View Full Version : Chicago, sanctuary city status and federal grants.
Averageman
08-08-17, 06:46
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-chicago-immigrant-sanctuary-city-met-1115-20161115-story.html
Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Monday promised to protect immigrants from deportation, even as president-elect Donald Trump has pledged to remove as many as 3 million immigrants who have criminal records and are living in the country illegally.
For more than three decades, Chicago has been a sanctuary city, where local laws prohibit government workers and police officers from asking about residents' immigration status. The mayor said that tradition would continue.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chicago-sues-over-sanctuary-city-threat/
Mayor Rahm Emanuel has taken his fight against President Donald Trump's immigration policies to court, with Chicago becoming one of the first cities Monday to sue over what many U.S. cities argue are illegal bids to withhold public safety grants from so-called sanctuary cities.
Hours later, Attorney General Jeff Sessions hit back at Chicago, saying the Trump administration "will not simply give away grant dollars to city governments that proudly violate the rule of law and protect criminal aliens at the expense of public safety."
"So it's this simple: Comply with the law or forego taxpayer dollars," he said in a toughly worded statement.
Chicago's suit focuses on new conditions set by Sessions for cities to qualify for grant money. They include the sharing immigration-status records with federal agencies, providing 48-hours notice of a detainee's release if immigration violations are suspected and giving federal agents unfettered access to jails.
"The government," the lawsuit says, can't "unilaterally" set new conditions that weren't approved by Congress "and that would federalize local jails and police stations, mandate warrantless detentions in order to investigate for federal civil infractions, sow fear in local immigrant communities, and ultimately make the people of Chicago less safe."
Chicago's sanctuary policies date back to the mid-1980s and successive city councils have confirmed or expanded the protections.
The city prohibits police from providing federal Immigration and Customs officials access to people in police custody, unless they are wanted on a criminal warrant or have serious criminal convictions. Local police are also barred from allowing ICE agents to use their facilities for interviews or investigations and from responding to ICE inquiries or talking to ICE officials about a person's custody status or release date.
City authorities say the policies help encourage residents of the immigrant community to inform police when they are victims of crimes.
I wonder how this will play out?
Like a dystopian movie...
PattonWasRight
08-08-17, 08:23
Sanctuary cities are a strategy by a certain political party to add to their voting base.
That's their "ethical stance" behind this.
The Trump administration should and will win this case in court. While the case moves through the court system, sanctuary cities should receive zero Federal tax dollars.
SomeOtherGuy
08-08-17, 09:03
I wonder how this will play out?
Like certain countries south of the Rio Grande, where local and federal law enforcement are not on the same team.
The Trump administration should and will win this case in court. While the case moves through the court system, sanctuary cities should receive zero Federal tax dollars.
Yeah, how's that theory working on the immigration-ban side of things? I can think of several cases where the Trump admin was legally in the right, and there was basically no non-frivolous argument against them, yet the courts barred the administration's action.
Averageman
08-08-17, 15:38
Well at least if they play the court battle out for a year or two Chicago, regardless of the outcome won't get any money until it is over.
Like certain countries south of the Rio Grande, where local and federal law enforcement are not on the same team.
So in other words same shit different day? I know cooperation is better in some places than it used to be. But, it ain't like the locals play well with the Feds all the times, hell some local agencies don't play well with their neighboring agencies.
Even if the administration loses, I still ask with what army or police force does an activist judge compel compliance with their bench decree? :confused:
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-08-17, 17:42
The messaging on this is critical. They need 'poster children' examples of really bad guys being protected by these cities and make that the issue. Most people will assume that it is just a general sweep for illegals. When you point out it is criminals that these cities are keeping around and protecting, that changes the story.
Why can't we criminalize overstaying visas and not being her legally? I know it would be tough to do now, but it seems like violating immigration and visa laws would be a felony?
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-08-17, 17:44
Even if the administration loses, I still ask with what army or police force does an activist judge compel compliance with their bench decree? :confused:
Isn't it federal marshals? As in the judge has an order for a politician and if they don't do it, they get a bench warrant and arrest them and start going down the chain of command?
But I do like the "How many divisions does a judge have" angle.
SomeOtherGuy
08-08-17, 20:00
Even if the administration loses, I still ask with what army or police force does an activist judge compel compliance with their bench decree? :confused:
None, formally speaking. All the LE are part of the executive branch. But very few executive branch employees are going to knowingly violate a judge's order, after weighing what they get for doing so (not much) and the risks of doing so (potential loss of job or even criminal charges, if the winds change).
We don't really want to live in a country where it's common or a good idea to disregard a judge's order. However, we also don't want a country where un-elected activist judges hijack the entire legal process and make a mockery of an election, the President, or the very concept of the rule of law. I'm all ears for any good solution that doesn't break one of these rules.
N.B. this problem has its roots in the original 1789 Constitution, and Marbury v. Madison (1803) was simply the start of a long line of unsatisfying cases involving the issue.
Chicago is one of the largest sanctuary cities in the U.S. Chicago has one of the highest per capita violent crime rates of any city in the U.S. Is there a correlation between the two issues?
BoringGuy45
08-08-17, 22:51
Chicago is one of the largest sanctuary cities in the U.S. Chicago has one of the highest per capita violent crime rates of any city in the U.S. Is there a correlation between the two issues?
I doubt it. Most of the violent crime is perpetuated by gangs of kids born in the ghetto and raised to be psychopaths. Most illegal immigrants that I come in contact with in the city where I work commit non-violent crimes. Lots of traffic issues (driving without a license, hit and runs, DUIs, etc), and a few are involved in things like burglaries and thefts.
The messaging on this is critical. They need 'poster children' examples of really bad guys being protected by these cities and make that the issue.
http://www.kgw.com/news/woman-65-in-ne-portland-reports-sex-assault-break-in-and-car-burglary/459231264
Moose-Knuckle
08-09-17, 05:52
https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4372/36292024882_6d6e1230d4_b.jpg
Averageman
08-09-17, 07:57
I doubt it. Most of the violent crime is perpetuated by gangs of kids born in the ghetto and raised to be psychopaths. Most illegal immigrants that I come in contact with in the city where I work commit non-violent crimes. Lots of traffic issues (driving without a license, hit and runs, DUIs, etc), and a few are involved in things like burglaries and thefts.
But what if you took that a step further and proposed that funding spent on noncitizen ileagal aliens would be better spent on fighting other crimes and criminals?
Averageman
08-09-17, 12:53
Hmmm, so what if the Governor of Illinois decided that he didn't want a sanctuary City in his State?
I'm not sure but I still believe he controls some funding. The rest of Illinois might appreciate that.
But what if you took that a step further and proposed that funding spent on noncitizen ileagal aliens would be better spent on fighting other crimes and criminals?
I'd say your still reaching. The correlation doesn't equal causation. I'd be willing to bet there are cities in CA that spend more money on illegals which have a lower murder rate. Not saying that removing the illegal aliens from the city wouldn't allow the funding to be used in more productive ways, but it would not solve the violent crime issue, that is an issue that is likely only going to be changed by a cultural shift and leaders from top to local deciding they have had enough of the shit and pushing the gangs out. Until then Chiraq will continue to be a shithole.
HardToHandle
08-09-17, 22:46
Hmmm, so what if the Governor of Illinois decided that he didn't want a sanctuary City in his State?
I'm not sure but I still believe he controls some funding. The rest of Illinois might appreciate that.
Let me guess - you do not live in Illinois.
The State of Illinois just passed the first budget in two years, is much of a year late in paying their bills and the Republican Governor is barely able to execute the most basic elements of governing. The state-level politics is Venezuela North.
The most of the last several Illinois Governors have ended up in federal prison for a reason... The Governors have had to be pretty brazen in their corruption to get anything the Legislature did not already suck up. No evidence that present Gov. Rauner will live up to Blagovich in the corruption, but he is in a tough place. Chicago rules the state and no Governor has a snowballs chance to meaningfully address.
All that said, illegal aliens seem to often commit violent crime below the community baseline. In my area, they seem to regularly kill people drunk driving. There is an impressive track record, like the little girl run over in her backyard at 1030 in the morning by .16+.
SomeOtherGuy
08-10-17, 08:29
All that said, illegal aliens seem to often commit violent crime below the community baseline. In my area, they seem to regularly kill people drunk driving. There is an impressive track record, like the little girl run over in her backyard at 1030 in the morning by .16+.
DUI, including DUI causing death and injury, seems to be one of the largest crime issues with the illegal population in Michigan also. But I suspect that there is probably more crime that simply goes unreported due to illegals being the victims, as well as the perps.
Anyway, it's a bit of banter to discuss whether illegals are committing serious or minor crimes, or no additional crimes, but simply by being here illegally they are committing a crime. Hypothetically let's say a conservative small town declares itself "Tax Cheat Sanctuary City" and states that any tax cheats wishing to live there will be protected from the IRS in all possible ways. Should this be respected? When some federal official declares that "tax cheat sanctuaries will not be tolerated!" should they be condemned as a bigoted anti-taxcheatist?
