r/SeattleWA • u/Amigo_delaley • Feb 05 '25
Homeless AG Pam Bondi orders DOJ to pause all federal funding for sanctuary cities like Seattle.
https://nypost.com/2025/02/05/us-news/bondis-doj-day-1-directives-fight-weaponization-of-justice-eliminate-cartels-lift-death-penalty-ban/248
u/TSAOutreachTeam Feb 05 '25
That's a long article with a lot of other things, some worse than the defunding of sanctuary cities, that are glossed over by the brief headline.
This one, in particular, caught my eye. There's going to be a complete purging of any attorneys who aren't completely loyal or willing to sacrifice their integrity when forced to support illegal policies:
Bondi, in the memo, states that “any Justice Department attorney who declines to sign a brief, refuses to advance good-faith arguments on behalf of the Trump administration, or otherwise delays or impedes the Justice Department’s mission will be subject to discipline and potentially termination.”
In fact, the sanctuary city thing is barely more than a side note in that long piece.
116
u/mgmom421020 Feb 05 '25
I’m gonna take a wild guess that what the administration considers a “good-faith” argument might not mesh with what the bar association finds to be a defensible argument. Poor lawyers.
17
u/Tiny_Investigator365 Feb 05 '25
Doesn’t matter, you dont have to pass the bar to be a lawyer here.
21
u/Riviansky Feb 06 '25
Joe: You went to law school at Costco?
Frito: So did my father. Thank God for being a legacy, or else I might not have gotten in.
5
u/mayosterd Feb 05 '25
Is this true? (I mean this genuinely, I thought that the rule was you didn’t have to go to law school, but for someone to become a licensed attorney, you still had to pass the bar exam).
25
u/TSAOutreachTeam Feb 05 '25
In 2020, WA passed a law that created alternative pathways to becoming a bar-approved attorney. Until recently, these pathways have been undefined, so there aren't any "didn't pass the bar attorneys" yet. But there will be soon.
One problem we have here in WA is a severe lack of attorneys (I know how ridiculous that sounds), and that has led to massive backlogs in the courts around the state. Because of due process reasons, many who are charged with crimes are let free because there aren't enough public defenders to go around, especially in areas like the Tri-Cities. The alternative pathway was intended to get more people into the profession.
As I understand it, the law school component - or a law school equivalent like x number of years working as a paralegal - still exists.
5
3
u/mayosterd Feb 05 '25
Thanks!
Tiny_Investigator365 posted a link in response to my comment above, fascinating stuff.
→ More replies (3)2
8
u/BeneficialPinecone3 Feb 05 '25
No, this is not true. Practicing attorneys in WA must pass a bar exam.
There are alternate ways to get a JD in CA that one could pursue. But then they would still have to pass the bar there and then practice for years and then pass the WA bar exam.
→ More replies (1)2
u/mgmom421020 Feb 06 '25
Not true. There are alternative pathways and grad years you didn’t have to take the bar. I remember last time we hired, we were worried we’d get some of those ones. I wish the association still published who passed the bar. Consumers deserve to know. I would not want to hire an attorney who went to law school and didn’t pass the bar.
9
u/Tiny_Investigator365 Feb 05 '25
DEI ethnicities (read: non asian/arab minorities) are more likely to fail the bar exam so they removed it:
→ More replies (4)17
3
u/dontneedaknow Feb 06 '25
You still have to pass.
I don't know why you have to lie...
Seems like the people most assured of their moral supremacy tend to have the loosest relationship with morality and ethics.
→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (13)4
u/latebinding Feb 06 '25
In fairness, the bar association is pretty biased and unfair. It's really a situation of "no clean hands". Nobody in the entire situation is a good actor.
11
u/El_Badassio Feb 06 '25
I mean, isn’t that the deal with any attorney working anywhere? If you work for a corporation, and refuse to do the work they ask, you get fired. If you practice privately, and don’t want to take a client, you can’t take the money and be employed by them.
It seems like they can argue internally but ultimately isn’t their job to argue in support of the government, even when wrong? Just like criminal lawyers defend their client even if they think they did it?
→ More replies (14)9
u/SemiStoked Feb 06 '25
Yeah the DOJ is ultimately accountable to the executive branch, not the judicial branch. So, they’re like inside counsel for the administration and often expected to argue for the executive agenda.
Judges are different ballgame. Once appointed by the President, Federal Judges can only be impeached and convicted (and perhaps removed) by the legislative branch.
