Buzzworthy

TRUMP’S DOJ JUST GAVE THE MOST FEARED ORDER TO 29 SANCTUARY CITIES, THEN LIT THE FUSE

on

It’s official: After months of empty threats, the Trump administration is moving to lay siege to progressive cities, with federal grants as its weapon, in the name of immigration enforcement.

 

 

United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions officially sent 29 Sanctuary cities a letter notifying them that the US Attorney General’s office will no longer be looking the other way when it comes to harboring illegal aliens in their jurisdiction. The order is simple, either comply with United States laws or lose federal funding.

The 9 counties included in the list are the entire state of California, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Las Vegas, New Orleans and Milwaukee. And also Cook County in Illinois and Miami-Dade County in Florida. In order to comply with the letter, all these 9 will need to prove that they will not impede the operations in any way, matter nor form when Homeland Security or ICE are trying to do their job. If they don’t abide by this order they will, in fact, lose all federal funding available to them. Doesn’t it feel great to know we finally have a president who follows the law?

The Conservative Daily Post reports:

Considering that it is part of the law, this is important to note as the areas all signed the documents, agreeing to what was being asked. The Justice Department included in the letter, “Many of these jurisdictions are also crumbling under the weight of illegal immigration and violent crime.” Considering that these areas are in such dire shape amid the crime, it would be reasonable to think they would have been the first cities to cooperate with Homeland Security.”

That isn’t the case though. So many of the mayors and leaders are Democrats, and they want to promote an open border society. They want to welcome as many people into their cities as possible to show what an open border society can look like. All it’s doing is confirming that illegal immigrants that are coming to the country are putting Americans in danger.

Normally, if citizens were in danger, they would call the police and they would take it from there. That could facilitate a call to federal authorities, such as dealing with illegals. However, in these sanctuary cities, there are tricks done to ensure this doesn’t happen. One of the more common tactics is not alerting the proper authorities from alerting federal agents when an illegal is behind bars.

Normally, if citizens were in danger, they would call the police and they would take it from there. That could facilitate a call to federal authorities, such as dealing with illegals. However, in these sanctuary cities, there are tricks done to ensure this doesn’t happen. One of the more common tactics is not alerting the proper authorities from alerting federal agents when an illegal is behind bars.

Vox

 

It’s official: After months of empty threats, the Trump administration is moving to lay siege to progressive cities, with federal grants as its weapon, in the name of immigration enforcement.

On Tuesday night, the Department of Justice announced its first real attempt to prohibit “sanctuary cities” — cities that, in the federal government’s view, don’t do enough to help federal agents enforce immigration law — from getting federal funds.

Under the DOJ’s new criteria for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program, the biggest federal grant for local law enforcement, states and cities will only be able to apply if they agree to allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers into local jails — and if they notify ICE agents at least 48 hours before anyone ICE has expressed interest in gets released.

The Trump administration’s been saber-rattling against “sanctuary cities” during its whole six months in office (not to mention on the campaign trail). But until now, the actual steps it’s taken to change federal policy to crack down on “sanctuaries” have been relatively toothless. Tuesday’s announcement puts an end to all that. It signals that the fight to defund sanctuary cities has begun in earnest.

 

The new grant conditions take the sanctuary city fight out of rhetoric and into policy

The Byrne Justice Assistance Grant program hands out funds to states and cities that get used for everything from training to military-style equipment. It’s the biggest grant the Department of Justice administers to local law enforcement; in fiscal year 2016, it handed out more than $263 million in funds.

The Trump administration isn’t trying to strip funding that’s already been promised. But starting in the fall, according to the DOJ’s Tuesday announcement, applicants for new Byrne grants are going to have to certify three things:

that they comply with a federal law banning any state or local policy that prohibits municipal employees from sharing information with the feds about someone’s immigration status;

that they allow ICE agents into local jails; and

that, whenever ICE sends local jail officials a “detainer request” — a request to hold someone after they’d otherwise be released so ICE can pick them up (sent when ICE agents have reason to believe someone in a local jail is deportable) — jail officials give ICE at least 48 hours’ advance notice before letting that person go.

The first criterion is in line with the steps the Trump administration has already taken against “sanctuary cities,” which have focused on the idea that cities are violating the federal law against local bans on information-sharing.

But it’s a pretty toothless critique. Even the most outspoken sanctuary cities in America claim that they don’t prohibit anyone from sharing immigration information with the federal government.

But the second two criteria added to the Byrne JAG program, though, take turn the rhetoric against sanctuary cities into actual policy.

