Reed: Trump’s Immigration Executive Order “Promotes Dangerous Policy”
Reed said the order to halt federal funds to cities that don’t spend resources finding and detaining undocumented citizens “violates the principals of the Constitution.”*^
In a statement, Reed added:
Atlanta is the leading cultural and economic center of the Southeast precisely because of our legacy of inclusion. My administration is determined to use the full strength of that position to lead with policies that uphold and enhance the civil rights of all our residents, because any threat to our constitutionally guaranteed liberty is a threat to all Atlantans.
Atlanta and by all accounts every major city in the U.S. are deemed Sanctuary Cities for their unwillingness to ferret out and arrest undocumented citizens.
You can read the rest of Reed’s statement below the fold.
^If you are a proponent of small government/reigning in federal authorities, there’s really no way to square that philosophy with this policy.
Mayor Kasim Reed Statement in Response to Executive Orders on Immigration
ATLANTA – “As a member of the Cities for Action coalition for federal immigration reform, I join my fellow Mayors across the country in condemning the President’s executive orders on immigration issued yesterday.
Atlanta is proud to be a welcoming city. We are a community which has stood up for the civil and human rights of every person, and we will not waver now.
Atlanta is the leading cultural and economic center of the Southeast precisely because of our legacy of inclusion. My administration is determined to use the full strength of that position to lead with policies that uphold and enhance the civil rights of all our residents, because any threat to our constitutionally guaranteed liberty is a threat to all Atlantans.
Our city stands together. We believe the President’s executive orders violate the principles of the U.S. Constitution. We believe these orders promote dangerous public policy, eroding trust between public safety agencies and the communities they serve, which will undermine public safety in the City of Atlanta and nationwide. We believe the courts will agree.
As Mayor, I pledge that Atlanta city government will stand firm in its commitment to inclusivity and diversity, and will remain open and welcoming to all.”
About Author
edatlanta
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
must have been some of the best and brightest that wrote and recommended this Order, that’s full of pomp, but hollow of Constitutional knowledge, and likely only to lead to heaps of needless litigation. Congress appropriates, the President allocates. Absent specifically authorized discretion, the Pres. cannot lawfully withhold allocation.
Officers don’t “ferret out and arrest undocumented citizens”. Arrestees are checked through a Homeland database at the jail after they are arrested on other charges. Also, we already have an anti sanctuary city law in Georgia.
http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-36/provisions/chapter-80/36-80-23
It may not need to be enforced just yet. I don’t know of any specific action taken by Reed to indicate Atlanta is a sanctuary city. Ironically, part of the old Atlanta City Jail on Peachtree is now used by ICE to house illegals.
Reed is known to make unsubstantiated statements. Remember when he said the Falcons would move if they did not get a new stadium. Or how about when he said he needed to use blue lights in traffic due to the large number of threats he received.
With Reed, much like Trump, you have to look at actions rather than statements.
Creative linguistics, “undocumented citizens” is an oxymoron. The word citizen means “a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection (distinguished from alien)” per dictionary.com. Aliens from other countries have broken US law and come here to live illegally, not simply “undocumented”. Funding all the social programs and surrounding cottage industry is contributing to our national debt, while their home countries pick up none of the tab.
Reed is just wrong and seems to have forgotten his oath of office about upholding the laws of our nation and state. Just because some preceding presidents turned their heads and allowed people to flood in from countries all over the world did not make it right or lawful to break existing US immigration law. We don’t need a mayor doing the same thing and compounding the problem.
As my grandmother always said, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” It’s time we all get back to being the nation of law so many claim to be.
“If you are a proponent of small government/reigning in federal authorities, there’s really no way to square that philosophy with this policy.”
Except that this isn’t what small government/reigning in federal authorities means. It cannot refer to longstanding legitimate functions of federal government such as enforcement of immigration laws. Also, an actual small government case is made for the federal aid that goes to large cities in the first place. It is not a power or duty of the federal government enumerated in the Constitution, it is something that the federal government began doing relatively recently, and the fed plays political favorites in determining which cities get money and how much.
