Sanctuary Cities

[Weatherman2020]

Orderering city police to ignore certain laws.

What if under President Trump cities ordered their police to ignore even more laws?
Protest in front of and block access to abortion clinics.
Robbery at pot shops.
Arson at strip clubs.

The precedent has been set. It is now up to the whim of mayors what they want to do.

 

[waltky]

Louisiana to become sanctuary state?...

La. AG: Administration Coerced 'Local Jurisdictions in My State to Institute Sanctuary Policies' for Illegal Aliens
September 27, 2016 – Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry told the House Judiciary Committee Tuesday that he finds it “unconscionable” that illegal immigrants in New Orleans “cannot be held on anything less than a warrant or a court order” because of the Obama administration’s consent decree with the city.

“In my beloved New Orleans, the Justice Department entered into a consent decree with the city that mandated police officers not make inquiries into an individual’s immigration status or assist ICE unless there is a warrant or court order issued. As a former police officer and sheriff deputy, I find it unconscionable that criminals cannot be held on anything less than a warrant or a court order,” Landry wrote in his opening testimony at the committee’s hearing on the New Orleans sanctuary city policy. “Let me be clear: I am not trying to do the job of ICE or DHS. Between catching child predators, rooting out public corruption, and fighting federal overreach, I have more than enough to do to make Louisiana an even better place,” Landry wrote, adding that he is “pushing for change because the administration has not only decided to not enforce the law, but they have also used their power to coerce local jurisdictions in my state to institute sanctuary policies.”

Landry noted that crime is up in cities with sanctuary policies. For instance, in Los Angeles, crime rose in 2015. Violent crime was up 19.9 percent. Homicides were up 10.2 percent. Shooting victims rose 12.6 percent. Rapes were up 8.6 percent. Robberies were up 12.3 percent, and aggravated assault was up 27.5 percent, he wrote in his opening testimony. Furthermore, he pointed out, “Immigration and Customs Enforcement recently revealed that 1,867 illegals released by sanctuary cities were later arrested 4,298 times with 7,491 new crimes – including rape and child sex abuse.” “Sanctuary policies encourage further illegal immigration and promote an underground economy that sabotages the tax base. Sanctuary policies also waste much-needed public resources as they force the federal government to find and arrest deportable criminals already taken into custody by local law enforcement,” Landry wrote in his written testimony.

Landry pointed out how unfair the sanctuary city policy was compared to what American citizens must endure by law enforcement. “After all – American citizens are detained on reasonable suspicion, arrested on probable cause, and may not see a judge for 2 to 3 days. Illegal immigrants should not be given greater rights than our own citizens have,” he said. “After hearing testimony in the Louisiana House that city of New Orleans deemed the DOJ consent decree as mandating their sanctuary policy, I wrote a letter to United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking for clarification. The response that this committee and I received was a lengthy, legally-worded non-answer that we have unfortunately come to expect from this administration,” Landry wrote. “However, a recent report by DOJ’s own inspector general outlined the fact that sanctuary jurisdictions, like New Orleans, are in violation of federal law by prohibiting communication with ICE officials. Furthermore, it explicitly declared that local jurisdictions are required to be in compliance with all federal laws in order to receive federal grant dollars,” he added. “All the while, the administration has been rewarding sanctuary cities with hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants.”

Landry said sanctuary cities also pose homeland security issues. “Foreign terrorists – such as members of ISIS – have the ability to travel to a city like New Orleans, commit a minor offense, and remain protected from being identified – due to sanctuary policies,” he added.

La. AG: Administration Coerced 'Local Jurisdictions in My State to Institute Sanctuary Policies' for Illegal Aliens

 

[Skull]

There is a little motion, if not a movement, to defund San cities of any Federal taxpayers monies. This petition is a small step in the right direction:

Stop funding sanctuary cities

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - don't give `em any tax dollars...

DOJ Plans to Block Grants for 'Sanctuary Cities'
March 28, 2017 | WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday said jurisdictions must demonstrate that they are not so-called “sanctuary cities” in order to receive grants from the Justice Department.

