Here is an official statement on a new ruling regarding Sanctuary Cities and the sturggle they are going through.
Today, the rule of law suffered another blow, as an unelected judge unilaterally rewrote immigration policy for our Nation. Federal law explicitly states that “a Federal, State or Local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” 8 U.S.C. 1373(a). That means, according to Congress, a city that prohibits its officials from providing information to federal immigration authorities — a sanctuary city — is violating the law. Sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, block their jails from turning over criminal aliens to Federal authorities for deportation. These cities are engaged in the dangerous and unlawful nullification of Federal law in an attempt to erase our borders.
Here is an article on Sanctuary Cities convening to move forward on their fate in NYC.
New York City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and Local Progress gathered lawmakers and activists from across the country to begin planning a national strategy against the Trump administration’s growing anti-immigrant agenda.
During the Conference, this group outlined an agenda that equips municipalities to pass new sanctuary policies and bolster existing ones in the face of increased immigration enforcement.
Here we have another city taking charge and opposing the defunding and dismemberment of Sanctuary Cities. This time it is Philadelphia
PHILADELPHIA – Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross and the City’s Director of Emergency Management, Samantha Phillips, both expressed publicly their opposition to federal action which would seek to defund so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions. Both Ross and Phillips expressed their concern that such action would imperil public safety.
Phillips said, “I am very concerned that the President’s executive order could limit or reduce aid awarded to communities following disasters, namely the public assistance and hazard mitigation programs. These sources of economic support help communities rebuild more quickly and more resiliently post-disaster. Penalizing states or cities, for any reason, in their time of need after a disaster directly contradicts FEMA’s mission and fails to recognize the interconnectedness of states, local jurisdictions, and communities across the nation. Furthermore, reductions to preparedness and mitigation grants will reduce the nation’s readiness. Disasters don’t recognize political or jurisdictional boundaries. For this reason, we need programs that will help us all succeed in an environment where we know that threats, both natural and human-caused, are only growing in intensity and frequency. The implementation of this policy could undo years of investments and progress in making the entire country better prepared and more resilient.”
The title says it all. Seattle is taking the charge in lawsuits against the unfair sanctuary city orders.
Today, the City of Seattle, under the direction of Mayor Ed Murray and City Attorney Pete Holmes, filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s “sanctuary cities” Executive Order (No. 13768, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799). The order threatened to strip federal funding from cities that refused to assist the federal government in immigration enforcement and was reiterated by Attorney General Jeff Sessions this week. In this suit, the City of Seattle seeks a declaration that it is acting consistently with federal law and that the U.S. Constitution precludes application of the Order to deny it federal funds to which it is otherwise entitled. Seattle, a welcoming city where City employees do not inquire about immigration status and where all services are available to every resident, will argue the order is unconstitutional and that the City has not violated federal law.
“Seattle will not be bullied by this White House or this administration and today we are taking legal action against President Trump’s unconstitutional order,” said Mayor Murray. “We have the law on our side: the federal government cannot compel our police department to enforce federal immigration law and cannot use our federal dollars to coerce Seattle into turning our backs on our immigrant and refugee communities. We simply won’t do it. We are proud to be a welcoming city that is inclusive of all our residents. We are a safer and more prosperous city because of our immigrant and refugee communities and will continue standing with them.”
The next target in the war against Sanctuary Cities is funding and grants, showing things need to change up very soon.
The U.S. Justice Department has escalated its approach to so-called sanctuary cities, writing at least eight jurisdictions Friday to put them on notice they could be failing to cooperate with immigration authorities.
Alan Hanson, the acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's grant-making arm, warned the cities that they're required to submit proof that they comply with federal immigration law.
Here we have another article on an upcoming lawsuit for Texas Sanctuary Cities.
Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit asking the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to uphold the constitutionality of Senate Bill 4. SB 4 bans sanctuary cities in Texas and requires all governments throughout the state to comply with immigration law and detainer requests.
“SB 4 is constitutional, lawful and a vital step in securing our borders,” Attorney General Paxton said. “SB 4 guarantees cooperation among federal, state and local law enforcement to protect Texans. Unfortunately, some municipalities and law enforcement agencies are unwilling to cooperate with the federal government and claim that SB 4 is unconstitutional.”
Apparently not everyone is ok with taking down sanctuary cities. The struggle will not go unnoticed, at least.
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Representative Mike Quigley (IL-05) and 32 of his Democratic colleagues introduced the Safeguarding Sanctuary Cities Act, which ensures that federal funds cannot be unduly withheld from any state or local authority that limits or restricts compliance with a voluntary immigration detainer request.
“Immigrants have always been and will continue to be integral members of our communities, contributing greatly to all aspects of our way of life from education and science to art and culture to economic growth and national security,” said Rep. Quigley. “We must use the vast resources at our disposal to advance comprehensive immigration reform, not coercive funding conditions, which are ineffective and harmful to anyone living in a ‘sanctuary’ city—citizen or not. I am proud to introduce this legislation to protect those seeking safety, security, and the American Dream in Chicago and other cities across the nation.”
Here we have a more straightforward approach on Sanctuary Cities and their legal status.
The question of sanctuary cities is a topic charged with emotion as the controversy has come to a head with the U.S. Justice Department demanding the cooperation of local law enforcement agencies in enforcing federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are those local jurisdictions that have taken a formal stand in refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities under any circumstances.
In this article, a Federal Judge claims sanctuary cities crackdowns are wrong and unconstitutional.
The same San Antonio federal court judge who will soon decide whether Texas can enforce its new law banning so-called "sanctuary cities" just explained in a separate ruling why a major portion of the law appears to be unconstitutional.
U.S. District Court Judge Orlando Garcia ruled on Monday that the Bexar County Sheriff's Office violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure when jailers detained an undocumented immigrant for more than two months in 2016 after a misdemeanor charge against him was dismissed. Lawyers for the man had challenged the Bexar County Sheriff's Office's longstanding practice of granting so-called immigration "detainers," routine requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for local jails to hold people suspected of federal immigration violations, even if their local charges have been dismissed or otherwise resolved. Lawyers across the country have argued that such requests are often flawed, haphazard and fall well below the legal standard of a warrant or judge’s order.
————- Sat, 20 May 2017 18:47:13 -0600 ————-
DENVER An undocumented immigrant from Peru who has been living in sanctuary in a Denver church to avoid deportation has been granted a stay of removal.
Ingrid Encalada Latorre, 33, made the announcement Saturday afternoon. Her stay of removal is in effect until August 7.
"We are human beings. We are your neighbors and friends living and working alongside citizens. I appreciate this opportunity to safely continue my legal case from my home. I will continue to organize until our full humanity, contributions and place in this country are recognized," she said.
The mother of two entered sanctuary in November 2016 at Mountain View Friends Meeting in Denver.
Ingrid's children, who were born in the United States, joined her at Saturday's announcement. They have lived with her in sanctuary for the last six months.