DOJ Sues LA Over Sanctuary Policies

Sounds a lot like lawfare to me. Aren’t you all against that I thought?

 

Sanctuary city policies have been in place since 1979. This is a jurisdiction issue and spelled out rather plainly in the Constitution. Refusing to cooperate or share information is not considered active hindrance, and state/local LEOs cannot be forced into enforcing Federal law. Just like Feds can't force their way into local law cases.

Of course, the Constitution and the 10th Amendment mean nothing to MAGA. Even though they've lost cases line these before. Like in 2018, when the Feds sued adhesive the California Values Law and lost.

 

i actually agree with a lot of what you wrote. I don’t understand what the obsession is with reforming NY, LA Boston etc. who gives a sh-t what they do. That’s up to the residents to decide

 

Except for the fact that some of those illegal people (many dangerous ones) hiding out in these sanctuary cities leave for other cities to do their dirty deeds.

This is why we have FEDERAL immigration laws... and not city or state immigration laws, and those allowed to reside there.

 

yes but we can’t be everywhere all the time. Make the cities that want the help inhospitable to those you don’t want around. There is plenty of trouble for them to get into in LA Chicago Boston,
Etc

 

Can you say "frivolous"? Unless the city is actually obstructing ICE Trump's DOJ has virtually no case. Not ratting out undocumented immigrants whose only "crime" is illegal presence in the US is not obstruction. Morally although perhaps not legally the city's practice is far less egregious than the decision of the Trump Administration's decision to waive deportation of and release an undocumented alien who is also a convicted felon to obtain his testimony in an otherwise very weak case against another immigrant whom they are targeting.

 

Like I said before, MAGA treats the Constitution the same way they treat the paper next to their respective toilets. Legal precedence and what the Constitution says is meaningless. It's their way or the highway.

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution gives the states all the power not explicitly written in the Constitution. Things like legal tender (money) and international borders (immigration) are explicitly the domain of the Feds. Just about everything else is state and local jurisdiction. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that states/locals must comply with Federal LEOs and help them enforce Federal law. Only that the states/locals cannot actively obstruct.

For the SCOTUS to overturn this legal precedent would be rewriting something in the Constitution that simply isn't there. And that's the job for Congress, not the courts. But when has that stopped MAGA from doing what it wants to do anyway?

 

Since you believe that the city was obstructing ICE please provide an example of city officials actually preventing ICE agents from apprehending undocumented immigrants. Criticism of ICE attacks and refusing to turn over undocumented immigrants who have not committed a crime to ICE is not obstruction and once again simple illegal presence in the US is not a crime, it's a civil offense.

 

Not always true.

• 8 U.S.C. § 1325: Covers improper entry by aliens, including entering at the wrong time or place, eluding inspection, and marriage fraud.
• 8 U.S.C. § 1326: Addresses re-entry after deportation without permission.

Improper Entry:
Entering the U.S. at an unauthorized time or place, or evading inspection, is a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325, punishable by civil penalties and potentially imprisonment.

Closer to home...

Florida has enacted laws impacting immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, and some of these measures have been challenged in court.

One notable law is SB 1718, which includes provisions such as:

Criminalizing transport: Making it a felony to transport undocumented individuals into Florida.

Employment verification: Requiring businesses with 25 or more employees to use the E-Verify system to check the immigration status of new hires.

Penalties for employers: Imposing penalties on employers who knowingly hire or recruit undocumented workers, and for failing to comply with E-Verify requirements.

Invalidating driver's licenses: Making certain out-of-state driver's licenses held by undocumented immigrants invalid in Florida.

Healthcare information: Requiring hospitals that accept Medicaid to inquire about patients' immigration status and report this information to the state (patients can decline to answer).

Prohibiting funding for community IDs: Preventing local governments from funding programs that issue identification cards to individuals who cannot prove lawful presence.

Other Florida Laws and Measures:

Criminal penalties: Creating new state crimes and enhancing penalties for certain actions, such as entering the state illegally.

This also includes making voting by undocumented immigrants a third-degree felony and imposing the death penalty for undocumented immigrants convicted of capital felonies.

Tuition restrictions: Potentially impacting in-state tuition eligibility for undocumented students at public colleges and universities, with reevaluation starting in July 2025.

Expanded state authority: Granting state law enforcement agencies and the state guard increased authority to enforce federal immigration laws and cooperate with federal officials.

Google Search

 

You’ve had some good things to say in this thread, which I rewarded you with some positive ratings for, but this one is off a little bit. Roe was not law because the legislative branch creates law. Roe was an erroneous judicial interpretation of a law that has thankfully been overturned.

Immigration law is not an erroneous interpretation of a law. It is THE LAW. And it needs to be followed.

 

You are correct the SCOTUS has never ruled directly on the legality of Sanctuary Cities. However, in 2021, the SCOTUS refused to hear 3 cases where lower courts ruled the Feds did not have the power to withhold funding on the basis of a city's sanctuary status. This is a de facto ruling that the SCOTUS finds sanctuary cities to be legal. If not, then why let the lower court ruling stand? Maybe because there is legal precedent that forbids the Feds from compelling states to do Federal duties, like Printz vs. the US in 1997.

Law enforcement jurisdiction is usually rather clear. The Feds cannot intervene in local issues unless the locals ask for help and the Feds agree. Or if the case becomes Federal, such as crossing state lines. At the same time, the locals cannot enforce Federal law unless there is a specific agreement between the locals and the Feds, and the Feds cannot compel locals to assist in enforcement of Federal law. And as long as the locals aren't obstructing, that is Constitutional.

 

I agree Roe was enforced as if it is the law. I will admit maybe I am nitpicking a little bit, but I like to maintain the division between the legislative branch and the judicial branch because the left has been trying to use the judicial branch for legislative purposes for well over 50 years now. It is an important distinction to make in our modern context because absolute truth still exists in the world despite the protestations of post-modern legal scholars and philosophers. Laws are not malleable Play Doh for judges to create whatever they want. Objective truth exists in the form of writing and words, and the law is the objective truth that exists in written form. The role of the judge is to proclaim the objective truth that is written in the law, and the ones that fail to do that are corrupt and unjust.