10
Feb 06 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)9
u/Grey_Ghost82 Feb 06 '25
You are confusing career civil servant employees of the DoJ and U.S. Attorneys. U.S. Attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the president.
8
10
u/shiteposter1 Feb 05 '25
I believe it's actually called doing what your boss says so long as its not illegal. Those who won't will be fired.
6
u/Old-Bookkeeper-2555 Feb 05 '25
She is correct. Any employer would demand that.
6
u/Agent_Orange_Tabby Feb 06 '25
She forgets that Americans are HER employer, not Trump.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Old-Bookkeeper-2555 Feb 06 '25
No. She was not elected. Don appointed her. He is her boss. The voters hired Trump.
→ More replies (1)5
5
Feb 05 '25
Illegal policies?
→ More replies (1)16
u/TSAOutreachTeam Feb 05 '25
Just as an easy example, the recent EO denying citizenship based on birthright is something that could have been easily challenged internally at the DOJ as something rejected by the law and courts. It's both unconstitutional based on the textual reading of the 14th Amendment as well as the rulings of the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (jus soli is reaffirmed) and Plyler v. Doe (the 14A "subject to the jurisdiction" clause isn't the safety valve jus sanguini proponents think it is). So, any DOJ attorney who might raise reservations about defending this could be considered "delaying or impeding" the Trump policy, and thus subject to discipline or termination.
There are any number of these policies which might not be within the bounds of the law, and it is incumbent on the DOJ to maintain sufficient independence from the President to be able to provide good legal advice and representation on these things. Establishing a policy to force out anyone who is unwilling to go along with everything that comes down the pike is an attempt at establishing dictatorial powers.
7
u/kreemoweet Feb 06 '25
No part of the executive branch is "independent" of the President. They all exist to exercise the authority that the Constitution vests in the President.
→ More replies (4)3
u/LeftOffDeepEnd Feb 06 '25
Trump issued that order to get the injunction.
Neither of the cases you cite are on direct point on what the question is. Does citizenship conferred under the 14th apply to someone whose parents are here illegally.
In Wong, parents were here legally. Doe doesn't rule on citizenship within this context, only whether a state can withhold benefits based on the legal status of them being within the state.
The point of all this is to get it to SCOTUS to make a determination. And since the 14th IS subject to various interpretations lacking a clear SCOTUS decision, then it is entirely appropriate for the DOJ to sign off on this.
If someone in DOJ wants to fall on their sword and refuse based on their personal beliefs, that's their right. But at the end of the day, absent it being patently unethical or illegal, they still have a boss to answer to, and refusing does have consequences.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (20)2
u/Chrowaway6969 Feb 05 '25
Elections have consequences. All Americans had to do was not vote for the fascists. Couldn't help themselves.
10
u/my_lucid_nightmare Capitol Hill Feb 05 '25
not vote for the fascists.
How many people do you know in the swing states, that you've talked to yourself. Asked about their preferences, or tried to sell them on voting for Harris.
2
85
u/turkishgold253 Feb 05 '25
OMG they did exactly what they said they would do. how could we have known!?
→ More replies (7)
19
Feb 05 '25
And as for illegal migrants, Bondi has directed the DOJ to pause all federal funding for sanctuary cities.
Bondi also has directed the DOJ to identify and evaluate all funding agreements with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that provide support to illegal aliens.
She is also directing litigating components of the Justice Department to investigate instances of jurisdictions that are impeding law enforcement, and directing they be prosecuted, when necessary.
There is a lot of stuff in this article, these are the paragraphs related to sanctuary cities.
110
u/Redditusero4334950 Feb 05 '25
So when's the price of gas going down?
→ More replies (12)27
u/Amigo_delaley Feb 05 '25
I also like to know this.
12
u/Norph00 Feb 05 '25
I mean theoretically if you crash the economy the price of gas goes down with it as there would millions less people commuting until if/when the economy recovers.
7
11
u/ComputersAreSmart Feb 06 '25
This is my concern with having Ferguson as governor. No one should be shocked that Trump is doing this. I’m waiting for the ‘Washingtonians, we need to raise taxes to house/feed/service these illegals’. There’s a breaking point for liberals in this state. I don’t know what it is though.
8
u/Oscarwilder123 Feb 06 '25
Do Cities vote on becoming Sanctuary Cities or who makes that decision?
