# "Sanctuary cities" and federal laws **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 28, 2017, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327 "2017-07-28T14:58:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 22
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/421 "2017-08-08T22:19:44Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > On close cases of national importance, I expect Gorsuch to be the most reliable vote for GOP-supported policy outcomes on the Court. Do you mind saying what you base that on? ---
**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:** [August 8, 2017, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/422 "2017-08-08T22:34:31Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I am not familiar with the granting process, but isn’t it a yearly thing? I understand that the feds could not require a repayment of funds, but why couldn’t next year’s grant “unambiguously” require ICE cooperation (assuming the other Dole factors are met)? I think they may be able to do that, but it would require new legislation since the existing legislation doesn’t have the contingency conditions that the Administration wants. The Chicago matter is regarding a certain specific grant, the [Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program](https://www.bja.gov/Funding/JAGState17.pdf) and those rules are already set. My understanding is that these are multi year grants with optional single year extensions. The next period due for re-application is coming toward the end of this month so that may be why it’s in the news. [This is the actual legislation](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/3751) authorizing the grants. ---
**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:** [August 8, 2017, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/423 "2017-08-08T22:34:59Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Sorry for the double post, but isn’t this like saying, “Well, you gave me highway funds last year without any drinking age requirements, so you can’t change the rules next year!” But the fundamental question remains: to the extent that Congress has dictated how Byrne Grants are to be awarded, the Executive Branch is already on thin ice in coming up with new procedures that don’t comply with the law. Plus, it isn’t exactly clear to me what the Administration means by sanctuary cities, but it seems to involve obligating states to take some more active role in enforcement of immigration laws. There is an ample body of precident that the Feds can’t direct local police to enforce Federal policies, so depending on what the White House is seeking, so there may simply be a problem on the fundamental policy. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/424 "2017-08-08T22:35:02Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Do you mind saying what you base that on? Mainly his opinions he has written so far, and in particular their tone, reasoning, and lack of humility. But also his having less legal ideology than Scalia or Thomas; his having survived an interview with Trump; his selection on the Federalist Society shortlist; and his performance at his hearings. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. I doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/425 "2017-08-08T23:17:59Z")
[Miami-Dade complied with Trump to change its ‘sanctuary’ status. It worked](http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article165837497.html) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2017, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/426 "2017-08-08T23:46:25Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > But the fundamental question remains: to the extent that Congress has dictated how Byrne Grants are to be awarded, the Executive Branch is already on thin ice in coming up with new procedures that don’t comply with the law. Plus, it isn’t exactly clear to me what the Administration means by sanctuary cities, but it seems to involve obligating states to take some more active role in enforcement of immigration laws. > > There is an ample body of precident that the Feds can’t direct local police to enforce Federal policies, so depending on what the White House is seeking, so there may simply be a problem on the fundamental policy. I tend to agree. According to Bone’s cite above, the Attorney General “may” issue the grants, but if he does so it is in accordance with the ratio prescribed by law in which higher population and higher crime rate areas get a larger portion of the grant money. I see nothing in the law which gives the AG discretion to withhold funds for ANY reason. So, IMHO, we don’t even reach the SD v. Dole argument, because the law requires that if the AG issues the grants at all, he issues them according to the formula. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2017, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/427 "2017-08-09T01:09:54Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > [Miami-Dade complied with Trump to change its ‘sanctuary’ status. It worked](http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article165837497.html) I really wonder what the dealio is there. It’s a piddling amount of money so my instinct is that this capitulation is at least as much of a statement as the as the Chicago lawsuit against. More so, in fact, because a neutral prudent decision would be to hold tight until you saw how the wind was blowing on that lawsuit. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2017, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/428 "2017-08-09T01:26:55Z")
Oh, now that I read it properly rather than just scan, I see this isn’t new news since Miami-Dade county made this policy change in February. ---
**Author:** ![Guest-starring\_Id](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guest-starring_id/32/21736_2.png) [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2017, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/429 "2017-09-26T06:54:23Z")
Well shiver-me-deez-nuts but some assholes down in Texas (well technically a three-panel judge in New Orleans) decided that local authorities _better_ co-operate with ICE in Texas sanctuary cities. Fortunately this is only a temporary ruling until appeals court in November. [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-texas-sanctuary-cities-20170925-story.html](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-texas-sanctuary-cities-20170925-story.html) > [@](#): > > The law’s opponents argue it violates the Fourth Amendment by requiring police to detain people suspected of illegal immigration without probable cause. They also say it illegally puts local police in the federal role of immigration enforcement officers, and is unconstitutionally vague as to exactly when a local law enforcement officer would be in violation of the law. > [@](#): > > Jose Garza, an attorney for the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, acknowledged that the state now potentially had room to pursue penalties against chiefs or sheriffs who don’t comply. ---
**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:** [September 26, 2017, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/430 "2017-09-26T12:56:03Z")
Since we are picking up this debate again, Chicago has prevailed in its first (but not conclusive) test of the Trump Administration’s new policy. [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-sanctuary-cities-lawsuit-met-20170915-story.html](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-sanctuary-cities-lawsuit-met-20170915-story.html) > [@](#): > > In a ruling with national impact, a federal judge in Chicago on Friday blocked the Trump administration’s rules requiring so-called sanctuary cities to cooperate with immigration agents in order to get a public safety grant. > > U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber held that Chicago has shown a “likelihood of success” in its arguments that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions exceeded his authority in imposing new standards governing Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants across the country. I’m not surprised at all. But I’m not clear when the lawsuit will reach a judgment on its merits, as opposed to an injunction. ---
**Author:** ![Guest-starring\_Id](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guest-starring_id/32/21736_2.png) [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2017, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/431 "2017-10-13T04:45:10Z")
Weaselly McWeaselface Sessions is roundin’ em up in his latest bid yet to be the pettiest scumbaggian festering puddle of light-greenish calf’s diarrhea since, well, nothing that had existed before, with his frontier Justice Dept. singling out NY, Philly, N.O., and Chicago for allegedly giving sanctuary to undocumented immigrants, and face an Oct. 27 deadline to somehow show that they’re cooperating with federal officials, or they’ll risk losing federal grants. I say “somehow” because it was not elaborated on. What - curtsey in front of all storming ICE monkeys?\* This is what I heard from Judy Woodruff a while ago - it was just a 30-second piece that I hoped was a teaser for something longer later on, but that’s all there was - so I’m hoping they’ll have more on that tomorrow. In the meantime, my intrawebz skills are not helping me find a cite at the moment. Heh, is Judy quicker than the web? \*GREAT new twist on the old Ice Capades deal! Done before? Lancelot Link? ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Guest-starring\_Id](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guest-starring_id/32/21736_2.png) [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2017, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/432 "2017-10-13T04:56:14Z")
Missed edit window: maybe should have changed: “…sanctuary to undocumented immigrants, and face an Oct. 27 deadline…” to: “…sanctuary to undocumented immigrants. **These cities** face an Oct. 27 deadline…” ---
**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:** [November 21, 2017, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/433 "2017-11-21T16:43:30Z")
An update: [Federal judge blocks Trump’s executive order on denying funding to sanctuary cities](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/21/federal-judge-blocks-trumps-executive-order-on-denying-funding-to-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.9aa26a66cff4): > [@](#): > > Orrick, in his summary of the case Monday, found that the Trump administration’s efforts to move local officials to cooperate with its efforts to deport undocumented immigrants violated the separation of powers doctrine as well as the Fifth and Tenth amendments. > > “The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Executive Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that they not be unduly coercive,” the judge wrote. “Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.” ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2017, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/434 "2017-11-21T18:03:28Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > No they exercised their constitutional rights. > > [Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html) Yes, they did. It turned out to be the wrong decision though yeah? Being a dick normally does ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2017, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/435 "2017-11-21T18:38:18Z")
Jeepers! I love this ruling, but where does the 10th Amendment say any of the things in the quote box? Maybe the Constitution should say those things, but the 10th doesn’t actually specify anything at all! ---
**Author:** ![Guest-starring\_Id](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guest-starring_id/32/21736_2.png) [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/436 "2018-01-02T06:48:31Z")
How about a sanctuary [state?](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/California-Makes-History-as-Nations-First-Sanctuary-State-467598433.html)🙂 > [@](#): > > The new sanctuary state law also establishes schools, public libraries and health facilities as safe zones where people cannot be arrested because they are undocumented, protections that have been almost completely eliminated under Trump. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/437 "2018-01-02T11:24:03Z")
> [@Guest-starring\_Id](#): > > How about a sanctuary [state?](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/California-Makes-History-as-Nations-First-Sanctuary-State-467598433.html)🙂 States’ rights. It isn’t just for slavin’ anymore. ---
**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 2, 2018, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/438 "2018-01-02T16:16:10Z")
> [@Guest-starring\_Id](#): > > How about a sanctuary [state?](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/California-Makes-History-as-Nations-First-Sanctuary-State-467598433.html)🙂 The CA law does more than restrict the actions of state and local government employers. It prohibits cooperation of private employers too. For example, if you are an owner of a local building supply depot, and federal immigration enforcement officers asked if you would consent to allowing them to enter non-public areas to review employee records, that would be a civil violation. Here is the text of [AB 450:](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB450) > [@](#): > > 7285.2. (a) (1) Except as otherwise required by federal law, and except as provided in paragraph (2), an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without a subpoena or judicial warrant. This section does not prohibit an employer, or person acting on behalf of an employer, from challenging the validity of a subpoena or judicial warrant in a federal district court. I’m guessing this new law will be challenged and found at least partially unconstitutional to the extent it prohibits voluntary actions of private employers. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/439 "2018-01-02T16:51:48Z")
Did you all see the new story out about how people have been posting on “Welcome to California” signs? “Felons, Illegals, and MS13 members welcome”: [LINK](http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/01/photos-sanctuary-state-signs-pop-california-highways-new-year-felons-illegals-ms13-welcome/) You have to admit that it IS the truth. ---
**Author:** ![Guest-starring\_Id](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guest-starring_id/32/21736_2.png) [@Guest-starring\_Id](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guest-starring_Id)\ **Post date:** [January 2, 2018, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/440 "2018-01-02T17:26:07Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > from Assemby bill: > > > [@](#): > > > > "7285.2. (a) (1) Except as otherwise required by federal law, and except as provided in paragraph (2), an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without a subpoena or judicial warrant. **This section does not prohibit an employer, or person acting on behalf of an employer, from challenging the validity of a subpoena or judicial warrant in a federal district court**. Bolding mine. …even if the employer has a perfectly valid reason to challenge what may turn out to be a completely misguided, invalid subpoena or warrant? > [@Bone](#): > > I’m guessing this new law will be challenged and found at least partially unconstitutional to the extent it prohibits voluntary actions of private employers. And I’ll betcha any challenges will just get thrown out. > [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Did you all see the new story out about how people have been posting on “Welcome to California” signs? > > “Felons, Illegals, and MS13 members welcome”: > > [LINK](http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/01/photos-sanctuary-state-signs-pop-california-highways-new-year-felons-illegals-ms13-welcome/) > > You have to admit that it IS the truth. uuuuhhhh you have to admit that your source IS invalid, correct? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=23)