This thing with illegal immigration is amazing. I wish that the folks who oppose enforcement of immigration laws would provide us a list of which laws we should enforce and which laws we should not. Or maybe we can do some horse trading … the left can choose which laws that they do not enforced in return for laws that the right do not wish enforced. Immigration laws for environmental regulations? How about street crime (the so-called anti-profiling/anti-mass incarceration/drug decriminalization agenda) for Roe v. Wade? Even better: how about a situation where some people have to always obey all laws while others get to ignore some? If you are privileged, you have to obey all laws all the time full stop. But if you are marginalized, oppressed or a minority, you get to pick and choose! (So long as your crime targets are members of the privileged class that is.) That sound about right?
Look, if progressives want open borders and no restrictions on immigration, then go ahead and say it and fight for it. There are perfectly good moral, legal and economic cases to be made for it, as well as good historical precedents – the fact that the lack of an immigration policy is why we have the Thanksgiving holiday and this entire country in the first place for starters. So go ahead, stand up for what you actually believe in, and have all those Democrats in Congress file all the open borders bills that their convictions demand.
But having the position that the law simply should not be enforced, that enforcing the law is wrong, and taking actions to prevent the law from being enforced (like sanctuary cities) out to be an automatic disqualifier from holding public office.
Federal laws the laws of the land. States are obliged to follow them. Why do all of you people seemingly want to die on the alter of unchecked illegal aliens entering our county? If you wanna get real about it, there’s no requirement that the US allow any damn body to emigrate here. Trump won on this issue. I want to see him personally setting the first damn concrete block for the wall.
Sure, Drew. What other laws are states freely ignoring? Laws that involve national security?
Yeah, that’ll work!!! Lolol!
But by your logic they could withdraw that support on a whim. Ain’t ginna happen, in the end, with either instance.
yes, cities will cooperate and participate when it is valuable to them- either fiscally or politically.
just off the top of my head, any state-level medical marijuana law is in direct conflict with federal law. states and local governments have the options as to whether they want to enforce the federal laws, or how to prioritize enforcement. in fact, local governments have the same options as far as state laws. they are not mandated to enforce, but authorized to if they choose. local control, if you will.
also, under the 10th amendment, there are certain policy areas that are “traditionally” the powers of the state or federal government, creating sort of a rebuttable presumption about which level of government is allowed to occupy spaces within policy areas. police power definitely in the state’s hands, immigration in the feds’.
So if the Feds can’t/don’t enforce their law the states can’t assist ?
Two things here that go against all we are: the wall and sanctuary cities.
So Obama was wrong to tell them to butt out ?
Wonder if Sonny still feels like this as small farmers freaked:
Gov. Sonny Perdue on illegals:
No welfare or other services for illegals
We must ensure that individuals receiving taxpayer-funded services are US and Georgia citizens. Illegal immigrants’ first stop when they cross the border should not be the welfare line. Georgians cannot carry the burden of individuals who are receiving state services and not contributing to the system.Last December, Sonny instructed the state agency which administers our taxpayer-funded healthcare program to institute a new income and citizenship verification requirement for applicants.
Based on the soil, seismic, wind and frost line requirements to maintain any structural wall over 16′ in height, C.M.U. would not be allowed by the state and federal building code (and in some places a few laws by Newton) in well over 80% of the location of the wall. It would have to be load bearing poured in place or precast reinforced concrete. I would also like to see the structural specs for placing the wall in the middle of the Rio Grande, unless we are handing over the water rights to our half of the river to Mexico… which Texas might not like us messing with, or so I hear. I also want to see the plan for walling across the Colorado River… I wonder what the Hover Dam costs in todays dollars?
How about if we just focus on the people who are illegally hiring undocumented workers?
So, focus on the johns and not the hookers?
No, more like focusing on the pimps.
That’s a backwards analogy I think, but is interesting that you would think that way.
The immigrants are analogous to the “customers”. Whatever you call them, they are the lowest rung in the ladder. You can bust john’s all day and night but if you leave the hookers alone they will still be there. You can bust mafia punks all you want but if you don’t go up the ladder they will just be replaced.
Why don’t you conservatives want to talk about busting the illegal employers?
A wall is about show (which carries a hint of animus), when it should be about what’s most effective.
Andrew C. Pope and Benevolus:
With all due respect, those are evasions. To put it another way, take the same position on the laws that progressives like and are near and dear to their hearts first and then we can talk.
Environmental regulations.
Civil rights laws.
Violence against Women Act.
Americans With Disabilities Act.
The federal role in education.
Abortion laws.
LGBT measures.
MediCaid, MediCare and ObamaCare
And so on. When it comes to issues that progressives support, they wish for the full weight of the government brought down at every level: federal, state and local. But when it comes to issues that they oppose, but do not yet have the political power to outright overturn (yet) that is when they become straw federalists, straw strict constructionalists and resort to civil disobedience measures.
“How about if we just focus on the people who are illegally hiring undocumented workers?”
That is akin to evading public school desegregation orders by giving the all-nonwhite schools more money. Even if funding nonwhite schools at a much higher level than their all white counterparts succeeded in equalizing student performance and increasing educational and economic opportunity for nonwhite students, progressives would still oppose it on principle. Brown versus Board of Education and other civil rights measures are the law, and you wish for them to be strictly enforced at the federal, state and local levels with no scofflaws countenanced, correct? )
That goes back to what I said earlier. Progressives, come up with your list:
A. laws that must always be obeyed at all levels everyone
B. laws that can be forced selectively in a manner that advances progressive causes
C. laws that privileged groups must always obey but are optional for everyone else
D. laws that are never to be enforced or obeyed but must stay on the books for some reason or other
E. laws that we should actually undergo the legislative process of modifying or outright repealing
From a legal standpoint, I honestly don’t see the difference between the organized resistance on the left to enforcing immigration laws and all of the many devices that segregationists came up with to resist and evade federal orders to dismantle Jim Crow. The only difference is that the left supported enforcing the law in one case but opposes it in another.
If the argument is that we are choosing to ignore laws, I am saying you are forgetting that we are also failing to enforce the illegal hiring of undocumented workers. I don’t see how you can have the conversation about one without the other.
Furthermore, what I am saying is that you can build the best wall ever and deport all the immigrants you want, but they will find a way to come back until you remove the reason they come.
Kind of like the libs saying no more refineries back in the seventies. “It won’t be functional for the next ten years” they wailed. But we could have been refining our own oil for the past 30 years now.
Build the wall. Today.
btw, is the call still for an actual wall? or would anyone care if, instead of a wall, it was a high-tech fence system, supplemented by drones?
See my comment above.
and for the folks who overstay their visa, they by and large arrive here on legitimate aeroplane rides, correct?
i wonder if there will be any technology within thirty years that would make wall technology obsolete. like airplanes or boats.
Wouldn’t more 21st century devices like IR cameras, seismic sensors, etc. be more effective than the Bronze Age solution of a wall? Humans have a long, long history of defeating or circumventing fixed fortifications. It seems to me that any professed fiscal conservative would question multiple billions of dollars being spent on what is effectively a symbol.
ZZzzzzzz…
Great response as you obviously can’t defend this indefensible boondoggle. It is simply a simple solution offered up to (by?) simple minds to resolve a complex issue.
Texas Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a January 2015 statement to right-leaning publication Daily Caller (founded by Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson and former Dick Cheney advisor Neil Patel) that “in our conversations with outside groups, experts and stakeholders, we learned that it would be an inefficient use of taxpayer money to complete the fence. … We are using that money to utilize other technology to create a secure border.”
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html
“Border walls work in densely populated areas — such as Israel’s wall in the West Bank — where slowing down a person trying to illegally enter by five or 10 minutes can make a difference to border patrol. But when the migrant trying to enter is traveling over remote mountains and deserts for three days, using a fence to slow them down by a few minutes doesn’t have the same effect — it borders on the trivial…”
There are some areas in need of fencing such as unfenced areas near cities (Del Rio, El Paso and others) also the the unfenced area in California. A remote area such as Big Bend doesn’t need a physical barrier.
Sensors and drones have limitations and you most have enough personnel to respond immediately to any breach. My recommendation is increased use of military aviation to patrol the border and a few more border patrol officers.
According to the article referenced among other sources we have already installed 700 miles of fencing primarily where it was most needed but also where it was the easiest and didn’t require condemnations. And yes whether fence, actual “wall”, or sensors, without boots on the ground to respond to infiltrations in a timely fashion all is for naught. With 2,000+ miles of border with Mexico thats a lot of boots though $15-25 billion to supply them rather than just adding an obstacle would at least offer a more long term “stimulus” to the economy. Of course that makes it sound more like a public works program more than insipid campaign bluster.
New Homeland Secretary John Kelly is a competent individual and with proper resources he will greatly improve border security. Obama’s Homeland Secretary and Border Patrol Chief were incompetent political appointees.
Yeah, he has been quoted that a wall would not be enough. If the first week is any indication he will be called on to walk back even more royal edicts. Case in point would be his declaration today that the portion of the Muslim immigration EO banning re-entry by existing green card users will be ignored.
Besides being more effective, using technology supports high paid employment ho develop it, and decent pay employment to monitor and maintain it.
The wall is about a show—they just can’t help themselves, and not unexpected from those that elected a reality TV performer that campaigned and has thus far governed as such.
Plain English: Good fences make great neighbors. It’s not a symbol, it is a deterrent. A tried and proven effective one.
Another thought: If a person breaks into your home, do you call that “undocumented entry” and let them live in the guest bedroom? ‘Didn’t think so.
From cuts in your sainted, bloated social wealth transfer payment programs. With upwards of a trillion dollars yearly, it will be quite simple. Using the very words of the wise Solomon Obama when uttered to Joe the Plumber, “Spread the Wealth Around!”
The better analogy is that someone shows up in your yard and asks if they can do your yardwork, to which you say yes.
Come to think of it, that’s not even an analogy. That’s exactly what happens.
Wake up, people! All of this chaos did not spontaneously happen by some misguided do-gooders. Global migration of people illegally is big bidness (and not just for coyotes), funded by billions of our tax dollars, along with money from anarchy purveyors such as George Soros and his ilk.
A little light reading for your weekend:
* International Organization for Migration, 800+ employees and roughly a billion dollar annual budget for “facilitating migration” worldwide: http://www.iom.int (and IOM has just asked America for an additional $233,284,316 for Syrians alone)
* US Association for International Migration, a few hundred thousand a year doing the same in Washington, DC. http://www.usaim.org
* US State Department has a Bureau of Population, Refugees & Migration that poured $3.4 billion into private nongovernmental organizations around the world during 2016 alone. God only knows how much that Bureau cost taxpayers additionally for federal employees, buildings and administrative facilities, etc. of the mechanism for doling out the moolah. Your tax dollars at work! https://www.state.gov/j/prm/about/index.htm
And these three references only scratch the surface of the magnitude of this well-financed industry for tearing down the borders of nations around the world and creating global migration. Rank and file bleeding hearts are just useful idiots for their international purposes.
President Trump truly has his work cut out for him on sorting out this mess. Building a mile-high wall if necessary to secure Americans north of our southern border is just a basic first step toward stopping the madness. While he’s at it, Sonny or one of our Georgia folks in the new administration need to ask the Prez to de-fund that mind-boggling Bureau at the State Department. Redirecting those billions of $ each year to the US’s southern border will pay for the wall post haste.
Full blown paranoia.Now you are clinical. Take your meds.
Back at you, CC. Ugly, flippant insults don’t take the place of just reading the information for yourself.
Damn your good, Sally! Just as an aside, one more great post like that and I’m on my way to your house with chocolates and flowers!!
What else do you find plausible? UFOs? Grassy knoll shooter? Zionist takeover? 9/11 was an inside job?
There’s a place for considered comments on proper numbers of refugees, proper vetting of refugee seekers,the uselessness of walls and bans in protecting our security and then there is crazy talk of international conspiracies to disrupt the world. I see crazy. I call it out.
What was paranoid about her listing of organizations that are involved in migration?
It’s paranoid because …”creating global migration” as a business model. As if the migration merchants are causing the Syrian war instead of responding to it. Or boko haram are actually migration merchants in disguise, just doing their business.
We used to think of ourselves as humanitarian. We helped because we could.
Paranoia is defined as “suspicion and mistrust of people or their actions without evidence or justification.” It isn’t suspicion if facts and evidence exist, such as found in the links provided, that global migration has indeed become a big business. And Bene, if you read carefully, you will see that these organizations and others like them existed decades before the current wars began. They simply avail themselves of the opportunity to keep shuffling the deck via human misery, and fattening their own bazillions of dollars at the expense of others.
In the absence of facts, people tell themselves stories. Or worse still, believe the stories of others. Trust, but verify. Take time to read some of the facts I linked, plus do some digging on your own to learn about George Soros’ background. Heck, even study some of his associates and their actions, motivations.
