United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: The ‘Donald Trump Act’ Just Passed The House By A Landslide, And Obama Doesn’t Like It One Bit
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.westernjournalism.com/th ... obama-doesnt-like-it-one-bit/
Published: Jul 24, 2015
Author: James Beattie
Post Date: 2015-07-24 23:40:05 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 1498
Comments: 6
H.R. 3009 passed easily in the lower chamber 241 to 179. James Beattie July 24, 2015 at 6:22pm Share on Facebook29k Tweet260 Email The House passed a bill Thursday which would punish cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration law. H.R. 3009 passed easily in the lower chamber 241 to 179, The Hill reported. The bill would force local law enforcement agencies to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement if they have an illegal immigrant in custody; otherwise, certain federal law enforcement grants would be withheld. “I think we can all agree that any state or locality must comply with the law— and they are required to coordinate and cooperate with the federal government,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who sponsored the legislation. “If an arrest is made, the federal government should be notified. The fact that San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities disagree with the politics of federal enforcement doesn’t mean they should receive a pass to subvert the law.” “And if they do, there needs to be consequences—and the way we impose those consequences is by hitting them where it hurts. In the pocketbook,” Hunter added. The bill was passed after 32-year-old Kate Steinle was murdered earlier this month, allegedly by an illegal immigrant who was deported from the U.S. multiple times and convicted of several felonies. Poster Comment: Donald isn't even President yet and he is already having a good effect.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
What an idiot. Why is there a bill being legislated on already existing federal law for some enforcement loop-hole that Hunter mentions. The nation is corrupt as HELL.
He sure as hell is rattling some cages. It's fun to see somebody finally doing it.
He sure as hell is rattling some cages. It's fun to see somebody finally doing it. " Yes, he sure is. And the rest of the GOP hopefuls are a bunch of wimps. Cruz might be an exception. Si vis pacem, para bellum
A loophole? The cities are flat-out ignoring the law. Which is their right. But the federal government is saying they will withdraw federal funding. Which is their right.
It will not pass the senate. Juan McCrazy and sidekick Lady graham will tell you how racist you are for enforcing laws against criminals. But it should be law. No subsidies if you are not going to enforce the laws and allow criminals to run free just because of the color of their skin.
I can see a few potential problems with such a law as described. The bill text does not appear to align with the description. I do not see where it would force local law enforcement to notify ICE of illegal immigrants in custody. A person taken into custody cannot have his immigrant status lawfully determined by Barney Fife. Police cannot declare illegal alien or undocumented immigrant status on the basis of a suspected civil violation of immigration law. In the San Fran case, ICE knew the guy was in custody. They were not notified of his release from custody. The state and local authority must comply with the law. I disagree that they are required to coordinate and cooperate with the federal government. Do Colorado police have to coordinate and cooperate with the federal government regarding the enforcement of federal drug laws? Are the Arizona police even permitted to enforce immigration law? Joe Arpaio seems to have been told he can't do that. It seems the coordinate and cooperate thing is a flexible concept. There is a clear distinction between permitting State authorities to enforce immigration law, and requiring State authorities to act as servants of the Federal government. I have my doubts about this law, or at least the instant claims made that state officials are, or can be, required "to coordinate and cooperate with the federal government." The Feds can offer incentives (the carrot) to "encourage" State action, but it cannot issue orders (the stick). https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R41423.pdf CRS - Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law Congressional Research Service Report R41423, 10 Sep 2012 See also:, Printz, overturning part of the Brady Act, holding that Federal responsibilities could not be imposed on State officers. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/case.html Printz v United States, 521 US 898 (1997) PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1478. Argued December 3, 1996-Decided June 27,1997* Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act provisions require the Attorney General to establish a national system for instantly checking prospective handgun purchasers' backgrounds, note following 18 U.S.C. § 922, and command the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct such checks and perform related tasks on an interim basis until the national system becomes operative, § 922(s). Petitioners, the CLEOs for counties in Montana and Arizona, filed separate actions challenging the interim provisions' constitutionality. In each case, the District Court held that the background-check provision was unconstitutional, but concluded that it was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background-check system in place. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding none of the interim provisions unconstitutional. Held: 1. The Brady Act's interim provision commanding CLEOs to conduct background checks, § 922(s)(2), is unconstitutional. Extinguished with it is the duty implicit in the background-check requirement that the CLEO accept completed handgun-applicant statements (Brady Forms) from firearms dealers, §§ 922(s)(I)(A)(i)(III) and (IV). Pp. 904-933. (a) Because there is no constitutional text speaking to the precise question whether congressional action compelling state officers to execute federal laws is unconstitutional, the answer to the CLEOs' challenge must be sought in historical understanding and practice, in the Constitution's structure, and in this Court's jurisprudence. Pp. 904-905. (b) Relevant constitutional practice tends to negate the existence of the congressional power asserted here, but is not conclusive. Enactments of the early Congresses seem to contain no evidence of an assumption that the Federal Government may command the States' executive power in the absence of a particularized constitutional authorization. The early enactments establish, at most, that the Constitution 899 was originally understood to permit imposition of an obligation on state judges to enforce federal prescriptions related to matters appropriate for the judicial power. The Government misplaces its reliance on portions of The Federalist suggesting that federal responsibilities could be imposed on state officers. Also New York v. United States, 505 US 144 (1992) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/144/case.html From the Syllabus, holding: (h) The United States’ alternative arguments purporting to find limited circumstances in which congressional compulsion of state regulation is constitutionally permissible—that such compulsion is justified where the federal interest is sufficiently important; that the Constitution does, in some circumstances, permit federal directives to state governments; and that the Constitution endows Congress with the power [p. 147] to arbitrate disputes between States in interstate commerce—are rejected. Pp. 177-180. (i) Also rejected is the sited state respondents’ argument that the Act cannot be ruled an unconstitutional infringement of New York sovereignty because officials of that State lent their support, and consented, to the Act’s passage. A departure from the Constitution’s plan for the intergovernmental allocation of authority cannot be ratified by the “consent” of state officials, since the Constitution protects state sovereignty for the benefit of individuals, not States or their governments, and since the officials’ interests may not coincide with the Constitution’s allocation. Nor does New York’s prior support estop it from asserting the Act’s unconstitutionality. Pp. 180-183.
“I think we can all agree that any state or locality must comply with the law— and they are required to coordinate and cooperate with the federal government,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who sponsored the legislation.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
(Edited)
Donald isn't even President yet and he is already having a good effect.
#3. To: rlk (#2)
" Donald isn't even President yet and he is already having a good effect.
#4. To: buckeroo (#1)
"Why is there a bill being legislated on already existing federal law for some enforcement loop-hole that Hunter mentions."
#5. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#6. To: A K A Stone, buckeroo, rlk, Stoner, misterwhite, Justified (#0)
The bill would force local law enforcement agencies to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement if they have an illegal immigrant in custody; otherwise, certain federal law enforcement grants would be withheld.
“I think we can all agree that any state or locality must comply with the law— and they are required to coordinate and cooperate with the federal government,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.
Syllabus
(g) Because the Act’s take title provision offers the States a “choice” between the two unconstitutionally coercive alternatives—either accepting ownership of waste or regulating according to Congress’ instructions—the provision lies outside Congress’ enumerated powers and is inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment. On the one hand, either forcing the transfer of waste from generators to the States or requiring the States to become liable for the generators’ damages would “commandeer” States into the service of federal regulatory purposes. On the other hand, requiring the States to regulate pursuant to Congress’ direction would present a simple unconstitutional command to implement legislation enacted by Congress. Thus, the States’ “choice” is no choice at all. Pp. 174-177.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]