Sanctuary Cities’ LA, Chicago, NYC Vow to Continue Defying Federal Immigration Orders

After Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered a warning shot to ‘sanctuary cities‘ threatening to cut funding grants for localities refusing to comply with federal immigration laws, the cities of Los Angeles, Chicago and New York have vowed to continue defying the Trump Administration.

“Such policies cannot continue. They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on the street.” Sessions stated Monday during a White House press briefing.
Signaling that federal grants through the Department of Justice may soon be clawed back or withheld if localities refuse to provide proof that they are in compliance with federal immigration orders, Sessions made it clear that “Failure to deport aliens who are convicted of criminal offenses puts whole communities at risk.”

In response, mayor Eric Garcetti that the Los Angeles’s policies are ‘designed to keep our residents safe’ and that ‘slashing funds‘ would benefit ‘no one.’

“Slashing funds for first-responders, for our port and airport, for counterterrorism, crime-fighting and community-building serves no one — not this city, not the federal government, not the American people… We will fight to protect the safety and dignity of all Angelenos, and we will work closely with our representatives in Congress to make sure that Los Angeles does not go without federal resources that help protect millions of people every day.” Garcetti stated.

While Garcetti defends that Los Angeles is not a ‘sanctuary,’ the city does however operator under ‘Special Order 40‘ which prohibits law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status or arresting individuals for immigration-related violations.

Echoing similar sentiment, Chicago mayor Rahm ‘The Godfather’ Emanuel stated during an interview Monday that his city will “continue to welcome” immigrants so that their families can continue to “build the American dream for their children and their grandchildren.”

As NBC Chicago has reported, Emanuel “appeared more concerned about maintaining Chicago’s status as a sanctuary city than he was about losing resources.”

During a conference with officials from San Francisco, Seattle, Denver, Chicago and Philadelphia, City Council Speaker of New York Melissa Mark-Viverito stepped up the politically charged rhetoric declaring that “We are going to become this administration’s worst nightmare.”

Going further, Mark-Viverito and others in attendance “promised to block federal immigration agents from accessing certain private areas on city property, to restrict their access to schools and school records and to offer legal services to immigrants in the country illegally.”


http://libertynews.com/2017/03/sanctuary-cities-la-chicago-nyc-vow-to-continue-defying-federal-immigration-orders/


Want to harbor people here illegally? Defy federal orders? Except government aid? Are we in the Twilight Zone? Fund it yourself

Seems like more proof there's no real difference between left and right.
Politicians, or governed.

I mean:
"Sheriff Joe Arpaio! We're the Obama administration! You can't enforce federal immigration laws! That's our purview to ignore or enforce! You must adhere to federal law, we are suing you and will cut off support!"
"Go ahead an sue! Go F' yourself! We'll do what we want!"

"Sanctuary cities! We're the Trump administration! You can't ignore federal law! That's our purview to ignore of enforce! You must adhere to federal law! We will cut off support!"
"Go ahead! Go F' yourself! We'll do what we want!"

these guys are full of s**t, they talk a good game ( walking away from federal funds) but when it comes to actually not receiving the check... they will change their tune.

Especially NYC which relies heavily on federal dollars to protect itself, residents and visitors from terrorists.

One city council member doesn't have much pull at city hall, and I would bet that many back there ( and in Albany) are telling her to " shut up". A city council, member is a few clicks above town clerk

The only thing I'm seeing proved about the Republican view on this, is that if they so much as HINT that they support States Rights, and Limited Federal Government, everyone should point to their stance on this, and scream "LIARS!" in their faces.

What this has ALWAYS been about, is certain elements in the US wanting to change the Constitution by fiat, such that the Federal Government can direct State and Local people, not in their pay or employment, and not under their jurisdiction, to do as they are ordered by the central authorities.

They try to PRETEND that it's about other things, and that the states and cities are refusing to protect their people, but that's a flat out lie.

It's very simple in the end. Either you want the Federal Government to be able to tell YOUR LOCAL POLICE what to do to enforce FEDERAL LAWS anytime day or night, or you want to keep the United States under the present Constitution, as a Republic.

It is very simple.. just don't accept the money.. which doesn't seem to be the case.. at all.. matter of fact.. they are taking it with open arms. Nobody is forcing it down their throats.
- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced more than $233 million in federal grants that will support counterterrorism and emergency preparedness activities in counties across New York State.
- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
And that is just one of many.. many grants received. So grants are given out without the grantor having a say in how the money is spent?.. really? And in this case the grantor is the people of the United States.

So a council person in NYC wants to buck the Government Grant and not take the money.. I suggest that person go talk to the Governor first....

I disagree with you strongly, even though I do want the particular concerns that this hinges on to be addressed (i.e. illegal alien criminal expulsion).

It really does make a huge difference to the country HOW we go about doing things. If you allow the Federal government to use the leverage provided by the current system of federal grants back to the states for various things, to be used as a purely political manipulation that ignores the Constitution, you are opening the door to a lot of things that you personally wont like happening going forward.

Something to keep in mind whenever you find yourself cheering a the trick maneuver by the side you like being pulled, is that sooner or later the side you don't like will be in charge again. It always happens. And whatever you cheered for now, will be have been established as legal and unstoppable.

Think about what COULD be done, using this same technique, which you would NOT want to see happen.

Again. Overturning the fundamental structure of the role of the Federal government, in order to save a relatively small amount of money (i.e. refusing to expand the INS and fund it so that it can do it's own work), is a steep price to pay.

I don't know what is so hard to understand. Follow and enforce the laws that our elected representatives have passed. The voters have elected those that will enforce them. If you don't like it, you have your vote to change it.
Illegal is illegal.

I agree. If you can't follow laws (federal) and want to claim states rights....don't take federal money. Get it from your state. Not that THAT will last long. The rest of the country shouldn't have to pay for illegal activities

Again, you and others continue to ignore the fact that the states who are having trouble over this, ARE OBEYING THE LAW. They are being called upon NOT TO OBEY THE LAW. And to ignore the Constitution.

They are calling for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to obey IT'S OWN LAWS, and the Feds are refusing to do so.

And you are calling for them to stop obeying the law, and the Constitution, because you believe political propaganda designed to use your patriotism and opposition to crime, to trick you into setting aside your support for Constitutional government.

I am not ignoring anything.

il·le·gal
i(l)ˈlēɡəl/
adjective
1.
contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law.

They are harboring illegals and accepting federal money.

Or

illegal alien
noun
a foreigner who has entered or resides in a country unlawfully or without the country's authorization.
a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, especially a person who crosses the border by avoiding inspection or who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson.

There isn't much difference between far left and far right for sure.

The political horseshoe theory

Applies in all Countries here included.

I'm sure the SCOTUS will settle this. Wonder if Gorsuch will be there by then?

All's President Trump has to do is invoke the supremacy clause, Federal Law Trumps (no pun intended :D) State law.

Even if they don't take the money Federal Law still trumps State Law. Just like the voters voting to make Marijuana illegal here in Nevada, if President Trump wanted to he could shut that down, and he has made comments that he will.

I doubt it would make it that far especially when the supremacy clause gets invoked.

Gonzales said, "Study after study have shown that sanctuary cities do not lead to an increase in crime because of the presence of people that are undocumented."

The data behind Gonzales’ point about sanctuary cities is not conclusive or as extensive as he described. However, a recent study by academic researchers found that sanctuary policies have no effect on crime rates.

Other studies have found a reduction in crime as a result of cooperation between immigrant communities and law enforcement. Scholars also say immigrants, including those in the country illegally, are less likely to commit crimes than the native-born population.

Gonzales' statement overstates the breadth of research on this topic but is on the right track. We rate the claim Half True.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/nov/28/javier-m-gonzales/santa-fe-mayor-defends-sanctuary-cities-says-studi/



so much of politics seems like 'right fighting',, or cutting off ones nose to spite the face

for instance, its like no longer grocery shopping because you dont like that the kids arent choosing balanced meals,,,,,so because your choice about food isnt good enough,, I will no longer help you eat....

this,, because we believe illegal immigration to be such a harm, we are not going to assist you in continuing to fight the things we KNOW are a harm


..it happens too much,, jumping to extremes instead of logical compromises,,,

Those "Academic Scholars" wouldn't be biased would they?

Yea, right.

and just how are they ignoring the constitution? when they turned the FEDERAL law legal drinking age to 21, they withheld federal highway funds to any state that didn't comply... eventually, they all did..

same thing, the government controls the federal laws, and the states to control and enforce them... if a bank robber robs a federal bank, is it only feds who chase and arrest them? .. no, it's all police that do...