Jump to content

Washington threatens funding cut to California, other 'sanctuary' areas


rooster59

Recommended Posts

Washington threatens funding cut to California, other 'sanctuary' areas

By Julia Edwards Ainsley and Andy Sullivan

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Justice threatened on Friday to cut some funding to California as well as eight cities and counties across the United States, escalating a Trump administration crackdown on so-called sanctuary cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

 

President Donald Trump has vowed to strip federal funds from dozens of state and local governments that do not fully cooperate with U.S.

immigration agents, arguing they endanger public safety when they decline to hand over for deportation illegal immigrants who are arrested for crimes.

 

"Sanctuary cities" in general offer safe harbor to illegal immigrants and often do not use municipal funds or resources to advance the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

 

Many of these localities say they do not have the funding or space to hold immigrants until federal agents can take custody of them.

 

Those threatened were: the state of California; New York City; Chicago; Philadelphia; Clark County, Nevada; New Orleans; Miami-Dade County, Florida; and Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Cook County, Illinois, also received a warning, even though it did not get money from the Justice Department last year.

 

The jurisdictions have until June 30 to provide evidence to the federal government that they are not violating any laws.

 

At stake is roughly $29 million in law enforcement aid under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which helps local governments pay for everything from forensics labs to drug courts.

 

The grants in question are among the largest handed out under the program, collectively amounting to 11 percent of the $256 million distributed in the last fiscal year.

 

In a statement, the Justice Department singled out Chicago and New York as two cities that are "crumbling under the weight of illegal immigration and violent crime," even though New York City is experiencing its lowest crime levels in decades and experts say Chicago's recent spike in violent crime has little to do with illegal immigration.

 

Several state and local officials responded with defiance to the threat. 

 

"New York is the safest big city in the country, with crime at record lows in large part because we have policies in place to encourage cooperation between NYPD and immigrant communities," said Seth Stein, a spokesman for New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio.

 

In California, the state Senate approved a bill earlier this month to curb cooperation between police agencies and federal agents seeking to deport illegal immigrants. The measure is now in the state Assembly.

 

"It has become abundantly clear that Attorney General (Jeff) Sessions and the Trump administration are basing their law enforcement policies on principles of white supremacy - not American values," California Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León, a Democrat, said in a statement on Friday.

 

A spokeswoman for the California Board of State and Community Corrections said some of the federal funding in question went to local communities after emergencies, including San Bernardino after a mass shooting there in 2015.

 

Officials in Philadelphia, Milwaukee County and Cook County said they believed they were complying with immigration laws. 

 

"Milwaukee County has its challenges but they are not caused by illegal immigration. My far greater concern is the proactive dissemination of misinformation, fear, and intolerance," said Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele.

 

The Fraternal Order of Police, the largest police union, told Trump in a meeting last month that they were concerned the cuts could threaten public safety.

 

 
reuters_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-04-22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

California won't secede from the Union, but they're not dummies over there.  Already, Gov. Brown (a liberal and quite popular) has pledged to maintain the state's high standards for vehicle emissions - higher than Federal guidelines.  Californians can think for themselves, that's why they didn't fall for Donald The Shyster's slick promises trumped up with his bosom buddy Putin.  Ding Dongs in the Midwest and SE fell for Donald's scams, but a clear thinkers on the west coast weren't fooled for a NY minute.

 

 

Edited by boomerangutang
Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon Donald squeeze those illegals and the hippy wasters till the pips squeak. Replace the lefty dross with fine upstanding citizens of the right.

 

It's a disgrace that such a lovely state has been ruined by raving anarcos and illegals.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

California should just trim amount they send to DC by same amount. Jesimps ought to get real: If Cali were a country it would have 6th largest economy in the world. Would that all states were so "ruined by raving etc".

 California was part of Mexico til US stole it in war. Ever wonder why so many Spanish names, Los Angeles, San Francisco.... very few New Brightons, New Dusseldorfs, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, jesimps said:

C'mon Donald squeeze those illegals and the hippy wasters till the pips squeak. Replace the lefty dross with fine upstanding citizens of the right.

 

It's a disgrace that such a lovely state has been ruined by raving anarcos and illegals.

