• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Breaking: Federal Judge rules Trump admin can withold grants to NYC and 7 other states over cooperation on immigration

dolabla

Member
Oct 9, 2013
4,701
7,622
775

The Trump administration can withhold millions of dollars in law enforcement grants to force states to cooperate with U.S. immigration enforcement, a federal appeals court in New York ruled Wednesday in a decision that conflicted with three other federal appeals courts.

The decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan overturned a lower court's decision ordering the administration to release funding to New York City and seven states — New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia and Rhode Island.

The states and city sued the U.S. government after the Justice Department announced in 2017 that it would withhold grant money from cities and states until they gave federal immigration authorities access to jails and provide advance notice when someone in the country illegally is about to be released.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
6,673
6,267
860
If the feds can say soldiers (under 21) on leave cannot drink alcohol if your state wants highway funds, then damn right the feds should be able to say no criminal justice grants for any state / municipality who makes it easier for people to evade federal law.

I really hope Sotomayor's dissent is seen by the lower courts for what it was, which was a last ditch scream at the sky over liberals appointed to the bench being stopped from deciding what the law should be.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2, 2017
472
543
340
I know California thinks they can do things like restrict travel to states who have abortion laws on the books they don't like. They should be fine with this.

edit: nevermind, I can't believe Cali isn't on this list.
 
Last edited:

dolabla

Member
Oct 9, 2013
4,701
7,622
775
It's such a common sense thing yet the regressive left will fight it. Besides being here illegally (which is breaking our law in itself), illegal breaks the law by breaking into someone's home, or assaulting someone, etc. Who the fuck would not want that person deported?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zombrex and CatLady

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,885
10,851
950
Withholding cash is much nicer than military occupation to bring rebellious states and cities back under union control. Maybe less effective though.
 

daveonezero

Member
Nov 19, 2018
864
578
360
Hurt the bureaucrats in their wallets, I like it.

However, it's really sad this is even necessary. Fed gov't shouldn't be so big that this is a genuine threat, and states shouldn't be so radicalized that they put illegal immigrants over their own Union. What a world.
Exactly. This should work both ways. I'm all in favor or less federal government money to local law enforcement. I'm a huge fan of states rights and the original vision that the states were supposed to be more independent and able to pick and choose what laws they want to enforce.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
32,369
45,958
1,170
This should definitely be a concern for these "sanctuary cities" with the Coronavirus.

But establishment globalist cunts gonna cunt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pr0cs

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
3,950
6,449
510
Trump said I’d be tired of winning but it’s never really gotten old.

Lol but seriously, let these states put their money where their mouths are. I’m with DunDun regarding seeing the feds donkey punch states, but goddamn if these fool asses didn’t have it coming.
 
Last edited:

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
7,066
4,011
1,500
Withholding cash is much nicer than military occupation to bring rebellious states and cities back under union control. Maybe less effective though.
Some people may think your being silly but this is a real, and genuine option when States "decide" not not follow federal law.

Punishments can be harsh.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,885
10,851
950
Some people may think your being silly but this is a real, and genuine option when States "decide" not not follow federal law.

Punishments can be harsh.
I’m not being silly :p

It absolutely isn’t unprecedented in our history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KINGMOKU

btgorman

Member
Jul 26, 2009
2,016
1,887
925
There aren’t enough Wojak memes to keep on top of how flip floppy the Dems have been in the past decade.
Dude. That describes my liberal friend to a tee. I’ll get him in a corner on his socialist/liberal bullshit and like magic he turns into an ultracapitalist. Liberals are not consistent and will mental gymnastics their way through what should be legitimate discourse

I’ll win an argument over text and he gets quiet. Weeks later he brings up the same damn shit like he was right the first time. Now I just don’t bother. I’m having a better time throwing conservatives memes at him
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DeepEnigma and Oner

Super Mario

Mario Mario
Nov 12, 2016
2,009
2,587
555
Can't wait to hear the left's arguments. "We feel we should be able to skirt federal immigration laws because of the precedent that we want these funds"
 

#Phonepunk#

Gold Member
Sep 4, 2018
10,261
15,197
705
38
makes total sense. immigration is a federal issue.

kind of amazing how sanctuary states like Cali just wholesale reap the benefits of dirt cheap labor. if they don't want to take the federal stance, and would rather just continue exploiting these undocumented people, they don't need access to federal funds.

ultimately that's what this immigration issue is really all about. corporations just want to keep that constant flow of low cost workers coming.
 
Last edited:
Jun 26, 2013
4,563
4,025
685
It's honestly depressing that this is even a debate. Immigration affects the entire country. It may disproportionately affect certain states more than others, but even then, it is a nationwide issue. Therefore, this is something that the federal government should handle.