Many cities and states limit the circumstances under which jails can hold people just because ICE asks them to. And while the DOJ isn’t officially requiring grantees to agree to all ICE requests, it’s requiring them to do things that would lead to pretty much the same outcome.

It’s going to be extremely hard — or even impossible — for many local governments to agree to these terms

Under the new conditions, local jail officials would have two options whenever they got a detainer request on someone ICE wanted to take into custody. They could honor the detainer request, and hold the person for an extra 48 hours after they’d otherwise release him to give ICE a chance to pick them up. Or they could decline the detainer request — but to remain compliant with the new terms of the federal grant, they’d still have to tell ICE 48 hours in advance that they were going to release the person, and allow ICE agents to come into the jail to collect him immediately upon his release.

Often, jail officials don’t even know 48 hours in advance when they’re going to release someone. “Local jails generally would only know 48 hours in advance of someone’s release if the person is serving out a sentence,” says Christopher Lasch, a Denver University law professor who’s assisted cities in court battles over federal cooperation. The rest of the time — “if they post bond, or if their criminal case gets dismissed,” for example — the jail officials will typically just get an order to release the person as soon as possible.

So to comply with the new DOJ grant requirements, local jail officials could end up holding an immigrant longer than they otherwise would anyway, because they’d have to wait 48 hours after notifying ICE that a release was in the works.

The Trump administration has argued extensively that picking immigrants up in jails is safer for both ICE agents and immigrants, and warned that when they can’t get easy access to immigrants in jails they resort to picking them up at home (often causing panic about raids) or in safe places like courthouses.

But for cities and states around the country that have made a concerted effort to limit their cooperation with immigration agents, making it harder for ICE to pick people up is kind of the point — they aren’t trying to create a pipeline by which someone hauled in on a traffic violation (or who’s been booked into jail during a domestic dispute in which she was actually the victim of abuse) can get sent into deportation proceedings.

The new DOJ criteria might be a very tough pill to swallow.

There’s another reason that many cities have limited their cooperation with ICE: Many state and federal courts (most recently, the Massachusetts Supreme Court) have ruled that it’s downright unconstitutional for a jail to hold someone based solely on the ICE request.

While, again, there’s nothing in the new DOJ grant criteria explicitly requiring local law enforcement to agree to ICE requests, it’s possible that the 48 hours’ advance notification requirement would end up forcing local officials to hold people longer than they would — which could run afoul of those court rulings.

The question isn’t whether cities will sue — it’s whether the Trump administration has already violated a ruling in the lawsuit that already happened

City governments have no intention of changing their immigration policies to comply with the Trump administration’s standards. But for the most part, local police departments aren’t willing to simply give up their biggest stream of federal funding to avoid an immigration policy fight.

The question is whether they can stop the new criteria from going into effect by persuading the federal courts that they’re unconstitutional.

In general, the federal government isn’t supposed to use grants to coerce cities and states into adopting its preferred policies. And the executive branch can only do so much to change grant conditions without Congress’s involvement.

But the Trump administration has a more urgent legal question on its hands: whether Tuesday’s announcement violated an existing court order.

In February, soon after the Trump administration issued an executive order that let the DOJ deny grants to cities that it deemed “sanctuaries,” a couple of them went ahead and sued over the threat of defunding. And in April, a judge sided with the cities and told the administration it wasn’t allowed to enforce that section of the executive order — except “to enforce existing conditions of federal grants” or the existing federal information-sharing law.

At first, it looked like that court ruling had forced the administration to back down, and define “sanctuary cities” as cities that violated the information-sharing law (which didn’t appear to threaten the actual funding of any actual cities, since, again, cities claim they comply with that law). But adding new criteria to the Byrne JAG funds certainly might be seen as a violation of the judge’s restriction.

It appears that that’s the point of the new announcement, though. Sessions and the DOJ aren’t waiting for the courts to decide what they can and can’t do to defund sanctuary cities. They’ve just drawn a line in the sand — one that would force many of the nation’s biggest, bluest cities to choose between losing millions of dollars for police and letting ICE agents scoop up the very immigrants cities have promised to protect.

 

About Josh Caplan

24 Comments

  1. fpc

    April 24, 2017 at 3:42 pm

    what about hawaii? suggest apply to all recalcitrant states simultaneously.

  2. Mary

    April 24, 2017 at 10:25 pm

    What about the state of Washington? They are a sanctuary state. Oregon is repealing it.

    • Steve

      April 29, 2017 at 2:30 pm

      Sends a message to all.

    • joel

      May 6, 2017 at 11:40 am

      Just Seattle at this time!