 

 

 

I have to agree. I think the solution is to follow the bold leadership of someone like Sam Brownback who has fearlessly adopted the "trickle down" theory of that great, almost mythical leader, Ronald Reagan, whose economic policies exploded the deficit and the national debt. Never mind that Brownback has almost totally bankrupted his state. Just one more silly deflection from the left. The same with that fearless right wing pioneer, Scott Walker, and his ideological companion, Rick Snyder of Michigan. True champions of right wing ideology. The fact that their states are devoid of jobs, hanging on by a financial thread, and crumbling to dust as they fearlessly lead their states downward should not deter the mindless lemmings who believe in the Ayn Rand loving idiots on the right. The fact that "supply side" economics has, in almost 40 years, never once held true is nothing but shameless left wing bashing of a brilliant economic philosophy that, I'm sure given enough time, will lead us into a new day of economic prosperity. I, my kids, and my grandkids will probably never live to see it, but that doesn't mean that, given enough time, it won't work. One more tax cut for the wealthy will surely prove the truth of this great philosophy! The same with GOP intolerance of anyone not white, male, old, Christian, and rich. America was never, historically, populated by anyone not white and Christian. History books that point to native Americans settling long before white Europeans showed up and stole their land and violated every treaty they ever entered into are obvious fabrications of the left. And the fact that illegal immigrants contribute billions annually to the tax base, Social Security, Medicare, and other revenue streams, all while observing US laws and just trying to take care of their families, should never deter us from our God-called mission of making America a pure white nation. All hail to Mein Fuhrer Tiny Hands!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

I am a white male - and proud of my parents/ancestors.

 

If that offends you - dont talk to me.

Yes, you should be proud of yourself. That's quite an achievement to have white parents/ancestors. How far back can you trace your family tree? Were your ancestors white when they left Africa 50,000 or so years ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, ELVIS123456 said:

I am a white male - and proud of my parents/ancestors.

 

If that offends you - dont talk to me.

Excuse me for talking to you, but being born a white male is not a real accomplishment, now is it? You can be proud of your parents/ancestors because of what they achieved, no doubt, but does that have anything to do with the color of their skin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of this has to do with getting people to cooperate with the police.   If a crime is committed by anyone, the police need people to come forward and identify what or who they saw.   The police do not have the resources to question people reporting crimes about their immigration status.   

 

I had a friend who was a police officer, and an arch-conservative, but he was not in favor of questioning immigration status, except for the person being charged.   He said it was hard enough to get witnesses to provide evidence as it was.   

 

It's not really providing sanctuary, per se, but preventing and prosecuting crime.   Immigration is a federal area, and the federal gov't should be responsible.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Washington threatens funding cut to California, other 'sanctuary' areas

Here we go again.

The order has serious constitutional problems.

Longstanding Supreme Court precedent mandates that the federal government may not impose conditions on grants to states and localities unless the conditions are “unambiguously” stated in the text of the law “so that the States can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds.” The Constitution is the law, and the Constitution does not allow the president to impose grant conditions not specifically authorized by Congress.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/26/constitutional-problems-with-trumps-executive-order-on-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.42d976df644f

See you in court (again) Mr. President. And remember, California is in the 9th Circuit of Appeals!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

I'm not certain this threat would survive even the most basic of judicial challenges, even with the brilliant Keebler Elf Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III leading the charge.

Who knew the US Constitution would be so complicated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illegal means 'illegal'... and the immigration laws in the US were there before Trump took office, but previous presidents were afraid to implement them for fear of popularity backlash.

 

I will reiterate my opinion once again. If the bleeding hearts in the US think things are really bad for them in the US then they should actually come and see how we are treated here.

 

Funny how ignorance left to run rampant can have a snowball effect. If we get kicked out of here no one will shed a tear, but everyone around will be quick to loot our property.  When we call the Thais ignorant we need to remember the folks back home who have never set foot outside of their homes and ignore what it may be like elsewhere. If someone who gets kicked out of Thailand for staying here illegally goes and tries to make headlines back home with the injustice, I doubt anyone will raise a brow... but rather I believe that person would be a laughing stock.

 

So, who cares if they get kicked out for being illegal. They are illegal and that is the bottom line.

 

 

 

 

Edited by LazySlipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LazySlipper said:

Illegal means 'illegal'... and the immigration laws in the US were there before Trump took office, but previous presidents were afraid to implement them for fear of popularity backlash.

 

I will reiterate my opinion once again. If the bleeding hearts in the US think things are really bad for them in the US then they should actually come and see how we are treated here.

 

Funny how ignorance left to run rampant can have a snowball effect. If we get kicked out of here no one will shed a tear, but everyone around will be quick to loot our property.  When we call the Thais ignorant we need to remember the folks back home who have never set foot outside of their homes and ignore what it may be like elsewhere. If someone who gets kicked out of Thailand for staying here illegally goes and tries to make headlines back home with the injustice, I doubt anyone will raise a brow... but rather I believe that person would be a laughing stock.

 

So, who cares if they get kicked out for being illegal. They are illegal and that is the bottom line.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the entirely irrelevant comment. The question is whether or not the Trump administration can legally withhold funds from jurisdictions refusing to cooperate with immigration authorities. It's clear that funds can not be withheld on those grounds.

What makes the request even more dubious is that these jurisdictions do hold immigrants when they are presented with a warrant. But what the justice department wants to compel is for them to cooperate when a request is made to detain an immigrant. Not a warrent but a request. A request is not legally binding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Yes, you should be proud of yourself. That's quite an achievement to have white parents/ancestors. How far back can you trace your family tree? Were your ancestors white when they left Africa 50,000 or so years ago?

Touche

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mtls2005 said:

I'm not certain this threat would survive even the most basic of judicial challenges, even with the brilliant Keebler Elf Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III leading the charge.

I once had a clock by that name it did not keep good time either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that the right is all about "STATES RIGHTS!!!" all the way up to the point where some state has the audacity to want to exercise a right that they don't agree with. Hypocrits.


You mean the states have the right to disobey federal law? Interesting...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong approach!

Cut off all Federal Funding (welfare, etc.) to the State, and let the State police its own cities.

When the citizenry receives no welfare checks there will be hell to pay for the politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Srikcir said:

The Constitution is the law, and the Constitution does not allow the president to impose grant conditions not specifically authorized by Congress.

Which this does. http://documents.latimes.com/justice-departments-letter-states-sanctuary-cities/

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, John Drake said:

Sessions is making an interpretation of the law to decide its constitutionality. The Courts may decide otherwise.

I expect the affected states will win in both the circuit court and court of appeals.

 

New Supreme Court Judge Gorsuch may not follow Sessions application of federal dominance over states. Gorsuch was described by Justin Marceau, a professor at the University of Denver's Strum College of Law, as "a predictably socially conservative judge who tends to favor state power over federal power."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch#States.27_rights_and_federalism

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KenKadz said:

Cut off all Federal Funding (welfare, etc.) to the State, and let the State police its own cities. When the citizenry receives no welfare checks there will be hell to pay for the politicians.

 

You wanna guess where those funds came from in the first place?  California is more than wealthy enough to take care of its own, and the red states, that leech off the rest of the country, would be the ones to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

You wanna guess where those funds came from in the first place?  California is more than wealthy enough to take care of its own, and the red states, that leech off the rest of the country, would be the ones to lose.

California does not produce enough fresh water, electricity, natural gas, or gasoline to take care of itself. Most of its big tech companies are registered in Delaware to avoid California taxes.

Edited by John Drake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, John Drake said:

California does not produce enough fresh water, electricity, natural gas, or gasoline to take care of itself. Most of its big tech companies are registered in Delaware to avoid California taxes.

That Delaware thing is nonsense. It has nothing to do with savings on taxes except for the relatively minor franchise tax.  Mostly it's about giving corporation officers and board members to structure their corporation in a way that's favorable to them and to holders of special shares. Corporations throughout the United States get registered in Delaware.

http://www.calstartuplawfirm.com/business-lawyer-blog/california-vs-delaware-incorporation.php

 

As for California not being self sufficient in some things, doesn't that apply to the United States, too?  It certainly does to a lot of nations. The smaller they are the more likely that's the case.  And yet, somehow, they manage to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.







×
×
  • Create New...