Sanctuary Cities and Withholding Funds

[HornHuskerDad]

This appears to be a major victory for the President - Court rules Trump can withhold funds from 'sanctuary' jurisdictions. The notion of sanctuary cities seems to fly in the face of reason and the enforcement of the law. If the law is on the book, then we either live by it or change it. And the officials in the sanctuary cities have chosen a third alternative - just ignore it.

If we are going to have immigration laws, those laws should be enforced.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

If we are going to have immigration laws, those laws should be enforced.

What a novel concept.

 

[Joe Fan]

This appears to be a major victory for the President - Court rules Trump can withhold funds from 'sanctuary' jurisdictions. ....

It gives us a split in the circuits which means it will go to the Supremes.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

^What's your general feel on the SCOTUS leaning?

 

[Mr. Deez]

This appears to be a major victory for the President - Court rules Trump can withhold funds from 'sanctuary' jurisdictions. The notion of sanctuary cities seems to fly in the face of reason and the enforcement of the law. If the law is on the book, then we either live by it or change it. And the officials in the sanctuary cities have chosen a third alternative - just ignore it.

If we are going to have immigration laws, those laws should be enforced.

I agree with the enforcement of immigration laws, but where this issue breaks down is when we ask who should enforce immigration laws. Immigration laws are acts of Congress (federal laws). State troopers, sheriffs, and local police officers are state officials charged with enforcing state laws. They don't have any obligation to enforce or assist in enforcing federal law.

The feds can tie federal money to state policy on immigration enforcement, but even that is limited in part. The funds withheld have to be related to the federal mandate. For example, you can't withhold education money for something that has nothing to do with education. Furthermore, the more money they withhold, the more likely a court will hold that the condition of federal money is actually coercion rather than simple encouragement. Before you jump on that for being a stupid reason, that's how the forced Medicaid expansion under Obamacare got struck down in court.

Don't take my explanation as a defense of sanctuary cities. I understand why local governments don't want to dedicate a lot of resources to enforcing federal immigration laws and don't want to turn over every illegal immigrant they come across. However, if you have an illegal immigrant in custody who's clearly a "bad hombre" (a violent offender, a sex offender, a drug dealer, a domestic abuser, a serial drunk driver, etc.) and don't turn him over for deportation (whether it's for politically correct reasons or just to spite Trump), you are insane and are morally responsible if and when he hurts other people. That is indefensible.

In Deezestan, none of this would be relevant, because there wouldn't be any federal aid to withhold. The federal government would enforce its own immigration laws, and the federal government wouldn't be weaseling its way into law enforcement or education or transportation (except interstate highways and other interstate transportation methods, which would be entirely federally funded) with federal money.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

Immigration laws are acts of Congress (federal laws). State troopers, sheriffs, and local police officers are state officials charged with enforcing state laws. They don't have any obligation to enforce or assist in enforcing federal law.

Mr. Deez, I see your point here. But I would raise the following as a counterpoint: do local and state officials have the right to actively hinder federal officials in the enforcement of federal laws? If you believe the news reports (I know, that's a debatable point on its own merit), the state government in the People's Republik of California have flatly stated that they will not release information on illegals to the federal government. If that's true, it seems to me that the government of CA is giving the feds the finger on the issue.

And every time an illegal that has been detained by local authorities and released commits a major crime (such as murder), IMO the local officials have violated their duty to protect their own citizens. Why aren't the locals screaming to their government about this?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Mr. Deez, I see your point here. But I would raise the following as a counterpoint: do local and state officials have the right to actively hinder federal officials in the enforcement of federal laws? If you believe the news reports (I know, that's a debatable point on its own merit), the state government in the People's Republik of California have flatly stated that they will not release information on illegals to the federal government. If that's true, it seems to me that the government of CA is giving the feds the finger on the issue.

It depends on the specifics. They don't have to turn over information. If ICE asks local law enforcement to tell them who's in custody or what their immigration status is, they can tell ICE to pound sand. They have no duty to help out at all.

However, suppose local officials are warning of immigration raids and helping people evade capture. That's different. Those people are not just refusing to help. They are taking affirmative steps to interfere with federal enforcement of federal laws. Those officials should be arrested and thrown in the slammer.

And every time an illegal that has been detained by local authorities and released commits a major crime (such as murder), IMO the local officials have violated their duty to protect their own citizens. Why aren't the locals screaming to their government about this?

The locals aren't screaming about it because of politics. Political correctness and hatred for Trump keeps them from viewing the issue as one of public safety, and frankly, they don't care. Ultimately, it's their fault. For example, the San Francisco police is mostly run by professionals doing their jobs. They are uncooperative with ICE, because the San Francisco Mayor and Board of Supervisors (their city council and bosses) are f'ed up and order them not to. The Board and Mayor are f'ed up because their citizens are f'ed up and have been for years. Same is true of New York City, Austin, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc.