• Chicago threatens suit over 'misguided' sanctuary city warning
    6 replies, posted
[url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/06/us/chicago-doj-lawsuit/index.html?sr=fbCNNp080617chicago-doj-lawsuit0715PMVODtop&CNNPolitics=fb]Source[/url] [quote]The city of Chicago says it plans to file a lawsuit against the US Justice Department on Monday over new stipulations placed on federal law enforcement grant money requiring local police departments to assist in federal immigration actions. Mayor Rahm Emanuel's office said in a statement that the Trump administration's "latest unlawful misguided action undermines public safety and violates" the Constitution. He said the city is challenging the administration "to ensure that their misguided policies do not threaten the safety of our residents." The legal action comes amid Trump administration threats to cut off funding for so-called sanctuary cities, including Chicago. The city, which emphasizes that Chicago and its Welcoming City ordinance are in compliance with the law, wants the court to render the federal stipulations unlawful. "Chicago will not be blackmailed into changing our values, and we are and will remain a welcoming city," said Emanuel. "The federal government should be working with cities to provide necessary resources to improve public safety, not concocting new schemes to reduce our crime fighting resources." The suit revolves around new conditions set for an important funding program: the FY2017 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, or JAG, which provided federal funding to support local law enforcement efforts, according to the statement. Chicago last year got $2.3 million in JAG funds. Over the years the city has purchased SWAT equipment, police vehicles, radios and Tasers with the money.[/quote]
That would be a hard sell to a court. Federal grant money can be given whenever the federal government decides it wants to. Generally its based on conditions that the grant money be given in the first place. So there is no violation of the Constitution in this. (Personally I don't like the grant system for other reasons.) The only thing that would be a violation of the Constitution is if the federal government outright forced Chicago to enforce federal law. However, holding federal money back if the city decides its not going to cooperate with the federal government is A-OK legally speaking. So Chicago will have no leg to stand on legally as long as federal law allows this action to take place. Since the federal budget is controlled by Congress, not the President. Though Congress can grant leeway into how the money is used to the President.
Because god forbid that you have to hold people a little extra while longer and make a quick phone call to ICE so it can actually do it's job correctly instead of conducting stakeouts at courthouses.
[QUOTE]The legal action comes amid Trump administration threats to cut off funding for so-called sanctuary cities, including Chicago.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the Trump administration can't unilaterally cut funding to sanctuary cities. Budgeting is a power granted to [I]Congress[/I] and Trump attempting to make funding cuts via executive order would be a violation of separation of powers. The Republican-controlled Congress could probably be brought to heel into voting such a bill through, but the executive branch can't do it alone.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52547805]Because god forbid that you have to hold people a little extra while longer and make a quick phone call to ICE so it can actually do it's job correctly instead conducting of stakeouts at courthouses.[/QUOTE] God forbid they'd rather fight important crime problems in the city instead of helping ICE do its job. Start with that shit and whoops, there goes the cooperation of a few neighborhoods.
[QUOTE=AlbertWesker;52547805]Because god forbid that you have to hold people a little extra while longer and make a quick phone call to ICE so it can actually do it's job correctly instead conducting of stakeouts at courthouses.[/QUOTE] are they being paid by ICE to work for them? no, they're deputies of the cities they work for, also they're not trained in immigration law or procedures so it opens up possibilities of massive rights violations
[QUOTE=Octavius;52547826]God forbid they'd rather fight important crime problems in the city instead of helping ICE do its job. Start with that shit and whoops, there goes the cooperation of a few neighborhoods.[/QUOTE] Why can't they just do both? Literally all ICE is asking is for an extra 48 hour detention period to help them deport the few undocumented immigrants who are actually causing problems. It's not like they're asking the police in Chicago to start randomly patting down minorities like that fascist mayor of NYC. [QUOTE=Sableye;52547987]are they being paid by ICE to work for them? no, they're deputies of the cities they work for, also they're not trained in immigration law or procedures so it opens up possibilities of massive rights violations[/QUOTE] Judging by these reactions, have I been misinformed about sanctuary cities? I was under the impression that departments in those cities were not following requests from ICE to keep detainees for a maximum of 48 hours so the agency would at least have a chance to get there. Also it's not like they have people going around saying "papers please". To even start the deportation process in these cases, an undocumented foreign national would have to be arrested for a crime completely unrelated to their immigration status like drunk driving. I mean if someone who was never here legally in the first place decides to cause trouble, I don't see why they shouldn't be deported immediately after any convictions. For the record, I don't think undocumented immigrants should be deported unless they are first convicted of a crime, but if they are arrested then ICE should at least be able to keep tabs on them in case they try to skip town and find a new alias.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.