Trump vs Sanctuary Cities

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,665
Who will win the struggle between Trump and the Sanctuary Cities?

Section 1373 of the Immigration and Nationality Act says:

Section 1373 INA Act said:
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.
During the 2016 campaign, Trump threatened to defund Sanctuary Cities, and laws against Sanctuary Cities are making their way through 33 state legislatures. In Virginia and Pennsylvania, the Democratic governors have said he will veto them. California is about to pass a law to become a Sanctuary State, where officials will be forbidden from cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Only one state so far has passed a ban on Sanctuary Cities (Mississippi), but bills are progressing in other states including Texas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa and Florida. The Texas Governor Gregg Abbott has already withheld money from Travis County over its newly elected Sheriff, Sally Hernandez's, sanctuary-policy.

25 state legislatures are including a ban on sanctuary-campusses in their progressing legislation too (universities that refuse cooperation with ICE), following California University President Janet Napolitano's announcement its becoming a sanctuary-campus.

AG Jeff Sessions recently announced that states will be required to certify compliance with Federal immigration law and that those which don't may lose funding. Washington state is taking the DOJ to court to force them to state whether Wasahington is in compliance with Federal law - an apparent attempt to force judges to rule on the EO itself.
 
Last edited:


ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
49,731
I'm guessing that whatever happens, you've already decided that the outcome will be as Trump planned.
 

NYCKY

Moderator
Joined
Apr 17, 2010
Messages
13,296
I think Trump (and Sessions) is on thin ice here. While I agree with him that cities, counties, Universities etc should co-operate with Federal authorities to ensure that laws are upheld, he is probably on shaky ground when it comes to withholding promised or routine funds to various entities.

Of course new funds or ongoing discussions on requests for financing would be a different story and I would expect those to go nowhere fast.

Whatever about anything else, with all the appeals against his agenda, Trump is definitely making the legal profession great again. The four goldmines will be in the ha'penny place.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,665
Fox reporting NYPD refusing to implement Di Blasios sanctuary policy and instead are telling ICE the court dates of the illegals so ICE can arrest them. Lawyer on next who's unhappy with this.
 

Eire1976

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
13,764
I think it outrageous that any state funded entity would put virtue signalling above compliance and cooperation with the law.
 

paulp

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
7,230
I think it outrageous that any state funded entity would put virtue signalling above compliance and cooperation with the law.
A state police force have a job to do.
If they believe that not cooperating with ICE makes them more effective at their primary purpose, then would it make sense to cooperate with ICE?
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
A state police force have a job to do.
If they believe that not cooperating with ICE makes them more effective at their primary purpose, then would it make sense to cooperate with ICE?
But that isn't what is going on here now is it....
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,665
A state police force have a job to do.
If they believe that not cooperating with ICE makes them more effective at their primary purpose, then would it make sense to cooperate with ICE?
If the Trump admin defunds them for non compliance with INA Section 1373 they will not be more effective at their job.
 

paulp

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
7,230
But that isn't what is going on here now is it....

Certainly have had police chiefs in cities with high numbers of immigrants stating that policing those cities will become much more difficult if their police force alienate all the immigrants - large parts of the population will stop cooperating with police

But i agree, it's also political - California wants immigrants and they're doing their best to get them
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
If the Trump admin defunds them for non compliance with INA Section 1373 they will not be more effective at their job.
Withholding funds from such localities is far more difficult than you would imagine. For starters, in the vast majority of cases we're dealing with discretionary spending and one would need Congressional approval to do so (good luck with overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate) and also overcome other restrictions. What remains then are executive funding allocations which are of a relatively marginal nature.

Of course, that assumes that INA Section 1373 is constitutional to begin with.

https://lawfareblog.com/sanctuary-101-part-iii-can-trump-condition-federal-funds-way
https://www.lawfareblog.com/sanctuary-101-part-iv-does-§-1373-unconstitutionally-commandeer-states
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ramon Mercadar

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
15,002
WASHINGTON — The choice by President Trump of a pro-immigration economist to lead his Council of Economic Advisers is stirring a backlash among his most ardent supporters who worry it is an abandonment of the tough stance he took on the issue during the campaign and the latest in a string of broken promises.

Mr. Trump had already disappointed some of his base supporters by intervening in Syria with a military strike last week and by delaying a tough stance on trade with China and Mexico. He expressed the idea via Twitter on Tuesday morning that he’d be willing to offer the Chinese government a more favorable trade deal if they helped the United States with North Korea. Now there is growing unease that immigration is the next area where he will go soft.

To these supporters, the appointment of Kevin A. Hassett, announced late last Friday afternoon, as his top White House economist is another sign that the president is succumbing to the swamp he promised to drain.

Like most economists, Mr. Hassett believes that immigration spurs economic growth. At times he has pilloried Republicans for becoming the “Party of White,” arguing in 2010 that Republicans like then-Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona “have too often appeared hostile to immigrants.” In 2013, Mr. Hassett said the United States should double its intake of immigrants. ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/us/politics/choice-of-pro-immigration-economic-adviser-riles-trumps-base.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,665
Dems threatening to use 60 vote rule in Senate to block crackdown on Sanctuary Cities
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,665
Well, then the Republicans are just going to have to accommodate Democratic demands.
Or wait until 2018 and hope to increase Senate majority and pick off Manchin and Heitkamp. Or nuclear option.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
Or wait until 2018 and hope to increase Senate majority and pick off Manchin and Heitkamp. Or nuclear option.
Senators are on the record on not supporting any nuclear option regarding legislation. 2018 is a long time from now and has too many uncertainties - including who controls the House. Plus, waiting just shows Trump and Republicans to be ineffective.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,665
Lansing (Michigan) Mayor says hes reconsidering sanctuary-city policy following discussion on Tucker Carlson Show on Fox.

Mayor Reconsiders Sanctuary Policy After 'Tucker' Appearance - Fox News

Senators are on the record on not supporting any nuclear option regarding legislation. 2018 is a long time from now and has too many uncertainties - including who controls the House. Plus, waiting just shows Trump and Republicans to be ineffective.
Primary challenges may change their minds.
 
Last edited:

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
Lansing (Michigan) Mayor says hes reconsidering sanctuary-city policy following discussion on Tucker Carlson Show on Fox.

Mayor Reconsiders Sanctuary Policy After 'Tucker' Appearance - Fox News

Primary challenges may change their minds.
Given the fact that the polls, as we have previously discussed, showed the majority of Americans being opposed to the nuclear option being deployed for SCOTUS appointments something tells me that these entirely speculative primary challengers aren't going to materialize.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
53,665
Bizarre injunction from San Francisco court. Its upheld an injunction against Trumps EO on sanctuary cities - but with a twist. It says the DOJ may still attach conditions to funding but that the EO was overly broad. Confusing judgement. What does it mean if you can attach conditions by can't enforce them? BTW this judge raised $200,000 for Obama.

Federal judge blocks Trump's sanctuary cities order | TheHill

Thehill said:
According to the judge’s order, the Justice Department can still withhold grants from places that don’t comply with the law, but cannot enforce the order “in a way that violates the Constitution,” according to a Washington Post reporter.
Reuters said:
..A U.S. judge on Tuesday blocked President Donald Trump's executive order which sought to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities for immigrants.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco said Trump's order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments, and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional..
Obama or Clinton appointee.
 
Last edited:


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top