- This topic has 19 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by metrognome.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 15, 2016 at 12:51 pm #865054
skeeterParticipantPresident-Elect Trump:
Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:
* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama
* SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States
* THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities
* FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back
* FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.
I’d like the sharp minds at WSB forums to discuss item #3. Would Seattle remain a sanctuary city in this case? Do we have any estimate on the federal funding we would lose? If we remained a sanctuary city, would it be just to make a point of defiance? Or is there a significant difference in how people get treated in sanctuary vs. non-sanctuary cities?
November 15, 2016 at 12:54 pm #865055
skeeterParticipantS. Lander Street project would lose the $45M federal grant? Someone please tell me I’m misunderstanding this.
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/16-006_DOC_Lander_Fact_Sheet.pdf
November 15, 2016 at 1:00 pm #865056
sam-cParticipantMan, just when I think I’ve calmed down enough…. he does another idiotic thing. Can he do that? Maybe all the people living in sanctuary cities should stop paying their federal income tax.
- This reply was modified 9 years, 1 month ago by sam-c.
November 15, 2016 at 1:13 pm #865057
JKBParticipantAnybody know the relevant law? Are there legal grounds for the ‘sanctuary city’ concept, or is it just thumbing noses at Federal law?
November 15, 2016 at 2:51 pm #865071
captainDaveParticipantJKB: No. There is no legal grounds for breaking federal immigration laws. But why should that stop Mayor Murray and his lawless posse on the City Council? They rule by policy decree, not law.
Democrats blocked senate bills to withdraw federal funding for “sanctuary cities” in 2015 and 2016. My bet is that they will easily pass now. You can find text by searching “draft bill sanctuary cities us congress”. The proposed law basically says that cities cannot prevent local law enforcement from communicating with ICE.
A number of republican controlled states are already passing sanctuary city bills of their own.
After 30 years, it seems to me the jig is finally up. Democrats will no longer be able to provide sanctuary to 11 million illegal aliens in exchange for votes.
November 15, 2016 at 3:16 pm #865077
anonymeParticipantMy interpretation is that we (Seattle) would accept any and/or all immigrants, except that there would be no federal funding for any of it. Once again, Seattle taxpayers would be expected to pick up the tab and clean up the mess.
Please tell me I’m wrong.
November 15, 2016 at 3:43 pm #865083
AK14ParticipantMore importantly, hopefully it won’t cost more lives in the United States like it did for Kate Steinle in San Francisco, or Laura Wilkerson, or Brian McCann, or Michael Ronnebeck, or Susan Oliver, or Don Rosenberg, and the list goes on…
November 15, 2016 at 4:04 pm #865086
captainDaveParticipantanonyme: As you can see, our mayor does not give a damn about burdening taxpayers because he hopes to convert the entire city to Wall Street owned podment-hives for his greedy real estate flipping supporters. It’s all about packing the city with leftist voters to clear the way for unfettered corruption.
ak14: I was living downtown back when they caught the muslim guy who came in from Canada to blow up the space needle. Today, it’s likely this person would not have been caught and thousands would have been killed. Seattle is a port city in close proximity to an international border. It is pure negligence for our city leaders to forfeit national security measures.
November 15, 2016 at 5:44 pm #865104
JKBParticipantDear podment-hive house flipper builder people: please deliver one of those Pods containers filled with cash to my house. I’ll take it with me, leave you the keys, and cheer up your liberal lackeys with my departure. Win-win.
November 15, 2016 at 7:15 pm #865116
JayDeeParticipantCan we stick to facts, please? I could guess we are a sanctuary city by the vote count but what process would be used by President-Elect to force a City or state police forces to enforce federal laws? Border control and immigration is a Federal responsibility, which is why that ____ sheriff in AZ was in violation of civil rights for stop n frisk citizenship stops.
November 15, 2016 at 7:18 pm #865118
JayDeeParticipantCaptain Dave: As far as the inept so-called Millennium Bomber: He was caught by Federal Border Agents in PA who saw how hinky he was, sweaty, lying, and evasive. He would be caught today. I was here then and remember the past.
November 15, 2016 at 7:30 pm #865125
JKBParticipantJayDee, the usual mechanism is money. Threatening to cut off federal funding coerces its recipients pretty well. Even though we paid for it in the first place.