Averageman
08-10-17, 09:44
I'm thinking that the Mayor can do as he pleases, but he will do so without the grant.
He can make all the noise he wants about being a sanctuary City, but he cannot force the funds in the form of grants to be given.
My understanding is that grants are like gifts, if you don't want to comply voluntarily, then don't expect them to be given.
So long as the terms of the grants are written accordingly the Feds can yank them. If there are no written stipulations about immigration laws they will have to abide by the contracts and change the terms of new grants.
ramairthree
08-11-17, 00:09
Federal money is what brought drinking ages, speed limits, etc. In compliance.
If it worked for that, it should work for this.
This ^^^^^^
Grants have to be renewed. Future grants over the next few years have to be approved by the Trump administration. The only way to get a politician's attention is to cut off their money.
I hope the Trump administration really puts the screws to the City of Chicago's political machine. They have had so much political influence for so long and they are so arrogant, the Chicago political hacks certainly need to get knocked around a bit.
After this battle, and others that need to be fought, there needs to be a nationwide push for Voter ID legislation. That would limit the political influence of those who entered the U.S. illegally.
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-11-17, 14:10
The grant has to be germane to the issue being pressed. Highway funds were a huge monetary club to get the drinking age (drunk driving) changed. Sure there are DHS funds, and I'd think that NYC and LA would be pretty hurt by that.
It will be fun to watch courts who can find any way to tie in the interstate commerce clause will suddenly find less ties between the govt and illegal immigration, thus limiting the funds that can be held back for sanctuary status.
The grant has to be germane to the issue being pressed. Highway funds were a huge monetary club to get the drinking age (drunk driving) changed. Sure there are DHS funds, and I'd think that NYC and LA would be pretty hurt by that.
It will be fun to watch courts who can find any way to tie in the interstate commerce clause will suddenly find less ties between the govt and illegal immigration, thus limiting the funds that can be held back for sanctuary status.
True, but then all the grants could just disappear and the surplus used to build a wall.
True, but then all the grants could just disappear and the surplus used to build a wall.
This wouldn't get them in an uproar at all.
This issue can be attacked from different angles. President Trump could appoint one or two ultra-conservative Federal Judges and assign them to the 7th Federal district that covers Chicago. That would not work out well for the political elite of the Chicago machine for several years.
This wouldn't get them in an uproar at all.
And that would be different from today how exactly??
After this battle, and others that need to be fought, there needs to be a nationwide push for Voter ID legislation. That would limit the political influence of those who entered the U.S. illegally.
I believe the influence of illegal's voting is vastly overstated. I live in Kansas, KKK Kobach has been trying to find an illegal immigrant voting ever since he's been in office. So far what he's found are confused Republicans, for the most part elderly. Trust me, if he actually caught an illegal immigrant voting, we'd know.
Voter ID legislation is, IMO, a thinly disguised effort to marginalize the voters who are most likely to vote Democrat. If it was about the sanctity of the vote then guys like Kobach would be caging both Democrat AND Republican voting lists. They don't, and it ain't.
I know most of you think I'm a fool, but damn, I like things to be fair and above board.
If we want the metro areas to be anything but Democrat, we need to give them a reason to switch. That doesn't mean giving them more free stuff, it means fixing the stuff that causes abject poverty in those areas, giving folks a way out of poverty that they can see. Ain't going to happen over night, it will never happen if we don't get serious about it.
ETA - BTW I totally endorse the sentiments of the young man in Moose-Knuckles post #15.
True, but then all the grants could just disappear and the surplus used to build a wall.
Arguably, the money from those grants impacts folks well beyond the city administration. Lets say you curtail federal funding for education to Chicago (probably not the best example) not only does that impact the City Administration, it also impacts the teachers who lose their jobs, the grocers who they buy their groceries from, the gas stations, etc.
Essentially, every dollar added to or taken away from an economy has a ripple effect of up to 1.40 plus or minus. This is a realistic figure, not the pie in the sky 6.00 or 7.00 dollars that someone writing a grant for development will try to convince a local government.
Bottom line is akin to the old saying, 'don't cut off your nose to spite your face.'
RetroRevolver77
08-12-17, 12:59
I believe the influence of illegal's voting is vastly overstated. I live in Kansas, KKK Kobach has been trying to find an illegal immigrant voting ever since he's been in office. So far what he's found are confused Republicans, for the most part elderly. Trust me, if he actually caught an illegal immigrant voting, we'd know.
Voter ID legislation is, IMO, a thinly disguised effort to marginalize the voters who are most likely to vote Democrat. If it was about the sanctity of the vote then guys like Kobach would be caging both Democrat AND Republican voting lists. They don't, and it ain't.
I know most of you think I'm a fool, but damn, I like things to be fair and above board.
If we want the metro areas to be anything but Democrat, we need to give them a reason to switch. That doesn't mean giving them more free stuff, it means fixing the stuff that causes abject poverty in those areas, giving folks a way out of poverty that they can see. Ain't going to happen over night, it will never happen if we don't get serious about it.
ETA - BTW I totally endorse the sentiments of the young man in Moose-Knuckles post #15.
Voter ID legislation is to keep Democrats from scamming the system- which is how Obama won twice and how Hillary almost won. There is easily ten to fifteen percent voter fraud coming from the Democrat side per election already.
7n6
Voter ID legislation is to keep Democrats from scamming the system- which is how Obama won twice and how Hillary almost won. There is easily ten to fifteen percent voter fraud coming from the Democrat side per election already.
7n6
While I don't doubt this, do you have actual data from a credible source (i.e. not InfoWarz or similar) to back this claim?
RetroRevolver77
08-12-17, 13:44
While I don't doubt this, do you have actual data from a credible source (i.e. not InfoWarz or similar) to back this claim?
I'm not pulling all that right now. You can look it up per precinct/county where they have upwards of 130% turnout in some heavily Democrat districts and estimates running with millions of illegal votes cast. The statistic I remember was one out of eight Democrat votes were suspect.
Good article on just illegal immigrant voter fraud;
http://www.fairus.org/issue/noncitizens-voting-violations-and-u-s-elections
I am required to present photo identification when I purchase a firearm, purchase cold medicine, cash a check at the bank or if I am stopped for speeding. There are not many things as important as voting and I would not take issue with my being required to show photo ID when I vote. Any political party that stands to gain from unqualified people voting in an election would find Voter ID legislation threatening.
I am required to present photo identification when I purchase a firearm, purchase cold medicine, cash a check at the bank or if I am stopped for speeding. There are not many things as important as voting and I would not take issue with my being required to show photo ID when I vote. Any political party that stands to gain from unqualified people voting in an election would find Voter ID legislation threatening.
I agree.
NYH1.
I'm in favor of common sense voter verification.
Explain to me how a 4473 is OK but we can't have a 4474 for voting? Do we really want mentally ill people getting their hands on a ballot?
And to those that think illegal voting is so rare, we wouldn't have this thread. Politicians don't care about anyone who can't vote for them, so why are there sanctuary cities? Is it a coincidence they are run by the same party that opposes checking a voters ID?
I'm in favor of common sense voter verification.
Explain to me how a 4473 is OK but we can't have a 4474 for voting? Do we really want mentally ill people getting their hands on a ballot?
And to those that think illegal voting is so rare, we wouldn't have this thread. Politicians don't care about anyone who can't vote for them, so why are there sanctuary cities? Is it a coincidence they are run by the same party that opposes checking a voters ID?
Might as well have background checks, phycological checks, and pay a fee. We have to for the 2nd so why not the 15th? The first time that they charge a $200 fee to vote people would SH$# themselves. But it is OK for the second. How about all of the Batsh#$ crazy libtards get their right to vote taken away because they are not sane and I feel threatened by them?
I guess all Amendments are not created equal..........
Averageman
08-13-17, 15:25
Might as well have background checks, phycological checks, and pay a fee. We have to for the 2nd so why not the 15th? The first time that they charge a $200 fee to vote people would SH$# themselves. But it is OK for the second. How about all of the Batsh#$ crazy libtards get their right to vote taken away because they are not sane and I feel threatened by them?
I guess all Amendments are not created equal..........
And if you don't own property, or make enough money to actually "pay" taxes....?
I don't think people being encouraged to vote themselves a raise from the public coffers was ever the intent of the Founding Fathers.
And if you don't own property, or make enough money to actually "pay" taxes....?
I don't think people being encouraged to vote themselves a raise from the public coffers was ever the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Exactly my point. If I am not mistaken you had to own land to vote when the Founding Fathers set this up. There may have been a reason behind their thinking..........
It is amazing how people will spend so much time to work the system as apposed to actually working.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.