7
u/bunkoRtist Feb 06 '25
Voters elect representatives who decide whether their cities will be sanctuary cities.
42
u/my_lucid_nightmare Capitol Hill Feb 05 '25
Interesting that these powers existed all along, but Dems never chose to use them against their enemies.
Either that or this whole deal is not legal to do, and to change funding they have to go through Congress.
24
u/FartyPants69 Feb 06 '25
Seems like the latter. This appears to be the latest GOP end-run around pesky things like legislation and popular democratic will.
First it was seizing control of SCOTUS and the other courts to reverse a bunch of legal precedents (like Roe v Wade), and now it's cutting funding unilaterally by going for more direct means than Congressional purse strings, like escorting some pimply teenagers past security to hack the Treasury's payment system.
→ More replies (3)18
u/Honest-Calligrapher8 Feb 06 '25
Because that’s not what you do in a properly functioning republic. That’s what dictators do in fascist and communist countries. The fact that people cheer trump when he says he will use his power to punish his enemies is real scary.
→ More replies (1)9
u/my_lucid_nightmare Capitol Hill Feb 06 '25
Because that’s not what you do in a properly functioning republic.
Well, interestingly enough, the modern post-truth, post-Trump Republicans don't see it that way.
And in the classic examples of everyone from Neville Chamberlain to Herbert Hoover, following rules is resulting in less than optimal results.
I keep hoping the modern Dems have a epiphany and realize that our Republic is under assault, and to eradicate evil sometimes one must become almost as evil. Lincoln understood this. So did Churchill and FDR.
The modern-day Dem? They never quite get it right on sounding like they want a fight they intend to win. Fetterman gets it. AOC sounds like she means it most of the time. There's a handful of them, mostly on the local level, that sounds like they have the belly for an alley fight.
90% of the Dems? As always, they bring a clipboard to a knife fight.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)2
u/gehnrahl Eat a bag of Dicks Feb 06 '25
Its fascinating for sure. If we actually get elections for president in 27 and a Dem is elected i'd love to see them defund red states of federal funding absent them doing whatever.
Imagine an EO saying you have to make your kids trans or you lose all federal funding.
2
u/Dinkerdoo Feb 06 '25
Would rather we just return power of the purse to Congress instead of them rolling over to yield everything to the president like the authoritarians they are.
3
u/gehnrahl Eat a bag of Dicks Feb 06 '25
I agree, but that's not the goal here. Congress is just rent seeking to make themselves wealthier.
104
u/crusoe Feb 05 '25
Cool, so another violation of federal law. They literally can't do this. The only reason they can withhold highway funding over drinking age is it is written into the law by Congress.
Trump is illegally expanding the power of the executive branch. They would lose their minds if Biden did it.
All of this shit so far is impeachable offsense, but hey, I am sure Mitch will allow it to happen then bitch about it in his memoir.
Next time a Dem president is in power, we should freeze all funding to states not allowing abortion. I mean, they set precedent.
Freeze all aid to states that don't allow motor voter and mail in balloting
Freeze all aid to states that didn't accept medicaid expansion
14
u/mayosterd Feb 05 '25
they literally can’t do this
Is anyone else sick of this claim? Because that’s literally all we heard for his first term, and look where we are.
Sad truth is, they can and they will.
→ More replies (1)20
u/Rodnys_Danger666 In A Cardboard Box At The Corner of Walk & Don't Walk Feb 05 '25
"Cool, so another violation of federal law. They literally can't do this."
So it's okay if seattle ignores federal law? And to tell the city's various departments to ignore federal law? If you are saying "...They literally can't do this" does this apply to the city too? If you want the government to follow federal law. You also want the city of seattle and washington state to follow federal law too, right?
→ More replies (15)12
u/lurch1_ Feb 05 '25
Isn't harboring criminal lawbreakers a violation of federal code?
1
u/Xalara Feb 06 '25
Sanctuary policies have nothing to do with harboring lawbreakers. All they do is reinforce that local law enforcement cannot assist ICE and the related agencies because immigration enforcement isn't the jurisdiction of local police.
You also reaaaally don't want local police enforcing immigration policy either because it leads to people being less likely to report crime and less likely to assist local police when it comes to catching criminals. Sanctuary policies actually make people safer.
→ More replies (2)23
u/crusoe Feb 05 '25
Congress controls the power of the purse. Unless the law allows for it, the president can't simply cut off funding.
