# A real constitutional crisis on the horizon? (immigration, sanctuary cities, and DHS) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 17, 2018, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810 "2018-01-17T07:37:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/181 "2018-01-23T20:49:41Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > There is also the possibility of managers who have a dislike for certain employees, whether it be racial or personal, and they “turn them over” to ICE just for the hope of getting them harassed, even if they are eligible workers. Yes, people can be that petty. I’m sure this happens, but AB450 doesn’t prevent that. And if people are actually revealing protected information, or making false reports, those are separate infractions, which AB450 doesn’t address. This is a red herring. > [@](#): > > I am not sure what benefit that ICE gets from getting access to non-public areas. The only thing I can think of is that way they can look at your employees, and make judgements based on their appearance as to who may be a suspected undocumented worker. Or, a business owner could have a desire to have voluntary interaction with ICE for legitimate reasons - except they can’t do that any more because AB450 prohibits it. I would be totally fine if they limited the restriction in AB450 to public employees, state and local, etc. That’s their choice. But AB450 goes further and restricts consent of private businesses to grant federal law enforcement voluntary access to their business. > [@](#): > > There most certainly is an expectation of privacy in non-public spaces. Not between my employees to me, sure, but to the public, absolutely. I put walls and doors and “staff only” signs up for a reason. It is expected that those areas are to be used and viewed by staff only. That’s not what “expectation of privacy” means in this context. Consider the counterfactual - you are permitted to allow state police officers, or your friend Jane into the non-public areas of a business. Doing so does not violate any expectation of privacy because there is none to violate in the majority of non-public spaces of a business. Just because the person being invited is changed to an ICE officer, doesn’t suddenly confer this privacy expectation. Privacy is a red herring with AB450. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/182 "2018-01-23T21:39:03Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I couldn’t give you a specific law, to be honest, without spending more time than I care to pursuing legal code, and IANAL. Just as I couldn’t give you the specific law that prohibits stealing wages from employees, I know I’m not supposed to do that. > > But, I am told by my lawyer, my payroll company, and all that that the information in my personnel files, like SSN#'s, addresses, phone numbers, work history, insurance documents, information about their family, bank account and routing numbers for direct deposit, and stuff like that is NOT to be shared with the public. > > This information could be very damaging if it gets into the wrong hands. > > If someone came in and asked for that info from me, I would ask them what authorization they have to access that information. I totally agree that SSN, addresses, etc should not be shared with the public. I just don’t know that it is illegal to do so. There are lots of things that are bad ideas that are not prohibited by law. Thanks for the response, but I can’t see that we can establish that you have a legal duty not to release such information. It seems like a commonsense duty not to release such information. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2018, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/183 "2018-01-23T22:09:11Z")
In the case of AB450 though, we’re not talking about sharing information with “the public”, we’re talking about sharing information with federal law enforcement. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/184 "2018-01-24T03:23:20Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If that were the case, they probably would have done that rather than let their crops rot in the fields. Like this one? > **[H-2A Temporary Agricultural Workers | USCIS](https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-2a-temporary-agricultural-workers)** > > The H-2A program allows U.S. employers or U.S. agents who meet specific regulatory requirements to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural jobs. A U.S. employer, ---
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/185 "2018-01-24T14:14:00Z")
If I worked in California and my boss handed my SS and address and what not to a federal agent without a warrant while he or she wasn’t required to, and did so without my consent, could I sue the boss for breach of privacy? This is what I fee like both sides here are really arguing about, or trying to avoid talking about. Both of you groups seem to be talking past this without addressing it. Looking at the law on the surface, this seems to be the argument that CA is making. It’s about someone else consenting for someone else without expressed permission or a warrant. This seems like it would be fishy, even for a Republican. ---
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/186 "2018-01-24T14:17:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > E-verify is only mandatory in one state for all employers: Arizona. Where it has reduced the illegal population substantially. > > Now as for labor shortages, if the law is a problem, the law needs to be changed. Ignoring the law because the law is inconvenient is something we really should be done with by now. It’s the 21st century, it’s time to grow up. E-Verify. This system would be great if it worked worth a damn. I can’t get through E-Verify with my own personal stuff half the time. I’m a wonder bread white guy born in Texas. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/187 "2018-01-24T14:55:37Z")
