The New American – by Bob Adelmann
In response to President Donald Trump’s executive order issued on January 25 — “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” — a number of cities that formerly considered themselves as “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants are reversing their policies. The first to do so was Miami-Dade County in Florida the day after Trump issued his order.
Miami-Dade was followed by Dayton, Ohio, whose Police Chief Richard Biehl told the Dayton Daily News that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials would “no longer be impeded” when pursuing illegal immigrants being held by his department. Shortly thereafter Saratoga, New York; Finney County, Kansas; and Bedford, Pennsylvania changed their policies, as well.
Marguerite Telford, director of communications for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), said that her group is “being inundated” with calls from officials of other cities asking that CIS remove their names from the group’s listing of sanctuary cities.
States with GOP majorities are also joining the exit, including Idaho, Texas, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Florida, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. There’s even a break in the Democratic wall in California, where more than 35 cities remain proudly defiant of Trump’s executive order. That break is from a lonely Republican from San Diego County, Representative Duncan Hunter, who said he would work to block any requests for federal funds coming from these cities: “The submission of a federal funding request [from] sanctuaries is irresponsible and rewards disregard for the law — and I can’t support that.”
That is the third step outlined in Trump’s executive order designed to entice sanctuary cities to reconsider their positions. The first is the publishing of the “name and shame” list by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of all criminal actions committed by illegals in those sanctuary jurisdictions. The second is bringing “appropriate enforcement action” by the attorney general “against any entity that violates [federal information-sharing statutes] or which has in effect a statute, policy or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law.”
For those remaining defiant, Trump’s order ensures “that jurisdictions that fail to comply … do not receive Federal funds.”
The state of Texas is one of the most pro-active states in the war against illegal immigration. On Wednesday, February 8, a bill that withholds state dollars from sanctuary cities in the state passed the Texas Senate and is headed to the House for approval. If passed and enacted into law, Senate Bill 4 would require city, county, and college campus law enforcement “to hold an arrested person in custody while [ICE] looks into his or her immigration status” and to deny state grant funding if they fail to do so.
Texas Governor Greg Abbot supports the bill, stating, “Elected officials do not get to pick and choose which laws they will obey. Today’s action in the Senate helps ensure that Sheriffs and officials across Texas comply with federal immigration laws and honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests that keep dangerous criminals off of our streets.”
As The New American noted last week, big cities run by Democrats aren’t going along with Trump’s executive order, despite the threat of losing billions in federal funds. Said New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio: “If an attempt is made [to shut off those funds], we will go to court immediately for an injunction to stop it.” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said, “We’re going to stay a sanctuary city. Wherever you came from, you’re welcome here.” Boston Mayor Mary Walsh stated, “We will not be intimidated by the threat to federal funding,” nor would San Francisco’s Mayor Ed Murray: “We will not be intimidated by the authoritarian message coming from this administration.”
The initial skirmishes in the war against illegal immigration are going in Trump’s direction. However, the big battles are ahead.
——————
An Ivy League graduate and former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics. He can be reached at badelmann@thenewamerican.com.
SEPARATION CITIES
instead of SANCTUARY CITIES?
The expression “sanctuary cities”
might be taken to mean
that foreign nationals
will not be arrested for ordinary crimes.
Not so.
All crimes will be investigated
and laws will be enforced.
The mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota
suggests a new expression:
“SEPARATION CITIES”.
What most of these cities really mean
is that there will be OFFICIAL SEPARATION
between the POLICE functions
and the PRISON functions.
If and when any individual
(regardless of citizenship)
is arrested for probable cause,
then FULL IDENTIFICATION of this individuals
should be obtained
—explicitly including country of citizenship.
Booking includes taking a picture of the person arrested
and creating a set of fingerprints,
which are automatically compared
with other fingerprints kept by the FBI.
If this person is wanted for any other crimes,
then that fact will be taken into account
for all future cooperation
with other agencies of law-enforcement.
In short, the POLICE can do their work
without ever asking for immigration status.
(This protects all who cooperate with the police.)
But if and when some criminal suspect is ARRESTED,
then the full identity of that suspect
should be explored by the PRISON authorities.
On the STREET, no one is asked about citizenship.
But in JAIL, all suspects are completely identified.
The federal government should have no problems
with such SEPARATION CITIES.
Both sides of the debate get what they want:
The city police do not arrest anyone for immigration violations.
Once in custody for ordinary crimes,
the prison authorities fully identify the suspects
and cooperate with all other levels of law-enforcement.
One additional administrative way to achieve this SEPARATION
already exists in many locations:
The CITY sets policy for the local POLICE.
And the COUNTY sets policy for the local JAIL.
Property taxes support both levels of government,
but there are different governing bodies
—perhaps a city council
and a county board of commissioners.
And even when the same governing body sets both policies,
they can clearly SEPARATE the POLICE PRACTICES
from the PRISON PRACTICES.
When all local and state jails and prisons cooperate
with all levels of national law-enforcement,
there should be no threat of withholding federal funds
from any such SEPARATION CITIES.
“When all local and state jails and prisons cooperate
with all levels of national law-enforcement,…”
All of the aforementioned operates under the FALSE assumption that ANY of these agencies have ANY legitimate (or legal) authority to even exist to begin with.
Why is it that all of these giant cities opposing immigration law enforcement are Jew controlled cities?