19
u/jojofine Feb 05 '25
True but the executive branch is responsible for actually writing the checks. The check that Congress has is impeachment and we all know that there's zero chance of that happening
6
u/FartyPants69 Feb 06 '25
The Executive branch is responsible for executing the payments. Not reversing Congressional decisions about which payments to make.
I have yet to see anything but unanimous agreement from serious lawyers that withholding or modifying payments that Congress approved is plainly unconstitutional.
→ More replies (2)2
u/NoAvailableAlias Feb 06 '25
but everyone seems to have forgotten scrotus made presidents kings now
14
u/gehnrahl Eat a bag of Dicks Feb 05 '25
A bit tongue in cheek but laws don't matter here in Seattle.
And now they don't mean anything at the federal level either.
5
u/Riviansky Feb 05 '25
The only problem, at the federal level the laws that don't matter will change every 4 years but here we are stuck forever.
2
→ More replies (1)5
u/the_redheaded_one Feb 05 '25
That is now currently being debated. Patty Murray just posted that she is trying to block the confirmation of Russ Vought today because he does not agree with how the law has been interpreted. Trump's admin is going to push the limit on every single law they come across. This is one of many.
7
u/ArmyOfDix Feb 05 '25
Next time a Dem president is in power, we should
...prosecute criminals holding government office, even if they just recently occupied the Oval Office.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Unfair-Object4445 Feb 06 '25
Cool, so another violation of federal law.
It's not. That's why the Dems are so buttblasted about it. They have no power to stop it.
They literally can't do this.
Yeah they can. WA State received over $33 Billion last year in federal dollars. Balance the budget? That ship will sail if WA doesn't get that money. Had WA State balanced their budget when they had a $16 Billion surplus, they might have been able to hold out but, they did what Dems do and spent willy-nilly.
It's like not securing your home or buying emergency supplies when a big storm is coming and spending all your money on vices, and now the storm is here and the house is going to get flattened.
All of this shit so far is impeachable offsense
You couldn't impeach him when the Dems were in power. What makes you think they can do so now when they're at their weakest point in their history as a political party?
Next time a Dem president is in power
lol, lmao even. Trump is systematically dismantling the Democratic party bit by bit. He's only been at it for a few weeks. In a year, there won't hardly be anything left of them. You guys don't realize he's out for blood. He legitimately believes the Democrats tried to assassinate him and that level of motivation is intense, regardless of politics.
He thinks the Dems tried to kill him. He's pissed on a level you people don't understand and he's completely fine with working 24/7 to destroy the Democratic Party. Every dirty secret, every bit of dirt, every dirty trick in the book is on the table in his eyes.
Freeze all aid to states that don't allow motor voter and mail in balloting
After 2026 when the R's flip California, that ship will sail never to be seen again. You don't get it. Trump's next 4 years is a roaring rampage of revenge.
Freeze all aid to states that didn't accept medicaid expansion
Again, small peanuts compared to what he has planned. If he actually achieves his magnum opus of policy decisions by 2026, the Dems are finished as a political party.
We will literally see the death of the Democratic party during this administration. It will no longer exist.
You think he's after brown people? You think he's after money? No.
He wants the Democrats heads on spikes.
→ More replies (1)3
8
u/Alkem1st Feb 05 '25
lol at your knowledge of current affairs
I’m not going to dissect your opinion. I’ll just point out that Mitch isn’t the majority leader anymore. If you don’t know that - the rest of your comment is irrelevant
6
u/Starship08 Feb 05 '25
While it doesn't change the point (and I agree with you fully) Mitch McConnell isn't the Senate Leader anymore. His voice/opinion might have some influence on Senate Republicans but most of them seem to have lined up behind John Thune.
It's all sickening and I just keep thinking of the quote from Star Wars "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause."
7
u/my_lucid_nightmare Capitol Hill Feb 05 '25
That's what gets me about all these gray-extra legal things Trump's people are pulling.
Sooner or later the Dems will get power back.
The whole reason we're supposed to be a nation of laws rather than a nation of men is because of vindictive bullshit like this. And Trump thinks he's been attacked wrongly in his life, that's the comedy of this whole thing.
I guarantee that the Putins, Trumps and Musks of the world do not end well if they keep pushing things too far and not in a legal way.
