Are "Sanctuary cities" constitutional?

[MaryL]

I despise partisanship. Anyway...

Detainers

These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. the community.

In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.

Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.

I agree with you. Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here. 1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.

So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............

I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL

That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.

Thank you, but I can forgive illegal undocumented immigrant aliens to certain degree. But its our so called "elected officials" that create artificial refuges for criminals without consent of the electorate and to our collective detriment that I can't forgive. They have betrayed us, and betrayed American principles.

 

[eagle1462010]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

To sum it up.............the 9th Circus court upheld........imagine that.........Liberals Favorite shopping center for Liberal Judges..............and now through appeals.............it is heading the Supreme Court to determine if these 3 laws are Constitutional..............The 9th has a bad habbit of being overturned.........

United States v. California

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/2019/10/25/california.pet_.10.22.19.pdf
STATEMENT In 2017, California enacted multiple statutes that have the purpose and effect of obstructing federal immigration enforcement. See App., infra, 2a, 34a, 39a. The United States filed suit to enjoin portions of three statutes as preempted by federal law and barred by the United States’ intergovernmental immunity. Id. at 2a. The district court and the court of appeals held that certain provisions of two of those statutes were likely invalid. Id. at 16a-30a, 60a-78a. At issue in this petition for a writ of certiorari is the court of appeals’ affirmance of the district court’s decision not to enjoin the challenged provisions of the third statute: Senate Bill No. 54 (SB 54). Id. at 30a-40a.

 

[eagle1462010]

Detainers

These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. When LEAs fail to honor immigration detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.

ICE continues to collaborate with all law enforcement agencies to help ensure that aliens who may pose a threat to our communities are not released onto the streets to potentially reoffend and harm individuals living within our communities. However, in some cases, state or local laws, ordinances or policies restrict or prohibit cooperation with ICE. In other cases, jurisdictions choose to willfully decline ICE detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens back into the community.

In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.

They don't have that kind of manpower and you know it.

They issue Detainer orders for people they are looking for..............for a number of reasons...........One of the main ones being .................THEY MISSED ASYLUM COURT............which is VERY COMMON......imagine that.

The Detainer order is always an Order for someone who is breaking our nations laws.......and California is pissing on Federal Law with the 3 laws they passed AGAINST ICE.

This is BS and you know it.

The feds lack of manpower is not the city's problem

Your problem is an upcoming Supreme Court Ruling that may force you to comply with Federal Law which superceeds State Law.

All 3 California Laws are going to the Supreme Court of the United States.......and this Constitutional question of this thread will be answered there...........

I have provided the case number and the arguments against the Constitution by the DOJ who filed the case on October 22............of this year.

 

[eagle1462010]

Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.

I agree with you. Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here. 1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.

So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............

I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL

That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.

Call it insane, if you like, but the citizens of California seem to like it, because if they did not, they would vote for somebody else, and they do have the right to elect their own state lawgivers.

They have the right to elect whomever they please............but they do not have the right to OBSTRUCT Federal Law Enforcement Agencies...........Which these laws do............Not only that........Employers under the laws passed by Reagan require them to be Legal to work here. If they are illegal and it is known........those employers can be FINED under that law for doing so............

Ordering Employers to notify illegals with Detainer orders from ICE is a violation of Federal Law passed under Reagan...............and the employer under that law is subject to FINES for even hiring them.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when weave a web of deceit......

It is going to the Supreme Court.

 

[eagle1462010]

I have provided the court case and summaries on whether Sanctuary Laws are Unconstitutional..........It is in the DOJ case to the Supreme Court.

 

[MaryL]

We are united by laws. We are united under laws.My brain boggles at how certain states think that it's justified defying federal law(s) without actually trying to change them first. And without consent or informing the local populace to begin with, that's wrong on so many levels. Nobody is above the laws. State or federal.

 

[Natural Citizen]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

Sanctuary Cities - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Snip...

Enter the sanctuary cities. These are places where there are large immigrant populations, among which many are undocumented, yet where there is apparently not a little public sentiment and local governmental support for sheltering the undocumented from federal reach. Trump has argued that these cities are required to comply with federal law by actively assisting the feds — or at least not aggressively resisting them.

Thus the question: Are state and local governments required to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word: No.

