╌>

'We're going to see more': Sanctuary cities cave in face of Trump's funding threats

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  xxjefferson51  •  7 years ago  •  90 comments

'We're going to see more': Sanctuary cities cave in face of Trump's funding threats
Several towns, cities and counties around the nation are caving to President Trump's threat to pull funding, and abandoning their "sanctuary" pledges to shield illegal immigrants from federal authorities.


Dayton, Ohio, dropped a policy that restricted the city’s cooperation with immigration officials pursuing illegal immigrants arrested for misdemeanors or felony property crimes, according to the Dayton Daily News. Police Chief Richard Biehl said federal authorities will no longer be impeded by the city when pursuing illegal immigrants being held by his department.

Other communities that have dropped policies of shielding illegal immigrant suspects from Immigration and Customs Enforcement include Miami-Dade and Dayton, are Saratoga, N.Y., Finney County, Kan., and Bedford, Penn., according to The Center for Immigration Studies, which keeps a list of sanctuary communities.

“We are reviewing policy changes at a multitude of other jurisdictions as well,” said Marguerite Telford, CIS’s director of communications, who said the organization is “being inundated” by officials on its sanctuary map who want to be taken off.

The mayor of Miami-Dade County, which was considered a sanctuary community, made headlines recently when he changed a policy that called for refusing to hold arrested immigrants for immigration officials unless they committed to reimbursing the county for the cost of detention.

Telling reporters that he did not want to imperil hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, Mayor Carlos Gimenez ordered jails to comply with federal immigration detention requests.


The changes have come on the heels of President Trump’s executive order giving the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security the power to cut federal funding to communities that are deemed sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Trump also has authorized the DHS to publish a weekly list of sanctuary communities.

CIS, and other groups that favor strict immigration enforcement, laud Trump’s move.

“Are you really going to pick and choose what laws you’re going to enforce?” asked Telford. “If you want a change [in immigration policy], go to the legislature.”

While some communities are rethinking their sanctuary policies under the pressure of losing funding, public officials of others, particularly major cities, have vowed to defy Trump’s orders.

“We’re going to defend all of our people regardless of where they come from, regardless of their immigration status,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York at a recent press conference.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel also vowed to protect illegal immigrants, including ones suspected or convicted of crimes, from the feds.

“I want to be clear: We’re going to stay a sanctuary city," Emanuel said. "There is no stranger among us… you are welcome in Chicago as you pursue the American dream.”

The "sanctuary" term describes cities that employ a range of uncooperation with federal immigration authorities. Some refuse to hold suspects and even convicts who have completed their sentences for the feds to deport. Others refuse to furnish the feds with information on illegal immigrants who land on their radar through more benign activity.

Forbes contributor Adam Andrzejewski reported that more than 300 government jurisdictions claim to be sanctuaries, of which 106 are cities and “the rest are states, counties or other units of government.”

Supporters of sanctuary communities say that people who are here illegally but have not posed a danger to others or had trouble with police should not be turned over to immigration authorities.

Some police and town officials further argue that working with immigration officials will make people fearful of turning to them if they are the victim of a crime or have information about one.

“It’s incredibly disappointing to see cities and counties scaling back so-called "sanctuary" policies, which were largely adopted to further public safety and ensure immigrants weren’t afraid to call the police,” Grace Meng, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch, told Fox News.

Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, predicted many more communities will be dropping or dramatically modifying their sanctuary stances.

“We’re going to see more of this,” Mehlman told Fox News. “Faced with the possibility of losing federal dollars, they’ll choose to keep funding public services rather than protecting illegal aliens.” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/10/were-going-to-see-more-sanctuary-cities-cave-in-face-trumps-funding-threats.html

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51    7 years ago

It will be interesting to see what California with its 1.6 billion dollar budget shortfall will do.  

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

The State of Washington, a Sanctuary State with it's many sanctuary cities has announced it's plan to deal with any loss of federal funding.

"We are simply going to raise taxes."

At least that was Seattle Mayor Ed Murray's and Governor Jay Inslee's answer.

And they said it almost jokingly.

That is probably what will happen in California also as well as New York and every other Liberal Sanctuary.

Let their citizens pay for their choices.

Sounds like a good thing to me. Let the citizens feel their elected officials choices where it hurts the most, in their pocketbooks. (not like we are not already one of the highest taxed states in the nation)

And when I tell some of my liberal friends of this plan, they laugh and tell me I'm lying, until I point them to the sources....

