Chicago to sue Trump administration over sanctuary city funding threat

[webfact]

Chicago to sue Trump administration over sanctuary city funding threat

By Chris Kenning and Joseph Ax

 

FILE PHOTO: Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel listens to remarks at a news conference in Chicago, Illinois, U.S., December 7, 2015. REUTERS/Jim Young/File Photo

 

CHICAGO/NEW YORK (Reuters) - Chicago will sue the Trump administration on Monday over threats to withhold public safety grant money from so-called sanctuary cities, escalating a pushback against a federal immigration crackdown, Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced on Sunday.

 

The federal lawsuit comes less than two weeks after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the U.S. Justice Department would bar cities from a certain grant program unless they allow immigration authorities unlimited access to local jails and provide 48 hours' notice before releasing anyone wanted for immigration violations.

 

"Chicago will not let our police officers become political pawns in a debate," Emanuel, a Democrat, said at a news conference. "Chicago will not let our residents have their fundamental rights isolated and violated. And Chicago will never relinquish our status as a welcoming city."

 

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants provide money to hundreds of cities, and the Trump administration has requested $380 million in funding next year. Chicago, a regular target of Republican President Donald Trump because of its murder rate, expected to receive $3.2 million this year for purchasing equipment.

 

Emanuel said the lawsuit would prevent the Trump administration from setting a precedent that could be used to target other funding.

 

Under Trump and Sessions, the federal government has sought to crack down on sanctuary cities, which generally offer illegal immigrants safe harbor by declining to use municipal resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Dozens of local governments and cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, have joined the growing sanctuary movement.

 

The Justice Department did not immediately comment on Sunday. Last week, Sessions decried sanctuary cities, saying they "make all of us less safe" and impede law enforcement by setting criminals free.

 

Police and city officials in sanctuary cities have said deporting illegal immigrants who are not accused of serious crimes harms public safety by discouraging immigrants from coming forward to report crimes.

 

Chicago's lawsuit is the first to challenge the department over the Byrne program, though city officials said they are in contact with other cities. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is also considering a similar lawsuit, the Sacramento Bee has reported.

 

The Trump administration has already faced legal battles over its sanctuary city policies. Last month, a U.S. judge refused to revisit a court order that blocked Trump's January executive order denying broader federal funds to such jurisdictions, in a case filed by San Francisco and the California county of Santa Clara.

 

(Reporting by Chris Kenning in Chicago and Joseph Ax in New York; Additional reporting by Pete Schroeder in Washington; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters By Chris Kenning and Joseph Ax

[rgraham]

Hopefully this frivolous suit will set a precedent to eliminate the so called sanctuary cities!

[ilostmypassword]

20 minutes ago, rgraham said:

Hopefully this frivolous suit will set a precedent to eliminate the so called sanctuary cities!

Clearly you have no grasp of the constitutional issues involved.

Edited August 7, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[YetAnother]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Under Trump and Sessions, the federal government has sought to crack down on sanctuary cities, which generally offer illegal immigrants safe harbor by declining to use municipal resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Dozens of local governments and cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, have joined the growing sanctuary movement.

seems this questionable program is out of control

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Clearly you have no grasp of the constitutional issues involved.

 

For the benefit of us non USA citizens. Could you please explain?

 

There often seems some debate and issues around the jurisdiction and precedence of local, town/city, state and federal laws. 

 

Also is this argument about local, city/town, state not using their resources to enforce federal laws a valid argument or exploitation of a loophole for political purposes?

 

In some ways many non Americans see the US as taking citizens rights, and trying to ensure democracy is always respected and transparent far more than other "Western" countries. Is this part of that decentralization of power?

 

I know this must be a complex topic but is there an easy explanation of the split between central v local law and powers and where (if?) federal authorities can force laws locally?

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

For the benefit of us non USA citizens. Could you please explain?

 

There often seems some debate and issues around the jurisdiction and precedence of local, town/city, state and federal laws. 

 

Also is this argument about local, city/town, state not using their resources to enforce federal laws a valid argument or exploitation of a loophole for political purposes?