The term “sanctuary cities” is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them — including the case of Chicago’s offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation. As unwise as these expenditures may be by cities that are essentially bankrupt and rely on federal largesse in order to remain in the black, they are not unlawful. Cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, taking into account the local political climate.

Enter the Supreme Court. It has required the states — and thus the municipalities in them — to make social services available to everyone resident within them, irrespective of citizenry or lawful or unlawful immigration status. This is so because the constitutional command to the states of equal protection applies to all persons, not just to citizens. So the states and municipalities may not deny basic social services to anyone based on nationality or immigration status.

The high court has also prohibited the federal government from “commandeering” the states by forcing them to work for the feds at their own expense by actively enforcing federal law. As Ronald Reagan reminded us in his first inaugural address, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. They did so by ceding 16 discrete powers to the federal government and retaining to themselves all powers not ceded.

If this constitutional truism were not recognized or enforced by the courts, the federal government could effectively eradicate the sovereignty of the states or even bankrupt them by forcing them to spend their tax dollars enforcing federal law or paying for federal programs.

Thus the Trump dilemma. He must follow the Constitution, or the courts will enjoin him as they have his predecessor.

 

[eagle1462010]

PRESIDENT SIGNS LANDMARK BILL ON IMMIGRATION

The author of this section, Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in an interview that Mr. Reagan's interpretation was ''intellectually dishonest, mean-spirited'' and incorrect. ''A pattern or practice of discriminatory activity would violate the law even if you cannot prove an intent to discriminate,'' Mr. Frank said. Under the new law, employers who hire illegal aliens will be subject to civil penalties of $250 to $10,000 for each such alien. Mr. Reagan described this provision as ''the keystone'' of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. ''It will remove the incentive for illegal immigration by eliminating the job opportunities which draw illegal aliens here,'' he said.

 

[MaryL]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

Sanctuary Cities - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Snip...

Enter the sanctuary cities. These are places where there are large immigrant populations, among which many are undocumented, yet where there is apparently not a little public sentiment and local governmental support for sheltering the undocumented from federal reach. Trump has argued that these cities are required to comply with federal law by actively assisting the feds — or at least not aggressively resisting them.

Thus the question: Are state and local governments required to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word: No.

The term “sanctuary cities” is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them — including the case of Chicago’s offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation. As unwise as these expenditures may be by cities that are essentially bankrupt and rely on federal largesse in order to remain in the black, they are not unlawful. Cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, taking into account the local political climate.

Enter the Supreme Court. It has required the states — and thus the municipalities in them — to make social services available to everyone resident within them, irrespective of citizenry or lawful or unlawful immigration status. This is so because the constitutional command to the states of equal protection applies to all persons, not just to citizens. So the states and municipalities may not deny basic social services to anyone based on nationality or immigration status.

The high court has also prohibited the federal government from “commandeering” the states by forcing them to work for the feds at their own expense by actively enforcing federal law. As Ronald Reagan reminded us in his first inaugural address, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. They did so by ceding 16 discrete powers to the federal government and retaining to themselves all powers not ceded.

If this constitutional truism were not recognized or enforced by the courts, the federal government could effectively eradicate the sovereignty of the states or even bankrupt them by forcing them to spend their tax dollars enforcing federal law or paying for federal programs.

Thus the Trump dilemma. He must follow the Constitution, or the courts will enjoin him as they have his predecessor.

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

Sanctuary Cities - LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Snip...

Enter the sanctuary cities. These are places where there are large immigrant populations, among which many are undocumented, yet where there is apparently not a little public sentiment and local governmental support for sheltering the undocumented from federal reach. Trump has argued that these cities are required to comply with federal law by actively assisting the feds — or at least not aggressively resisting them.

Thus the question: Are state and local governments required to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word: No.

The term “sanctuary cities” is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them — including the case of Chicago’s offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation. As unwise as these expenditures may be by cities that are essentially bankrupt and rely on federal largesse in order to remain in the black, they are not unlawful. Cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, taking into account the local political climate.

Enter the Supreme Court. It has required the states — and thus the municipalities in them — to make social services available to everyone resident within them, irrespective of citizenry or lawful or unlawful immigration status. This is so because the constitutional command to the states of equal protection applies to all persons, not just to citizens. So the states and municipalities may not deny basic social services to anyone based on nationality or immigration status.

