• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Atlanta mayor signs order ending relationship with ICE: 'We will no longer be complicit'

phands

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
1,976
Location
New York, Manhattan, Upper West Side
Basic Beliefs
Hardcore Atheist
Bloody excellent....

The city of Atlanta will no longer have any Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees in its jail following a set of executive orders from Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, a move effectively terminating the city’s cooperation with the mass deportation agency, which has cruelly escalated its attacks on hardworking immigrant communities following Donald Trump’s inauguration.


“We will no longer be complicit in a policy that intentionally inflicts misery on a vulnerable population without giving any thought to the horrific fallout,” Bottoms, only the second woman to lead the city, said. “As the birthplace of the civil rights movement we are called to be better than this.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...nship-with-ICE-We-will-no-longer-be-complicit
 
Complicit with what? Actually following immigration laws?

These sanctuary cities are basically giving illegals free reign in many cities and some states. It's truly deplorable!

- - - Updated - - -

State's Rights, goddammit!

Oh... so liberals can use that too? ... ... ... Fuckin' 'Merica hatin' commies!

Immigration is specifically a federal issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Very good!

Hopefully more and more mayors following suit

Why? These people are here illegally. They are breaking immigration laws and should be deported.
 
Immigration is specifically a federal issue.

Here's how this works: under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot require a state government to legislate in a certain way, nor may it "commandeer" a state's resources or personnel for federal purposes. That is, the federal government has to enforce its own laws using its own personnel and cannot force the states to take on such a burden. This is well settled law--as in going back to the very founding of the nation.

What this means in this context is that no state or local government is obligated to assist the federal government by turning over illegal immigrants, reporting to the fed as to illegal immigrants, nor providing any information to the fed regarding illegal immigrants, etc.

Further, Trump's statements that he'll deny these cities certain federal funding is almost entirely toothless. The federal government may deny a certain amount of funding to a state for specific programs in order to encourage compliance, but the fed may not act coercively in doing so. What this has translated to in practical terms is the loss of small amounts of money to the states, but even those small losses likely end up hurting the federal objective, and don't really hurt the state. Sometimes a state will choose to comply, sometimes it won't. But it is at the state's discretion.

In short, Trump can't do dick about this, and his threats are all but empty.
 
Stuff Atlanta to the gills so the landlord class can make tons of money.
 
Immigration is specifically a federal issue.

Here's how this works: under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot require a state government to legislate in a certain way, nor may it "commandeer" a state's resources or personnel for federal purposes. That is, the federal government has to enforce its own laws using its own personnel and cannot force the states to take on such a burden. This is well settled law--as in going back to the very founding of the nation.

What this means in this context is that no state or local government is obligated to assist the federal government by turning over illegal immigrants, reporting to the fed as to illegal immigrants, nor providing any information to the fed regarding illegal immigrants, etc.

Further, Trump's statements that he'll deny these cities certain federal funding is almost entirely toothless. The federal government may deny a certain amount of funding to a state for specific programs in order to encourage compliance, but the fed may not act coercively in doing so. What this has translated to in practical terms is the loss of small amounts of money to the states, but even those small losses likely end up hurting the federal objective, and don't really hurt the state. Sometimes a state will choose to comply, sometimes it won't. But it is at the state's discretion.

In short, Trump can't do dick about this, and his threats are all but empty.

The way I like to look at things is to take what is in the general public's mind a previous instance on the other end of the moral spectrum and compare to the current topic of conversation. So take this and compare it to Eisenhower and the Little Rock Nine. A good cause, but a massive use of power by the feds over a state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

So in other ways than the rightness of the cause, how is this different from governor Faubus? Just give technical and not impassioned reasons.
 
Immigration is specifically a federal issue.

Here's how this works: under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot require a state government to legislate in a certain way, nor may it "commandeer" a state's resources or personnel for federal purposes. That is, the federal government has to enforce its own laws using its own personnel and cannot force the states to take on such a burden. This is well settled law--as in going back to the very founding of the nation.

What this means in this context is that no state or local government is obligated to assist the federal government by turning over illegal immigrants, reporting to the fed as to illegal immigrants, nor providing any information to the fed regarding illegal immigrants, etc.

Further, Trump's statements that he'll deny these cities certain federal funding is almost entirely toothless. The federal government may deny a certain amount of funding to a state for specific programs in order to encourage compliance, but the fed may not act coercively in doing so. What this has translated to in practical terms is the loss of small amounts of money to the states, but even those small losses likely end up hurting the federal objective, and don't really hurt the state. Sometimes a state will choose to comply, sometimes it won't. But it is at the state's discretion.

In short, Trump can't do dick about this, and his threats are all but empty.
Atlanta was renting jail cells to the feds, they decided to stop doing that because they don't agree with Trump's zero tolerance policy for a third degree misdemeanor, that is all this is. Atlanta isn't violating any immigration laws. The concept of a sanctuary city is so poorly defined and as noted misused that they didn't go there. This is not a declaration of that. It is a simple business decision.They will not profit from the zero tolerance policy.

Sent from my KFDOWI using Tapatalk
 
Complicit with what? Actually following immigration laws?

These sanctuary cities are basically giving illegals free reign in many cities and some states. It's truly deplorable!

- - - Updated - - -

State's Rights, goddammit!

Oh... so liberals can use that too? ... ... ... Fuckin' 'Merica hatin' commies!

Immigration is specifically a federal issue.

- - - Updated - - -

Very good!

Hopefully more and more mayors following suit

Why? These people are here illegally. They are breaking immigration laws and should be deported.

Politics is personal. For example, some day you are going to be caught and they will want to deport you. You will be as happy you live in Atlanta as my Republican brother-in-law when he went on unemployment. You will never admit it but this is all for you. You wouldn't deserve current treatment like an illegal alien.
 
The way I like to look at things is to take what is in the general public's mind a previous instance on the other end of the moral spectrum and compare to the current topic of conversation. So take this and compare it to Eisenhower and the Little Rock Nine. A good cause, but a massive use of power by the feds over a state.

So in other ways than the rightness of the cause, how is this different from governor Faubus? Just give technical and not impassioned reasons.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Because racial discrimination is the most protected class there is, any law, whether it be state or federal, must pass strict scrutiny. That is, the law must be necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose. Discrimination against racial minorities violates the fundamental right of equal protection, and no State may deny that to any person unless (again) there's is some necessary and compelling interest, which means that there is no other way to achieve the government's aim, and the the government has a vital interest to protect.

The fed is not a protected class, it has no necessary and compelling reason to suspend 10th Amendment protections, etc. IOW, there is no 14th Amendment issue here the government can claim overrides the 10th Amendment.
 
...so, how many of the right wingers here bought into it? :D

As if you thought they'd ADMIT it!
It will be interesting to see how many here will admit to being Trump supporters once the story is written and Trump becomes an icon of national shame.
 
Back
Top Bottom