Then they are exclaiming angrily about why they haven't heard about this from their usual media sources.

This in a state that has voted down state income tax propositions seven straight times, by 4 to 1 majorities. {snicker}

(oh, we also threw a VERY liberal governor out on his ass after one term by a 2-1 majority when he ran on a state income tax platform)

They do wake up to reality when you hit them in the place that is most important to them, (taking it out of their own pockets) instead of allowing them to do their majic with other peoples money...

 

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Participates
link   pat wilson  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

Tax you.

 
 
 
deepwaterdon
Freshman Silent
link   deepwaterdon    7 years ago

Better get your ass seceded, XXXPalin. You RWNJ's  and Bundyites don't want to be seen as helping a socialist/commie left coast govt., now do you.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  deepwaterdon   7 years ago

We are going to secede from California.  The time for 51 has come!

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

 

We are going to secede from California.  The time for 51 has come!

Don't forget to declare your total independence from the other states … not one penny of my tax dollars should go to you, and you'll need a visa, green card and passport to leave "51" … even to legally travel in California.

Also, no Social Security, Medicare, Federal protection from aliens (like people from Oregon, etc. .

No disaster relief from earthquakes, floods, tornados. No water rights from any sources outside of geographical "51" … your on your own regarding prices for any/all "imported" products … California oranges, lettuce … pay a tariff perhaps.

Careful what you bluff.

But hey, go for it … you have my blessing and the hope that should you actually secede (which I don't believe you cad do legally), Congress will stipulate via a new law, that any/all such secessions can not be reinstated for at least 10 years from the effective date, and, only with the approval of a majority of Congress in a formal vote, and, should such reinstatement be approved, the seceded entity must pay a reinstatement fee of $100 million dollars for each year of secession status.

_______________________________

I never lost my love of negotiating contracts.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

I said we were seceding from California, not the USA.  It's California that's talking secession from America.  

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

I said we were seceding from California, not the USA.  It's California that's talking secession from America.  

Nope … you'd then be in limbo … technically a non-U.S. entity and definitely not a 51st state.

 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
link   TTGA  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Nope … you'd then be in limbo … technically a non-U.S. entity and definitely not a 51st state.

Better check the precedents Mac.  Start with West Virginia.  Just how do you think they became part of the Union in 1863, brought in by the stork maybe??

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick  replied to  TTGA   7 years ago

Good luck TTGA.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  TTGA   7 years ago

Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1  of the United States Constitutions provides:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The separation referred to is not secession but partition . Some of the movements to  partition  states have incorrectly identified themselves as "secessionist" movements.

Of the new states admitted to the Union by Congress, three were set off from already existing states, [65]  while one was established upon land claimed by an existing state after existing for several years as a  de facto   independent republic . They are:

  • Vermont was admitted as a new state in 1791 [66]  after the legislature of New York ceded its claim to the region in 1790. New York's claim that Vermont (also known as the  New Hampshire Grants ) was legally a part of New York was and remains a matter of disagreement. King  George III , ruled in 1764 that the region belonged to the  Province of New York .
  • Kentucky was a part of Virginia until it was admitted as a new state in 1792 [67]  with the consent of the legislature of Virginia in 1789. [68]
  • Maine was a part of Massachusetts until it was admitted as a new state in 1820 [69]  after the legislature of Massachusetts consented in 1819. [68]
  • West Virginia was a part of Virginia until it was admitted as a new state in 1863 [70]  after the General Assembly of the  Restored Government of Virginia  consented in 1862. [71]  The question of whether the legislature of Virginia consented is controversial, as Virginia was one of the Confederate states. However, antisecessionist Virginians formed a  government in exile , which was recognized by the United States and approved the state's partition. Later, by its ruling in  Virginia v. West Virginia  (1871), the  Supreme Court  implicitly affirmed that the breakaway Virginia counties did have the proper consents required to become a separate state. [72]
 
 
 
TTGA
Professor Silent
link   TTGA  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Very good Mac.  A rose by any other name smells the same.  Partition or secession, the end result is the same.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  TTGA   7 years ago

It's pretty much common knowledge that for a state to partition, the area wanting it needs to secede from the originating state first. AND such secession has to be acknowledged by the original state.

At that point it will be added by congress as a new state. (since it IS US territory and cannot become a separate country. That was the legal point of the Civil War, once in you cannot get out)

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  TTGA   7 years ago

Bottom line, TTGA … given the parameters, it won't happen; and any scenario outside of those parameters is de facto "Limbo".  Even if "51" were to declare itself a "state," "partition" or secession(ed) entity, it would, to make itself viably so, need to reject/become ineligible for, all benefits and protections of a "sovereign" entity/legal partition … or whatever it called itself.

Ain't gonna happen.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Well, given history, it "CAN" happen.

In practical reality, it "PROBABLY" won't

Very Very high requirement for it to even be considered.

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

Congratulations AMac.  You've proved his point that he wanted to divide California although his technical language may have been imperfect, his object was clearly understood.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

I doubt it ever comes to fruition, but I can certainly understand being ruled by the most populous areas of the state as being very totalitarian, kind of like the Popular Vote ruling the people in each of the 41 states who don't have as many Republican and Democrat voters as the 4.7 million votes Hillary Clinton received in California more than Donald Trump.  I'm for equal opportunities and rights for all Americans, not just the few.

 
 
 
A. Macarthur
Professor Guide
link   A. Macarthur  replied to  sixpick   7 years ago

Congratulations AMac.  You've proved his point that he wanted to divide California although his technical language may have been imperfect, his object was clearly understood.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

His objective is virtually unattainable under existing law and protocol.

I never questioned his objective, I explained the bleak alternatives given its implausible attainment.

Was that congratulatory note a "gotcha" … that didn't get me?

By XX referencing his objective as "51" ("The time for 51 has come" … I believe was his exact comment), that appellation, in and of itself rendered his objective moot at best, uniformed or pie-in-the sky.

Maybe you deem his "object to have been clearly understood," I see it as the objective of a misunderstanding.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  A. Macarthur   7 years ago

If California leaves the union as proposed by some on the left, the parts of California wishing to remain in the union would be free to do so.  Then we'd be #50 instead of 51.  The California sanctuary law is another opportunity for division since northern rural counties in the Jefferson footprint are declaring that they are not sanctuary regions and will cooperate with ICE and federal law on all immigration issues regardless of state law.  

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  XXJefferson51   7 years ago

We are going to secede from California.  The time for 51 has come!

You can't and we won't let you. You are stuck with us. LOL!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
link   seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

Not if you leave the union we are not.  We found another way to defy you all in the meantime.  We are passing city and county laws stating we are not sanctuary entities and will openly cooperate with ICE and other federal immigration rules and agencies so as to support federal policy and not be cut off from federal funding irregardless of state law on that issue.  

 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov    7 years ago

Good news. The rule of law is being restored.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
link   Hal A. Lujah    7 years ago

I wonder what Sunday sermons are going to start looking like, in light of the new government's policy of ripping mothers out of their children's arms and sending them to a foreign land called Mexico.  It's such a Christian act.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Hal A. Lujah   7 years ago

Theophobia aside, they aren't being sent to a foreign land. They are being sent home. And they are welcome to take their children with them. It's their choice.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
link   Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Cerenkov   7 years ago

The woman in question has been here since she was 14 years old.  Does that sound like she is a native Mexican?  What were you up to when you were 14?

 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
Professor Silent
link   Cerenkov  replied to  Hal A. Lujah   7 years ago

"What were you up to when you were 14?"

Legally abiding in my native country.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.    7 years ago

A couple of thoughts on this subject. 

I don't believe in sanctuary cities. It is against federal law and if states are allowed to pick and chose what federal laws they want, then there might as well not be federal laws. 

I do think that the families that are here and are not criminal and can prove that they have been here for at least 3 years and are working and paying taxes should be able to stay. This problem didn't happen overnight, and so we shouldn't try to cure if overnight. 

There can be moderation when dealing with this issue. It doesn't need to be all or nothing. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   7 years ago

Unfortunately the law is Black and White, it is or it isn't.

and when you get to the point of selective enforcement like the Obama Administration did, then there are going to be these scenes of what appears to be injustice.

The other part of the story is that this woman was caught over a decade ago, she was instructed to report ever year to ICE and as long as she remained law abiding she would not be messed with or deported. And she did.

She has been reporting to ICE every year since her original arrest and she has been passed over for enforcement.

This one isn't on anyone but the ones who established the policy of we only enforce some of the laws and only if we dislike the people we are enforcing against.

And of course now that Trump is in office, and we have gone back to enforcing all the laws equally, Trump gets the blame, not the guy that caused the problem in the first place. (Obama)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
link   Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man   7 years ago

I am not placing blame anywhere. I am just suggesting a just and comprehensive way of handling it. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   7 years ago

I can emphasize with you, but I see no solution suggested. And to be completely honest the problem stems all the way back to the Clinton & Bush II administrations.

There is some point we have to stop undercutting our own laws, kicking the can down the road and come up with solutions.

AS long as we keep it up there will be tragedies like this.

But we CANNOT give up the foundation of enforcing the law....

The solution must lay elsewhere.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Nowhere Man   7 years ago

Unfortunately the law is Black and White, it is or it isn't.

I disagree. The law is never black and white. It is grey and has many many degrees to it.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

If your talking adjudication then I agree it is very gray.

If your talking enforcement, then no it IS B&W without a doubt.

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Nowhere Man   7 years ago

I agree it is not B/W on adjudication. However I disagree that the same standard is not applied everyday by law officers in the field. They see the law as flexible and grey and must or they could not efficiently do their job.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  Randy   7 years ago

Not any officer I've ever met in real life.

They will very quickly tell you if you choose to break the law they will without question take you in/cite you or other wise make your day miserable....

And they just love doing it.

No grey at all....

 
 
 
Randy
Sophomore Participates
link   Randy  replied to  Nowhere Man   7 years ago

You have not met any officers out here near the border. At least when it comes to immigration. They look at it as something that just is not part of their job. They are right. It is not part of their job. They are right. It's not their job.

 

 

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A.   7 years ago

I do think that the families that are here and are not criminal and can prove that they have been here for at least 3 years and are working and paying taxes should be able to stay. This problem didn't happen overnight, and so we shouldn't try to cure if overnight. 

There can be moderation when dealing with this issue. It doesn't need to be all or nothing.

I can go along with that.  Those people whether they're paying taxes or not are not being targeted though.  The thing to do is get them paying taxes.  Believe me, a whole lot of illegals are living the American Dream and not paying taxes, doing quite well in fact.

The idea in my opinion is not provide a haven for criminals who know they can commit crimes and be safe in the Sanctuary City.  I don't want to aim at law abiding illegals with or without children who are being productive in this country.  If we want to go after them, we should go after all the Politicians before them who didn't fight tooth and nail all these years to stop the illegal entries or overstayed visas by enforcing the laws we already have and changing the laws to discourage the act.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy    7 years ago

Amazing how the media always picks the most sympathetic  story possible to be the "face" of deportation stories. I'm sure its just a coincidence that they never publicize the deportation of violent criminals. It's always a poor mother who CNN wants you to think of when deportation is discussed. 

Naturally, they bury the part about her being a identity thief who committed a felony. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
link   Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy   7 years ago

95% of those to be deported are adult males, some convicted of sex crimes with children.

Yet the media has focused on this woman to be the face of the deportees. 

Textbook example of bias. 

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick    7 years ago

оле сиэттл - В. И. Ленин - Наставник в анархиста

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/75/ec/3c/75ec3cf503a8be071b73a3d89b0e7863.jpg

 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Guide
link   Nowhere Man  replied to  sixpick   7 years ago

"Old Seattle - V.I. Lenin, Teacher in Anarchy"

Teacher in Anarchy is the title of this statute, the statue was made by sculptor Emilem Venkovym, a Slovak Bulgarian-born artist commissioned by the government of Czechoslovakia. It currently resides in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle after being removed from Red Square in the town of Poprad in Slovakia after the fall of communism.

It was purportedly brought to Seattle by a citizen who cherished it for it's artistic value and purchased it from the artist for 17,000 dollars. It resided in his back yard for a few years until his death when it was then placed at it's current location, located two blocks north of the intersection of Evanston Avenue and 36th Street, Seattle. Heirs continue to seek a buyer for the statue. As of 2006, the price was $ 250 thousand.

 
 
 
jennilee
Freshman Silent
link   jennilee    7 years ago

To all who are bemoaning the enforcement of federal immigration laws, please tell me what other country I can go to, enter illegally, work, collect medical benefits, receive eitc refunds, and then cry when i get caught and claim sanctuary?   And don't even have to learn the language? 

 
 
 
sixpick
Professor Quiet
link   sixpick  replied to  jennilee   7 years ago

You said a mouthful there Jennilee.  I don't know of any by the way.

 
 

Who is online




79 visitors