Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When a city and its police department accepts a federal grant [our tax dollars, a grant is a gift] usually from the department of justice, there are always strings attached in the agreement as to how/where/on what the money will be spent. So, options available to the department of justice- don't give anymore money to sanctuary cities, the agreement should have a clause that states 'in accepting these funds, you must/will enforce all laws pertaining to criminal aliens. If you don't, funds will be withdrawn'.
That's correct but I still think it's going to be tough for the feds to withhold grant money:
"There are two serious constitutional problems with conditioning federal grants to sanctuary cities on compliance with Section 1373. First, longstanding Supreme Court precedent mandates that the federal government may not impose conditions on grants to states and localities unless the conditions are “unambiguously” stated in the text of the law “so that the States can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds.” Few if any federal grants to sanctuary cities are explicitly conditioned on compliance with Section 1373. Any such condition must be passed by Congress, and may only apply to new grants, not ones that have already been appropriated. The executive cannot simply make up new conditions on its own and impose them on state and local governments. Doing so undermines both the separation of powers and federalism.
Even aside from Trump’s dubious effort to tie it to federal grants, Section 1373 is itself unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.822c8c47302a
Big problem though, when the White House was asked to define a "Sanctuary City" they said it is any City that does not comply with 8 U.S.C 1373, but there is not a LE agency in the US that violates that section so it's clear that DOJ and the White House haven't even thought through the question of what a sanctuary city is.
Exactly!
People again need to read the court's decision.
His Orangeness and various instruments he employed failed to clearly define what a "sanctuary city" actually was and or how they were going to interpret same.
(a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
(b) Additional authority of government entities Not withstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2) Maintaining such information.
(3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.
(c) Obligation to respond to inquiries The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.
Notice no where does it clearly state that local governments are obligated to detain, and or otherwise cooperate in the rounding up and handing over of illegal aliens. Statue only speaks to "information", says nothing else really.
For a host of reasons many persons fingerprints are already in the federal/FBI database. If you are or have been arrested and your prints taken, they most certainly were sent to the feds. What DT and GOP seem to want is once those prints or any other information comes back with a match/or request to detain for immigration purposes, that local LE comply. A good number of local LE have said "no", to this request and release persons from custody providing they have served time or whatever. That is where the fun starts for feds.
Instead of going to a central location to get illegals rounded up (conveniently by local LE), they must now go out into the area, find and otherwise to the rest of the work on their own. Immigration LE just doesn't have that kind of budget.
^^^^
President Jimmy Cater 'If you don't comply with and enforce the 55 mph law, your state will not get federal highway build/repair money' This was for 20 years enforced by the Dept of Transportation.
Before you spew nonsense- please understand the laws of jurisdiction practice and legal consequences. A fed agent can't stop and give you a speeding ticket... Let's see if you get what is reality. There is more to this than political rhetoric. Mr t was supposed to back the police? Really ? Again look at the fine print... The laws
^^^^
President Jimmy Cater 'If you don't comply with and enforce the 55 mph law, your state will not get federal highway build/repair money' This was for 20 years enforced by the Dept of Transportation.
This nonsense? Was applied to a new law, via congress passing it. Not retroactively applied via executive order. How can you not understand the difference? AND the funding was directly related to the rule.
^^^^
President Jimmy Cater 'If you don't comply with and enforce the 55 mph law, your state will not get federal highway build/repair money' This was for 20 years enforced by the Dept of Transportation.
People again need to read the court's decision.
His Orangeness and various instruments he employed failed to clearly define what a "sanctuary city" actually was and or how they were going to interpret same.
For those to lazy to look it up: 8 U.S.C 1373
Notice no where does it clearly state that local governments are obligated to detain, and or otherwise cooperate in the rounding up and handing over of illegal aliens. Statue only speaks to "information", says nothing else really.
For a host of reasons many persons fingerprints are already in the federal/FBI database. If you are or have been arrested and your prints taken, they most certainly were sent to the feds. What DT and GOP seem to want is once those prints or any other information comes back with a match/or request to detain for immigration purposes, that local LE comply. A good number of local LE have said "no", to this request and release persons from custody providing they have served time or whatever. That is where the fun starts for feds.
Instead of going to a central location to get illegals rounded up (conveniently by local LE), they must now go out into the area, find and otherwise to the rest of the work on their own. Immigration LE just doesn't have that kind of budget.
Excellent post, you must have some background in law or work in law enforcement? Most people can't grasp what you just said very eloquently
^^^^
President Jimmy Cater 'If you don't comply with and enforce the 55 mph law, your state will not get federal highway build/repair money' This was for 20 years enforced by the Dept of Transportation.
That's right and it went to court when Carter tried to cut all sorts of grants and the SCOTUS decision was that they could withhold some grant money if it was directly related to the activity the feds wanted to regulate and the amount withheld could not be so large as to be "coercive" If I remember correctly they ultimately withheld 5% of a few highway construction grants.
Do some research on the number of long settled cases on the subject of states rights then think real hard...is Gorsuch going to be willing to undo years of legal precedent and convince a majority of other justices to do the same and turn the 10th amendment on it's head so that Trump and Sessions can get their pound of flesh against "sanctuary cities"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
