Second Circuit rules Trump can withhold funds from 'sanctuary' states, cities
By: Sophie Mann
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Cities and states that want to declare themselves sanctuaries from federal immigration policies will now pay a price.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled Wednesday that President Trump’s January 2017 executive order to withhold federal funds from so-called "sanctuary" cities and states that choose to resist efforts to enforce U.S. immigration laws was within the scope of his authority.
The funds in question are the more than $25 million annually allocated by Congress through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, which are doled out to aid criminal justice efforts.
The court ruling overturns a lower court’s order, which called for the president to release federal funds to New York City and seven states — Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington.
Cities and states that declare themselves "sanctuaries" do not help enforce federal deportation laws for residents who are non-criminal illegal immigrants.
Some local law enforcement officials believe obeying the orders of federal immigration agencies, like ICE, discourages illegal or undocumented immigrants from cooperating with them during investigations and reporting crimes.
The appeals court ruling, written by Judge Reena Raggi, conflicts with decisions on the same issue by three other federal courts of appeal. These legal disagreements could set the stage for the issue to be decided ultimately by the Supreme Court.
A Justice Department spokesperson called the ruling “a major victory for Americans.”
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
331 visitors
In major win for the President, appeals court rules Trump can withhold funds from 'sanctuary' states, cities
Rules of civility apply
cool. the financial retaliation against trumpski's wealthy supporters that depend upon state infrastructure contracts for their businesses in this boom town will be epic. $25 million spread over 50 states? makes our share about half a million. pffft, keep it, we make that much in retail weed taxes in 1 day. bfd
Sounds good!
agreed. $0 = zero cooperation.
bullshit. we still process all criminals, but we no longer do federal work for nothing. they're still notified about the judicial status of certain persons in their interest, but if ICE chooses not to respond to those notifications, that's on them. tough shit.
maybe they should direct their angst towards those criminals that invited them here and continue to facilitate their stay by employing them using a documentation loophole provided by conservatives for the sole financial benefit of their corporate constituency.
Wow, you couldn't comment on Just Jim's article about this yesterday ( or today)
but felt compelled to post a new seed today?
The bottom line is that Bush cut the original funding for reimbursement programs to entities cooperating with ICE in 2005
and Congress responded with this tiny $25 million dollar grant program.
Now the Trump Administration thinks that by adding more and more anti sanctuary conditions to the grant process that they are "winning" some imaginary battle for ICE cooperation.
News flash. It will only hurt the agencies and municipalities already cooperating with Ice. The rest will just save time and money by not applying for those grants.
Easy Peasy.
So it is going to hurt them how? Money in the pot and less people following the law not collecting = more money for those that do. I know math is hard but..............................
As posted yesterday within my article, it's $250 million...................
You are correct sir, I don't know how Vic's seed got it wrong by a factor of ten.
the ICE detention facility here is already overcrowded. this is but another lame attempt by the "great negotiator" to lay the feds expenses off on those states whose elected officials are stupid enough to reach for their wallets to appease the criminal moron currently residing in the white house that has a lifelong history of attempting to renegotiate terms of an agreement after it's been fully consummated.