ICE immigration
You Might Like
Spread the love
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •  

TRUMP WINS AGAIN FOR AMERICA, & AMERICAN’S!

Second Circuit Appellate Court Rules President Trump CAN withhold federal Taxpayer funds from sanctuary cities and states, thus reversing a lower liberal court ruling.

 

In 2017, as part of efforts to crack down on uncontrolled illegal immigration, President Trump’s Justice Department announced that it would withhold federal monies from sanctuary cities and states

President Trump’s policy was directed at cities and states that prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from having access to illegal aliens within those “sanctuary” jurisdictions.

Within the ambit of the Second Circuit appellate court, New York City, Connecticut, New York State, Washington, New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island raced to a Manhattan federal court claiming that it was unconstitutional.

Although an activist lower court agreed, the Second Circuit has now reversed that ruling.

When seven states and NYC sued, they had every reason to believe they’d be successful. For example, in 2017, a San Francisco-based federal district court had already blocked Trump’s attempt to withhold funds from “sanctuary California” using one of the now-infamous nation-wide injunctions that had become the “resistance” judges’ stock in trade.

 

These are the kinds of arguments that work before leftist judges.

The winning argument in California was that Trump’s order was unconstitutional because it was trying to force state and local officials to enforce federal laws. (Of course, the opposite was true – sanctuaries jurisdictions block federal officials from enforcing federal laws.) San Francisco also claimed that working with the feds would break its bond with illegal aliens, damaging public safety.

Other activist federal courts followed the same track. In 2018, the Seventh Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction that a district court in Chicago imposed against Trump’s move to block funding.

Underlying all of sanctuary jurisdiction cases was the contention that he who pays the piper does not get to call the tune:

Even though sanctuary jurisdictions actively interfere with federal law enforcement and public safety, the federal government (and the American taxpayer) nevertheless need to keep the spigot open.

h/t americanthinker.com







Spread the love
  •   
  •   
  •   
  •  

Leave a Reply