American Thinker:
Another federal court has ruled that the government cannot punish sanctuary cities by withholding police grant money.
U.S. District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber, a Reagan appointee, said that the government could track down and deport illegal aliens but could not force cities to help them. more
Dart ’em like Bears. They can work on the wall
Why is this so hard for “states’ rights”, “separation of powers”, “Muh Constitusion!” conservatives to (at least, pretend) to understand?
This is strange a judge of Law and Order rules in favor of anarchy. Maybe he spends to much time on philosophy. He desperately needs a new job.
Anon…why is it so hard for you to understand that cities that side with criminals should not be entitled to tax money?
To the numbnuts who refuses to identify himself: The problem is that these cities are openly flouting federal law. Hiding, and providing support for illegals is costing the taxpayers untold millions while morons like you expect someone else to pay. Can you at least pretend to understand that?
“… by withholding police grant money.”
“Grant” money … get it? Hey, Judges, does yo read ‘Merican Engrish?
A “grant” is only “granted” by the “grantee” on the discretion of that “grantee.”
“grant
[ɡrant]
VERB
agree to give or allow (something requested) to. &c.”
(ORIGIN
Middle English: from Old French granter ‘consent to support’, variant of creanter ‘to guarantee’, based on Latin credere ‘entrust’.)
Thus, the “grantee” must “agree” to the “grant” – otherwise it isn’t a “grant.”
Is illiteracy now a requirement for “Judges?”
This imbecile should be impeached.
izlamo delenda est …
organgrinder- It’s funny, when AZ tried to enforce federal law during 0bama days, dummies like anonymous said they were going against federal law. Now, the Feds actually are applying laws already on the books and suddenly the Feds are wrong. LOL. So dumb.
PS- I hate it when trolls thumb themselves up. They will use any excuse to lubricate that thumb.
@organgrinder July 30, 2018 at 1:07 pm
> you expect someone else to pay. Can you at least pretend to understand that?
Alright. We’ll both (for now) agree “F! the con-i-tusion. It’s just a piece of paper. And laws are only for the peasants, anyway.” (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you’re only insisting on overthrowing The United States Constitution just this one, very, very special time. And only for the sake of this one very, very special, purely theoretical, argument.)
If it’s important enough for the federal government, to pass federal laws, to rule the peasants, why isn’t it important enough for the federal government to pay for enforcing those laws?
(Feel free to replace “federal” with “county”, “municipal”, “parish”, “state”, “township”, and pretend you don’t see the corrupt hypocrisy.)
OK I’ll try and use smaller words next time, the point completely escaped you. Oops there I go again: escape means that an idea didn’t seem to sink into that gelatinous mass taking up space between your ears.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Where were you when Obongo sued Arizona for not complying with the feds on HIS immigration policies????
Seems you want it both ways, no?
(Update: heh… didn’t see MJA’s comment.)
Cities in California (among other states) are suing their state and city legislators over sanctuary city policies, btw.
“anonymouth” would be a better handle for the shitspew emanating forth from that source.
Irrespective of this argument, what is this compulsion on the left to always side, unconditionally, with the criminal, even when fellow Americans have legitimate economic, health and safety concerns?
Their default position is to have contempt for Americans.
It’s a mental illness.
“why isn’t it important enough for the federal government to pay for enforcing those laws?”
Why pay them for enforcing laws they aren’t enforcing?
– Do4
Trolls lead a short and unfulfilling life on this site.
Grants usually have stipulations that must be met in order to qualify for the grant itself. Receipt of the grant is determined, partially, by conforming to those standards. Grants are not a ‘right,’ and they are given at the discretion of the grantor. They are not a ‘gimme dat.’
This is legalization of obstruction of justice and should absolutely be appealed.
– Do4
Exactly!
They are NOT following law. That’s the point.
People can sneak in and have TB or any number of communicable diseases that the US has all but eradicated by having a sensible immigration policy.
They could have mental illness.
They could be psychopaths.
They could be sociopaths.
They could be murderers, rapists.
And if you raise this as a concern the left will call you a racist and a Nazi.
Concerned American citizens are told to shut up by their cities as they protect illegals who have broken additional laws, like drunk driving and theft, and then want tax payers at the federal level to pay them for services they aren’t performing!!!!
What good is the left for the American citizens that aren’t completely insane?
@Do4
> “why isn’t it important enough for the federal government to pay for enforcing those laws?”
>
> Why pay them for enforcing laws they aren’t enforcing?
If “them” means one “them” at one time, exactly! If Columbia passes a law, and hires people to enforce it, and “pays” (I know, “they” never, actually, pay) for it, (and we’ll skip the entire “constitutionally ‘limited’ purview creep”, for now) that’s government “at work”.
If New York (city or state, as if there’s c legislative difference) passes a law, and demands Columbia implement it, because New York’s got Chuck Schumer to “bring home the bacon”, or the even more prevalent “because New York has no jurisdiction” to pass such a law, that is a problem for everyone else. Who both pay for, and must submit to, New York’s law.
Stop the federal government from taxing everybody to throw kickbacks to Democrat cities? Sounds like a fine idea.
Bloat another federal bureaucracy to enforce Columbia’s vision on the entire country? (I love the smell of “A living, fire breathing Constitution, in the morning!”) Sounds like government business, as usual. (Hey BLM! How you bin?)
Pass laws you have no intention of enforcing, because you have every intention of forcing the enforcement (and the costs of enforcement) onto somebody else? Yeah, that too, sounds like government business, as usual.
Very much like Castro’s Mariel boatlift, these governments dump their undesirables into the US knowing the border is uncontrollable. The taxpayers are stuck with supporting these illiterate and unemployable parasites. The corporations pick and choose the few they can exploit and the remainder go on the dole. This includes their troubling criminal element.
It’s a shame that it was a Reagan appointee that ruled on this. It strikes me that if this grant money has a description that in whole or part describes a requirement is to assist the Feds in enforcing laws then if the city decides to selectively ignore the requirement then the grant money can be reduced or struck in whole.