The high court has also prohibited the federal government from “commandeering” the states by forcing them to work for the feds at their own expense by actively enforcing federal law. As Ronald Reagan reminded us in his first inaugural address, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. They did so by ceding 16 discrete powers to the federal government and retaining to themselves all powers not ceded.

If this constitutional truism were not recognized or enforced by the courts, the federal government could effectively eradicate the sovereignty of the states or even bankrupt them by forcing them to spend their tax dollars enforcing federal law or paying for federal programs.

Thus the Trump dilemma. He must follow the Constitution, or the courts will enjoin him as they have his predecessor.

Ah yes, Reagan and his infamous immigration policies. But this still begs the question, can local politicians create such far reaching and potent policies without the consent and without notifying or involvement of the populace? People are missing that fine point...Nobody asked US, they just did it. AND that is the bigger question. And it had a huge detrimental effect to many of us.

 

[eagle1462010]

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article233009382.html

U.S. immigration authorities have begun targeting businesses nationwide that offer work to undocumented immigrants in what they are calling “worksite enforcement surges” and will pursue criminal charges where warranted, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Tuesday.

Immigration officials so far have served 3,282 businesses with notices of inspection between July 15 and July 19, warning them that their records will be audited. Officials said notices won’t stop there and will continue to be rolled out across the 50 states and Puerto Rico.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ah yes, Reagan and his infamous immigration policies. But this still begs the question, can local politicians create such far reaching and potent policies without the consent and without notifying or involvement of the populace? People are missing that fine point...Nobody asked US, they just did it. AND that is the bigger question. And it had a huge detrimental effect to many of us.

Basically the SCOTUS forced them to provide expanded social services to all people in these places regardless of nationality or citizenship.

Another reason to abolish the SCOTUS and put the power back into the hands of the state justice departments.

 

[eagle1462010]

Ah yes, Reagan and his infamous immigration policies

Everyone tries to slam Reagan for that law....................but it was not supposed to cause illegals to set up a network of getting Illegal I.D.s and SSN's, which are in FACT A CRIME in itself................To skirt the Reagan law.........as I've already said........they set up a network across the country to just change their names and get fake SSN's.....

I have shown in this thread where the IRS and SSN offices OPENLY ADMIT this is going on.

I showed a video where a raid deported 393 illegals at one work place.......if you watched some of that video........it stated Clearly...........Those caught there had 2 OPTIONS...........Agree to Immediate Deportation or be Charged with a Crime for fake I.D.s...........Which is not only a crime here but all over the world.

And now...........as I'm seeing........ICE is going after businesses.................over 3000 of them as I just showed.

In regards to elected officials passing laws for Sanctuary.............the people of that state ELECT these people........and they determine the laws of that State.......or city...........who are doing these things.......So they need to be voted out.

 

[MaryL]

My biggest problem is we have "representatives" in office that act superstitiously to aid those violating valid laws without our consent that does harm to us. Trump's impeachment is hanging on far lesser offenses, so think that over.

 

[eagle1462010]

Ah yes, Reagan and his infamous immigration policies. But this still begs the question, can local politicians create such far reaching and potent policies without the consent and without notifying or involvement of the populace? People are missing that fine point...Nobody asked US, they just did it. AND that is the bigger question. And it had a huge detrimental effect to many of us.

Basically the SCOTUS forced them to provide expanded social services to all people in these places regardless of nationality or citizenship.

Another reason to abolish the SCOTUS and put the power back into the hands of the state justice departments.

You must be talking about Flores and the loop hole there.......and the Federal Rulings of how they must be detained.............More loop holes.........forcing Illegals to be set free.............

ABOLISH SCOTUS..........which is a check on the powers of the other 2 branches..........LOL.......you have got to be kidding me.......

Do that and the leftist will run rampant in any state with the 9th Circuit court on steroids.

 

[eagle1462010]

My biggest problem is we have "representatives" in office that act superstitiously to aid those violating valid laws without our consent that does harm to us. Trump's impeachment is hanging on far lesser offenses, so think that over.

Which requires people there to vote them out of office...............We have a corrupt gov't .....and that is why the immigration policies aren't fixed.....................

