Sanctuary mayors defy Trump
Of course they do.
When a president tries to go against many years of local policies that have successfully defied the federal government—with some of those years involving the cooperation of the federal government in that defiance—it’s not going to go down easy.
It’s one thing for Trump to say he’ll end sanctuary cities. But even with the support of the majority of Americans in that endeavor, the local pockets of resistance (that is, the sanctuary cities themselves) are determined. It’s one thing to say this will change; it’s another thing to enforce that change.
The majority of the citizens of the cities involved detest Donald Trump, and most of them probably think he’s an illegitimate president as well. Their mayors are declaring their intention to defy his orders, and threatening to sue:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions took the podium at the White House press briefing to fire the broadside at cities that refuse to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement when they have illegal immigrants in custody. Judging from the response from mayors of the nation’s biggest cities, the Trump administration has a fight on its hands.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio downplayed the significance of Sessions’ message and said in his weekly television segment Sessions was more “saber-rattling.”
April 10, 2014: New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio speaks at Cooper Union in New York. Expand / ContractNew York Mayor Bill de Blasio fired back after Sessions’ warning. (Associated Press)
“If they actually act to take away our money, we’ll see them in court,” vowed New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said taking federal funding from the city would be “unconstitutional.”
“We will fight to protect the safety and dignity of all Angelenos,” Garcetti said. “We will work closely with our representatives in Congress to make sure that Los Angeles does not go without federal resources that help protect millions of people every day.”
In other words, we want to take federal money and fail to comply with federal law. Note, also, that the Trump order wasn’t to round up all the illegal aliens in town, it was “to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement when they have illegal immigrants in custody.”
While not a technical term, “sanctuary cities” are seen as communities that have refused to work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials after detaining illegal immigrants. By federal law, they are required to inform the feds when they have an illegal immigrant in custody, even if he or she has not been convicted of a crime…
Sessions not only warned of “withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants,” he said the Trump administration could even “claw back” money that has already been disbursed to sanctuary cities.
And take a look at this:
And Boston Mayor Marty Walsh called the threat ”˜destructive’ and ”˜irresponsible’. Walsh has said that he would shelter immigrants in City Hall if needed, with the support of Boston Police Commissioner William Evans who said officers would not arrest immigrants living in the U.S. illegally unless they are accused of committing violent crimes.
Does that mean that in Boston there will be a two-tiered system of law enforcement? That illegal immigrants will—with the cooperation of the police department and its head—get off scot free for all but violent crimes, while the rest of Boston’s residents will continue to be arrested for non-violent crimes? So (for example) it’s okay to commit identity theft if the perpetrator is an illegal alien, but not if the criminal is a citizen or a legal non-citizen resident?
It’s especially interesting, since one of the original rationales for establishing sanctuary cities was to encourage crime reporting by illegal aliens who were the victims of crimes, without those victims having to fear deportation themselves. This turns that rationale on its head.
Trump’s order, however, might be unconstitutional for the following reason:
Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University, has argued that Trump’s withholding of federal funding would be unconstitutional: “Trump and future presidents could use [the executive order] to seriously undermine constitutional federalism by forcing dissenting cities and states to obey presidential dictates, even without authorization from Congress. The circumvention of Congress makes the order a threat to separation of powers, as well.”
Perhaps Congress should take this up. There’s a history there, too:
On June 16, 2007 the United States House of Representatives passed an amendment to a United States Department of Homeland Security spending bill that would withhold federal emergency services funds from sanctuary cities. Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) was the sponsor of this amendment. 50 Democrats joined Republicans to support the amendment. The amendment would have to pass the United States Senate to become effective.
There was another failed attempt to do this in 2015. This is one of those situations in which, if the bill came before the Senate today, the Democrats might try to block it with a filibuster or voting against cloture. However, that might be a controversial move, and there might not be enough Democratic senators willing to go that route. I’m pretty certain that Jeff Sessions is well aware of all the possibilities.
I happen to be in favor of Trump’s policy—or, to be more precise, I am in favor of Congress passing a law to the same effect. Of course, that doesn’t mean it would be easy to enforce. It would be very difficult to enforce if—as in the quote from Boston—the head of the police force of a city, with the cooperation of the mayor, is determined to defy it. The idea of threatening the withdrawal of federal funds is that it won’t come to that, because the cities would be coerced into cooperation. But they might just say they will cooperate in order to get the funds, while winking at it in actual practice.
being conservative is difficult because the other side has human nature (gullible, emotional, laziness, jealousy, impatient…) on their side
How is Trump or any other President enforcing a law acting to ‘circumvent’ congress? If congress passed a law (which it did) regarding turning over illegal aliens, isn’t that authorization in and of itself? Do you need further authorization to withhold funds?
