Protection cities promote illegal immigration
Constitutionality of travel banned / protected cities
I thought the constitution only protects US citizens, not foreigners.
This is wrong, the constitution also protects non-citizens. Georgetown has a good paper on the history of it.
The Constitution expressly grants the President the privilege of the executive branch to refuse entry to the United States for foreigners.
The president has a lot of power over immigration policy, but this has been delegated by Congress to the executive, which has ultimate authority over immigration.
The reason does not matter as long as it is in the interests of national security.
This is wrong, executive orders may not be against the constitution.
The same principle (minus the religious aspect) can be applied to cutting funding from protected cities to curb illegal immigration to the United States.
The tenth amendment protects the rights of states and prohibits the federal government from restricting funding to influence states. This has been held in front of the Supreme Court several times.
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 is a counterexample to this right. Federal funds are being withheld for highways for states that do not have a minimum drinking age of 21 years or older.
South Dakota challenged and lost the bill, but the Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for the federal government to withhold funds if the cuts reach five points.
- The expenditure must promote "the common good".
- The condition must be unique.
- The condition should relate to "the interest of the federal government in certain national projects or programs".
- The condition imposed on states must not in itself be unconstitutional.
- The condition cannot be mandatory.
The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was found to meet all points including number 5 as the amount withheld was only 5% of the highway funding.
It can be argued that Trump's Executive Order complies with points 1, 3 and 4 but violates points 2 and 5.
The secretary has the authority, in his sole discretion and within the framework of the law, to designate a jurisdiction as a protected area jurisdiction.
The implementing ordinance allows the designation of protected cities at will. This violates the condition that the cut is unique. There are no clear rules that a city can follow in order not to be considered a protected city.
... ensures that jurisdictions that deliberately refuse to comply with 8 USC 1373 (Protected Areas) are not eligible for federal grants unless deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes ...
The contract also cuts practically all grants for every city designated as a protective city. This violates the condition that the cut is not mandatory.
- Why are mountains covered with snow
- Why do I always have energy
- Which villain actually had a point
- The Titanic sent an SOS
- Our universe expands or shrinks
- Is BMSIT good for CSE
- What does it mean to feel love
- How are coins made in India
- Are Chinese noodles healthy?
- Startups in Singapore are hiring new graduates
- Why do bodybuilders use steroids
- The mass compresses spacetime
- What is Category Theory 23346
- Is the Indian diet healthy?
- Will the Greek economy recover?
- Do you know British slang
- Why are Americans so fat 2
- What is the best online CCNA course
- Which cancer has the best prognosis?
- How Walmart manages its supply chain
- Can mass and space-time exist separately?
- What is DC in a port
- Can a person ever be satisfied
- Healthy foods are delicious
- What's your favorite commercial
- Why don't people just obey the law
- Is 19 years old and considered an adult
- What is your opinion on morning sex
- Smart people are more paranoid
- What could be the best hobbies?
- What is 10 times 1 rupee
- Obesity isn't a life choice
- The placebo effect could work the other way round
- Where do relationships fail