On Wednesday, President Donald Trump publicly opposed a United States federal judge's decreed ruling which effectively impeded his executive order that seeks to penalize those "#sanctuary cities" for illegal immigrants. He tried to do this by withholding funds for government and civic services, as is usual for the operating budget in national-to-state legislature. Donald Trump said he would appeal the United States Supreme Court on the matter in an effort to bypass the state ruling, so that he can get his way and penalize those sanctuary cities that seek to help immigrants.
Currently cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and #New York are seen as sanctuary cities, and they make efforts to help their mixed racial population, many of whom are illegal immigrants who are able to make a life for themselves by accessing free healthcare, education and other necessities.
San Franciscan judge Orrick
The state judge in question in this issue, District Judge William Orrick of San Francisco, struck out the latest shaky blow to the president's exertions on a harsher and tougher immigration administration and implementation. #Trump has also been hampered in the past few months by Federal Courts that have also obstructed his two travel bans that zero in on citizens of the seven-majority Muslim countries.
These #federal court push backs have shown those interested in democracy that a president, even though he has the most power in a country, does not have the power to overrule the all-important federal and civic courts on matters that may impede with everyday or theoretical issues of democracy and individual rights to freedom.Accordingly, President Trump went on another Twitter rampage on Tuesday and Wednesday decrying the court rulings against what some would call his unfair and overarching orders.
"First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!" the president expressed in a tweet on Wednesday. He was referring actually to #District Judge William Orrick's appeals on his initiatives ad his outrage was palpable.
The current Oval Office administration has made a point of directing their concerns onto #sanctuary cities throughout the United States of America which give a safe place for illegal migrants to live, and those migrants generally don’t access municipal funds or reserves to enforce or instigate federal immigration laws.
Many harsh critics of such practices claim that the state authorities imperil public safety and protection when they shelter or protect those illegal immigrants that may be arrested for crimes, or that conversely aren’t breaking the law but are simply living their lives. Supporters claim that using the local police force to collect and round up immigrants to be taken back across the border weakens and destabilizes trust in community law enforcement amongst Latinos, which then has a ripple-on effect that creates a lack of law and order.
Throughout his ruling, the San Francisco judge Orrick claimed that #President Trump's order that was created on January 25 was directed at general and hefty classes of federal funding for the so called sanctuary cities.
It was likely a forgone conclusion that those states challenging the ruling were liable to prove that it was largely unconstitutional.
The ninth #United States Circuit Court of Appeals is likely to hear an appeal before it the matter heads right up to the Supreme Court where it will face another examination in the halls of justice. Many Republicans view the appeals court as a having a heavy bias toward the left, meaning Democrats.
