C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
‘The U.S. Department of Homeland Security removed a list of "sanctuary" states, cities and counties from its website following sharp criticism from a sheriffs' association that said a list of "non-compliant" sheriffs could severely damage the relationship between the Trump administration and law enforcement. DHS on Thursday published a list of what it called "sanctuary" jurisdictions that allegedly limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The list prompted a response from the National Sheriffs' Association, which represents more than 3,000 elected sheriffs across the U.S. and generally supports federal immigration enforcement. Sheriff Kieran Donahue, president of the association, said in a statement on Saturday that DHS published "a list of alleged noncompliant sheriffs in a manner that lacks transparency and accountability." Donahue said the list was created without input from sheriffs and "violated the core principles of trust, cooperation, and partnership with fellow law enforcement."
[…]
Leaders of some cities publicly questioned the sanctuary label this week, including jurisdictions in Southern California, Colorado and Massachusetts. San Diego City Attorney Heather Ferbert told local outlets that San Diego - named on the DHS list - had never adopted a sanctuary policy and that the move appeared to be politically motivated. “We suspect this is going to be used as additional threats and fear tactics to threaten federal funding that the city relies on," she said.’
There’s no such thing as 'sanctuary' cities.
The Constitution has long acknowledged that states and local jurisdictions cannot be compelled to enforce Federal laws – including Federal immigration law.
There is likewise no such thing as a ‘noncompliant’ jurisdiction because, again, states and cities are not required to ‘comply’ with Federal requests to assist with enforcing Federal immigration law.
The administration’s policy is in fact politically motivated, the withholding of funds from cities that exercise their right to not comply with Federal law enforcement is illegal and un-Constitutional.
The list prompted a response from the National Sheriffs' Association, which represents more than 3,000 elected sheriffs across the U.S. and generally supports federal immigration enforcement. Sheriff Kieran Donahue, president of the association, said in a statement on Saturday that DHS published "a list of alleged noncompliant sheriffs in a manner that lacks transparency and accountability." Donahue said the list was created without input from sheriffs and "violated the core principles of trust, cooperation, and partnership with fellow law enforcement."
[…]
Leaders of some cities publicly questioned the sanctuary label this week, including jurisdictions in Southern California, Colorado and Massachusetts. San Diego City Attorney Heather Ferbert told local outlets that San Diego - named on the DHS list - had never adopted a sanctuary policy and that the move appeared to be politically motivated. “We suspect this is going to be used as additional threats and fear tactics to threaten federal funding that the city relies on," she said.’
There’s no such thing as 'sanctuary' cities.
The Constitution has long acknowledged that states and local jurisdictions cannot be compelled to enforce Federal laws – including Federal immigration law.
There is likewise no such thing as a ‘noncompliant’ jurisdiction because, again, states and cities are not required to ‘comply’ with Federal requests to assist with enforcing Federal immigration law.
The administration’s policy is in fact politically motivated, the withholding of funds from cities that exercise their right to not comply with Federal law enforcement is illegal and un-Constitutional.
