I was agreeing with you, [penis]. Let me break it down, because I guess I'm going to have to start: "cotton, I agree with what you are asking. Does he have the power to do so? My oppinion, however, is If so, we may as well crown any President, as that is far too much power."
The people already here disagreed. Laws are made and interpreted by the powerful. Don't kid yourself about it being anything more than that
I jumped the gun and answered too harshly. Apologies. I understood what you were saying, but it didn't help answer the question I was trying to ask. I don't think insisting on the enforcement of Congressional laws is kinglike; it is a responsibility of the executive branch. I think issuing executive orders that create new legislation, then enforcing them by cutting off funds to cities is troubling and more Monarchical. I'm not sure where this falls, which is what I was asking, as I'm not quite as up to speed on my ConLaw III or AP Social Studies as I should be.
But it has become harder and harder to legally immigrate to the USA. In the 19th century, you basically got on a steamer and got off the boat. Ellis Island was then opened up, and even then, you just showed up, show you had 20 bucks and entered the country. Some were turned away, but for health reasons. And I understand the reasoning for changing laws and making it harder to immigrate. But much like why cocaine keeps getting into the country, our taste for cheap labor is why they keep coming here. Fix that issue, and the illegal immigration problem probably goes away.
When Obama did it, it was tyranny. If Trump does it, it'll be tyranny. The rule of law is not the foundation of this nation. The separation of powers when enforcing law IS the foundation of this nation. If the President can force lesser government offices to fall in line, at a whim, then the separation of power has broken down, and it doesn't matter what law it is being enforced. If you want this to come to pass, put it through Congress, and have it survive a challenge through the courts. Because that's how this is supposed to work.
I certainly agree with this. What do you do when and if cities, or states, refuse to comply with these laws?
No apology necessary, ever. I fully agree. Do it the right way. Going through Congress, having it stand up in the courts, that's how we're built. Sign of the pen in the oval office. That's tyranny. In my opinion. I don't know which way it goes. I'm just laying out the way that garners my support, vs the way that I would oppose.
I would hope that the law that went through Congress would have the penalties spelled out. In which case, you do those things. If one of those penalties is the loss of funding, then you pull funding.
Didn't the Supreme Court state that the Federal Government could not pass legislation and then expect the states to pay for it? Would that not apply here? And I am completely out of my element in this portion of Constitutional Law.
For the "rule of law is foundation of this nation" people, for the sake of discussion, give thoughts on England stating, by law, that the colonies had no representation in Parliament. Because it seems that if the rule of law were the foundation, we'd still be English. But we aren't, because we fought a war over how, and by whom, laws are shaped.
I don't know how close pertains to the question of cities vs the Feds, but here's you a story. And this story probably takes place before most of you were aware of your surroundings. Back in the late 70s, the Dept of the Interior and the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) began to regulate the mining industry. Evidently they were not impressed with the job the State Inspectors were doing. The OSM had all kinds of rules and regulations and they aimed to enforce them. Most of the men who were in the surface mining industry vigorously objected to these rules and regulations and choose to ignore them. Sometimes they blocked their roads with cables or gates, or sometimes cut the roads in two or anything else to deter the OSM people from gaining access to their property. If you were unhappy with their rulings, you could ask for an On Site Hearing. Of course, the OSM person who wrote up the violation rode in with the other OSM person who would arbitrate the hearing. I think the OSM was undefeated in On Site Hearings. The OSM responded by renting Helicopters and flying to the mining site. Things got intense in a hurry. Soon the helicopters were loaded with Nation Guard and/or Federal Marshall armed with automatic weapons. Somehow the miners could get warning of when the OSM was coming. Once they flew in with several such helicopters and there was a crowd of people there to watch. It went fine until the man who owned the mining operation drew his pistol. I got outta Dodge. His brother was close to him and pushed the gun down. I believe that if he had fired, there would have been a bunch of people killed that day, and none of them would have been with the Feds. In just a short span of time, surface mining disappeared. The miners were trying to stay in business and at the same time paying taxes that were used to fund the OSM. You can't win. And you never see any OSM people again. Since the accomplished their objective of destroying the small coal miner, that department may have been discontinued.
This. But they could also be asked to detain the suspect for ICE to retrieve, and which they would then be subject to deportation once handed over. That's where a lot of the rub is coming in, in the city / states refusal to detain, and not so much in seeking out who is illegal.
Not speaking to the tactics used, but if the coal was sold across state lines, that gives the feds the right to regulate per the Constitution and regulation of interstate commerce.
I am all for having the local governments alert the ICE if they catch someone for a crime, arrest them and then find out that they are here illegally.
OSM is now OSMRE. They are also in charge of reclaiming abandoned surface mines. Those miners would make their money and peace out, costing downstream people and the taxpayer. The taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for private enterprise **** ups. Neighbors shouldn't be stuck with acid drainage and sediment they had nothing to do with. Coal is inferior to natural gas in every way, that's why you don't see many surface coal mines.
I'm not sure that cities and states would prefer the alternative, which would be a full-blown federal police force. Of course, it bears gentle reminding that all federal funds come with numerous strings attached, and which require the receiving entity (local municipalities, cities, states) to agree to before receiving or continung to receive the money, and well beyond issues related to immigration, but infrastructure, eduation, transportation, etc. When local schools get a grant from the Feds, it's to do A, B & C. Now they may not want to do A, B & C, or believe that these are functions of the Feds and/or best left to them, and which is perfectly fine for them to say / do....they just won't get the money. The problem that Sanctuary Cities are about to be confronted with is that they can't continue to have it both ways - they can't refuse the requirements of the money, and still get the money.
Something else to think about is the inevitable compounding effect that is likely to occur, and which will only further strain and exacerbate those cities who hold out longer than others. If you have 4 cities with 100k illegals in each, and two stop being Sanctuary Cities, then the 200k illegals (100k from each) will almost certainly flee to the other remaining two, leaving them with double the amount as before. In areas where there are several Sanctuary Cities in close proximity to one another, the effect could be even more immediate and profound. So no funding + higher taxes + less services + even higher populations of illegals = an increasingly untenable situation
The Feds pay states with their own money. Well, mostly California's money. But that's the compact. That the Fed will do what is right by way of forming laws through Congress that apply to states, not have it done from the oval office, and be punished by not getting their tax money back, after having questioned the autocrat in the oval office. The President-elect has Congress, SCOTUS and nearly every state in the union. There is no need to wield executive power, if there is truly no need to wield executive power.
There's an amicable "out" for both Trump and the cities, and which could allow everyone to win, while also greatly boosting Trump's statesmanship and goodwill. From what I've read, most Sanctuary Cities have little problem in detaining illegals who have committed a crime or serious offense - so focus on that, and only require that cities detain and turn over those accused of a crime. Now, you'll play some hell on defining and gaining a consensus on what constitutes a "crime" or a "serious crime", but I think you can get that done. For the cities, it's not ideal to negotiate beneath the sword of Damacles....but it's a helluva lot better than having it rammed through your gut, and then they do whatever they wanted, or worse, anyway.