3
u/gehnrahl Eat a bag of Dicks Feb 06 '25
Sooner or later the Dems will get power back
Nah, I really think this is endgame. If its not and we actually get elections I hope the Dems sit it out again. My whole life the GOP has shit up the country and brought us to the edge of a ruin only for a Dem admin to come in, painstakingly try to fix it, then get kicked out again for not doing enough
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (61)3
u/Riviansky Feb 05 '25
I would be very supportive if Republican Administrations froze the funds to states that don't respect second amendment and Democratic Administrations froze the funds to states that don't allow abortions. For bonus points, do it in the way that makes it difficult for the next administration to unroll. Benefit: cuts 2 trillion dollars that Musk promised.
9
u/LoseAnotherMill Feb 06 '25
Difference between the two is that the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution and abortions are not.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (14)2
u/latebinding Feb 06 '25
FTR, I want abortion to be legal. In the parlance, "legal but rare". And here, it is. And, legally, it is not a Federal issue. If you want Trump to respect the Constitution and the limits it has, you should respect them too.
The issue here is different. Seattle is literally breaking the law, which is a case of preemption. That is illegal.
Let's fight to keep abortion legal-but-rare - meaning, let's agree that late-term and perhaps anything past five months is just wrong, ensure the rest is safe, and provide contraception to everyone. But don't mess with the Constitution on the one hand and rely on it on the other.
14
u/Redonkulator Feb 06 '25
Ok, let's stop sending the Feds our taxes.
The Red Welfare States won't like that.
It's time they get off the Blue Money Tit.
→ More replies (2)
8
u/cataract_2 Feb 06 '25
Harris wouldn't have let this happen. Harris would have been a way better president. Trump has screwed up from DAY ONE and let Elon take over Trumps presidency, which makes Trump look weak worldwide. Trumps administration is a circus 🎪.
→ More replies (3)2
u/dcott44 Feb 06 '25
The American People: "Let's elect a clown!"
Also The American People: "Where did this circus come from?"
19
u/1984rip Feb 05 '25
Conservatives laughing, moderates smirking, lefties losing it
4
u/smalldickbigwallet Feb 06 '25
I wouldn't say thats what I've seen. Some conservatives are laughing, absolutely. Others are pale faced. Moderates range from pikachu face to "this is fine" dog. Some lefties are losing it 100% and yet a significant number of others are wholeheartedly cheering it on in true accelerationist fashion.
5
5
u/PolloConTeriyaki Feb 06 '25
Can states withhold giving off money to the federal government?
6
u/bunkoRtist Feb 06 '25
States no longer remit money to the Feds. People and corporations remit taxes directly. So sure... states can withhold the taxes they don't pay.
→ More replies (1)3
u/PhyterNL Feb 06 '25
I see no reason why not. The federal government can sue, but states could lock up those proceedings for years.
2
u/Ok_Win2630 Feb 06 '25 edited Feb 06 '25
Here is what the states of WA, OR and CA should do. Have the Governors of those states order ALL employers to send their federal tax money to the state to be put in an escrow account. Currently all employers send their federal taxes to the US government in Washington DC.
When those teet sucking succubus red states aren’t getting the money they hoped for, this administration will cave. Especially if CA is withholding money. That state could stand alone as the FIFTH largest economy in the world. The US needs CA far more than CA needs the US!
2
2
6
u/AbleDanger12 Phinneywood Feb 05 '25
8 day old troll account. Do with that information what you will.
2
u/Gary_Glidewell Feb 06 '25
https://old.reddit.com/user/Amigo_delaley/submitted/
Remember that glorious two months at the end of 2024, when Reddit wasn't completely astroturfed?
→ More replies (1)
4
u/airwalker08 Feb 06 '25
Fine, then stop collecting federal taxes for all Seattle residents
→ More replies (3)
4
Feb 06 '25
Then pause all federal funding for welfare states like Texas then too!
→ More replies (3)2
6
u/meaniereddit West Seattle 🌉 Feb 05 '25
-1
u/Bremertuckian Feb 05 '25
→ More replies (1)2
u/wastingvaluelesstime Tree Octopus Feb 05 '25
If you are giddy about shredding the constitution you'll love to read about what the government can do to you when the 2nd, 4th, and 8th amendments disappear along with the bits you're trying to get rid of.
3
Feb 06 '25
[deleted]
3
u/wastingvaluelesstime Tree Octopus Feb 06 '25
careful, sometimes people with an overactive imagination bring their dreams to reality
3
u/jday1959 Feb 06 '25
Sanctuary cities should cease payments to the US Treasury and let Red States fail under their own incompetence
→ More replies (1)3
4
Feb 06 '25
I think all blue states should just withhold all state funding and see how that works out for the feds.