It is only fair that states who refuse to comply to federal laws to not receive federal funding.
 

diffusionx

Member
Feb 25, 2006
8,973
1,351
1,490
I really don't see why the feds couldn't do this. You want the fed money you play by the fed rules. This seems obvious to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dolabla

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
4,097
5,246
1,100
Sanctuary cities: *Disobeys federal law*
Trump: *cuts sanctuary cities funding*
Sanctuary cities:"Wait that's illegal!"
Trump: "No U!"


It's starting:

...
In addition to the funding threats, the administration is now opening up new fronts in the battle against the cities, filing lawsuits and issuing subpoenas in what Attorney General William Barr called part of a “significant escalation” in the fight against uncooperative jurisdictions.
...



earlier related article:
 
Last edited:

Riven326

Would place his sister in the spank bank.
Mar 25, 2019
2,016
2,694
525
United States
It's honestly depressing that this is even a debate. Immigration affects the entire country. It may disproportionately affect certain states more than others, but even then, it is a nationwide issue. Therefore, this is something that the federal government should handle.

It is only fair that states who refuse to comply to federal laws to not receive federal funding.
It's bullshit because I would go to jail for harboring a criminal. These people lose funding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slugbahr

Son Tofu

Banned
Jan 26, 2020
379
537
315
Then what makes us unified? We are the United States we should have some core fucking unification measures....
We do. That's why the states are losing the funding. This will quickly hurt these states. Just give it a little time.
 

Riven326

Would place his sister in the spank bank.
Mar 25, 2019
2,016
2,694
525
United States
We should be grateful we live in a union where states can defy the central authority on certain issues without the army marching in.
I'm not. I find it to be woefully inefficient and unethical. More than that, I find the application of force to be unfair. As I said, if I were to harbor a criminal, the militarized police will just down my door and arrest me.

Meanwhile, these people, because they're politicians in a liberal stronghold, can get away with harboring millions of the fuckers. The penalty for openly violating federal law? Their funding gets pulled. This is an unacceptable result.

These politicians should be arrested and tried for treason. Mass deportations, etc. We have a large military force. So instead of using it to occupy some shithole in the middle East, we should instead use it to secure the border, until wall construction is complete, and to also act supplement ICE and border patrol agents in their efforts to reverse this unarmed invasion.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
21,512
45,231
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
I'm not. I find it to be woefully inefficient and unethical. More than that, I find the application of force to be unfair. As I said, if I were to harbor a criminal, the militarized police will just down my door and arrest me.

Meanwhile, these people, because they're politicians in a liberal stronghold, can get away with harboring millions of the fuckers. The penalty for openly violating federal law? Their funding gets pulled. This is an unacceptable result.

These politicians should be arrested and tried for treason. Mass deportations, etc. We have a large military force. So instead of using it to occupy some shithole in the middle East, we should instead use it to secure the border, until wall construction is complete, and to also act supplement ICE and border patrol agents in their efforts to reverse this unarmed invasion.
Vote em out.

These politicians are doing what their idiot electors elected them to do. I would not support arresting them and trying them for treason when the people in their local / state districts voted them in on these exact defiances. For better or worse, they elected these Representatives and Senators and Governors (etc etc) in part because of their #resistance to Trump. Let them #resist all they want.

Taking away Federal money punishes the people who voted for these politicians. Taking away their elected officials in chains for opposing the will of the Federal gov't can be used for some dark things. If you can tell me they've "gone rogue" by declaring these sanctuary cities against the democratic will of their city/state, then maybe you'd have a case.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: slugbahr

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
3,950
6,449
510
Trump should take the money that would’ve gone to them and spend it on the wall. Then he should say he got liberals to pay for it and watch their fucking heads pop off lol
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: Oner

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,367
3,237
495
We should be grateful we live in a union where states can defy the central authority on certain issues without the army marching in.
Not if there's a Federal mandate on the issue. You wouldn't want a State to be able to strip 1st or 2nd Amendment rights. You wouldn't want a State suddenly deciding that slavery is A-OK all of a sudden. Or that women can't vote. Border protection and immigration enforcement should be a part of National Defense.
 

Riven326

Would place his sister in the spank bank.
Mar 25, 2019
2,016
2,694
525
United States
Vote em out.

These politicians are doing what their idiot electors elected them to do. I would not support arresting them and trying them for treason when the people in their local / state districts voted them in on these exact defiances. For better or worse, they elected these Representatives and Senators and Governors (etc etc) in part because of their #resistance to Trump. Let them #resist all they want.

Taking away Federal money punishes the people who voted for these politicians. Taking away their elected officials in chains for opposing the will of the Federal gov't can be used for some dark things. If you can tell me they've "gone rogue" by declaring these sanctuary cities against the democratic will of their city/state, then maybe you'd have a case.
I couldn't care less what the people of California want. They sure don't care what I want or what the rest of the country wants. Their policies affect the country as a whole.