One would think that at some point the feds could charge some local official with obstruction of justice. I mean, if you know an illegal who commits a crime was at some point in local custody and they should have notified the feds…Don’t know, just asking.
Also, there must be ways the feds help local government out in enforcing local laws. For example, my father worked for the Philadelphia Navy Yard. Workers would say it’s a “federal reservation” and not really the city, but Uncle Sam went ahead and deducted the city wage tax from their paychecks anyway. They could play tit for tat.
JWD:
It is possible the EO would be upheld, but (as we know) it would depend on the court. I doubt the 9th Circuit would uphold it. At any rate, if Congress passed a law authorizing it, that would accomplish 2 things. The first is that it would make it more impervious to court challenges, although not completely impervious. The second is that it would be harder for a succeeding president to change it (although Obama has shown us how a president can undermine an act of Congress).
I don’t get why Congress won’t codify a lot of these things that Trump is doing by EO. Most of them are pretty standard Republican stuff and I would think that they could be passed relatively simply.
Does Congress even bother with the simple stuff any more? It seems if the word ‘omnibus’ or ‘comprehensive’ isn’t involved then nothing happens.
Sanctuary cities are defying federal immigration laws and regulations. Forget about withholding funds, simply pick a target city. File charges against officials who protect illegal aliens, specifically aliens who have committed crimes beyond illegal entry, and take it to the limit; mayors, city council members, and police chiefs. Cities have limited funds. The feds have unlimited funds as they can always create money out of thin air. Begin with Chicago, its bonds are basically junk bonds. Then see how fast they fold.
The County Sheriff where I live has stated, “I cannot deprive a person of their liberty (hold them in the county jail) unless I receive a warrant.” He considers a retainer request from ICE as having no legal standing. Methinks the law needs to be changed or made more precise – that a retainer request from ICE has the same standing as a warrant. I’m not enough of a legal mind to know if this is possible, but seems like one way of getting compliance.
It’s quite interesting. This is a big agriculture area. We have many illegals. The farmers could not operate without them. Unfortunately, most of the major violent crimes in the area involve people with Hispanic names. The newspaper never identifies their immigrant status. Even though this is a politically middle of the road area for Washington State, the PC, multi-culti, open borders mentality has made deep inroads.
One of the crimes which make illegal aliens more than a nuisance is identity theft, non-violent, to be sure, but, when they use someone’s Social Security number to work, the true holder of that number has an increased income, and therefore is in a higher income bracket, and ends up owing tax in April. It happens thousands of times every year. People in e.g. Kansas, owe income tax for a job in Florida, and it would have been exceedingly difficult to work in both places, although IRS does not have computers that can sort all that out automatically. It can be a very expensive lesson in the importance of the government abiding by the law.
Well, it wasn’t unconstitutional to withhold highway funds from Wyoming when they refused to adopt the 55 mph speed limit, so said the SCOTUS.
This veteran doesn’t believe that the cutting off of funds to sanctuary cities is the first action to take anyway. There are mayors who have publicly declared they are violating federal laws by sheltering and protecting illegal aliens. The rule of law is being destroyed by allowing them to ignore federal immigration laws.
The withholding of funds would be from law enforcement which could do harm to citizens and does not resolve the actual problem with these mayors’ actions who apparently believe they can do what they do because of the 10th Amendment. I thought we settled the supremacy of laws with the horrific Civil War which cost 650,000 American lives out of 30 million citizens at the time.
How can our leadership expect regular citizens like me to respect and obey the rule of law when such actions go unpunished. These mayors believe they are above the law! But I am not?
Maybe Trump is sensitive to the scurrilous charges hurled at him; e.g., Fascist, Hitler; so that he is reluctant to defy the courts. But, I really do not understand why he is letting Circuit Courts jerk him around on issues where he clearly has the authority to act. I think that on immigration and visa policy, for instance, he should proceed with business; and let the lower courts take it up the line if they wish–rather than the other way round. Now, if the Supreme Court ruled against him, it would really create a conundrum.
I agree with the comments that going after officials who defy federal law should be a cleaner option than withholding funds, but, doubt that it would not be because the courts would free them post-haste. Then they would be seen as martyrs by their constituents. Still it would be therapeutic to see the Mayor and other officials in SF doing a perp walk, So the option should be exercised just for the visual appeal; along with funding cuts as the best option in the long run.
I can’t blame it specifically on the Sanctuary movement, but there is an observable lack of respect for laws of all kinds. We see it all around us, from running red lights and stop signs, to blatant littering. And, of course, mob action disguised as protests. Society is eroding, and coddling illegality in one form contributes to it in others.l
parker has the right of it, there must be personal consequence.