They serve the money masters.........who donate to them.........The Chamber of Commerce wants cheap labor and they pay off politicians to make sure they do their bidding both sides...........Which is why this problem isn't fixed........

They don't care if illegals get in because they want to make more money by using them.......so they violate the laws of this country and don't care.

 

[eagle1462010]

FYI Flores.

Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)

 

[Natural Citizen]

You must be talking about Flores and the loop hole there.......and the Federal Rulings of how they must be detained.............More loop holes.........forcing Illegals to be set free.............

ABOLISH SCOTUS..........which is a check on the powers of the other 2 branches..........LOL.......you have got to be kidding me.......

Do that and the leftist will run rampant in any state with the 9th Circuit court on steroids.

Congress has basically been derelict of its duty for some time. All it does is pass off its responsibility to the SCOTUS.

I'm talking about the fact that judicial review doesn't exist in Article III in the first place. Yet the SCOTUS is who is saying the localities MUST grant the illegals social services. That's the only thing that makes them sanctuary cities. As was said, sanctuary cities isn't a legal term.

The only real loophole is the power of judicial review which the SCOTUS gave to itself.

 

[eagle1462010]

You must be talking about Flores and the loop hole there.......and the Federal Rulings of how they must be detained.............More loop holes.........forcing Illegals to be set free.............

ABOLISH SCOTUS..........which is a check on the powers of the other 2 branches..........LOL.......you have got to be kidding me.......

Do that and the leftist will run rampant in any state with the 9th Circuit court on steroids.

Congress has basically been derelict of its duty for some time. All it does do is pass of its responsibility to the SCOTUS.

I'm talking about the fact that judicial review doesn't exist in Article III in the first place. Yet the SCOTUS is who is saying the localities MUST grant the illegals social services. That's the only thing that makes them sanctuary cities. As was said, sanctuary cities isn't a legal term.

The only real loophole is the power of judicial review which the SCOTUS gave to itself.

We disagree...........That is not the only thing that makes them Sanctuary cities.........while the Sanctuary term isn't a real LEGAL TERM........they Refuse to honor Federal Laws in States and cities................

The SCOTUS cases you are referring to was cases brought to them by those appealing about conditions for illegals..............And the length of internment of children.....20 days.........

While I agree that SCOTUS and the Courts SHOULDN'T make laws via Judicial Activism.............Getting rid of SCOTUS would ONLY MAKE MATTERS WORSE................It is a check on the other branches..........that it is being misused.............we agree there.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I despise partisanship. Anyway...

Detainers

These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. the community.

In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.

Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.

I agree with you. Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here. 1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.

So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............

I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL

That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.

Thank you, but I can forgive illegal undocumented immigrant aliens to certain degree. But its our so called "elected officials" that create artificial refuges for criminals without consent of the electorate and to our collective detriment that I can't forgive. They have betrayed us, and betrayed American principles.

Personally, I would protest if my city used my city tax money to enforce federal law. I already pay federal taxes. I see no reason for my city to collect taxes from me to pay for expenses not related to my city.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Detainers

These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. When LEAs fail to honor immigration detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.

ICE continues to collaborate with all law enforcement agencies to help ensure that aliens who may pose a threat to our communities are not released onto the streets to potentially reoffend and harm individuals living within our communities. However, in some cases, state or local laws, ordinances or policies restrict or prohibit cooperation with ICE. In other cases, jurisdictions choose to willfully decline ICE detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens back into the community.

In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.

They don't have that kind of manpower and you know it.

They issue Detainer orders for people they are looking for..............for a number of reasons...........One of the main ones being .................THEY MISSED ASYLUM COURT............which is VERY COMMON......imagine that.

The Detainer order is always an Order for someone who is breaking our nations laws.......and California is pissing on Federal Law with the 3 laws they passed AGAINST ICE.

This is BS and you know it.

The feds lack of manpower is not the city's problem

Your problem is an upcoming Supreme Court Ruling that may force you to comply with Federal Law which superceeds State Law.

All 3 California Laws are going to the Supreme Court of the United States.......and this Constitutional question of this thread will be answered there...........

I have provided the case number and the arguments against the Constitution by the DOJ who filed the case on October 22............of this year.

I support constitutional law. if the Supreme Court rules that a city must enforce federal law, I will support it, but I seriously doubt if that will happen.