For too long they've been allowed to get away with it. They're like a child that has never been disciplined. The only "dark thing" I'm concerned about is the future of our country if we don't put a stop to illegal immigration by abolishing sanctuary cities. This isn't 1930s Germany. It's not a dictatorship. So let's not try to drag this conversation in that direction.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
21,512
45,231
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
I couldn't care less what the people of California want. They sure don't care what I want or what the rest of the country wants. Their policies affect the country as a whole.

For too long they've been allowed to get away with it. They're like a child that has never been disciplined. The only "dark thing" I'm concerned about is the future of our country if we don't put a stop to illegal immigration by abolishing sanctuary cities. This isn't 1930s Germany. It's not a dictatorship. So let's not try to drag this conversation in that direction.
But they are being disciplined, arguably in a way that hurts the politicians most (losing that sweet sweet moolah), so we aren't arguing about discipline vs no discipline, but about method and degree. You think they should be locked up. I think that's extreme. The reason why I think that's extreme isn't because I think their offenses were small or unimportant, but because I don't want to hand that power to the ones doing the locking up or to set a precedent / normalize that option.

This is the lesson that Democrats (and pro-gov't, pro-welfare proponents across the world) continue to miss: you use the gov't against your opponents in one way and it can and will be used against you sometime in the future. We just went through a very blatant example of this (Trump impeachment as revenge-porn for Clinton impeachment). Sometimes you have to let the gears of the system turn and for problems to wash themselves out. Not everything needs to be addressed with the seriousness of treason, as even that term is getting watered down.
 

Riven326

Would place his sister in the spank bank.
Mar 25, 2019
2,016
2,694
525
United States
But they are being disciplined, arguably in a way that hurts the politicians most (losing that sweet sweet moolah), so we aren't arguing about discipline vs no discipline, but about method and degree. You think they should be locked up. I think that's extreme. The reason why I think that's extreme isn't because I think their offenses were small or unimportant, but because I don't want to hand that power to the ones doing the locking up or to set a precedent / normalize that option.

This is the lesson that Democrats (and pro-gov't, pro-welfare proponents across the world) continue to miss: you use the gov't against your opponents in one way and it can and will be used against you sometime in the future. We just went through a very blatant example of this (Trump impeachment as revenge-porn for Clinton impeachment). Sometimes you have to let the gears of the system turn and for problems to wash themselves out. Not everything needs to be addressed with the seriousness of treason, as even that term is getting watered down.
Why do you think it's extreme? People who commit crime should be arrested and tried. I really don't understand what is so extreme about that. Our laws, and whether or not they are enforced, have an effect on more than just the country, a state, or even a city.

It is the whole of society that is effected by whether or not laws are applied. People become a custom to laws not being enforced by weak willed representatives of government in positions of power. This is how corruption begins and ultimately spreads. It then begins to effect the rest of society, and before you know it, you have both state officials and a general population that have no respect for the rule of law and recoil, scream and shout, have panic attacks, begin shouting about extremeism, far right this and that, when someone comes along and tells them "no" for the first time in decades.

Again, I would be put in jail for the same crime. All I want is for law to apply to everyone, including politicians. Being a political representative should not be a get out of jail free card.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
21,512
45,231
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
Why do you think it's extreme? People who commit crime should be arrested and tried. I really don't understand what is so extreme about that. Our laws, and whether or not they are enforced, have an effect on more than just the country, a state, or even a city.
Defying the Federal gov't isn't a crime in and of itself, especially when it is a politician doing it on behalf of the will of their constituency.

I mean, I'm of the opinion that these are opportunistic slimes who are harming their own cities/states, but I have a hard time calling it "treason" when they are carrying out the will of their voters, for better or worse.

It is the whole of society that is effected by whether or not laws are applied. People become a custom to laws not being enforced by weak willed representatives of government in positions of power. This is how corruption begins and ultimately spreads. It then begins to effect the rest of society, and before you know it, you have both state officials and a general population that have no respect for the rule of law and recoil, scream and shout, have panic attacks, begin shouting about extremeism, far right this and that, when someone comes along and tells them "no" for the first time in decades.

Again, I would be put in jail for the same crime. All I want is for law to apply to everyone, including politicians. Being a political representative should not be a get out of jail free card.
I'm not suggesting that being a politician is a get out of jail free card (even though sadly that is the outcome). I'm saying that there is no law being broken. States have a measure of sovereignty in the USA and they can defy the Federal gov't. We have an adversarial system with courts to mediate. We don't lock up politicians who don't toe the Federal line unless there is a clear example of it (and even then...).

You're arguing it from a position of right vs wrong. I am arguing dispassionately from a position of pragmatic vs idealistic. The tradeoff is "punishing" these politicians with a largely symbolic prosecution (they wouldn't be locked up) while exciting their constituents and painting them as martyrs. Worse, it would normalize the practice of locking up state or Federal politicians -- who were fairly elected in part based on these specific issues -- who don't go along with whatever the current administration wants. We don't need to further weaponize the Federal gov't.