Sanctuary cities starting to sue

[Wyrd of Gawd]

This isn't 1789.

Guess so, you wouldn't have much of a country then if it wasn't those pesky immigrants. The natives would then be the US?

The people from the first ship were whining about those damn immigrants who arrived on the second ship.

[brewer]

Does anyone actually know the legal position San Fran is taking in the suit? 

Federal funds are withheld (at least the threat is made) from states for non compliance with federal law, highway funds come to mind. Loss of title IX funding for noncompliance, I think this had something to do with transgender.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Does anyone actually know the legal position San Fran is taking in the suit? 

Federal funds are withheld (at least the threat is made) from states for non compliance with federal law, highway funds come to mind. Loss of title IX funding for noncompliance, I think this had something to do with transgender.

As a practical matter the Federal Government can't coerce States by threatening to withhold funds unless the funds are directly related to the issue.  IOW, the Feds can't deny highway funds over the immigration issue.

[brewer]

Does anyone actually know the legal position San Fran is taking in the suit? 

Federal funds are withheld (at least the threat is made) from states for non compliance with federal law, highway funds come to mind. Loss of title IX funding for noncompliance, I think this had something to do with transgender.

As a practical matter the Federal Government can't coerce States by threatening to withhold funds unless the funds are directly related to the issue.  IOW, the Feds can't deny highway funds over the immigration issue.

That was not my point, just examples where funding was an issue with noncompliance. Got any idea which specific funding is being discussed?

[Seraphina]

California is looking at cutting off funds that flow from our state to the federal government, in response to Trump's threat to cut off federal funds to "sanctuary cities".

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/01...p-threats/

From the article:
"California is among a handful of so-called “donor states,” which pay more in taxes to the federal Treasury than they receive in government funding, according to the latest available figures from the non-profit think tank Tax Foundation."

So screw you, Trump.

[vorlon13]

The sanctuary city thing might have been better addressed legislatively during the first 2 years of Obama's presidency.


Forcing the issue now seems unsmart.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

As a practical matter the Federal Government can't coerce States by threatening to withhold funds unless the funds are directly related to the issue.  IOW, the Feds can't deny highway funds over the immigration issue.

That was not my point, just examples where funding was an issue with noncompliance. Got any idea which specific funding is being discussed?

Here's an article that might explain it.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017...ities.html

[Thumpalumpacus]

LOL

You just jumped the shark, troll.

You do know that Congress can do that, don't you?

... and watch that law get struck down for violating the separation of powers.

[vorlon13]

California is looking at cutting off funds that flow from our state to the federal government, in response to Trump's threat to cut off federal funds to "sanctuary cities".

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/01...p-threats/

From the article:
"California is among a handful of so-called “donor states,” which pay more in taxes to the federal Treasury than they receive in government funding, according to the latest available figures from the non-profit think tank Tax Foundation."

So screw you, Trump.

Not in regards to immigration or sanctuary issues, but I have wondered about states putting their citizens income tax payments in an overseas (beyond the reach of the feds) escrow account pending release upon meaningful federal action upon the national debt.

I guess I cannot complain about the technique being applied to other issues.  But I think California's use of such a technique needs the escrow angle, if the money is in their hands they are going to spend it, and once the funds are dissipated they lose the bargaining chip, and that is the point of doing it.

And don't think this is not an extremely serious action to be taking.  Especially without the escrow account.  And being one state against 49 isn't good either, the action would move beyond the 'hissy fit' area into a forceful tool for reigning in the feds at around 20 states, and they would all have to be on board with the escrow angle.