November 15, 2016 at 11:43 pm #865145
WSBKeymasterRegarding the question of what federal funding could/would be pulled, see the second half of this story. Particularly from the graf starting “It’s also unclear” …
November 16, 2016 at 8:52 am #865169
skeeterParticipantI did a little reading and “Sanctuary City” can mean many different things. It is very possible that Seattle’s self-definition of “Sanctuary City” is very different than Trump’s. Specifically, Seattle’s ordinance does not prohibit cooperation with Federal Immigration officials. So it’s possible there is nothing to worry about. But we should keep our eyes/ears open because we are talking about big dollars.
November 16, 2016 at 12:00 pm #865202
metrognomeParticipantskeeter – the short answer to your question is that the La Donald’s bluster is exactly that . . . for now and probably mostly forever. Even if the Congress that has been impotent for the past 8 years takes a healthy dose of ED medication, they can’t remove all federal funding from cities that have declared themselves to be sanctuaries. Most federal money is pass-through in that it goes to the state for distribution rather than being given directly to cities. And, yes, this threat could include the federal portion of highway construction projects managed by the city; most big-ticket projects, however, are managed by the state or county. It is unclear whether the bluster would theoretically apply to them, or to Sound Transit, for example.
And then there are the courts; WA is in the federal 9th Circuit, which is notoriously prickly about this kind of heavy-handed action.
Also, the conservative media has dropped the ball on explaining this issue. The plans La Donald has enumerated to date pretty much match Obama’s in that the deportation focus is on people who are criminals, which the mayors have agreed to. What they have said they will not do is act as a federal police force to round up undocumented immigrants who are otherwise law-abiding (this is similar to other federal laws; for example, SPD generally doesn’t arrest tax cheats or SEC rule violators or people who use the postal service to commit fraud.) I would suggest watching Rachel Maddow’s show on MSNBC for accurate reportage.
The Trumpettes are trying to throw their weight around; they may actually succeed in changing immigration laws and how they are enforced to some extent, but their majority in the Senate is thin, Hilary actually won the popular vote and there is an election in 2018 that could change the balance of power in Congress. If Trump U is found to have committed fraud . . .
cap’n Dave – as usual, thanks for the laughs. I truly enjoyed your bashing Mayor Murray for lining the pockets of greedy real estate developers when you are an ardent supporter of one of the greediest developers in US history. Isn’t it enough that you are paying his federal taxes for him?
November 16, 2016 at 12:41 pm #865206
miwsParticipantNovember 17, 2016 at 5:04 pm #865429
metrognomeParticipantmiws – nice to be back, I think. Would that I were back in WS.
an msnbc report last night mentioned that the Supreme Court has already issued a ruling on limiting federal funds in a situation like this; funds can only be limited for the ‘service’ the city is failing to provide. So, in this instance, if the huffers and puffers succeed in implementing a ban on federal money for failing to arrest undocumented immigrants, the ban would apply to money for SPD, possibly for some human services, etc. Absent a new decision from SCOTUS, they couldn’t bar money for the overpass, for example.
the cite wasn’t provided, so I couldn’t find the opinion, but no doubt it will surface as the conversation continues. Stay tuned.
November 17, 2016 at 8:33 pm #865457
redblackParticipanti know we’ve had our differences vis-a-vis local politics, metrognome, but it’s damned good to hear your voice. i’m glad you have time to learn this stuff, because i’m far too busy in obama/mcginn/murray’s booming economy for pure research.
thanks for doing the leg work.
November 18, 2016 at 8:16 am #865492
TanDLParticipantFor what will it profit a man (city) if he (it) gains the whole world (money) and loses his (its) own soul? Will those of you who support us giving up our Sanctuary City status be willing to join a federal police force, knock on doors and demand papers? Then haul the undocumented among us away by force? You OK forcibly removing children from their parents and hauling them off? Will we see you in uniforms stopping people on the street who might look like they are from another country?
November 18, 2016 at 9:08 am #865493
metrognomeParticipantredblack – thanks. I enjoy ferreting out this kind of detail, especially in light of all the grandstanding by these compassionate conservatives who have to find Satan in everyone who doesn’t share their beliefs; I refer to them as Old Testament ‘Smite Thine Enemy’ Xtians to separate them from the New Testament ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ followers of that religion.
btw, the case *may* have been South Dakota v. Dole. SD lost, but the court established rules for withholding federal funding.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.