> [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > If I worked in California and my boss handed my SS and address and what not to a federal agent without a warrant while he or she wasn’t required to, and did so without my consent, could I sue the boss for breach of privacy? > > This is what I fee like both sides here are really arguing about, or trying to avoid talking about. Both of you groups seem to be talking past this without addressing it. > > Looking at the law on the surface, this seems to be the argument that CA is making. It’s about someone else consenting for someone else without expressed permission or a warrant. This seems like it would be fishy, even for a Republican. IANAL, but you could sue, sure. You might just not win. My understanding is that you’ve got to be able to show damages, and in the case where you’re legal, there aren’t going to be many damages to show, and in the case where you’re illegal, your boss is reporting a violation of the law to the proper authorities. Good luck with that lawsuit. But all that was true before AB450. What we’re talking about is that CA wants to fine someone just for inviting an ICE agent into their office, which does seem fishy to this Republican. ---
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/188 "2018-01-24T15:31:51Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > IANAL, but you could sue, sure. You might just not win. My understanding is that you’ve got to be able to show damages, and in the case where you’re legal, there aren’t going to be many damages to show, and in the case where you’re illegal, your boss is reporting a violation of the law to the proper authorities. Good luck with that lawsuit. > > But all that was true before AB450. What we’re talking about is that CA wants to fine someone just for inviting an ICE agent into their office, which does seem fishy to this Republican. I totally get what you’re saying (I think) but isn’t information gathered by an illegal search not usable in court? I’m not remotely a lawyer so I don’t know, it’s an honest question. If there is already a defined set of steps ICE has to go through to get a warrant, why let them bypass it? It seems like the resulting lawsuits would be costly to the state or federal government, even if they won. Seems to me this is ass backward. If ICE wants to bypass the three days written notice to get a search warrant, congress should change the law. If I never consented to a search of my house, but my landlord did, and my landlord had no legal standing to give such consent, what was found couldn’t be used against me as evidence. I am sympathetic to those who really want to enforce the law, but it seems like they should just find the votes to change the law regarding privacy and consent to “voluntarily” share information without a warrant. Just because the business is owned by someone else doesn’t mean what’s being handed over is that someone else’s stuff to hand over. I’m stuck here… maybe a lawyer or someone could help me get over this. I’m a small business owner and my lawyer would shit a fuzzy brick if I just handed anyone information on our employees or customers without a warrant. I’m not a legal scholar, and I am frequently incorrect on a lot of stuff so take my opinions for what they are. It’s a really interesting case though. ---
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/189 "2018-01-24T15:38:15Z")
Also, I don’t understand why an employer would invite ICE to come in and find out if they are paying illegal workers? The fact that they agreed to hire them in the first place means that they are already assumed to be legal to work. It seems like a slippery slope towards “that fucker had the gall to ask for a raise, let’s see how he likes ICE snooping through his stuff.” Not to be dramatic but I have seen that kind of shit first hand. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/190 "2018-01-24T16:25:13Z")
> [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > I totally get what you’re saying (I think) but isn’t information gathered by an illegal search not usable in court? Generally, yes, but this isn’t an illegal search, at least not in the eyes of the federal government. It would be a search with consent, which is perfectly legal everywhere but in California carries a fine from the state. I’d be surprised if a federal court took issue with evidence gathered via a consented search. > [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > If there is already a defined set of steps ICE has to go through to get a warrant, why let them bypass it? Consent has always been a mechanism for bypassing the warrant requirement, for all law enforcement, not just ICE. That’s why they’re always asking “Do you mind if I look around?” and such. > [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > If I never consented to a search of my house, but my landlord did, and my landlord had no legal standing to give such consent, what was found couldn’t be used against me as evidence. I’m fuzzy on how landlord / tenant issues play into granting consent, but that’s got nothing to do with this case. In this case, we’re talking about the employer granting consent to enter the employer’s property. > [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > I am sympathetic to those who really want to enforce the law, but it seems like they should just find the votes to change the law regarding privacy and consent to “voluntarily” share information without a warrant. The law already allows people to voluntarily share information without a warrant. > [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > Just because the business is owned by someone else doesn’t mean what’s being handed over is that someone else’s stuff to hand over. I think the hypothetical you’re pursuing involves handing over records owned by the business as well. > [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > I’m stuck here… maybe a lawyer or someone could help me get over this. I’m a small business owner and my lawyer would shit a fuzzy brick if I just handed anyone information on our employees or customers without a warrant. I doubt it. Imagine, stepping away from illegal immigration for a moment, that the police came to you and said, “We’re looking for Bob, he chopped up his wife and children with an ax last night. Have you seen him?” Bob works for you and normally would have been in at 8:30 AM, but today he didn’t show up. He texted you instead and said, “sorry, can’t make it today, I’m going to visit my brother in Florida”. You think your lawyer would object to you sharing that text with the police? That would seem to be a very unconventional view of the law. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/191 "2018-01-24T16:29:35Z")
> [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > Also, I don’t understand why an employer would invite ICE to come in and find out if they are paying illegal workers? The fact that they agreed to hire them in the first place means that they are already assumed to be legal to work. Frankly, I don’t really understand why anyone grants consent to law enforcement, but it happens all the time. Perhaps they suspected that an employee was illegal, but had no way to prove it, or perhaps they just wanted to get the police out of their lobby ASAP and figured the best way to do that was to invite them into the back room to talk. > [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > Not to be dramatic but I have seen that kind of shit first hand. Sounds like you understand exactly why an employer might invite ICE to come in. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/192 "2018-01-24T16:33:23Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > IANAL, but you could sue, sure. You might just not win. My understanding is that you’ve got to be able to show damages, and in the case where you’re legal, there aren’t going to be many damages to show, and in the case where you’re illegal, your boss is reporting a violation of the law to the proper authorities. Good luck with that lawsuit. > > But all that was true before AB450. What we’re talking about is that CA wants to fine someone just for inviting an ICE agent into their office, which does seem fishy to this Republican. People who are perfectly legal workers do get detained from time to time n these sorts of sweeps. It seems if you are a legal worker and you end up getting detained, lose your job, your home, your family, due to your employer handing over documents to ICE agents, and them acting upon them inappropriately, it does seem as though the employer bears some liability there. I say ethically, anyway, I don’t know about morally. > [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > Also, I don’t understand why an employer would invite ICE to come in and find out if they are paying illegal workers? The fact that they agreed to hire them in the first place means that they are already assumed to be legal to work. > > It seems like a slippery slope towards “that fucker had the gall to ask for a raise, let’s see how he likes ICE snooping through his stuff.” > > Not to be dramatic but I have seen that kind of shit first hand. Not all managers are on the same page. I may hire some employees, and one of my managers may decide that they do not like that employee, so they turn over their info to ICE to get them harassed, or worse, if they are actually not an eligible worker. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/193 "2018-01-24T17:08:29Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I doubt it. Imagine, stepping away from illegal immigration for a moment, that the police came to you and said, “We’re looking for Bob, he chopped up his wife and children with an ax last night. Have you seen him?” Bob works for you and normally would have been in at 8:30 AM, but today he didn’t show up. He texted you instead and said, “sorry, can’t make it today, I’m going to visit my brother in Florida”. You think your lawyer would object to you sharing that text with the police? That would seem to be a very unconventional view of the law. If the police come and say “We think that Bob chopped up his family last night, but we don’t have enough evidence of this act to get a warrant, so we were wondering if you could give us a list of his emergency contacts, any phone numbers he may have, his banking information, and his previous employers.”, I’m not sure my lawyer would find my turning over of that info to be a wise decision. > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Frankly, I don’t really understand why anyone grants consent to law enforcement, but it happens all the time. Perhaps they suspected that an employee was illegal, but had no way to prove it, or perhaps they just wanted to get the police out of their lobby ASAP and figured the best way to do that was to invite them into the back room to talk. > Sounds like you understand exactly why an employer might invite ICE to come in. Yeah, to harass employees that some manager has taken a personal disliking to. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/194 "2018-01-24T18:07:12Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > People who are perfectly legal workers do get detained from time to time n these sorts of sweeps. It seems if you are a legal worker and you end up getting detained, lose your job, your home, your family, due to your employer handing over documents to ICE agents, and them acting upon them inappropriately, it does seem as though the employer bears some liability there. … I doubt it (legally) if the employer was acting in good faith. Sort of like if I call in a tip to the police “I think my neighbor is running a drug operation out of his garage.” That might lead to his detention, which might cost him his job, home, family, etc. Even if he’s ultimately exonerated in court, I don’t think there’s much legal recourse for him to come back and sue the person who reported their suspicions in good faith. I don’t know though, maybe I’m wrong and lawsuits along that line are common and successful. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > If the police come and say “We think that Bob chopped up his family last night, but we don’t have enough evidence of this act to get a warrant, so we were wondering if you could give us a list of his emergency contacts, any phone numbers he may have, his banking information, and his previous employers.”, I’m not sure my lawyer would find my turning over of that info to be a wise decision. It’s not clear to me, does this mean that you think in the hypothetical I gave most lawyers would say, “NO! Don’t share the information you have!” or were you just trying to offer up a different hypothetical scenario where you think it’s more likely lawyers would encourage their clients to not share information with law enforcement? If the latter, I can certainly agree that there are a wide range of possible circumstances, some of which a lawyer might encourage cooperation and some of which they might discourage it. Agreed? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/195 "2018-01-24T18:26:24Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I doubt it (legally) if the employer was acting in good faith. Sort of like if I call in a tip to the police “I think my neighbor is running a drug operation out of his garage.” That might lead to his detention, which might cost him his job, home, family, etc. Even if he’s ultimately exonerated in court, I don’t think there’s much legal recourse for him to come back and sue the person who reported their suspicions in good faith. I don’t know though, maybe I’m wrong and lawsuits along that line are common and successful. That is assuming that you did it in good faith, and that is why it would be hard to prove that you didn’t for instance, tink that you r neighbor’s hibiscus plants were actually marijuana plants and call the cops on them for that. Even if you did it with full knowledge that they were legal, it would be hard to prove that to be the case. Just because something is hard to prove doesn’t mean that it’s not illegal, just that it’s hard to prove. In the case of good faith, it still seems as though you should have some liability there as well, if only for your own personal guilt over being the cause of harm to someone else. If you act in good faith, and cause undue harm to someone else, would you not feel a bit bad about that? Say in your suspected neighbor example, they execute a no-knock warrant and end up killing one or more family members inside. Side note, in my last post, I ended it with the world “morally”, and I really did mean “legally” there, dunno what I was thinkin’. > [@](#): > > It’s not clear to me, does this mean that you think in the hypothetical I gave most lawyers would say, “NO! Don’t share the information you have!” or were you just trying to offer up a different hypothetical scenario where you think it’s more likely lawyers would encourage their clients to not share information with law enforcement? If the latter, I can certainly agree that there are a wide range of possible circumstances, some of which a lawyer might encourage cooperation and some of which they might discourage it. Agreed? More to the point, if the police just have a suspicion that bob did something bad, then they shouldn’t get to go fishing for evidence. If they actually have evidence, then they will have warrants. That’s what I see ICE doing when they come into a shop without any actual probable cause or warrants, fishing. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/196 "2018-01-24T18:34:51Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > … If you act in good faith, and cause undue harm to someone else, would you not feel a bit bad about that? … Yes, I’d feel terrible. I’d still hire a team of lawyers to defend myself if they tried to sue me for everything I own and it sounds like we both agree that I would be likely to win too. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > More to the point, if the police just have a suspicion that bob did something bad, then they shouldn’t get to go fishing for evidence. If they actually have evidence, then they will have warrants. Perhaps they should not, in a perfect world, but the reality is that a whole lot of police work involves exactly these sorts of fishing expeditions. ETA: And it’s not like the warrant requirement is some grand safeguard against abuse. Judges approve all sorts of warrants on thin pretexts all the time. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/197 "2018-01-24T18:55:33Z")
Related to the OP: The DoJ sent a letter to various sanctuary cities, asking them for documents “reflecting any orders, directives, instructions, or guidance to your law enforcement employees” about how to “communicate with the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and/or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” > [@](#): > > [If these jurisdictions can’t prove they are complying with federal law, senior DOJ officials told Fox News, federal funding could be withheld and the DOJ may demand the return of 2016 federal funding some of the cities have already received.](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/24/doj-threatens-to-subpoena-23-jurisdictions-over-sanctuary-city-policies.html) ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/198 "2018-01-24T19:17:24Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Related to the OP: > > The DoJ sent a letter to various sanctuary cities, asking them for documents “reflecting any orders, directives, instructions, or guidance to your law enforcement employees” about how to “communicate with the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and/or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” This is funny actually. DOJ can ask, and the cities can tell the DOJ to pound sand. They can squawk about withholding funding, but that would be squashed again. It’s impotent posturing. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/199 "2018-01-24T19:20:55Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This is funny actually. DOJ can ask, and the cities can tell the DOJ to pound sand. They can squawk about withholding funding, but that would be squashed again. It’s impotent posturing. Are you sure it’ll get squashed again? > [@](#): > > “We’ve given them federal dollars – your taxpayer dollars – to cooperate with federal law enforcement,” Sarah Isgur Flores, a spokeswoman for the DOJ, said Wednesday on “Fox & Friends.” “They didn’t have to take that money, but they did. And when they took it, they said they would comply with federal law. So what we’re saying is if we find out you’re not complying with federal law, we’re taking the tax dollars back.” That doesn’t sound like a wild, out-in-left-field position to me, but I realize I’m only getting one side of the story here. I don’t think we’re talking about withholding _all_ federal funds, just the portion that’s given to law enforcement to cooperate with the Feds. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2018, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810/200 "2018-01-24T19:34:25Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Are you sure it’ll get squashed again? Yes I’m sure. The rules for withholding funding have been laid out and unless either those rules are changed by SCOTUS, it’s not going to happen. > [@](#): > > That doesn’t sound like a wild, out-in-left-field position to me, but I realize I’m only getting one side of the story here. I don’t think we’re talking about withholding _all_ federal funds, just the portion that’s given to law enforcement to cooperate with the Feds. Unless the conditions were specific when the funds were granted, then it’s not going to happen. Future funds could be not awarded, but nothing described will impact those awards that have already been given. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-real-constitutional-crisis-on-the-horizon-immigration-sanctuary-cities-and-dhs/806810.md?page=11)