Following up on President Trump’s promises to crack down on cities and counties that refuse to turn over illegal immigrants to federal officials, Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday said jurisdictions must demonstrate that they are not so-called “sanctuary cities” in order to receive grants from the Justice Department. In a move that could mean the loss of billions of dollars to local jurisdictions across the United States, Sessions referred to Trump’s executive order issued in January, telling a news conference that “this disregard for law must end. Today I’m urging states and local jurisdictions to comply with the federal laws,” including 8 U.S. Code, Section 1373.”

That law dictates “communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service” and says that states and local jurisdictions must comply with request by the Immigration and Naturalization Service for information “regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” “Moreover,” said Sessions, “the Department of Justice will require that jurisdictions seeking or applying for Department of Justice grants to certify compliance with 1373 as a condition of receiving those awards.”

The news has broad implications for the Bay Area, which has a number of sanctuary counties including San Francisco, Santa Cruz and Alameda, as well as a cities like Oakland and San Jose. Executives at these local entities have been bracing for bad news since late January when President Trump signed orders to clamp down on illegal immigration. That move set up an inevitable showdown between the White House and cities like San Francisco where leaders have vowed to to fight efforts to hand over illegal immigrants to the federal government for deportation.

State ?Senate ?President Pro Tem? Kevin de Leon?, D-Los Angeles,? ?blasted Sessions’ announcement, saying it? was “nothing short of blackmail.” “Instead of making us safer, the Trump administration is spreading fear and promoting race-based scapegoating?,” the Senate leader said in a statement Monday.? ??”Their gun-to-the-head method to force resistant cities and counties to participate in Trump’s inhumane and counterproductive mass-deportation is unconstitutional and will fail.” State Senator Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, also took to Twitter, vowing the state would fight the Trump administration’s immigration policies. “Sessions threatens sanctuary cities, slanders immigrants as `dangerous criminals,’ Wiener ?tweeted?. “He’s wrong and we will #resist.”

MORE=

 

[waltky]

US Appeals Court Comes Down Against 'Sanctuary Cities'...

US Appeals Court Upholds Texas' Ban on 'Sanctuary Cities'
March 13, 2018 — A Texas immigration crackdown on "sanctuary cities" took effect Tuesday after a federal appeals court upheld a divisive law backed by the Trump administration that threatens elected officials with jail time and allows police officers to ask people during routine stops whether they're in the U.S. illegally.

The ruling was a blow to Texas' biggest cities — including Houston, Dallas and San Antonio — that sued last year to prevent enforcement of what opponents said is now the toughest state-level immigration measure on the books in the U.S. But for the Trump administration, the decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans is a victory against measures seen as protecting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. Last week, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions sued California over its so-called sanctuary state law. In Texas, the fight over a new law known as Senate Bill 4 has raged for more than a year, roiling the Republican-controlled Legislature and once provoking a near-fistfight between lawmakers in the state capitol. It set off racially-charged debates, backlash from big-city police chiefs and rebuke from the government in Mexico, which is Texas' largest trading partner and shares close ties to the state. Since 2010, the Hispanic population in Texas has grown at a pace three times that of white residents. "Allegations of discrimination were rejected. Law is in effect," Republican Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted after the ruling was published.

A major focal point of the Texas law is the requirement for local authorities to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, or risk jail time if they don't. Police chiefs, sheriffs and constables could also face removal from office for failing to comply with such federal "detainer" requests. One sheriff Abbott had in his sights was Travis County's Sally Hernandez, an elected Democratic who runs Austin's jails. Last year, Hernandez announced on the day Donald Trump was sworn-in that her department would no longer comply with all detainer requests, a decision Republicans repeatedly pointed to in their defense of the measure. "Words just can't express how disappointed I am with this ruling," Hernandez said. But she said her department would follow the law as directed by the courts. The Texas law is often slammed by opponents as a near-copycat of Arizona's "Show Me Your Papers" law in 2010, but the two measures are not identical. Whereas the Arizona law originally required police to try to determine the immigration status of people during routine stops, the Texas bill doesn't instruct officers to ask.

Lydia Balderas, left, and Merced Leyua, right, join others as they protest against a sanctuary cities bill outside the federal courthouse in San Antonio​

U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones wrote in the court's opinion that the Arizona law — which was partially blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court — was more "problematic" because it mandated the questions during traffic stops. She added that no suspicion, reasonable or not, is required to ask questions off lawfully-detained individuals. "It would be wrong to assume that SB4 authorizes unreasonable conduct where the statute's text does not require it," she said. But the Texas law remains worse in "a lot of respects," said Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped lead the lawsuit against SB4. He said they were still deciding their next steps following the ruling, which could include asking the full appeals court to reconsider. Until then, Gelernt said they will closely watch how Texas implements the law.