    • April

      June 13, 2017 at 1:12 am

      The Leftest Gov Insley would like to make it so…but for today it is not a sanctuary state.

  3. Mark

    April 25, 2017 at 10:27 am

    Right on president Trump

  4. ralph

    April 27, 2017 at 8:11 pm

    THE LAW IS THE LAW, AND THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS,,,,EXCEPT IF YOU ARE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, OR YOU HAVE THE BIG BUCKS, OR YOU ARE IN A SANCTUARY CITY

  5. Charles

    April 29, 2017 at 10:53 am

    I do hope they stop any and all federal funding of any type not just funds for illegals. That would really get the point across. Also include the liberal state of hawaii. That state is as bad or worse than california.

    • Michael

      June 30, 2017 at 6:05 am

      That’s because 3/4 of the shop owners are from southern California.

  6. Mike Brewer Sr.

    April 30, 2017 at 9:33 am

    If mayors, and in the case of California and other states don’t comply with the law, they should has all federal funding removed. You do not get rewarded for breaking the law, period!!! Second these leaders need to consider the message they am sending, “if you don’t like a law or set of laws, disobey them”! What would Governor Jerry Brown do if the peopled of California decided they didn’t Luke California law and didn’t obey it? Would he let it go as he am advocating or would he send state police and possibly the California National Guard in to restore order? My bet would be that he would send authorities in to restore order! What Jerry Brown and the other sanctuary places need to realize is that Obama the law breaker in chief am gone, the current President do what he’s oath of office say and enforces the law, the whole law including immigration laws which has been in existence for moving in on a century!!! If Jerry Brown think he going use newly acquired taxes meaned for road repairs to attempt to make up for federal monies lost due to he and California’s government’s refusal to follow the law, I see recall efforts in he’s future, he should check with another governor who was recalled and tossed out of office, you remember Gray Davis!

    • Karen Eckes

      May 6, 2017 at 11:10 am

      I live in California and believe me we did not get a chance or anything to vote on it! We do not want to be a Sanctuary State!I never liked our Governor even when he was in the first time! I guess the money might not matter to him but I would vote for impeachment!

    • Karen

      May 6, 2017 at 11:13 am

      I live in California and believe me we did not get a chance or anything to vote on it! We do not want to be a Sanctuary State!I never liked our Governor even when he was in the first time! I guess the money might not matter to him but I would vote for impeachment!

  7. Pingback: Illegals loose Free stuff in 9 Sanctuary Cities Thanks to TRUMP - usnews4s.com

  8. Pingback: Illegals loose Free stuff in 9 Sanctuary Cities Thanks to TRUMP -

  9. Juanita Coleman

    June 1, 2017 at 10:46 am

    I vote to impeach Brown. I think he might do himself in, you talk about a dictatorship, no regard for the people of this state, at least the legal ones who pay the taxa’s.

  10. C Hayes

    June 1, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    Don’t forget Hawaii. Illegals should not get anything from any part of the USA. They have NO rights because they ARE illegals. They are not wanted in OUR country so if they want benefits they should ALL go back to wherever they came from and take their kids with them.

  11. Barbara

    June 18, 2017 at 8:48 am

    These illegals are all criminals the second they break our law by entering this country illegally.

  12. John

    June 30, 2017 at 4:49 am

    You should put Madison Wisconsin on that list to the mayor said it’s a santuary city and he’s a. Democrat

  13. C Hayes

    June 30, 2017 at 6:46 am

    The order should apply to all of the USA including all states and cities. We need all the illegals out of our country completely. Cut all funding for those states and cities that do not comply. No exceptions.

    • Nancy

      June 30, 2017 at 2:30 pm

      This article was written April 24 2017 so anything written after that is null and void and some of those cities had not yet become sanctuary cities. Not sure the author will even see these replies.

  14. SockRayBlue

    July 4, 2017 at 4:33 pm

    Left out some major Texas and Colorado cities?

  15. Sam Ball

    December 16, 2017 at 3:35 pm

    Yeah, this is great until some bleeding heart liberal judge decides they have the authority to block the order.

  16. PATTI THOMPSON

    January 24, 2018 at 5:18 pm

    WHAT ABOUT MARYLAND – BALTIMORE, THIS IS A SANCTUARY CITY N ONE WITH THE HIGHEST CRIME RATE

  17. Chris Martin

    February 8, 2018 at 3:24 pm

    The left wing will announce that Trump is creating a “constitutional crisis”… my response, is please do so…. it’s the sanctuary cities that have created the so called, “constitutional crisis”…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *