Executive order

Undocumented Aliens May Be Safe in Sanctuary Cities, Thanks to Conservative Justices

The ruling against Obamacare's Medicaid mandate renders the order toothless.

|

Liberals are upset about President Trump's executive orders on immigration. But it may be conservatives who unwittingly throw the biggest wrench in one of the

Undocumented Rally
Michael Fleshman via Foter.com / CC BY-NC

central pieces of these orders.

Last Wednesday, the president signed an executive order to explore options to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities — which harbor illegal immigrants who might otherwise be deported by the feds — if they resist complying fully with his impending crackdown on undocumented immigrants. Liberal leaders immediately vowed to defy President Trump.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio thundered that the order "won't change how we enforce the law in New York City." Likewise, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel vowed that his city would remain a sanctuary. "There is no stranger among us. We welcome people, whether you're from Poland or Pakistan, whether you're from Ireland or India or Israel, and whether you're from Mexico or Moldova, where my grandfather came from, you are welcome in Chicago as you pursue the American Dream," Emanuel said.

Amen to such noble sentiments!

But the fact of the matter is that when nobility gets expensive, you get less of it. That's why undocumented workers are lucky that they don't have to count on liberal goodwill alone. They also have the law on their side — thanks to all the conservative Supreme Court justices who rejected ObamaCare's efforts to coerce states into embracing Medicaid expansion by stripping them of federal dollars.

Let's back up for a moment.

The sanctuary city movement began in 2008, when a few dozen localities started resisting President George W. Bush's controversial SECURE Communities program. Bush's program required local authorities to share the fingerprints of all arrestees — legal and illegal, citizens and foreigners — for a run through a federal database to make sure they were in the county legally. Anyone who couldn't get Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) clearance was supposed to be detained by local authorities for up to two days till federal agents whisked them away for deportation, regardless of how trivial the original crime or whether they were even found guilty.

The sanctuary city movement eventually grew to include about 550 cities under President Barack Obama, who vastly expanded this program and deported two million undocumented workers, before finally winding it down in 2012. Now President Trump has vowed to restore it.

Trump makes it sound like this is meant to ferret out hardened criminals that sanctuary cities are harboring just to poke Uncle Sam in the eye. That's why he painstakingly named all the Americans killed by undocumented immigrants when announcing his crackdown. But that is patently absurd: There is no locality that shelters individual immigrants convicted of violent offenses. The issue only concerns mass deportation of foreigners who have committed minor offenses.

The SECURE Communities program forced too many local law enforcement resources to be diverted to low-level undocumented offenders instead of being focused on truly violent criminals. This made American communities less, not more, safe. It also sowed fear and resentment toward local police among targeted Latino communities, many of which just stopped reporting crimes.

The wait-for-ICE detentions were also almost certainly unconstitutional. They required holding people without a warrant beyond the time required by the original crime. (For example, someone booked for unpaid parking tickets could end up being detained for days and then deported.) For all these reasons, many cities developed internal policies of non-cooperation. Some states, like California, even passed laws barring local cooperation.

But all these communities would have to rethink their brave stance if Trump could make good on his threat of stripping them of federal money.

It's a good thing, then, that the president can't do that — thanks in large part to the conservative justices in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius – aka the ObamaCare ruling.

Joined by two liberals, all five conservative justices basically declared null and void an ObamaCare provision that would have stripped states that refused to expand Medicaid of all their Medicaid funding — not just the money tied to the expansion pushed by ObamaCare. The justices agreed that this was "coercion," and that Uncle Sam does not have limitless authority to withhold "non-germane" funds that don't have anything to do with the policy in question.

This ruling is a huge legal problem for President Trump's attempts to withhold non-immigration-related federal funding from sanctuary cities. Sure, he can go after germane funds. That means Department of Justice and DHS grants that are tied to immigration enforcement are fair game. But little beyond that may be in play, as Bill Ong Hing, a law professor at the University of San Francisco and the founder of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, told Politico. All in all, the DOJ funds at risk add up to just $600 million nationally. Even if Trump could find more funds to scrap, it would be tantamount to a drop in the bucket considering that San Francisco alone receives $1 billion annually from the federal government.

Most sanctuary cities will likely be able to withstand this kind of a hit. And as a result, their huddled masses might be saved from Trump's tentacles.

But there's another big cost that will hamstring this sanctuary city crackdown: If he can't command local cooperation by threatening to cut funds, then President Trump also can't de facto deputize local law enforcement agents. So he will have to cough up large sums of federal money to triple the size of the federal deportation force that would be required to eject millions of additional people.

And that will also mean bad optics, because without cooperative local authorities, President Trump will not be able to order ICE agents to whisk away all of these folks quietly in the dead of the night, shielded from media cameras. Instead, he'll have to start raiding schools, neighborhoods, and workplaces, which will make for terrible publicity.

Whether Trump will go that far remains to be seen. But thanks primarily to the conservative justices on the Supreme Court, it'll be very hard for him to do so. And that gives undocumented workers far more of a chance than if they had to depend only on the good intentions of local liberal politicians.

The irony is that these immigrants would be in much bigger trouble if Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with her liberal colleague Ruth Bader Ginsburg, had prevailed in the ObamaCare ruling, as many liberals had hoped at the time. They were completely on board with ObamaCare's efforts to use federal funds to strong-arm states.

So what's the lesson? That standing up for bedrock checks and balances is a far better protector of vulnerable minorities than do-gooding liberal politics.

This column originally appeared in The Week

NEXT: Don't Rebrand the 'Countering Violent Extremism' Program—Just End It

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Go to hell Shikha who defends rioters over free speech.

    1. Yeah not even going to waste my time reading the article.

      Next: Charlie Hebdo – I know they were all brutally killed, but did you see those horrible cartoons?

      1. You sound like a liberal.

        1. Sarcasm. See esteve’s link below.

        1. *you as in Dalmia

        2. Wow, that’s a horrible case of false equivalence there by Ms. Dalmia.

          1. ENB had a really bad one too this morning.

            1. “sigh. really anything in the entire world I would rather we collectively talk about than histrionic children on the left & right in Berkeley”

              1. It’s literally her job to talk about things that are relevant to libertarians.

                A group of violent far-left thugs in Berkeley committing acts of terrorism to drive off a guest speaker and those who came to hear him is pretty relevant to our interests.

                I can understand not wanting to look at something as ugly as that. I’m tired of all this shit too, I think we all are. Two weeks of non-stop histrionics will do that to anyone.

                I won’t condemn her for being worn down by it all, but if she can’t handle it, then pass the mantle to someone who will.

                1. Like Robby?

                  1. He has better hair.

        3. That is as straight-leftists as it gets.

          “The violence can be blamed on whoever invited a person to speak because words are also violence!”

          1. Milo does not condone violence. He has spoken against violence in everything I’ve seen of his.

            The only ones speaking in favor of violence are the radical far left, and Shikha stands with them.

            There were people severely beaten (one to the point of unconsciousness, and people are not sure if he died). There was arson. Pepper spraying one young woman because she wore a red hat. There was vandalism and looting.

            When you perpetrate acts of violence to prevent someone from speaking, you are seeking to cause fear for political aims. That is not a protest. It isn’t even a riot. That is terrorism.

            Shikha is essentially saying that she equates peaceful exercise of the freedom of speech with acts of terrorism. About as un-libertarian as you get.

            Collectivist. Reprehensible.

            1. Indeed, their slogan is “Make Fascists* Afraid Again”.

              *Fascist roughly translates to anyone to the right of Stalin.

              I do believe that’s the definition of terrorism. And a justification to violate the NAP over words and thoughts. If you’re making excuses for this shit, you’re not a libertarian, full stop.

              1. Words like violence break the silence. Checkmate bitch.

        4. The real impact of Trump’s election is not that some fictional band of Nazis is marauding around this country looking to impose the fourth reich. The real impact is that illiberal ideas like condoning violence over speech is becoming acceptable.

          What the hell kind of so called libertarian defends such nonsense.

          1. The kind that was never a libertarian at all.

        5. Honest condemnation of #Berkley violence must also condemn those who invited him.What’s point except baiting n inciting in Trump’s America?

          ~Shikha “Somehow a Senior Analyst for Reason” Dalmia

          1. The fact that she is still employed by reason shows that reason really has no integrity or credibility when it comes to these things.

            1. They’re running out of credibility if they still have any left at all. The proportion of libertarians who regard Reason as a tragic example of declining intellectual standards is ever widening with each passing day.

              1. Losing all their principles along with their marbles.

            2. I have noticed they no longer publish Sheldon Richman though.

        6. Amazing that, in 140 characters, she manages to advocate suppression of speech she doesn’t agree with, implies that the violence is justified because the speaker somehow incited it, and blames Trump for all the violence that’s happened, even though none of it was perpetrated by his supporters.

        7. holy shit!

          1. I mean, I’ve thought this woman was reprehensible for a long time, but I wouldn’t have expected that

            1. I did. I also think she can get a lot worse.

        8. I remember when the ALCU defended the right of Nazis to march through a neighborhood of holocaust victims.

          Fuck today’s liberals.

          And fuck all the staff at Reason that say there is even the slightest bit of moral equivalency between saying hurtful things and burning cars and beating people.

        9. That’s fucking vile.

      2. Charlie Hebdo – I know they were all brutally killed, but did you see those horrible cartoons?

        “Spousal abuse violence is bad, but we can’t just go condemning the abuser without pointing out how the bitch never shuts up”

        1. (sigh)

          i just want let people know that my typos are because i’m usually doing 3 things at once.

          1. Typing is much easier with both hands, sicko.

            1. Which is something his mom screams all the time, but its hard to hear that in the basement.

            2. Well YOU trying driving, strangling a prostitute, and texting at the same time.

              1. I drive a standard. Try doing all that and have to manually shift gears at the same time.

              2. Ask the prostitute to do the texting while you choke her, this is just organization 101.

              3. YOu’re right. I certainly never could get the hang of it.

    2. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

      =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  2. I am curious to see if she will defend her Tweet.

    1. *looks up Shikha’s Twitter account*

      Jesus Christ, which one?

      1. see above

      2. Honest condemnation of #Berkley violence must also condemn those who invited him.What’s point except baiting n inciting in Trump’s America?

        WWWWWHHHHAAAAATTTTT?!

        1. “Of course Hitler’s invasion of Poland was a violation of international law; but you have to admit – the Poles totally had it coming”

          1. You know, the more I learn about this Hitler guy, the less I like him.

          2. Ah, the Pat Buchanan approach…

        2. Yeah, that is HORRIBLE.

    2. Reason is in a full court press to chase off donors.

      1. They’re certainly doing a bang-up job

  3. Yeah, not the same thing.

    The federal government has long withheld federal funding to force states into doing shit they want. The drinking age. The interstate speed limit.

    Additionally, we’re talking about cities here, not states.

    1. “The federal government has long withheld federal funding to force states into doing shit they want. The drinking age. The interstate speed limit.”

      Well, IIRC, coercing states to adopt the higher drinking age was accomplished by withholding federal transportation funding, which one could at least make a tenuous claim that the drinking age is related to problems caused by drunk driving. In this case, it would be, at least according to Ms. Dalmia’s conception of the problem, withholding money that was completely unrelated to immigration at all, not even tenuously, in order to coerce states to hand over the illegals.

      Of course the better way is for tax money not to make the expensive round trip through the federal government in the first place.

      1. Even the LA Times acknowledges this is all completely within the bounds of the Constitution.

        The Federal government is responsible for immigration law. If a state or city (important distinction because the Constitution does not guarantee “city rights”) is in violation of immigration law, Congress can withhold their funding so long as the amount is not deemed “coercive.”

        1. Well sure, and I think that is Ms. Dalmia’s point. So the Feds can withhold LE money, but they can’t withhold completely unrelated money. That would be “coercive”.

          1. “Coercive” according to the Supreme Court rulings are based upon the amount withheld, not the purpose of the funds.

            1. Really? Huh. That seems… arbitrary.

              1. I think that describes lots of court rulings.

                But it also still ignores the fact that the ACA ruling had to do with State’s rights, which is a Constitutional protection that is not also afforded to cities.

                And it also glosses over the fact that the federal government can just yell NATIONAL SECURITY and get away with whatever the hell it wants when it comes to “dangerous illegals.”

  4. There can be no doubt that Arnold is a far more accomplished guy than the orange comb-over.

    One guy is a true Horatio Alger story, the other guy, not so much.

    One guy had no money from daddy, the other guy, big time.

    One guy speaks several languages, the other, not so much.

    One guy’s English, the immigrant, is more intelligible than the native speaker’s.

    One guy is indisputably the greatest athlete in his sport, winning Mr. Olympia 7 times; the other, he’s good at grabbing pussy, but even there, he couldn’t hold the other guy’s jockstrap.

    One guy was the top box office draw for over a decade; the other guy, well, he had a TV show in which he had trouble putting subject to predicate to object.

    Oh, the immigrant has made hundreds of millions of dollars without bankrupting entities like the other.

    Hmmmm…………………..

    1. “the Trump vs. Schwarzenegger vs. Jesus thread is back there”

      (gestures)

      1. Sheesh, why you adding Jesus to the mix?

    2. Unfortunately, Arnold was born in Thal, Austria, and thus not eligible to be President.

      1. Unfortunately? Did you see how he performed as Governor of Kaliforneeyah?

  5. Irrespective of whether one is in personal agreement with our immigration rules, I can’t fathom this compulsion a great many among us seem to have of insisting that we should permit foreign aliens to violate American law.

    The United States constitute a sovereign nation, upon whose borders its government rightfully imposes restrictions, and whose territory is only accessible to individuals that comply with certain standards. Why is this a matter of such feverish controversy and contention? Does Dalmia sincerely believe there isn’t evil beyond our national boundaries from which we, as duteous Americans, ought to safeguard our homeland?

    1. Because racism.

      If you don’t let non-white people break the law, you are a racist.

      It’s really just people being so afraid to say anything negative about non-white people out of fear of appearing racist.

      1. The sort of mental infirmity required for someone to sincerely believe such claptrap would suggest its proponents should retire from commentating upon current affairs, because that sort of retardation is unfixable.

    2. Well, there is an entire strain of libertarian thought which claims that national borders themselves are unjust and a violation of natural rights. So some would argue that laws which make it a crime for a person of some arbitrarily-defined nationality to be here without the government’s permission is unjust and ought not be enforced, much like laws which make it a crime for a person to own certain arbitrary plants.

      1. That argument necessarily entails drawing an equivalence between the protection of sovereign borders and drug prohibition, and is one I quite evidently don’t subscribe to.

        1. Why should you seek the permission of the state if you want to travel from one private residence to another private residence which happens to be located on the other side of an imaginary line?

          1. or, rather, “why should you have to seek the permission of the state”…

            1. Those imaginary lines were defined by ugly wars.

              The reason Canada is a different country is because they would not join us.

              So, it is all really their fault.

              We conquered Mexico but it wasn’t really worth keeping.

          2. Describing a national border derisively as an imaginary line invites a whole new chain of debates, beginning with whether we believe in the equality of distinct cultures. I don’t.

            A duly elected government — whose legitimacy in the real world I know is substantially compromised by multitudinous misdeeds — must defends its citizenry and that citizenry’s holdings and property against the demonstrably uncivilized and degenerate foreign powers and individuals to whom most of the world belongs.

            1. What, pray tell, is “a duly elected government”?

              Is it a government the chief executive of which constantly harped has elections which are rigged?

              Is it a government that controls the election process and affirmatively prevents parties other than the two parties of state from being on ballots and participating in presidential debates?

              Why must a duly elected government defend its citizenry and that citizenry’s holdings and property against the demonstrably uncivilized and degenerate foreign powers and individuals to whom most of the world belongs?

              What if the duly elected government that is required to defend its citizenry is actually the world’s worst offender when it comes to making war and killing people all over the world?

              What if the duly elected government that is required to defend its citizenry and that citizenry’s holdings and property actually rapes, robs, and pillages that citizenry upon a daily basis?

              1. ‘What, pray tell, is “a duly elected government”?’
                Try using Google.

            2. “Describing a national border derisively as an imaginary line”

              It’s not a derisive description. It is a completely accurate one. If you physically travel to a national border, there is no line on the ground. The line exists only on maps and in law books.

              “beginning with whether we believe in the equality of distinct cultures. I don’t.”

              You don’t have to believe in equality of cultures in order to accept the premise that individuals have a natural right to travel between different parcels of private property provided that the property owners have given permission to do so, regardless of what any government has said on the matter.

              1. Well there ARE coastlines and rivers. The Rio Grande, for instance. But do cities, for instance, get to say who enters and who cannot? Can Los Angeles prohibit and screen anyone from San Diego from entering their city limits? Or does the city limit boundaries map out what the responsibilities of the city government to protect the rights of those within, to collect taxes, and to enforce laws.

              2. ‘It’s not a derisive description. It is a completely accurate one. If you physically travel to a national border, there is no line on the ground. The line exists only on maps and in law books.’

                Just like the line around private properties.

              3. “If you physically travel to a national border, there is no line on the ground.”

                You haven’t been to the US-Canada border, have you?

                http://www.atlasobscura.com/pl…..rder-slash

      2. The open borders concept works alright between the US and Canada. And France and Switzerland. Because those countries offer similar qualities of life, there isn’t a flood of uneducated and unqualified people trying to come across to get free shit.

        It doesn’t work between countries like the US and Mexico.

        1. But we don’t say of other natural rights, that they ought to be respected only if the individuals have some minimum income, or if they have some particular cultural value. No, all human beings are endowed with the same natural rights, regardless. So why should the right to travel between different pieces of private property be any different?

          1. Because it’s not a natural right.

          2. Because it doesn’t occur in a vacuum?

            The border is not an invisible line anymore. Once you cross that line into America, you gain things. Things that cost American citizens money.

            And all human beings *should* have the same natural rights. But they don’t. And it isn’t America’s job to pay for all the people in the world to gain those natural rights.

            In a true Libertarian paradise with no or very limited government, travel across a border wouldn’t be a problem. But that’s not the world we live in.

            1. What *natural rights* do I gain just by crossing a border?

              Natural rights are right that I have by virtue of my birth, not contingent on citizenship in any nation.

              1. Funny that you mention citizenship. Because being born on American soil makes you an American citizen.

                Play semantics all you want with “natural” rights. They don’t actually exist in most countries. So you clearly would gain liberty by crossing the border into America.

                1. Just because a natural right is not respected, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I may choose to not respect the presence of a person standing in front of my car, but when I run them down that doesn’t mean they don’t exist or that they weren’t standing there. Natural law is valid. “Freedom of movement” just isn’t a direct facet of it.

          3. We all agree that Mexico should respect the natural rights of its citizens.

        2. The same argument could be made of free trade in goods and services.

          Products from China, for example.

      3. Freedom of movement has no basis in natural law outside of unowned territory. At best your right to go somewhere is contingent on property rights or contractual agreements and easements with those who do have property rights,

        1. Let’s ask the bearded harbingers of Islam for contracts and treaties. I have it on good, progressive authority that they’ll submit to the procedures of civilization.

          1. That they won’t is no reason to surrender to federal parasites here.

        2. Well, let me just leave this here.

          https://reason.com/archives/201…..nd-freedom

          I would agree with you, up to a point. For example, if I want to visit my neighbor, and my neighbor gave me permission to be on his property, then I have every right to transport myself to my neighbor’s property. However, if there is a national border in between my property and my neighbor’s property, then two third-parties, the two national governments involved, now somehow get veto power over my decision to travel to my neighbor’s property, and my neighbor’s decision to invite me onto his property. How is this result consistent with ownership of private property and my self-ownership?

          1. For example, if I want to visit my neighbor, and my neighbor gave me permission to be on his property, then I have every right to transport myself to my neighbor’s property.

            One particular very limited right that exists at the property owner’s leisure, otherwise known as a contractual right.

            Nothing in what you posted established that “freedom of movement” is a natural right. You just described a contractual right. Pretend that the border isn’t there, it’s still not a natural right to enter your neighbor’s property. In the presence of a border, once again it’s still not a natural right to travel there.

            When you cross a border you’re crossing a line demarcating the nationalized “right to exclude” that all property owners would possess in the absence of government but which has been seized and managed by the state. Just because property owners’ naturally occurring sovereignty is nationalized and then exercised by the state doesn’t mean that rules have no business existing. It’s like saying a speed limit placed on drivers is a violation of a natural right because eminent domain was used to take some of the land that created the road. Yes it’s unjust that the rule-maker attained his authority through theft, but it doesn’t diminish the necessity of rule-making and it remains incumbent upon the rule-maker to not abrogate their duties since they’ve stolen the right to do so from everyone else.

            1. “nationalized “right to exclude”” = a collective right?

              Natural rights belong to individuals not to the collective.

              “Nothing in what you posted established that “freedom of movement” is a natural right. You just described a contractual right. Pretend that the border isn’t there, it’s still not a natural right to enter your neighbor’s property. In the presence of a border, once again it’s still not a natural right to travel there.”

              This same argument could be made about any natural right enshrined in the constitution.

              It’s not a natural right to enter your neighbor’s property with a gun, for example. With or without a border.

              1. “nationalized “right to exclude”” = a collective right?

                Correct. I’m not saying that ought to be the case. But certain rights of exclusion that all property have by natural law have been nationalized, forcefully collectivized to the point where individuals are forbidden from exercising. Thus why I say they “nationalized” those rights.

                It’s not a natural right to enter your neighbor’s property with a gun, for example. With or without a border.

                That’s a funny example to pick because your natural right to armed self-defense as enshrined in the Constitution, does not give you any right to enter your neighbor’s property with a gun, or a banana for that matter because you don’t have a natural right to enter the property of others in the first place.

        3. So Los Angeles can prohibit people from San Francisco from entering the city?

    3. duteous

      Huh huh you said “doody” …

      1. I was fishing for one of SugarFree’s stories, hoping he’d write something someone like Dajjal might enjoy (scat porn, obviously).

  6. If these illegal aliens are so peaceful, how did they get arrested? I know a lot of people get arrested for bullshit reasons. But not everyone who is arrested is arrested for bullshit reasons. Some people need to be arrested and are arrested for no shit violent and nasty crimes. Yet, Dalmai claims that these cities will be damned if they will turn over peaceful illegals to the feds.

    Either Dalmia is profoundly ignorant of this issue or profoundly dishonest or it being her both. Sactuary city means the police don’t check the immigration status of those they arrest and don’t turn over criminals, even convicted ones or ones arrested for serious crimes to feds for deportation. No one is talking about cities having to round up peaceful immigrants. They are just demanding that the police turn over the illegal aliens they arrest to be deported.

    The fact that Dalmia finds the idea that criminal immigrants should be deported so offensive, leads me to conclude that she is happy to see criminals released back into the immigrant community to prey on them. Or at the very least she doesn’t care. But remember, she is the compassionate one.

    1. John, I’m more interested in your interpretation of the following

      Joined by two liberals, all five conservative justices basically declared null and void an ObamaCare provision that would have stripped states that refused to expand Medicaid of all their Medicaid funding ? not just the money tied to the expansion pushed by ObamaCare. The justices agreed that this was “coercion,” and that Uncle Sam does not have limitless authority to withhold “non-germane” funds that don’t have anything to do with the policy in question.

      Is this a plausible argument? Because if so, Dalmia might be right. Leave aside the “ought”, does this accurately represent the legal reality?

      1. Is it plausible? Sure. But ti is not convincing. Obamacare said that if the states didn’t accept the medicare expansion money, they would lose all medicare money. The feds said that the states must expand medicare, which necessarily entails spending millins of state dollars to go with the federal funds or lose all medicare funds. The feds were threatening the states with loss fo funds not just for the failure to go along with a program but when doing so entailed states spending huge amounts of money.

        That is quantitative and quantitatively different than this. Here, the feds are saying “if you want our LE grants, cooperate with us and tell us when you arrest an illegal alien. No one is telling the states to start enforcing federal law or spend any money or resources beyond the time it takes to ask the person if they are a citizen or on a VISA and call the feds. This is analogous to the drinking age or the 55mph speed limit.

        1. And they are only being asked to detain people who are determined to be deportable by a match to the ICE database, right?

          1. Yes, but not indefinitely. Only long enough for ICE to come get them. If ICE doesn’t do that or dicks around for longer than the state likes, the state doesn’t have to hold them forever.

      2. I think RC talked about that before extensively (before he gave up on H&R). IIRC, the thrust of it was that the medicaid example was a one-off and not really applicable.

        1. I said the same thing on the same thread. And the gun law case isn’t applicable either. There the feds told the states to arrest people and hold them for committing a federal crime not just report the status of someone to the feds. This is no different than calling up another state if the person has a bench warrant.

    2. Wasn’t DeBolshevik bragging yesterday that NYC already cooperates with the feds when it comes to violent illegals? If that’s true and we’re talking about people pinched for possession, what’s the problem?

      1. I don’t know. And perhaps that is a reasonable compromise here. But if it is, Dalmia never mentions it. And she never gives any indication that she wants any illegal alien deported under any circumstances.

        1. Which is funny because she, last I checked, is not an anarchist. So apparently she just opposes western countries having any sovereignty. I think of her as an advocate for colonialism.

          1. She’s a clueless apologist. Her residence in the United States insulates her from the barbarity she wants to import.

          2. It just shows how stupid reason is. Keeping gang members and violent criminals in the country is a pretty stupid hill to die on. If reason had any sense, they would be arguing for these cities turning over people arrested or convicted of violent crimes and trying to keep them from turning over people arrested for administrative and victimless crimes.

            Why is it so hard for them to do that?

      2. In the course of making that statement he mentioned that that he wouldn’t allow people to be deported for trifles like DUI. MAAD was aghast at his temerity; how dare he point out the inconvenient truth that most people punished by their favored policies are harming nobody.

    3. I don’t know man. I’ve been arrested 3 times for non-violent traffic offenses.

      The first time was when I was 20 years old for failure to appear for an expired license plate tag (I honestly forgot about it).

      The second time was for driving with a suspended license when I was 25 years old. At the time of my arrest, I had no idea my license was suspended. The state had suspended my license, not because of anything I did, but because I didn’t mail proof of insurance to state department of motor vehicles. They had apparently mailed a letter to me telling me about this, but I never got that letter (I had moved 3 times that year).

      The third time was for driving with an expired out of state tag when I was 32 years old. I had moved to Florida and continued to use my old license plate because licensing a vehicle in Florida was so expensive. I obviously should have gotten a Florida plate in accordance with the law, but I had no idea I would actually be arrested for not doing so.

      Anyway, I’m a mild-mannered engineer who lives a pretty uneventful lifestyle, but I still managed to get arrested 3 times for what is essentially “failure to complete paperwork”. I’m pretty sure this was a factor in pushing me toward libertarianism.

      1. Again, peaceful people are sometimes arrested. But a lot of not so peaceful people are as well. I am as cynical as anyone about the criminal justice system. But you are kidding yourself if you don’t think there are a lot of people in jail that deserve and need to be there.

        1. Of course lots of people in jail deserve to be there. You asked “If these illegal aliens are so peaceful, how did they get arrested?”. I responded using my experience as an example of how a peaceful person can get arrested.

    1. Yeah but the it was the Trump supporters fault! She deserves criticism as well, if we’re being fair!
      /Shikha

    2. Did anyone get arrested for it? If not, then it was an effective move.
      You can be disgusted all you like, but I bet she thinks twice the next time. And so will other people. Do it twenty times with no consequence, and a lot of people will think twice.

      To Godwin it, Kristalnacht was not an own goal. National Socialism was not the biggest loser there.

      “Ah, but if the other side…”

      $50 says if the same thing happens, there will be arrests and consequences.

    3. Leftist reactionaries are prone to barbarism. It’s an intrinsic part of their ideology. My family learned that a long time ago.

    4. Well, that is unfortunate.

      What struck me though was that her hat said “Make Bitcoin Great Again”. Wasn’t expecting that.

    5. I cannot even imagine the mindset of a person who thinks it is appropriate to pepper spray someone who is peacefully and calmly giving an interview to media.

  7. Going through Shikha’s Twitter is kinda fucking weird.

    shikha sood dalmia ?@shikhadalmia Jan 29
    More
    shikha sood dalmia Retweeted Jeffrey A Tucker
    The most pathetic creatures right now are anti-war libertarians who supported Trump because he would bring peace to the world!

    What the hell is that supposed to mean?

    1. It sounds like she’s taking the piss out of anti-war libertarians who supported Trump because they thought he would bring peace to the world.

    2. She’s attacking the Mises Institute people for going full-on Trump. I may not agree with them, but frankly, Shikha has no room criticizing any libertarian since she is just a Leftist.

      At least they don’t advocate censorship and violence

      1. What has Trump done that is any more war like than Obama? And even Trump’s biggest supporters never claimed he would bring peace.

        She is so awful. She really is horrible.

      2. What has Trump done that is any more war like than Obama? And even Trump’s biggest supporters never claimed he would bring peace.

        She is so awful. She really is horrible.

        1. It’s amazing what Trump has done in the couple of weeks since the inauguration. Countless wars, rampant discrimination, immigrant genocide. You kind of have to respect him, well actually you have to respect him or else be fed to his KKK dogs

          1. The man sure gets results doesn’t he.

      3. Shikha has no room criticizing any libertarian since she is just a Leftist.

        No, I criticize leftists all the time, and I’m not one.

        I just, you know, don’t insist that I’m totally a Socialist With Human Face when I do that.

  8. Dalmia needs to go. You need to shape up Reason or you’re going to start shedding readers.

      1. I was trying to be nice.

      2. Let’s just take over Rare.us comment section. Jack Hunter writes for them and they don’t condone violence.

        1. If only there was really somewhere else to go I’d be gone. Maybe it’s too soon after the tweet to realistically expect her to be shitcanned. If they publish her again I’m going to reluctantly look elsewhere.

    1. Shape up, or ship out! Also, get off my lawn!

  9. I’m sure Dalmia is on board with making sure muslim refugees don’t engage in Female genital mutilation with minor children, right? Or forced arranged marriages?

    Cause surely that’s just a few bad apples. Islam is peace!

    How about the refugees who open a Muslim Bakery? Seems like they aren’t on board with the whole LGBTQ thingy yet. I’m sure the protests are on their way now!

    1. I can’t sleep at night thinking about American parents mutilating the penies of children. #foreskinHolocaust

  10. It is unconstitutional to detain an alien who is subject to deportation?

    lolwut?

  11. But they may not be so brave if Trump could really make good on this threat, which is why it’s a good thing that he can’t.

    So…let me get this straight. It’s a good thing that the federal largesse will still flow to these municipalities? What site is this again?

  12. RE: Trump’s Sanctuary City Executive Order Is Toothless: New at Reason

    That depends.
    If Trump the Grump could eliminate any federal funding to sanctuary cities, then his executive order would have some bite.
    However, what Trump the Grump doesn’t realize, is his ideas will have ramifications come election day.

  13. Got it. Following the laws is now completely optional.

    I will plan accordingly.

  14. But all these communities would have to rethink their brave stance if Trump could make good on his threat of stripping them of federal money.

    It’s a good thing, then, that the president can’t do that ? thanks in large part to the conservative justices in the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius ? aka the ObamaCare ruling.

    Like Trump has to worry about what the law says. When you’re a star, they’ll let you do anything. You can tell resident aliens their green card’s just been revoked with the stroke of a pen and there’s no such thing as a Constitution or due process for them and people will cheer for you.

    1. He didn’t revoke anyone’s green card. I don’t know why you think he did.

  15. Mayors of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and many more cities have declared that Trump can take his anti-sanctuary city executive order and go fly a kite with it

    Maybe the Trump administration will go fly a drone with it. What do you think about that, Chicuckgo?

    1. Awesome satire, it’s perfect.

  16. Shikha and Reason and fuck off. Tired of this bullshit everyday.

    1. You could, maybe… not click the link?

    2. Well La Mango did say she was taking the magazine in a new direction.

  17. garbage…

    border jumpers are law breakers!

    TRUMP the “OUTSTANDING” – illegal aliens you want to give a “Merit System” have…

    Before an illegal alien receives his/her first paycheck or cash payment, they have committed some
    26 Federal, State and Local laws.

    1. They conspire to cross the border illegally. (1 count)
    2. They hire a coyote or are provided passage by a Drug Cartel in exchange for guided passage
    into the USA. (1 count)
    3. They cross the Border with a coyote and in many cases smuggle drugs. (1 count)
    4. They travel, illegally, to their destination or to a destination determined by their “smuggler.” (1 count)
    5. They obtain fraudulent documents via identity theft, or via manufactured documents?.
    driver license, green card, social security card, birth certificate (each count a felony). (4 counts)
    6. They look for work using these documents. (1 count)
    7. They fill out work documents falsely, i.e., Federal and State IRS forms, SSN forms,
    Immigration forms, Workers comp. forms (each a separate felony. (6 counts)
    8. They drive on our roads without a legal license, registration, insurance. (3 counts)
    9. They get paid via check or under the table, thus conspiring with the employer to defraud the
    government(s) via the use of false documents. (2 counts)
    10. They open bank accounts via the use of false documents in violation of Federal Law and the
    Patriot Act. (2 counts)

    1. 11. They obtain housing via the use of false documents. (1 count)
      12. They obtain a car or truck via the use of false documents. (1 count)
      13. They obtain healthcare via the use of false documents. (1 count)
      14. They secure public service benefits via the use of false documents ? food, housing, healthcare, etc.
      (3 + counts)

      At a minimum this list shows that they commit at least 28 crimes of identity theft, conspiracy, obtaining false documents making false statements, fraud, violation of Federal and State and Local laws, etc.

      AND THE LIST GOES ON.

      The above list correctly demonstrates that they are not simply in violation of our laws just for crossing the Border, they are in violation for multiple misdemeanor and criminal acts in just a very short period of time and they continue to compound their violations via the passage of time, via falsification of documents, false statements, perjury and the list goes on.

  18. The wait-for-ICE detentions were also almost certainly unconstitutional. They required holding people without a warrant beyond the time required by the original crime. (For example, someone booked for unpaid parking tickets could end up being detained for days and then deported.

    These criminal aliens may be arrested for their most recent crime of failure to pay parking tickets, but committing a subsequent crime doesn’t wipe out the original crime of which they are guilty – namely, entering the country illegally. If one could wipe out a prior crime just by committing a new crime, every murderer, rapist and arsonist would immediately park illegally after the corresponding rape, murder or arson and point to the “new” crime saying, “See! I committed another crime, so you can’t prosecute me for rape/murder/arson.”

    As for the dream that Sebilius will shelter criminal aliens – dream on. The circumstances are so easily distinguished, even you should be able to figure it out. One is about setting health care policy (something for which no Constitutional authority exists), while the other is centered squarely on carrying out immigration policies – a direct Constitutional mandate. Quite beyond that, the hammer that Trump should use to crush “sanctuary” cities is not funding, but criminal sanctions under 8 USC ? 1342. Put the mayors in prison, fine them millions of dollars, and ask, “Who’s next?”

    1. Cool story bro.

  19. Medicaid is a state run program, and constitutionally the authority lies within the states. This is not true with immigration, which is in fact a Federal responsibility. The government could not force the states to take money for state programs. They can deny money if the states do not follow federal law. In fact the law requires that. The fact that Obama or Bush froth that matter, did not means he was not executing the law which was his duty to do so. They cases can be brought before the court, but the states will lose.

  20. I considered myself libertarian (oh, the gall!), but I MAY not be as libertarian as I think. I hope everyone can help me out. . .

    I think we should severely limit all foreign military intervention, but should never rule it out.

    I think willingly bringing people opposed to Libertarian values (especially MUSLIMS!) into this nation is extremely counterproductive.

    I think Trump has accomplished more in a couple of weeks than any libertarian-approved candidates have ever accomplished.

    Big question: Am I fascist?

  21. That is as straight-leftists as it gets.

    “The violence can be blamed on whoever invited a person to speak because words are also violence!”

  22. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  23. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  24. Frankly I would ramp up deportations and raids within those cities until they comply. It would be a simple punch in the mouth that would make things a little more clear.

  25. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,
    ============> http://www.moneytime10.com

  26. I looked at the check for $8628 , I didnt believe that…my… father in law was like actualie taking home money in there spare time on there computar. . there sisters roommate haz done this for under 17 months and just cleard the morgage on there apartment and got a gorgeous Chevrolet Corvette . go to website

    =============================== http://www.cash-review.com

  27. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.cash-review.com

  28. My best friend’s ex-wife makes Bucks75/hr on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her income with big fat bonus was over Bucks9000 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site…..
    ========== http://www.net.pro70.com

  29. My last month paycheck was for 11000 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour… This is what I do

    =========================== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  30. I’m making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbor told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I’m my own boss. This is what I do>>

    ======== http://www.centerpay70.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.