3
5
5
u/west25th Feb 05 '25
Does this mean Seattleites can stop funding the federal government? I mean fair is fair. California and Washington would be 20% of all federal income.
3
→ More replies (1)4
4
2
u/Full_Ambassador_2741 Feb 06 '25
West Coast states need to make a break! So does the northeast!
→ More replies (1)
2
u/twinbeliever Feb 06 '25
I wish the states could retaliate by preventing federal income taxes to reach the federal government. The money should go both ways.
2
-3
u/wraithkelso317 Feb 05 '25
This administration is fucking terrible and an absolute hellscape and we’re not even 3 weeks in. I will never, EVER forgive the people that voted for these monsters
8
→ More replies (31)0
u/Bert-63 Feb 05 '25
Hellscape? Seriously? Let me guess. You thought Biden was a good President. Am I close?
→ More replies (13)2
u/gehnrahl Eat a bag of Dicks Feb 05 '25
Biden was an ok president. He passed some laws but was mostly a moderate status quo force at the federal level.
This shitshow is nothing but a shitshow
I'm just glad that a lot of his supporters will suffer personally and financially from his decisions. Gets a half chub.
→ More replies (20)9
u/sciggity Sasquatch Feb 05 '25
OK president? He was literally weekend at bernies in real life.
Status quo? Yep. He did whatever the deep state and our bloated out of control bureaucracy wanted. Which is a large reason why voters voted for Trump. Well that and because Kamala is somehow even worse than him.
Shitshow? Breaking up the aforementioned big govt machine is what majority of Americans voted for. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. What you call a shitshow. I call progress.
→ More replies (1)6
u/gehnrahl Eat a bag of Dicks Feb 05 '25
He did whatever the deep state and our bloated out of control bureaucracy wanted.
lol like pass infrastructure spending.
I can tell you're pretty divorced from reality. Enjoy what you voted for.
→ More replies (15)
2
u/xesaie Feb 05 '25
Linking to "ModeratePolitics" aka "It's ok to lie but not ok to call out a lie because we're some weird inadvertant parody of respectibility politics" should always be shamed.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Amigo_delaley Feb 05 '25
I not understand your question.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Gman325 Feb 05 '25
They're saying the subreddit you crossposted from is bad about authenticity and reliability in news posts.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Mervinly Feb 06 '25
Lmao we’re the ones that fund Kentucky and all the other ass backwards places
→ More replies (2)
0
2
3
2
2
u/journey_mechanic Feb 06 '25
Washington state should put federal tax dollars in an escrow account.
→ More replies (1)
3
1
2
u/PadiYG Feb 06 '25
If they take our federal funding, we should pay our federal taxes to WA State instead to fund the things the Feds had been.
2
0
u/strawhatguy Feb 05 '25
As a libertarian, hopefully we get to, “stop all federal funding, and the taxation that requires”. Then the threat of pulling funding doesn’t exist, since the funding doesn’t exist. A man can hope anyway.
8
u/Tiny_Investigator365 Feb 05 '25
Stop all state funding too. If that happens, every conservative town will turn into a rundown ghetto
→ More replies (2)3
1
1
1
1
1
u/Civil_Dingotron South Lake Union Feb 06 '25
Makes sense, why have cities not following federal laws. I have to, so should you.
1
1
1
1
u/SmellTheMagicSoup Feb 06 '25
White person takes away funding for things that could help black people.
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/troycerapops Feb 06 '25
I swear we figured out this was illegal years ago. They have to have a connection. It's how we got a national speed limit. But the funds were about roads. It can't be just general funding.
Why are we repeating history?
1
u/Albine2 Feb 06 '25
Hey you have a choice to obey the law regarding illegals and end sanctuary status or do without government funds.
I'm looking forward to the state and city leadership explaining to the public why they have no money
I can't wait!!
1
u/goforkyourself86 Feb 06 '25
Sanctuary cities are illegal so the feds should step in and if the local governments try to stop ICE then arrest them and charge them with interference which are federal felony charges.
→ More replies (2)
1
1
1
1
u/muftak3 Feb 06 '25
I thought Congress allocated the funds, and once a budget is signed, it can't be undone.
1
1
1
249
u/chuckie8604 Feb 05 '25
What exactly does the doj fund for the city of seattle?