I myself have done enough serious study for one day. I have to straighten up, before N/W gets here with those chocolates and flowers! 🙂
When the Pope calls you out…
All most of us can do is protest, write, boycott, and vote. When the spineless GOP sees their numbers plummet, they will turn on Trump. It’s gonna be ugly. Blood and gore. Twitter fights. I can’t wait.
Lay off the LSD, CC. You’re hallucinating. And to Drew’s point, cowardice is not doing everything in your power to protect your citizens. We finally have a spine un the WH. My four year old nephew said the me over the eeekend, “Uncle Noway, when I become a man, I’m gonna be a liberal!” I smiled back at him and said, “Boy, you’re gonna have to choose, ’cause you can’t be both!”
Sally, I hope Godiva’s are ok!!!!!!
We’ll just disagree on this. Who you picking Federer or Nadal?
I hope you’re right. I’m not so sure. He’s 35, Nadal 30. Don’t like those numbers.
Good call. I was really thinking Fed eould blink in the 5th. GOAT settled now.
Common sense guess: Trump’s order will probably stand but the DHS is sure going to get the process sorted out. Denial of folks with visas or other issued documentation without reason for revocation won’t stand. Extreme vetting from suspect countries will stand.
Or course denial of folks with visas or other issued documentation without reason for revocation won’t stand, but Trump’s best and brightest don’t know that.
Adding white supremacist Steve Bannon and removing the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff as members who would attend all NSC meetings is certainly making the country safer, what with Bannon’s national security expertise being superior to bureaucrats and everything.
Where was all this alt-left angst when Obama banned immigrants six times during his tenure? White House documents also show that former President Bill Clinton issued six immigrant bans; George W. Bush six immigrant bans; President Ronald Reagan four. And in 1980, former President Jimmy Carter banned Iranians. For Trump to tighten vetting for foreign nationals following California, Florida, and other terrorist attacks here in the US in recent times seems to be in line with actions by five predecessors.
Below are Obama’s actions placing bans on immigrants:
— July 2011. Barred those under a UN travel ban, or who broke 29 executive orders covering transactions with terrorists.
— Aug. 2012. Banned anybody involved in war crimes, or just about any other crime including human rights violations.
— April 2012. Barred those helping Syria or Iran, or involved in human rights abuses for those governments.
— May 2012. Another block on those helping Iran and Syria.
— April 2014. Banned anyone known to threaten South Sudan.
— March 2014. Barred entry of those claiming government authority in the Crimea region of Ukraine, presumably on behalf of Moscow.
Technically, unless you are a US citizen, you have no Constitutional right to enter the United States. Obama’s immigration bans were also on predominantly Muslim countries. But the alt-left made not a peep. This weekend’s tantrums are so disingenuous — they are anti-Trump demonstrations, pure and simple. Any excuse will do.
BTW, this moratorium was all Obama’s recommendations to Trump — he simply did what Obama said should be done, countries Obama specified. Would the alt-left and disgruntled Democrats would have had a cow if Obama had done this himself? Of course not.
Breitbart?
Nope. I don’t read that. This was IBD and also Dana Perino (former WH press secty).
Did you tear your ACL with that knee jerk, Will?!
A liberal estimation of the total of President Obama’s bans would not exceed 10,000. Probably much less as a couple of those look to be more of a gesture or posturing. President Trump’s ban encompasses more than 225,000,000 people and initially included people already holding green cards.
Huh? 225 million?? How on earth did you arrive at that number? If you’re talking about the countries involved, surely they don’t all plan to pick up and move over here. Also, as I understand it, people with green cards who have left the US and want to come back in will simply need to allow time for questioning, vetting re where they traveled and activities while gone. Little to expect in return for roaming freely in America.
As expected, off into the weeds we go. 🙂 Obama’s bans were all so amorphous that I expect it is impossible to put a number on the total people affected. But no way was it as few as 10,000 people in all those affected areas. And we never will know, because the media didn’t scrutinize all that and the alt-left certainly didn’t take to the streets! (nor the right, for that matter)
Just an interesting comparison. Goodnight, buddy.
Good song:
Whos gonna build your wall boys?
Whos gonna mow your lawn?
Whos gonna cook your Mexican food
When your Mexican maid is gone?
Whos gonna wax the floors tonight
Down at the local mall?
Whos gonna wash your babys face?
Whos gonna build your wall?
Quick answer: Someone who’s here legally! Thank you, thank your very much! (Sorry Elvis…)