As for turning them into martyrs… only among those supportive of open borders.
amr,
Some animals are more equal than others. Defined by whether the lawlessness supports the narrative or not. Thus any action that supports the narrative is above the law.
Neo is sooo good. Yes, illegal immigrants are becoming a privileged class.
My county has provided a substantial (but not unlimited) amount of free healthcare for maybe a couple decades. It has occurred to me that all have to do is walk into the right clinic, tell them that my name is Jose Gonzales, and “no habla ingles,” and I could get free healthcare too. Of course, I would need to speak fluent Spanish also, which I don’t.
But it makes perfect sense. How can you put a value on a new voter that is automatically dependent on the welfare state?
I have been through a great many jury selection processes and until recently, the selection was taken entirely from the list of registered voter. During the voir dire about 25% of the prospective jurors say “no habla ingles” and are immediately dismissed.
This whole thing reminds me of the ROTC several years ago. Universities were banning the ROTC organizations from their campuses. This was finally dealt with when Congress passed a law forcing universities to choose between their federal funding, and their ROTC bans.
On the face of it, a Congressional bill forcing Sanctuary Cities to make a similar choice would be a no-brainer. But quite a few of the Republicans in Congress seem to want to slip amnesty in whenever they think they can get away with it. When Boehner was Speaker, he pushed an amnesty bill, got yelled at by the public, and then pushed another one two years later. There’s a wing of the Republican party that appears to like having large numbers of unskilled immigrants in the country, and they might fight tooth and nail to keep Congress from doing anything about Sanctuary cities.
American Greatness has two posts up on Sanctuary Cities that need to be read in tandem.
https://amgreatness.com/2017/03/27/immigration-still-operative-term/
“We’ve been asked by Democrats and some Republicans to live with massive waves of immigration. But at some point immigration doesn’t begin to describe what’s happening, both with illegal and legal immigration.
Let’s call it what it is. A variation of colonization that I call neo-colonization.”
https://amgreatness.com/2017/03/28/rape-bureaucracys-bedroom/
“In one of the wealthiest, most highly-educated counties in America, two illegal immigrants raped a 14 year-old girl during school hours. The crime occurred March 16 at Rockville High School, a few blocks from where I live in Montgomery County, Maryland.
The nationally reported crime cries out to have its true national significance exposed, in the supine mentality the locals have displayed. …Unfortunately for the sanctimonious, the Rockville horror took place just as sanctuary state legislation passed the overwhelmingly Democratic Assembly. The anti-Trump Republican Governor Larry Hogan vowed to veto the bill. Some plucky Chinese immigrants have had enough and lobbied against sanctuary status, pitting them against the Chinese-American establishment…”
junior,
That wing of the GOP to which you refer is beholden to its large donors who have publicly made clear their support for amnesty and open borders.
NYT, July 30, 2013,
“More than 100 Republican donors – many of them prominent names in their party’s establishment – sent a letter to Republican members of Congress on Tuesday urging them to support an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.
The letter, which calls for “legal status” for the 11 million immigrants here illegally…”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/us/politics/big-name-gop-donors-urge-members-of-congress-to-back-immigration-overhaul.html
amr said: (March 28th, 2017 at 7:38 pm)
“…There are mayors who have publicly declared they are violating federal laws by sheltering and protecting illegal aliens. The rule of law is being destroyed by allowing them to ignore federal immigration laws{…}”
Does the Executive Branch of FedGov have standing to bring charges against the executives of “sanctuary cities”? Because it seems to me that charges of aiding and abetting criminal behavior, and acting as accessories after-the-fact (for knowingly providing illegals with drivers licenses, for example) should be a slam-dunk to prove. Also, if it can be shown they are inviting/ encouraging non-citizens to come here illegally, we could add charges of collusion &/or conspiracy – how about the RICO statutes? If these virtue-signaling mayors knew they were facing time in a Federal prison, not to mention being disqualified from ever running for public office again, perhaps they could be persuaded to at least pretend some respect for Rule-of-Law again.
(The many examples of the Left’s absolute disregard for our laws and for our long-established Constitutional processes leave me horrified and truly afraid for our nation’s future. How can we even *BE* “a nation” when half of our people don’t agree what the rules are?)
The constitutionality of a law or regulation is subject to the Standings Doctrine, the Scrutiny Doctrine and, as a major issue in the Gorsuch hearings, the Chevron Deference doctrine.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/01/challenging-laws-3-levels-of-scrutiny-explained.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference
All of these are ambiguous and the major driver of “judge shopping”.