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.

  1. The expenditure must promote "the common good".
  2. The condition must be unique.
  3. The condition should relate to "the interest of the federal government in certain national projects or programs".
  4. The condition imposed on states must not in itself be unconstitutional.
  5. 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.

Point 2

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.

point 5

... 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.


@LanetRino While the travel ban makes no mention of Muslims, it was determined that it was intentional based on Trump's election promises, and Rudy Giuliani, who explained Trump, asked him to create a travel ban that fulfilled that promise. The federal government can already enforce immigration laws. They urge states to enforce these laws as well and threaten to cut federal funding if they fail to do so. That goes against the tenth amendment. I will add this to my answer when I have time.


@LanetRino - I'm not sure why you seem to believe that things he said before the oath of office are magically disappearing from collective consciousness. One of the ways in which SCOTUS determines the "original intent" of laws, even the constitution itself, is through statements and correspondence from those who produced the acts or laws. In addition, "I discriminate against this group" does not have to be explicitly stated to be discriminatory. When the effects are different and there is no other reasonable explanation, the intent is clear. Just ask North Carolina for its ruling on its voting restrictions.


@ LanRRino - I'm not sure why you think that was the intent. None of the nations responsible for terrorist attacks on US soil were included. There was no such thing as an "objective record". The original and subsequent orders were logically and legally a mess. The entire premise was based on subjective imagination, much like the one where people who have been in the review process for 18 to 24 months and are in need of deregistrations from dozens of US and overseas companies somehow "went unchecked."


The denial level here is pretty implausible. How you pretend that things he said about the ban before writing it somehow don't count. I'm also not sure what you're talking about when you try to link Obamacare to the travel ban.


"The constitution expressly grants the president the privilege of the executive branch to refuse entry to the United States for foreigners." - Not really. Congress specifically gave the President that authority; the constitution does not.