San Francisco is asking a Court to halt President Trump’s executive order restricting federal funding from sanctuary cities. The executive order would restrict certain federal funds from jurisdictions with sanctuary policies. Sanctuary policies are intended to impede the enforcement of immigration law by federal immigration officials. These policies, which proponents argue are meant to foster “trust” with law enforcement in immigrant communities, are often designed to protect criminal aliens from detection and removal from the United State by restricting communication with federal officials and compliance with detainer requests, often called ICE holds.
At a press conference, San Francisco’s city attorney, Dennis Herrera, said he believed the executive order was unconstitutional because it “tries to turn city and state employees into federal immigration enforcers.” San Francisco’s sanctuary policies, however, are far reaching and prohibit city law enforcement from sharing information with ICE, including merely responding to requests by ICE for information regarding a criminal alien’s release from custody.
President Trump’s executive order explained that “sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States.” Additionally, it stated, “it is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373.” This statute explicitly prohibits sanctuary policies that restrict the sending, requesting, maintaining, or exchanging of information regarding a person’s immigration status. The order also gives the Attorney General and DHS Secretary the authority to ensure “that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes.”
San Francisco, which has defiantly maintained its sanctuary policies despite public outcry after the fatal shooting of Kate Steinle by an illegal alien, stands to lose millions of dollars in funding. San Francisco receives as much as $1.2 billion in federal funds currently. Kate Steinle’s murder has motivated lawmakers around the country to introduce legislation to eliminate sanctuary policies. This year, at least 25 state legislatures are considering measures to prohibit sanctuary policies in their states and require law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
The court scheduled a hearing on this matter for April 5.
3 Comments
That is a tough one especially when CA puts more in the reserve than what it gets back like NY for instance….
San Francisco can prevent loss
of billions of federal dollars
by a simple compromise:
Separate the functions of the POLICE
from the functions of the PRISONS.
On the streets of San Francisco
the POLICE must never ask for proofs of citizenship.
But in the JAILS, the PRISON authorities
should fully identify every suspect,
including country of citizenship.
Only after an ARREST for criminal behavior
should the immigration question be asked and answered.
Such a SEPARATION would permit
everyone living in the city to cooperate fully
with the police in everything they do:
Everyone could report crime.
Everyone could be a witness at trial.
Everyone could be protected by the police.
Instead of declaring itself a “sanctuary city”,
any such jurisdiction could become a “separation city”.
SEPARATION CITIES
instead of SANCTUARY CITIES?
The expression “sanctuary cities”
might be taken to mean
that foreign nationals
will not be arrested for ordinary crimes.
Not so.
All crimes will be investigated
and laws will be enforced.
The mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota
suggests a new expression:
“SEPARATION CITIES”.
What most of these cities really mean
is that there will be OFFICIAL SEPARATION
between the POLICE functions
and the PRISON functions.
If and when any individual
(regardless of citizenship)
is arrested for probable cause,
then FULL IDENTIFICATION of this individual
should be obtained
—explicitly including country of citizenship.
Booking includes taking a picture of the person arrested
and creating a set of fingerprints,
which are automatically compared
with other fingerprints kept by the FBI.
If this person is wanted for any other crimes,
then that fact will be taken into account
for all future cooperation
with other agencies of law-enforcement.
In short, the POLICE can do their work
without ever asking for immigration status.
(This protects all who cooperate with the police.)
But if and when some criminal suspect is ARRESTED,
then the full identity of that suspect
should be explored by the PRISON authorities.
On the STREET, no one is asked about citizenship.
But in JAIL, all suspects are completely identified.
The federal government should have no problems
with such SEPARATION CITIES.
Both sides of the debate get what they want:
The city police do not arrest anyone for immigration violations.
Once in custody for ordinary crimes,
the prison authorities fully identify the suspects
and cooperate with all other levels of law-enforcement.
One additional administrative way to achieve this SEPARATION
already exists in many locations:
The CITY sets policy for the local POLICE.
And the COUNTY sets policy for the local JAIL.
Property taxes support both levels of government,
but there are different governing bodies
—perhaps a city council
and a county board of commissioners.
And even when the same governing body sets both policies,
they can clearly SEPARATE the POLICE PRACTICES
from the PRISON PRACTICES.
When all local and state jails and prisons cooperate
with all levels of national law-enforcement,
there should be no threat of withholding federal funds
from any such SEPARATION CITIES.
The Open Border Pundits Have No Brains
They want open borders with no security except media fake news belittling the ISIS impacts in America killing and slaughtering…
SF has serious income division between poor and rich….their Populist middle class has been sent to the Hitler style gas chambers? Workers can’t afford the rents there, they live like gypsies, 2-4 families per apartment…
But they’re more charitable? LOL