
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 27 February 2020 - 08:10 AM

:clap:

Hope Chicago and San Fransicko enjoy their comeuppance.
0

#4 User is offline   Natural Selection 

  • Decrypt the truth
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 19,439
  • Joined: 31-December 03

Posted 27 February 2020 - 09:11 AM

Let me check...Nope, I'm still not tired of winning. :D
0

#5 User is online   NH Populist 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 2,149
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 27 February 2020 - 09:30 AM

Makes perfect sense to me, taxpayers shouldn't be forced to support sanctuaries for law breakers. It's a no-brainer unless you're for open borders..
0

#6 User is offline   erp 

  • Undead Undead Undead
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 39,112
  • Joined: 29-November 03

Posted 27 February 2020 - 09:58 AM

So will they take this to the Supreme Court?

Oh yeah, and hehehehehehehehehehehehehehe....
0

#7 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,037
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 27 February 2020 - 10:04 AM

View PostNatural Selection, on 27 February 2020 - 09:11 AM, said:

Let me check...Nope, I'm still not tired of winning. :D


:exactly:

View PostNH Populist, on 27 February 2020 - 09:30 AM, said:

Makes perfect sense to me, taxpayers shouldn't be forced to support sanctuaries for law breakers. It's a no-brainer unless you're for open borders..


:exactly:
0

#8 User is offline   AntiObama 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 4,812
  • Joined: 07-April 09

Posted 27 February 2020 - 10:23 AM

Yeah, but will Pelosi try to impeach President Trump over this? :coffeenpc:
0

#9 User is offline   Kilmerfan 

  • Ah hell I still like Mel.
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 26,078
  • Joined: 29-May 03

Posted 27 February 2020 - 11:07 AM

Good
0

#10 User is offline   Magic Rat 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Bronze
  • Posts: 7,342
  • Joined: 12-April 04

Posted 27 February 2020 - 12:56 PM

Good news. Let's see if it actually happens.
0

#11 User is offline   helton 

  • Blueberries good, liberals bad!
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 470
  • Joined: 02-September 03

Posted 27 February 2020 - 01:26 PM

It's really embarrassing at times like these to listen to my idiotic Mayor Dope from Park Slope trying to justify why protecting illegal aliens is the right thing to do.

“President Trump’s latest retaliation against his hometown takes away security funding from the number one terrorist target in America,” Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City said in a statement, “all because we refuse to play by his arbitrary rules.” Arbitrary rules? Like not allowing illegal aliens to remain in the country?

Gurbir S. Grewal, the attorney general of New Jersey, said he was “disappointed by the ruling” and he, too, indicated that the fight was not over.

“It’s unfortunate that the federal government has decided to weaponize the federal grant funding process in order to carry out the president’s anti-immigrant illegal immigrant agenda,” Mr. Grewal said, “but I’m confident that we will ultimately prevail in the courts.”

In a statement, Steven Choi, the executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, said, “Today’s ruling essentially sanctions the federal administration’s extortion of cities who have enacted policies to ensure local control of law enforcement dollars and protect immigrant communities.” I think he meant to say protect illegal immigrant communities.

https://www.nytimes....es-funding.html
0

#12 User is offline   USNJIMRET 

  • Rule 1:The Chief is right Rule 2:If in doubt, check Rule 1
  • View blog
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 20,409
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 27 February 2020 - 01:58 PM

Quote

In a statement, Steven Choi, the executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, said, "Today's ruling essentially sanctions the federal administration's extortion of cities who have enacted policies to ensure local control of law enforcement dollars and protect immigrant communities."

Hey dude, here's a thought....if you want "local control of law enforcement dollars", use locally sourced law enforcement dollars ONLY!
I, for one, am tired of seeing that every taxpayer in America is helping fund criminal enterprises like "sanctuary cities".

0

#13 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,699
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 27 February 2020 - 02:31 PM

https://www.theatlan...hostage/454167/

Drinking Age

Most famously, the Highway Trust Fund was used in 1984 to get states to comply with the new national drinking age of 21. States that did not comply with the Reagan administration's drinking-age law would see 10 percent of their federal highway funds — in some states, several million dollars — cut. All of the states eventually complied, and the U.S. continues to have the highest drinking age in the world.

Speed Limits

In 1974, in the midst of the Arab oil embargo, President Nixon and Congress set the national speed limit at a sauntering 55 miles per hour, in order to ease the demand for gasoline, and tied states' compliance to highway funding. Consequently, according to a paper in the American Journal of Public Health, "road fatalities declined 16.4%, from 54,052 in 1973 to 45,196 in 1974."

Motorcycle Helmets

In 1975, the government leveraged the Highway Trust Fund to mandate that motorcyclists wear helmets. Motorcyclists were not pleased.

"It should be clearly noted that the issue is not whether helmets are good or bad, nor has it ever been," Eugene Wirwahn, a lobbyist for the American Motorcyclist Association, said at the time. "The key point is whether a governmental bureaucracy has the right to use fiscal blackmail to force the mandatory use of helmets."

Congress flip-flopped on the helmet law — striking down the 1975 law, then reinstating it in 1991. Finally, Clinton signed a law in 1995 that both eliminated the 55 mph speed limit and the helmet rule. Today, three states — Illinois, Iowa, and New Hampshire — still have no requirements that motorcyclists wear helmets.

Texting While Driving

In 2009, Sen. Chuck Schumer sought to force states to outlaw texting while driving by making the measures a prerequisite for highway funding. The measure failed, but it would have reduced states' highway budget by 25 percent if they did not comply.

Withholding highway funding may not be the sexiest form of political manipulation. You probably won't see Frank Underwood screaming about pavement subsidies in a House of Cards episode anytime soon. But as a way for Congress to legally circumnavigate the Constitution to get its way, it's as crafty as they come.


So yeah, there is precedence.
0

#14 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 30,630
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 27 February 2020 - 02:36 PM

View PostBubbajoebob, on 27 February 2020 - 02:21 PM, said:

States trade away their "state rights" when they accept money from the federal government. If a state doesn't like the conditions that come with the money (taxed away from people throughout the country, not just that state) then they can refuse the money. Most federal funds given to states aren't justified by the constitution anyway.

Yup. Here’s a succinct message that even fk heads may understand: “If SF wants to keep their illegals, SF can pay for their illegals.”
0

#15 User is offline   Ticked@TinselTown 

  • Unimpressed with Celebutards since Always
  • View blog
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 29,751
  • Joined: 01-April 03

Posted 27 February 2020 - 02:44 PM

:party: :party: :party:

It astonishes me when common sense is displayed by the courts these days...
0

#16 User is online   NH Populist 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 2,149
  • Joined: 30-April 18

Posted 27 February 2020 - 03:46 PM

Which probably explains why Lefties don't have an American flag on display at their debates, why would you display the symbol of the country you're trying to dismantle?!

This post has been edited by NH Populist: 27 February 2020 - 03:48 PM

0

#17 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,037
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 27 February 2020 - 06:29 PM

View PostNH Populist, on 27 February 2020 - 03:46 PM, said:

Which probably explains why Lefties don't have an American flag on display at their debates, why would you display the symbol of the country you're trying to dismantle?!


:exactly:
0

#18 User is offline   oki 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 26,699
  • Joined: 14-October 04

Posted 28 February 2020 - 10:43 AM

View PostNH Populist, on 27 February 2020 - 03:46 PM, said:

Which probably explains why Lefties don't have an American flag on display at their debates, why would you display the symbol of the country you're trying to dismantle?!


No kidding.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users