Police chiefs across Texas said the law will create a chilling effect that will cause immigrant families to not report crimes or come forward as witnesses over fears that talking to local police could lead to deportation. Critics also fear it will lead to the racial profiling of Hispanics and put officers in an untenable position. Last year, Mexico's foreign ministry expressed concern that the law could trample on the rights of Mexican citizens who choose to live just across the border. But the law was enthusiastically backed by the Trump administration, which had joined Texas in court to defend the measure. Sessions has blamed sanctuary city policies for crime and gang violence, and announced in July that cities and states could only receive certain grants if they cooperate with immigration agents. Sessions is now targeting California, which passed sanctuary laws in response to the president's promises to ramp up the deportation of people in the U.S. illegally.

US Appeals Court Upholds Texas' Ban on 'Sanctuary Cities'

 

[danielpalos]

US Appeals Court Comes Down Against 'Sanctuary Cities'...

US Appeals Court Upholds Texas' Ban on 'Sanctuary Cities'
March 13, 2018 — A Texas immigration crackdown on "sanctuary cities" took effect Tuesday after a federal appeals court upheld a divisive law backed by the Trump administration that threatens elected officials with jail time and allows police officers to ask people during routine stops whether they're in the U.S. illegally.

The ruling was a blow to Texas' biggest cities — including Houston, Dallas and San Antonio — that sued last year to prevent enforcement of what opponents said is now the toughest state-level immigration measure on the books in the U.S. But for the Trump administration, the decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans is a victory against measures seen as protecting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. Last week, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions sued California over its so-called sanctuary state law. In Texas, the fight over a new law known as Senate Bill 4 has raged for more than a year, roiling the Republican-controlled Legislature and once provoking a near-fistfight between lawmakers in the state capitol. It set off racially-charged debates, backlash from big-city police chiefs and rebuke from the government in Mexico, which is Texas' largest trading partner and shares close ties to the state. Since 2010, the Hispanic population in Texas has grown at a pace three times that of white residents. "Allegations of discrimination were rejected. Law is in effect," Republican Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted after the ruling was published.

A major focal point of the Texas law is the requirement for local authorities to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, or risk jail time if they don't. Police chiefs, sheriffs and constables could also face removal from office for failing to comply with such federal "detainer" requests. One sheriff Abbott had in his sights was Travis County's Sally Hernandez, an elected Democratic who runs Austin's jails. Last year, Hernandez announced on the day Donald Trump was sworn-in that her department would no longer comply with all detainer requests, a decision Republicans repeatedly pointed to in their defense of the measure. "Words just can't express how disappointed I am with this ruling," Hernandez said. But she said her department would follow the law as directed by the courts. The Texas law is often slammed by opponents as a near-copycat of Arizona's "Show Me Your Papers" law in 2010, but the two measures are not identical. Whereas the Arizona law originally required police to try to determine the immigration status of people during routine stops, the Texas bill doesn't instruct officers to ask.

Lydia Balderas, left, and Merced Leyua, right, join others as they protest against a sanctuary cities bill outside the federal courthouse in San Antonio​

U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones wrote in the court's opinion that the Arizona law — which was partially blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court — was more "problematic" because it mandated the questions during traffic stops. She added that no suspicion, reasonable or not, is required to ask questions off lawfully-detained individuals. "It would be wrong to assume that SB4 authorizes unreasonable conduct where the statute's text does not require it," she said. But the Texas law remains worse in "a lot of respects," said Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped lead the lawsuit against SB4. He said they were still deciding their next steps following the ruling, which could include asking the full appeals court to reconsider. Until then, Gelernt said they will closely watch how Texas implements the law.

Police chiefs across Texas said the law will create a chilling effect that will cause immigrant families to not report crimes or come forward as witnesses over fears that talking to local police could lead to deportation. Critics also fear it will lead to the racial profiling of Hispanics and put officers in an untenable position. Last year, Mexico's foreign ministry expressed concern that the law could trample on the rights of Mexican citizens who choose to live just across the border. But the law was enthusiastically backed by the Trump administration, which had joined Texas in court to defend the measure. Sessions has blamed sanctuary city policies for crime and gang violence, and announced in July that cities and states could only receive certain grants if they cooperate with immigration agents. Sessions is now targeting California, which passed sanctuary laws in response to the president's promises to ramp up the deportation of people in the U.S. illegally.

