Sessions announces plans to strip sanctuary cities of federal funds

[Chasstev365]

Surely this is not legal!

[Gothmog]

1. There is at least one injunction in place on this

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-judge-blocks-order-sanctuary-money-20170425-story.html

[SHRED]

2. California pays more Federal taxes than it takes in

So there's that.

[gratuitous]

3. It isn't legal

Congress has already authorized the funds, and the Executive branch doesn't have the unilateral power to change that authorization.

[Goonch]

4. RECUSED

[BumRushDaShow]

5. Department heads can't "strip funds" already appropriated by Congress for specific functions.

The Executive Branch does NOT control the purse-strings.

Congress can however, create new legislation (passed and signed by the President) that certain funding "cannot be used for" certain activities or by certain entities. And even in the latter case, if those restrictions are found to be "punitive" in nature, it could be considered by the courts as a "bill of attainder", and would be invalidated.

The issue here is this - anything that "enters into interstate commerce" (e.g., crosses a state or national border) is the federal government's responsibility and this immigration brouhaha is demanding that localities take on federal duties. There are already quite a few "federal-state partnerships" where both work together on certain oversight and other overlapping regulatory activities, but immigration is not one of them.

[onecaliberal]

6. The House of Representatives holds the power of the purse not the attorney general.

[nikibatts]

7. This is why Trump won't fire him. He's the racist's wet dream.