‘Sanctuary California’ Faces Bankruptcy if Trump Withholds Federal Funds



Although Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti warned President-elect Trump that defunding Sanctuary Cities would cause “social, economic and security problems,” Sanctuary California could face bankruptcy if the Trump administration follows through on threats to pull billions in federal funding.

There are 300 “Sanctuary Cities” and counties around the United States that have policies in place blocking local law enforcement from complying with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests for immigration holds
.
The Department of Justice’s Inspector General (IG) issued a memorandum in August that advised that sanctuary city practices violate federal law. The IG finding empowers Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), if confirmed as U.S. Attorney General, to strip sanctuary cities — including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. — of certain federal law enforcement grants. He can also seek court orders to strip federal grants from any government entities refusing to comply with U.S. laws.

Of California’s $252.5 billion in total estimated government spending for fiscal year 2015, the federal government provided $93.6 billion, or 37 percent. That works out to a stunning $6,451 for every man, woman and child in the state.

Moody’s Global Credit Research fiscal stress-tests found that California was already the least prepared large state to weather the next recession. The credit rating service followed up in August with a warning to municipal bondholders that the plummeting financial condition of many California counties, cities, school districts and other agencies would soon result in large numbers of municipal bankruptcy filings.

California, a liberal utopia.

I know this is probably a cut and paste job from a "news" site, but could you possibly note what city and what policy is "blocking" local law enforcement from complying with federal law or "detainer requests for immigration holds?"

Because it's one things for a city to say "we aren't going to spend our resources enforcing federal laws when there are federal law enforcement officers, if you want these people you go arrest them and/or you detain them," or, "there's no law that says we can't issue special drivers licenses to undocumented workers," and, "we're going to go ahead and block efforts of federal law enforcement officers adhering to federal law."

It seems it would be like a bank in Colorado saying "we have in place a policy that will block federal/DEA attempts to seize money generated from marijuana sales."

Other than that, this seems kind of funny/ironic.
California: "we aren't going to detain people ICE wants!"
Arizona: "Hey ICE! We arrested these people for crimes and we've also determined they're illegal aliens, so are legally detaining them for you! Please stop ignoring us and come get them otherwise we have to just release them!"
Federal government up to this point: "Ignore California, sue Arizona."


How much of that is going to northern/eastern California which sometimes makes the news wanting to secede from more liberal southern/coastal California?


more of a study for why the electoral college is necessary.

Shouldn't that sign say, "Welcome to the People's Republic of California"?

Bankruptcy will do a world of wonders for california.

Opinion: What will resisting Donald Trump cost California?

Good morning. I’m Paul Thornton, The Times’ letters editor, and it is Saturday, Dec. 10, 2016. If you read only one tweet about President-elect Donald Trump’s transition, let it be this one: “If there were a Secretary of Mouse Welfare, Trump would appoint a cat.”

Let’s take a look back at the week in Opinion.

So-called sanctuary cities, those that refuse to use municipal resources to help the federal government deport immigrants, are scrambling to prepare for the start in six weeks of life under a president who promised to deport millions of people in the country illegally. Their worry: that the Trump administration might deny funding to cities that frustrate attempts by federal agents to enforce immigration law.

Some scholars and activists protest that such a punishment would be mean-spirited and possibly even unconstitutional. Not so, say constitutional lawyers David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley in a Times op-ed article — courts would almost certainly allow Trump to financially punish cities in this way. They write:

Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law. The federal government must enforce its own laws, using federal personnel. So when state or local police arrest immigrants who are present in the country illegally, they are under no obligation to deport them, as deportation is the responsibility of the federal government alone.

This “anti-commandeering” doctrine, however, doesn’t protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn’t apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and “did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes,” it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.

It follows that, consistent with the anti-commandeering doctrine, Congress can require state, local or university police to tell federal agents when they arrest an immigrant present in the country illegally. …

Whatever one’s view of the best immigration policy, it should be uniform. Some, including the Washington Post’s editorial board, have suggested that Congress should give sanctuary cities flexibility to report only those who’ve committed the most serious violent offenses. But precisely which criminals should be subject to deportation requires resolution by Congress, not each city or university.

Sanctuary policies create Balkanization on an issue with important foreign policy implications and corresponding potential for diplomatic embarrassment. As the Supreme Court affirmed in Arizona v. United States (2012), “the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government” because it “touch[es] on foreign relations and must be made with one voice.”

The Constitution is clear that power to determine deportation policies belongs to Congress, not states, municipalities or universities.

Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes.

Several cities and public universities have vowed to resist President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to deport undocumented criminals by doubling down on sanctuary policies. In response, Trump has pledged to curtail federal funding for sanctuary providers. Activists, predictably, are crying foul, and some legal scholars, such as Harvard’s Noah Feldman, have even claimed that such a response would be unconstitutional.

But whatever one thinks about Trump’s strategy, it almost certainly would pass muster at the Supreme Court.

Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law. The federal government must enforce its own laws, using federal personnel. So when state or local police arrest immigrants who are present in the country illegally, they are under no obligation to deport them, as deportation is the responsibility of the federal government alone.

This “anti-commandeering” doctrine, however, doesn’t protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn’t apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and “did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes,” it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.

<continue>

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rivkin-foley-sanctuary-city-20161207-story.html

Why those superstars can do so like the army did so? The muscle state chief is facing a big deal then......then? so what? What makes democrate is it self ....... nor daubt do it.....ungile doogo knows many thing like this......and he is professional do it....then that's why in the end of the movie he yell like dis...... ".blondy!!!!!!! "
Yep on the other hand doogo is right.....but ......you knew what will I typing then......it is even millions word can't no descript......also explain........how you doing master of schwarzh.....