Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Trump Budget Would Force Sanctuary Cities to Follow the Law

    Trump Budget Would Force Sanctuary Cities to Follow the Law

    “would require law enforcement to comply with federal immigration detainers”

    http://www.nbcnews.com/video/trump-signs-executive-order-rolling-back-obama-era-climate-change-policy-908435523922

    The rush to promote the idea of sanctuary cities was one of the left’s first reactions to Trump’s election victory last fall. Democrats, who pushed the expansion of executive power for eight years under Obama, suddenly liked the idea of local control.

    Trump’s new budget takes aim at sanctuary cities and would put them in a tricky spot.

    Andrea Noble reports at the Washington Times:

    Trump budget would force sanctuary cities to comply with immigration laws

    A day after Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued guidance that narrowly defined a “sanctuary city,” the Justice Department is attempting to broaden its authority to compel such jurisdictions to cooperate with immigration authorities.

    A provision included in the Justice Department’s proposed fiscal 2018 budget seeks to update a portion of federal law, U.S.C. 1373, which bans local governments from enacting policies that restrict or prohibit communications with federal immigration authorities “regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

    The proposed changes would require law enforcement to comply with federal immigration detainers — requests that inmates be held in custody for up to 48 hours beyond their scheduled release from jail in order to give federal immigration authorities time retrieve them.

    The Justice Department and Homeland Security are seeking the change “to expand the scope to prevent state and local government officials from prohibiting or restricting any government law enforcement entity or official from complying with a lawful civil immigration detainer request,” according to the budget proposal.

    The budget also expands the definition of a sanctuary city and carries real financial consequences.

    Alex Pfeiffer reports at the Daily Caller:

    Trump Budget Dramatically Expands Definition Of Sanctuary Cities

    After narrowing the definition of a sanctuary city recently, the White House broadens the definition in its new budget proposal, meaning that more than 100 jurisdictions would be at risk of losing federal grant money.

    Trump’s executive order stripping certain federal grants from sanctuary cities that was temporarily blocked by a federal judge pertained to statute 8 USC 1373, which forbids local officials from restricting information about an individual’s immigration status from the federal government.

    Conservative pundits and politicians, however, typically have a much broader definition of a sanctuary city: a jurisdiction that refuses to comply with immigration detainers. A document released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in March identified 118 jurisdictions that limit compliance with these detainers. The detainer requests ask agencies to hold individuals for up to 48 hours so that ICE officers can pick them up, or to let ICE know when the detainee is being released.

    You can read the related memo from Attorney General Jeff Sessions here.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments

    There’s more than one way to pin the tail on the donkey.

    Anyway, whether it’s illegal immigration, or refugee crises, it’s imperative to address the anthropogenic forcings (e.g. elective wars, elective regime changes, extrajudicial trials, regulatory arbitrage, insourcing/outsourcing, Planned Parenthood/abortion) of immigration reform.

    So not only does Trump expect our judges, Congress, universities, national security agencies and government bureaucracies to follow the law, now he expects sanctuary cities to follow the law too? Hey, I’m all for law and order and stuff but isn’t Trump being a bit extreme to expect EVERYONE, especially the GOVERNMENT, to be law-abiding? Worse than Hitler! /sarc

    In a related matter – the number of visas issued in April 2017 showed a dramatic decrease from 2016. There was a 20% decrease from Muslim majority countries, a 30% decrease from Arab-Muslim countries and a 55% decrease from the six countries related to the EOs.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/25/trump-muslim-visas-238846

    However, according to the article, the State Department just began issuing information by month. Last year (LY), the data was just disclosed on an annual basis. So, LY was an average and does not disclose seasonal variations.

    Another point which was not mentioned by the Politico article was that the premium processing for H1B visas was suspended in April. It seems that so many companies opted to pay additional monies to get faster processing that the normal processing stream was backlogged.

    https://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/uscis-will-temporarily-suspend-premium-processing-all-h-1b-petitions


       
       0 
       
       3
      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Liz. | May 26, 2017 at 3:27 pm

      Liz those are all excellent things!

      Thanks for giving us the details.

        Thanks. The dramatic decrease in border crossings has been attributed to the talk about border security, the increase in ICE raids and sanctuary cities. I wondered if there was a related decrease in visas being issued because of a decreased demand or tightening of review, even though there is no suspension of granting visas per the EOs.

        I found the Politico article, but I have issues with the presentation. So, I’ll start looking for better information hidden in the State Dept site.


     
     0 
     
     0
    rightway | May 26, 2017 at 2:24 pm

    The House of Lords (aka federal courts) are likely to veto this legislation.


       
       0 
       
       1
      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to rightway. | May 26, 2017 at 3:25 pm

      Won’t do them a bit of good – except to hasten their retirement to the Federal prison!

      Snark!

      My first reaction was “No, because the previous block was put in place due to the law’s wording, and since they changed the law to match the desired effect, there won’t be a problem.”

      Then I realized how silly I was being. Laws being an obstacle to a properly minded judge on the Left. That’s crazy talk.


     
     0 
     
     2
    MadisonS | May 26, 2017 at 4:50 pm

    Please, President Trump, I implore you to not go after sanctuary cities. I live in one in California.

    I want to bring my family here from an impoverished village in Greece. The Greek government once provided for their food, clothing and shelter. They were able to live comfortably if not lavishly. Now the Greek government is broke and my family ls homeless in the shadow of the Acropolis.

    When they come to live illegally with me they also will be what California calls undocumented allowing them to obtain free healthcare and education. My Yaya is very sick and I cannot pay for her medical bills anymore. My brother is, how to say it, two dolmades short of a combination plate and needs education.

    I know California prefers to expend its generosity upon illegals, I mean undocumented, which my family will be and also upon minorites, which my family will also be. According to the Los Angeles Times: It’s official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend