Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, February 26, 2020

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Justice Department can refuse to give crime-fighting money to cities and states that consider themselves sanctuaries and refuse to share information with federal immigration authorities.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Yeah. This is gonna workout well for everyone. Law enforcement. The sanctuary cities. ICE. Local politicians. Yeah. Brilliant! Because denying allocated money to law enforcement always has good results.

So does this mean that residents of sanctuary cities can now refuse to pay Federal taxes? Or at least a percentage? I mean, what's good for the goose and all that.

#1 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-02-26 03:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Boaz likes it when people he disagrees with suffer.

#2 | Posted by Angrydad at 2020-02-26 03:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

So does this mean that residents of sanctuary cities can now refuse to pay Federal taxes? Or at least a percentage? I mean, what's good for the goose and all that. - #1 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-02-26 03:25 PM

I'm behind this idea 100%. Please proceed.

#3 | Posted by Avigdore at 2020-02-26 05:45 PM | Reply

Good. If they don't want to be part of our federal republic and obey federal laws they can secede.

#4 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-02-26 05:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#4 Name the federal law these cities are breaking. Please be specific since you claimed they aren't obeying federal laws.

Thanks!

#5 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-26 05:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

SCOTUS will rule the other way, with Roberts joining the liberal wing. There cannot be disparate treatment in the issuance of tax dollars, especially since those 'sanctuaries' are the source of a portion of the tax dollars...

#6 | Posted by catdog at 2020-02-26 06:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Joe, they are not breaking any law.

In fact I believe that under the 10th Amendment they are allowed to do this.

However, the legislation that was passed into law by Congress provides grants for these cities and states to help them defray the costs of helping the Federal Government.

From the LA Times
The 2nd Circuit said the plain language of relevant laws makes clear that the U.S. attorney general can impose conditions on states and municipalities receiving money.

And it noted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the federal government maintains broad power over states when it comes to immigration policies.

So the funds are not being held because the cities or states have done anything illegal, they are being withheld because they are not complying with the conditions set forth for them to receive the funds.

#7 | Posted by sawdust at 2020-02-26 07:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

Didn't this happen in the 80s too...when the government refused to provide funds to build roads unless the states established a minimum drinking age of 21?

Kinda before my time, but I think I've heard that's why you have to be older than average to drink alcohol in the US.

#8 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-02-26 07:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Yea, and I am pretty sure Carter did the same to enforce 55 MPH speed limits (bastard!)....

#9 | Posted by sawdust at 2020-02-26 08:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

That was President Gerald Ford, Sawdust.

#10 | Posted by YAV at 2020-02-26 08:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

OK. Ford.

The point is that it is not unpresidented.

#11 | Posted by sawdust at 2020-02-26 09:25 PM | Reply

A sanctuary city is no different than fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Vietnamese where the people can attack you at will and then slip back across into a safe haven. The problems created by the sanctuary city ARE NOT LIMITED TO THAT CITY. As such, I don't know why any other city should be forced to subsidize them. If the residents in a sanctuary city are willing to pay all the costs of their ridiculous programs, by all means do it. My next move if I were Trump would be to set up 100% stop check points on roads leading away from sanctuary cities. Stop 100% of cars leaving San Francisco on the 80 or 101 and check status.

#12 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-02-26 10:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Wait! Didn't SCOTUS decide that the Feds couldn't withhold funds from states that didn't do the Medicaid expansion? How is this different?

#13 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-02-26 10:28 PM | Reply

Why should the DOJ give money to cities that don't want to follow the law? Makes no sense. It's just as the feds withheld money from states that didn't enforce seat belt or reasonable speed limit laws.

Good court ruling

#14 | Posted by goatman at 2020-02-26 11:13 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"That was President Gerald Ford, Sawdust.

#10 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2020-02-26 08:45 PM "

Wrong. It was Nixon.

www.history.com

#15 | Posted by goatman at 2020-02-26 11:18 PM | Reply

So does this mean that residents of sanctuary cities can now refuse to pay Federal taxes?

Only if it means I can "refuse" to pay Federal Taxes.

#16 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-26 11:36 PM | Reply

So the funds are not being held because the cities or states have done anything illegal, they are being withheld because they are not complying with the conditions set forth for them to receive the funds.
#7 | POSTED BY SAWDUST

That should pretty much end the griping....

#17 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-02-26 11:36 PM | Reply

Yep.... this should increase the line of people leaving... as California goes feral..

Why is there a distinction between wild and feral States?

Feral States indicates men or a population of men that were domesticated and then escaped Democrat captivity.

The term wild State applies to men that do not stem from escapes but occur natively where they are found.

#18 | Posted by Pegasus at 2020-02-27 02:10 AM | Reply

Wrong. It was Nixon.
www.history.com

I thought that was under Ford, but apparently Nixon hadn't resigned yet.
I stand corrected and bow to History.com, the land of ancient aliens and big foot.

#19 | Posted by YAV at 2020-02-27 07:17 AM | Reply

"I stand corrected and bow to History.com, the land of ancient aliens and big foot.

#19 | POSTED BY YAV "

It's OK to knock off the dot com and just bow to history itself.

#20 | Posted by goatman at 2020-02-27 07:19 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Good. If they don't want to be part of our federal republic and obey federal laws they can secede.

#4 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Wait, what happed to state's rights and all that?

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-27 09:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

My next move if I were Trump would be to set up 100% stop check points on roads leading away from sanctuary cities. Stop 100% of cars leaving San Francisco on the 80 or 101 and check status.

#12 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

Papers please!

-Ira "non-authoritarian capitalist" schitberg

#22 | Posted by jpw at 2020-02-27 09:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#7 The explainer wasn't necessary; I was responding to a poster who claimed the cities were not obeying federal law. He predictably never defended his stupid post just like every other thread.

#23 | Posted by JOE at 2020-02-27 09:37 AM | Reply

"Why should the DOJ give money to cities that don't want to follow the law? "

Which Law are the Cities not following?

Which city had been charged with a crime? What statue has been violated?

Which courts have determined that any sanctuary city has actually violated this statute.

Be specific and show your references.

Thx.

#24 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-02-27 11:06 AM | Reply

A sanctuary city is no different than fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan or the Vietnamese where the people can attack you at will and then slip back across into a safe haven. The problems created by the sanctuary city ARE NOT LIMITED TO THAT CITY. As such, I don't know why any other city should be forced to subsidize them. If the residents in a sanctuary city are willing to pay all the costs of their ridiculous programs, by all means do it. My next move if I were Trump would be to set up 100% stop check points on roads leading away from sanctuary cities. Stop 100% of cars leaving San Francisco on the 80 or 101 and check status.

#12 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

Ira, how are you so wrong about everything?

They can slip back into the safe haven? Because local police won't arrest them for crimes?

Do you even know what a Sanctuary City is? Why not explain it to us so we all can get a laugh.

#25 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-27 11:59 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Good. If they don't want to be part of our federal republic and obey federal laws they can secede.
#4 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN
Wait, what happed to state's rights and all that?
#21 | POSTED BY JPW

Those only apply when DEMOCRATS are doing something.

It's the lost 42nd Amendment.

#26 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-27 12:00 PM | Reply

It's about time Obama and Trump finally got some support for this. For those of you who have no business acumen or can't think past tomorrow, consider the flip side to your arguments. The grant money provided is based off of a common census of how much is needed by states. If every dollar spent on police enforcement and incarcerations isn't known, there is no way to combat the criminal trends or to find out if the grant money is sufficient. It could be that a state needs $500 million for the services the grants are for but that isn't known because they are hiding metrics. If those states were to report a much higher quote for what they need, it could push up the grant money that is given across the board. We hear all the time about how local police do not have enough resources sometimes; this type of shady stuff being done by some states over partisan hate only hurts that. Next time you get bad service by police, think about how much you oppose this.

Just like everything else, you have to dig deeper into the issues. Since there is a way to spin it for partisan hate purposes, that's what gets published. Just like every Democrat bill isn't the end of the world like Reps want you to believe, there are parts that may not be positive so that's what you are going to hear about.

#27 | Posted by humtake at 2020-02-27 12:02 PM | Reply

It's about time Obama and Trump finally got some support for this. For those of you who have no business acumen or can't think past tomorrow, consider the flip side to your arguments. The grant money provided is based off of a common census of how much is needed by states. If every dollar spent on police enforcement and incarcerations isn't known, there is no way to combat the criminal trends or to find out if the grant money is sufficient. It could be that a state needs $500 million for the services the grants are for but that isn't known because they are hiding metrics. If those states were to report a much higher quote for what they need, it could push up the grant money that is given across the board. We hear all the time about how local police do not have enough resources sometimes; this type of shady stuff being done by some states over partisan hate only hurts that. Next time you get bad service by police, think about how much you oppose this.
#27 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

Jesus Christ...

This isn't the damn Census. That determines how many people are in an area so we can appropriately give us funding.

This thread has nothing to do with the Census. Sanctuary Cities have nothing to do with the Census. Sanctuary Cities don't hide the metrics.

Sanctuary Cities simply don't go out of their way to hold prisoners longer so ICE can get their lazy asses out there to pick them up nor do they go through the extra paperwork of notifying ICE of people being held who are here illegally. Sanctuary Cities don't do the Federal Government's job for them because the Federal Government isn't paying them to do it.

And I don't know why the Feds need Sanctuary Cities feeding them that information. Real Time Incarceration records exist for 80% of the country including most sanctuary cities. They could easily be watching incarceration records for anyone here illegally. They could even get a damn alert if someone they are watching is arrested and then go pick them up before or as they are released.

#28 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-02-27 12:38 PM | Reply

Yeah, but then they wouldn't get to use all that cool tactical gear as much.

#29 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2020-02-28 12:57 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort