Can Trump strip federal funding from states if they fail to comply with federal agencies on undocumented immigrants? We know the grant system provides money to states to run certain programs. If states don't comply with the programs, they can risk losing federal funding. But what about so-called "sanctuary cities?" Read the article below to see if the states are truly in trouble.
Big city mayors confident they'll remain sanctuary cities
While reading the argument made by both sides, you can argue yes the illegal immigration can affect commerce of medicaid in ways that hurt others with health insurance which leads Washington willing to pull the plug on Sanctuary cities. However, we can see the argument be made that if they pull funding in certain departments the cities can claim a counter argument of why it would affect the state or federal government negatively. In a separate opinion, if the government wants to really crack down on immigration, and its the Federal governments responsibility to handle immigration, they should be the ones going after illegal immigrants, not mandating States and localities to track everyone down in order to receive grant money when there are more pressing issues in many cities such as crime, infrastructure, and education.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Ramirez Period 3
It is true that the federal government can unfund a program with the Supremacy Clause if the state government is not following through with the strings attached. However, some cities (LA) have found a loophole since they technically are not funded by the federal government said they "don't have funding that is for the co-cooperation of our immigration federal officials and our local officials" (LA Mayor Eric Garcetti). Also, isn't the Supremacy Clause contradictory to the 10th Amendment in this case because (1) states have the power to reject the program provided by the federal government and (2) the original conditions have changed under Trump's executive order? The argument is unconstitutional it is not an enumerated power that lies with the federal government, it is reserved to the states. The undocumented immigrants are in a city which legally protects them and if the state is already protecting them, they are of no threat to the federal government. Also, if the cities have LEGALLY had a sanctuary status for a while and Trump is trying to get rid of the cities starting less than a week ago, wouldn't that make the executive branch attempting to exercise ex post facto law? Because if so, Congress and the states are NOT allowed to pass that. States are allowed to exercise their reserved powers as long as they do not violate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, and in this case, the sanctuary cities are in the clear.
ReplyDeleteKyla Wheeler, p.2
I think the states have all the power here. There are previous cases that have gone in favor of the national government such as South Dakota vs. Dole. However, in this case I believe that the national government has no choice. They laid out the conditions of aid when it was given and I don't see how they could so suddenly change them. Even if they could "If they make an attempt to pull that money, it will be from NYPD, from security funding to fight terrorism," (De Blasio) I think the link from allowing immigration to continue and the police departments is too thin to work. I think it will not hold up in court and even if it did I don't think the people would. Cutting funding to NYPD and antiterrorism agencies would go against trump’s policies (not like he hasn’t done that before though). I personally hope the cities win out here.
ReplyDeleteP.5
I do find it true that Trump can strip federal funding from the states if they do not comply with the federal agencies because of the grant system and the "strings attached" in these grants, however, by pulling the funding from important departments (police force, security fund from fighting terrorism), that decision wouldn't even be able to hold up in court. Also, the right to legally provide protection for undocumented immigrants goes to the states, not the federal government. The federal government has no enumerated power to handle the decision of immigrations, so wouldn't it be flat out unconstitutional for the federal government to decide whether or not these sanctuary states must abide by their rules pertaining to immigration? I find the whole ordeal just one big mess, and that the sanctuary states should be allowed to legally protect undocumented immigrants.
ReplyDeleteKennedy Madrid P.5
DeleteThe federal government is in the wrong to pull funds from these sanctuary cities if they're using the excuse of illegal immigration. Federal funding can be pulled if the conditions of aid are violated by the state. However, in this case immigration is not controlled by the state as congress controls naturalization, so the federal government really has no power over the states for this reason. Unless the Fed's find another reason to end these sanctuary cities, I don't see how these cities are in the wrong.
ReplyDeleteRyan Cain Per. 3
I believe that technically speaking the government can pull the funding of states through executive order especially if the states aren't following through with the strings attached but I don't consider the states to be violating anything since they're not in charge of immigration so I don't believe they should be stripped of that funding
ReplyDeleteLuz Cabada Period 2
As I began reading this article this quote stood out to me,“strip federal grant money from the sanctuary states and cities that harbor illegal immigrants." I immediately had questions; On what basis did he decide to pull the sanctuary cities funding? Did the states that have sanctuary cities violate the strings that are attached to the federal funding? Throughout the article it was evident that this was not the case.
ReplyDeleteAs I continued to read I understood that the funding, in the case of New York City, would be pulled from its police department, money that is used to fight against terrorism. Which didn’t answer my previous questions but left me even more perplexed. HOW would this in any way benefit New York or help him follow through with his promise to "unite the civilised world against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth", wouldn’t this action prevent him from doing the things previously stated?
The federal government is doing a mistake by pulling federal grant money from the sanctuary cities, because these cities seem to be abiding the law and terms that they must follow in order to continue receiving the funding.
Adriana Ortiz
Period 5
In my opinion I do agree that the federal government has the right to deny states money if they do not agree to the terms required to receive the funds. However I do not think it is wise for the government to pull funds from important state programs, such as the police force, because this can also affect other groups of people, including US citizens. I believe it is the national governments job to deal with illegal immigrants but they should find an alternative way to deal with them rather then hurt state programs that US citizens depend on.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Tong Period 5
The article calls into question a common notion since the dawn of the constitution: How far can the federal government push its powers? Like stated in the article, states are under no mandate to assist in illegal immigration (a federal job). Here Donald Trump seeks to gain assistance in the deportation of illegal immigrants by threatening states with the cutting off of certain funds. Now the article does not specify on if their are definite federal grant money or if it is all, but if we were to assume what is written this falls under "unduly coercion" an unconstitutional act. The only Federal funds that can be pulled are ones that illegal immigration effects. If Trump can successfully link an important area funded by the government that is negatively effected by illegal immigration, then his threat would have validity. This was seen in the case of South Dakota v. Dole. In that case underage drinking was considered directly related to highways, so the threat of loss of government funding was not "unduly". However loss of educational funding would be considered "unduly" because illegal immigration does not directly affect schools negatively.
ReplyDeleteTrump is in the wrong here. Forcing sanctuary cities to shut down is unconstitutional as it does not directly correlate with any of the enumerated powers. As they try to go around that, they violate the rules with the grants. The states did not violate the conditions concerning the original grant, and so therefore the national government should not be able to suddenly change the conditions of it in their favor. In the article, it points out that the funding that is being threatened is for NYPD's anti terrorist field, which would cause even more problems. In conclusion, Trump threatning to take away grant money if states do not shut down sanctuary cities is unconstitutional and will cause even more harm to the government.
ReplyDelete-Ashley Quintana
p.3
I do believe that the government can cut the federal funding. But I don't really think the cities are "safeguarding" immigrants. I believe tht by cutting the funding other factors such as police, infrastructure, and education are going to be hurt. Plus I really dont think that by stripping the funding it will have any real impact on immigration. It's not like the immigrants are going to get up and leave.
ReplyDeleteRafael Cabrera Period 5
This article seems to expound on the subject of the last reading we did, looking at federal grants and the different approaches to receive such grants. As we had learned, conditions of aid often are tied to receiving federal grants in an effort to limit the freedom that states have to spend such money. With this being said, this applies to the use of the money, where and how it goes. Looking at the article, no such approach is taken, it seems like an ultimatum of the executive branch's part, infringing upon the sovereignty of the states rights in dealing with these sanctuary cities. Furthermore, like in the court case South Dakota vs. Dole, the fed. threatened to restrict highway funding as a result of the inability to comply with underage drinking laws, and it was argued that this action was unrelated to the need to restrict highway spending, except in this case it seemed plausible at least in the slightest way. In the case of Trump's executive order, stripping the states of funding has no correlation whatsoever to the fact that these states house illegal immigrants, because if anything, removing federal aid would further hurt the states in being able to manage their cities, with or without putting the question of immigrants into this.
ReplyDeleteRebecca Covarrubias
period 5
This is a perfect example of the national and states butting heads for power; it shows that the presidents doesn't always have the supreme power. Sanctuary states are standing up to Trump executive order about the issue with immigration. According to our previous reading the federal government has the right to take away the grants provided to a state if they fail to comply and abide by the federal government's rules. However, in this situation I don't think that it will be beneficial for Trump to forgo with his plan to stop federal funding for the sanctuary states that fail to comply with federal agencies on undocumented immigrants. Taking away this money will only harm the people living within them,documented or not. Sanctuary cities are willing to go against Trump and to take this matter to court in order to defend its sovereignty and the healthy relationship that its built with immigrants, documented or not, over the years. If Trump wants to tackle the problem with undocumented immigrants he should work it out with each of the states instead of bullying them and using unconstitutional and immoral ways to enact his policies.
ReplyDeleteUpon reading the article, it seems quite clear that the Trump administration is in the wrong here.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government cannot force the state governments to enforce federal immigration laws, as that does not fall under the jurisdiction of local law enforcement agencies. Moreover, because the federal government does not supply any grants to these states that are to go towards enforcing federal immigration policies or towards helping ICE agents with the deportation of undocumented immigrants. However, I would not put it past the Trump administration to claim that when these sanctuary cities do not comply, it leads to increases in acts of terror. I suspect this may happen because throughout his campaign, Trump continuously points to cases of undocumented immigrants harming and killing American citizens. He may try to call these acts of terror and may claim that this would not be unduly coercive to pull funds that are meant to go towards preventing acts of terror and help to fund law enforcement agencies. I am curious to see if this will take place and how the SCOTUS will rule in this case. I think that most likely things will not workout in Trump's favor, but in this political climate almost anything is possible.
Madeline Casolari
P.3
This demonstrates the national and state gov never ending battle for superiority. I feel as though trump is completely in the wrong for trying to force federal immigration onto the state gov. If the national gov remove federal aid it will don nothing but hurt the states ergo hurting the nation as a whole. At the end of the day Trump isn't going to win this one.
ReplyDeleteDiante Lowe
P.3
yo bloi
ReplyDeleteTrump hates FUCKING NIGGERS. Period 3 says FUCK YOU
ReplyDelete