US Appeals Court Upholds Texas' Ban on 'Sanctuary Cities'

Why is the State of Texas, against natural rights and individual liberty?

States have no obligation over entry into the Union since 1808.

Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin.

Texas cannot make it a crime to enter the Union without inspection.

 

[waltky]

Any country has the right to regulate it's immigration status.

 

[danielpalos]

Any country has the right to regulate it's immigration status.

No one is claiming it doesn't.

Tourism and immigration are not the same thing.

 

[longknife]

Orderering city police to ignore certain laws.

What if under President Trump cities ordered their police to ignore even more laws?
Protest in front of and block access to abortion clinics.
Robbery at pot shops.
Arson at strip clubs.

The precedent has been set. It is now up to the whim of mayors what they want to do.

Sanctuary anything is just another form of Leftists ignoring laws they don't like. It's okay for them but not others.

They should all pay huge fines and spend time behind bars.

 

[danielpalos]

Orderering city police to ignore certain laws.

What if under President Trump cities ordered their police to ignore even more laws?
Protest in front of and block access to abortion clinics.
Robbery at pot shops.
Arson at strip clubs.

The precedent has been set. It is now up to the whim of mayors what they want to do.

Sanctuary anything is just another form of Leftists ignoring laws they don't like. It's okay for them but not others.

They should all pay huge fines and spend time behind bars.

You have to prove immigration and not simply tourism. Anyone not asking for citizenship is a tourist.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Another brilliant Dem idea. Who's running that show, anyway, Obama?

Trump: Pay For the Border Wall With Sanctuary City Funds
Proposal gains momentum with support from president, Rep. Meadows

A border wall with Mexico could initially be financed by withholding federal funds from rogue 'sanctuary' cities, counties, and states - an idea that is being floated by President Trump and Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC)."In the upcoming omnibus budget bill, Congress must fund the border wall and prohibit grants to sanctuary jurisdictions that threaten the security of our country and the people of our country," Trump said yesterday during his visit to California to inspect border wall prototypes. "We must enforce our laws and protect our people.""California sanctuary policies put the entire nation at risk. They’re the best friend of the criminal. That’s what exactly is happening. The criminals take refuge in these sanctuary cities, and it’s very dangerous for our police and enforcement folks."The president asserted that he may even veto the spending bill if it provides funding for sanctuary cities - regardless of whether there are also provisions for the wall.

https://newswars.com/trump-pay-for-t...ary-city-funds

 

[danielpalos]

Tourism is a form of Commerce and should be, well regulated.

Immigration is not Commerce.

 

[Silent Warrior]

Let's see, leftists say it's OK to break the law on entering our country without permission and protect those that do, but want laws to restrict guns because no one will break them. This is a special kind of stupid.

 

[danielpalos]

entry without permission is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

 

[longknife]

entry without permission is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Who cares what it is? It's ILLEGAL! Period.

 

[danielpalos]

entry without permission is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Who cares what it is? It's ILLEGAL! Period.

Why does the right wing even bother to allege to subscribe to Capitalism?

10USC246 is also federal law, right wingers.

It is about best use of resources or opportunity costs.

 

[miketx]

entry without permission is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Aww...smoking and spinning with partial definitions...classic!

 

[danielpalos]

entry without permission is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Aww...smoking and spinning with partial definitions...classic!

Why does the right wing even bother to allege to subscribe to Capitalism?

10USC246 is also federal law, right wingers.

It is about best use of resources or opportunity costs.

 

[longknife]

entry without permission is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Aww...smoking and spinning with partial definitions...classic!

Why does the right wing even bother to allege to subscribe to Capitalism?

10USC246 is also federal law, right wingers.

It is about best use of resources or opportunity costs.

 

[danielpalos]

entry without permission is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Aww...smoking and spinning with partial definitions...classic!

Why does the right wing even bother to allege to subscribe to Capitalism?

10USC246 is also federal law, right wingers.

It is about best use of resources or opportunity costs.

nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost, right wingers?