Sessions says grants to be withheld from sanctuary cities - Polidicks

[quote] State and local governments seeking Justice Department grants must certify they are not so-called sanctuary cities in order to receive the money, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Monday. “Such policies cannot continue. They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on the streets,” Sessions said during a surprise appearance in the White House press briefing room. “Today, I am urging states and local jurisdictions to comply with these federal laws.” The announcement is the latest step by the Trump administration to crack down on sanctuary cities, which do not assist federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws. [/quote] [url]http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/325943-sessions-says-grants-to-be-withheld-from-sanctuary-cities[/url]

If anyone wants to learn about the Sanctuary movement, and how we got here, 99% Invisible has an excellent two-part podcast that talks about its beginnings in the churches of the Southwest, and how it grew to a fever pitch in the 1980s. It's actually a really interesting story, and one worth listening to.

Again Conservatives show us that "States Rights" only matter when it comes to topics they favor. How dare local law enforcement not act as ICE's minions.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52020462]Again Conservatives show us that "States Rights" only matter when it comes to topics they favor. How dare local law enforcement not act as ICE's minions.[/QUOTE] If you want federal funding, you have to follow federal law. That seems like a pretty reasonable arrangement. I don't think "violating federal immigration law" is a state right.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52020581]You still have the right to be a sanctuary.. just don't expect federal funds while you're doing it. They did the same thing when they implemented speed limits, saying "hey you can put up speed limits, or get no federal funds for your roads". In all reality, states rights is a sham, a fancy way of letting people get fucked when it's convenient for the government.[/QUOTE] Being given a Hobson's choice isn't really liberty because you only have one real option. A state's right to decide assumes that you will not be ignored or punished if you picking the wrong answer. There would be no wrong answer and there would be no punishment.

GOP: State rights are inalienable and need to be protected from federal overreach. Also GOP: If you dare defy the federal government we'll fucking hold your funding over your head like a leash.

[QUOTE=1239the;52020693]GOP: State rights are inalienable and need to be protected from federal overreach. Also GOP: If you dare defy the federal government we'll fucking hold your funding over your head like a leash.[/QUOTE] Sorry, can someone explain to me how states have the right to defy federal immigration law?

[media]https://twitter.com/WangCecillia/status/846468775490863104[/media]

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52020462]Again Conservatives show us that "[B]States[/B] Rights" only matter when it comes to topics they favor. How dare local law enforcement not act as ICE's minions.[/QUOTE] Sanctuary [B]cities[/B]

They will not get DOJ related Grants for not enforcing the law. Seems logical to me.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52020581]You still have the right to be a sanctuary.. just don't expect federal funds while you're doing it. They did the same thing when they implemented speed limits, saying "hey you can put up speed limits, or get no federal funds for your roads". In all reality, states rights is a sham, a fancy way of letting people get fucked when it's convenient for the government.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=srobins;52020654]If you want federal funding, you have to follow federal law. That seems like a pretty reasonable arrangement. I don't think "violating federal immigration law" is a state right.[/QUOTE] Yes you are correct, however I believe Mr.Someguy's point is that it's an inherent contradiction to the rhetoric used by conservatives in the United States when it comes to defending bigotted/discriminatory legislation on the basis of 'State Rights' when in reality they support legislation that in practice threatens states into following laws that those states disagree with as long as it suits their political agenda. This is analogous to how some argue that the American Civil War was about 'State Rights' instead of slavery. The State Rights argument is indeed a sham- a disingenious argument used to conceal bigotted intentions which is immediately discarded when those same intentions result in threatening those same states into submission instead.

I'm pretty sure we've had similar court decisions on the legality of moves like this, and they've fallen on the side of the city or municipality. Glad to see the Trump administration rushing to another legal embarrassment though.

[QUOTE=Maegord;52020888]I'm pretty sure we've had similar court decisions on the legality of moves like this, and they've fallen on the side of the city or municipality. Glad to see the Trump administration rushing to another legal embarrassment though.[/QUOTE] But the laws governing speed limits work exactly the same way? Can you cite any examples of relevant precedent? Edit: And the same for the drinking age- a law passed in 1984 says states must implement a 21-years-old requirement for alcohol or lose 10% of federal highway funds. Someone correct me if I'm missing something here but there seem to be a ton of 'do X or we cut funding' policies used to strongarm states into compliance that are considered legal and unchallenged.

This is a completely valid thing to do. It's the Federal Government's money, and the states don't have a [i]right[/i] to that money. The Federal Government can choose to give that money to the states if they choose to uphold the law.

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;52020937]They are upholding the law.. their law.. If it were illegal, withholding money isn't how you solve it, Federal Courts are how.[/QUOTE] Yes, and if they want the Federal Government's money, they need to uphold the Federal Government's law. They don't have to. They have the [i]right[/i] to not. However, they also don't have the [i]right[/i] to be given this money in the first place, so there's no state's rights issue here.

[QUOTE=srobins;52020703]Sorry, can someone explain to me how states have the right to defy federal immigration law?[/QUOTE] Sorry, can someone explain to me how states have the right to defy federal marijuana laws?

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;52020956]Sorry, can someone explain to me how states have the right to defy federal marijuana laws?[/QUOTE] See, they actually don't. Not completely. While they can pass a law that makes it legal within their states, that only applies to actions the state itself can take. The Federal Government and its agents (DEA, for example) can, at any time, swoop in and charge everyone with a felony for possession of marijuana, or owning a weed shop, etc. The Obama administration decided to explicitly not enforce the law in states where they passed legal weed laws, but that doesn't mean it's still legal.

[QUOTE=geel9;52020964] The Obama administration decided to explicitly not enforce the law in states where they passed legal weed laws, but that doesn't mean it's still legal.[/QUOTE] I fear that we will unfortunately see the opposite of that this term. To what degree? Who knows.

This isn't a state's rights issue to begin with. The State is free to tell their police not to assist the federal government. And the federal government is free not to give them federal money if they do so. Our system of government is duel sovereignty. Meaning the federal government cannot commandeer State assets (police, etc). And by the same token the State cannot commandeer federal assets (federal police, money, etc). The idea is to get both sides to work towards cooperation. Because one or the other pulling their support means the effectiveness of doing whatever they're doing drops. But it does not mean that whatever they're doing ends completely. A State can say, "I'm not helping the federal government enforce immigration law." But that doesn't prevent the federal government from trying to do it on their own. It just means its much harder because the overwhelming majority of law enforcement in this country is controlled by the States. The Federalist papers covers this scenario as a specific design of our Constitution.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;52020956]Sorry, can someone explain to me how states have the right to defy federal marijuana laws?[/QUOTE] Uh, they don't? Even though I think marijuana legalization is a good idea just like you apparently think unmitigated, unrestricted illegal immigration into our country is a good idea, I still acknowledge that states don't magically have the right to override federal law and I won't be complaining to media when I get busted at the state border for having weed in my car.

[QUOTE=srobins;52020703]Sorry, can someone explain to me how states have the right to defy federal immigration law?[/QUOTE] That's easy, same way they can defy drug laws. You tell federal agents to fuck off and stay out of your state, and have your own police ignore federal law in regards to those issues. I have no idea how that works (probably something to do with State's Rights), but it does.

[QUOTE=srobins;52020703]Sorry, can someone explain to me how states have the right to defy federal immigration law?[/QUOTE] the federal government essentially conscripts local law enforcement to aid immigration officials when they're being paid by the local government to enforce local law. [editline]27th March 2017[/editline] [quote]they are not so-called sanctuary cities[/quote] I would love to see them pin that definition down for a change, I'm 100% certain that every city and state would qualify as a sanctuary under the strictest definition of not fully participating with ICE in every endevor

[QUOTE=Zyler;52020797]Yes you are correct, however I believe Mr.Someguy's point is that it's an inherent contradiction to the rhetoric used by conservatives in the United States when it comes to defending bigotted/discriminatory legislation on the basis of 'State Rights' when in reality they support legislation that in practice threatens states into following laws that those states disagree with as long as it suits their political agenda. This is analogous to how some argue that the American Civil War was about 'State Rights' instead of slavery. The State Rights argument is indeed a sham- a disingenious argument used to conceal bigotted intentions which is immediately discarded when those same intentions result in threatening those same states into submission instead.[/QUOTE] This :smile:

I'm glad we have people explaining the obvious legality of this but it's still the administration extorting state and local governments instead of solving this problem definitively at a higher level. If sanctuary cities are such hives of scum and villainy you'd think they would have more incentives to detain ICE suspects without being strongarmed out of grants that benefit their ability to enforce the law.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52020462]Again Conservatives show us that "States Rights" only matter when it comes to topics they favor. How dare local law enforcement not act as ICE's minions.[/QUOTE] Well, since liberals love to say that the "states rights" issue was settled with the civil war, and we should get over it, they shouldn't complain about this.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52022953]Well, since liberals love to say that the "states rights" issue was settled with the civil war, and we should get over it, they shouldn't complain about this.[/QUOTE] The state's rights arguments are pretty silly, but I still think withholding funding from these cities is going to cause more problems than solve. Most cities already have problems securing enough resources for their law enforcement officers. Asking them to foot the bill for what should be ICE's job is already asinine as is. Cutting further into their funding when local jurisdictions refuse to foot the bill is doubling down on the same ineffective strategy.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;52022953]Well, since liberals love to say that the "states rights" issue was settled with the civil war, and we should get over it, they shouldn't complain about this.[/QUOTE] Nah liberals live to whine and complain, we'll do it anyway.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52022432]If sanctuary cities are such hives of scum and villainy you'd think they would have more incentives to detain ICE suspects[/QUOTE] They're great for business owners looking for cheap labor (eg [url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5169694]Zirkle Fruit Company[/url]), and illegal immigrants being neither legalized nor deported is perfect for them. It's much less rosy for the people who have to compete for employment with illegal immigrants, a race to the bottom in wages and working conditions, or live with the knock-on effects of illegal immigration in their backyard. I don't think 'if illegal immigration is bad why aren't they fixing it' is a good argument when the people who do influence policy are benefiting from the situation and the people who don't influence policy are the ones harmed. [QUOTE=1legmidget;52022984]Asking them to foot the bill for what should be ICE's job is already asinine as is.[/QUOTE] Serious question, what exactly is the bill for? As far as I'm aware, ICE doesn't expect local law enforcement to perform immigration raids, they only expect law enforcement to hold onto already-arrested suspects until ICE can show up and take them into custody. So the actual expenditure for assisting ICE is just holding on to suspects in custody a little longer, which I can't imagine is that expensive- correct me if I'm wrong. In any case, DC takes the policy of assisting ICE when asked but forwarding them the bill. That seems like a workable agreement.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52023002] Serious question, what exactly is the bill for? As far as I'm aware, ICE doesn't expect local law enforcement to perform immigration raids, they only expect law enforcement to hold onto already-arrested suspects until ICE can show up and take them into custody. So the actual expenditure for assisting ICE is just holding on to suspects in custody a little longer, which I can't imagine is that expensive- correct me if I'm wrong. In any case, DC takes the policy of assisting ICE when asked but forwarding them the bill. That seems like a workable agreement.[/QUOTE] I'm not so sure myself what most of the costs are. I did find [URL="http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/MorrisSheriff-287g_impact_review.pdf"]an analysis put out by New Jersey[/URL] ~10 years ago, and they seem to have found that cooperating with ICE in the 287(g) system would cost them over $1 million. I'm still reading through this pdf myself. I imagine the bill would be larger for a place like Chicago, but Chicago specifically would probably benefit more from putting a million back into a program like [URL="http://www.npr.org/2017/03/08/519068305/treat-gun-violence-like-a-public-health-crisis-one-program-says"]Cease Fire[/URL]. I too think the DC method makes sense. I bet ICE would see more compliance if we focused on rewarding cooperation instead.

[QUOTE=King of Limbs;52020795]They will not get DOJ related Grants for not enforcing the law. Seems logical to me.[/QUOTE] It's not the states job to enforce the immigration law. It's the feds.