 

In some ways many non Americans see the US as taking citizens rights, and trying to ensure democracy is always respected and transparent far more than other "Western" countries. Is this part of that decentralization of power?

 

I know this must be a complex topic but is there an easy explanation of the split between central v local law and powers and where (if?) federal authorities can force laws locally?

 

 

It's a question of Federalism. State or municipal employees don't work for the Federal Govt so the Federal Govt. can't demand that they in effect become its employees which would be the case if complying with requests were mandatory. The Supreme Court has ruled on this before and it was the conservatives judges who supported this position.  Now if the Feds have a warrant that's a different matter.

It's also bad policy because it means that undocumented immigrants won't come forward to report crimes or cooperate with local law enforcement. But that's not a Constitutional question.

[dunroaming]

I'm not American but in it's simplest form isn't this more evidence of what a divided country the USA has become?

[Foozool]

All Capon administration ❗️?

Are we back to 30s ❓

I see nothing more but a gangester team. 

Edited August 7, 2017 by Foozool

[JAG]

It's a question of Federalism. State or municipal employees don't work for the Federal Govt so the Federal Govt. can't demand that they in effect become its employees which would be the case if complying with requests were mandatory. The Supreme Court has ruled on this before and it was the conservatives judges who supported this position.  Now if the Feds have a warrant that's a different matter.
It's also bad policy because it means that undocumented immigrants won't come forward to report crimes or cooperate with local law enforcement. But that's not a Constitutional question.

All Capon administration [emoji779]️[emoji28]
Are we back to 30s [emoji780]
I see nothing more but a gangester team. 

Well, there are certainly two different approaches to explaining the problem...

[thehelmsman]

On ‎8‎/‎6‎/‎2017 at 6:33 PM, ilostmypassword said:

Clearly you have no grasp of the constitutional issues involved.

Calling ICE before you release an illegal from jail sounds doable to me. They aren't asking the Police to arrest every illegal they come in contact with. I

 

It's sick what these sanctuary cities are doing. Hopefully the courts will rule against them.

[Rancid]

It's funny, growing up I always had this idea of the US of freedom and individualism, those that hated socialists/communists. But what I can see these days it is actually a socialist progressive PC mecca, boy did I get that completely wrong.

[Scott]

1 hour ago, thehelmsman said:

Calling ICE before you release an illegal from jail sounds doable to me. They aren't asking the Police to arrest every illegal they come in contact with. I

 

It's sick what these sanctuary cities are doing. Hopefully the courts will rule against them.

And how are the local police supposed to know they are illegal?   Ask them?   Just profile them?  

 

And how long should they hold them?   1 day, 2 days.....a month?   You do realize that you will be holding someone with no charges against them, which has major implications for the local police.  

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Rancid said:

It's funny, growing up I always had this idea of the US of freedom and individualism, those that hated socialists/communists. But what I can see these days it is actually a socialist progressive PC mecca, boy did I get that completely wrong.

Actually, if you are for freedom, you want less government intrusion, not more. It's for precisely this reason that conservative justices ruled that the Feds can't force the States or Municipalities to work for them.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, thehelmsman said:

Calling ICE before you release an illegal from jail sounds doable to me. They aren't asking the Police to arrest every illegal they come in contact with. I

 

It's sick what these sanctuary cities are doing. Hopefully the courts will rule against them.

Apart from the problem of indefinite incarceration, local police believe it actually harms law enforcement because it means crimes won't get reported and witnesses won't cooperate.

[impulse]

21 hours ago, dunroaming said:

I'm not American but in it's simplest form isn't this more evidence of what a divided country the USA has become?

 

It's actually more of an example of the checks and balances between Federal and State powers, and between Presidential edicts and constitutional law.

 

There's arguments to be made on both sides, for sure.  But democracy isn't easy.

 

 

[thaihome]

 In fact, his Administration’s agents are targeting, in large numbers, individuals for whom public-safety justifications for removal don’t apply. This includes a considerable number of women who have no criminal records and who are either the primary caretakers of young children, or the primary family breadwinners, or both.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-mothers-being-deported-by-trump