SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Sanctuary cities are in the news this week. The working definition is a city, county, or state that limits the amount of cooperation their local police force has with federal immigration officers. To the point, local police do not hold people for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when their only crime is being illegal immigrants. This article gives a good overview of the situation.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott threatened to cut funding for one county after its sheriff announced the agency would be scaling back its cooperation with federal immigration.
Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez announced last week she's scaling back the amount of aid her department provides federal immigration agents in detaining suspects who might be in the country illegally, according to the Austin American-Statesman.
Starting Feb. 1, sheriff's officials will begin honoring so-called immigration holds or "detainers" placed by federal authorities only when a suspect is booked into the Travis County Jail on charges of capital murder, aggravated sexual assault and "continuous smuggling of persons."
Otherwise, federal agents must have a court order or arrest warrant signed by a judge for the jail to continue housing a person whose immigration status is in question.
On Wednesday, Jan 25, President Trump issued an executive order stating that sanctuary jurisdictions would not be eligible for federal funds.
[Continues...]
City officials, from New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, New Haven, Syracuse and Austin, Tex., said they were prepared for a protracted fight.
"We're going to defend all of our people regardless of where they come from, regardless of their immigration status," Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York said at a news conference with other city officials.
In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel declared: "I want to be clear: We're going to stay a sanctuary city. There is no stranger among us. Whether you're from Poland or Pakistan, whether you're from Ireland or India or Israel and whether you're from Mexico or Moldova, where my grandfather came from, you are welcome in Chicago as you pursue the American dream."
[...] "The rhetoric doesn't match the legal authority," said Peter L. Markowitz, the director of the Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. "In fact, the president has very limited power to exercise any kind of significant defunding."
According to a 2012 Supreme Court decision, Mr. Markowitz said, Congress is not permitted to set conditions on spending to coerce states or localities to participate in a federal program against their will. Any conditions, at a minimum, must be directly related to the punitive action.
As of time of editing, 12:30AM EDT, this is the newest article on the topic:
President Trump is hailing the first victory in his fight against "sanctuary cities" after a South Florida mayor ordered his employees on Thursday to begin working more closely with federal immigration authorities.
For years, Miami-Dade County has refused to hold some undocumented immigrants in its jails for federal immigration agents. But after Trump signed an executive order threatening to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities, Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Gimenez changed his mind.
Gimenez signed an executive order Thursday ordering the director of his corrections department to begin honoring all requests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hold immigration suspects in Miami-Dade County jails.
[...] Gimenez said he made the decision to ensure that the county does not lose out on $355 million in federal funding it has coming in 2017.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 4, Insightful) by meustrus on Friday January 27 2017, @05:46PM
Throughout all of American history the States Rights mantra has served exactly one population: whomever is not in control of federal policy. States Rights is not a real position unless you are a judge (who must consider the consequences of the law regardless of its merits). It is an excuse for why states have the right to do something we want them to.
This action proves that the people who scream loudest for states rights don't actually care about them. They just want to avoid cooperating with certain liberal policies that they don't like. And when it comes to states rights issues that actually affect everyone uniformly to the detriment of the voter, such as the national drinking age that is was enforced int he 1960's by threat of losing federal funding...well that's when everyone shuts up and takes it.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @08:26PM
All you're saying is that when a person agrees with the federal government's stance, then some how that person magically no longer supports "States Rights"... What?
And, what does "liberal" have to do with anything? We see here an example of people not wanting to follow a "conservative" policy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 27 2017, @09:05PM
Give him time. It takes some people longer than others to catch up to the changes in narrative they're told to follow.