Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Sanctuary Cities

            Another rogue judge (read Obama-appointed judge) ruled against an Executive Order. However, the judge and the media may be misinterpreting the order and the injunction, respectively.

            Hans von Spakovsky posted an article titled “Why This Judge’s Ruling Won’t Block Federal Action on Sanctuary Cities” at The Daily Signal. Von Spakovsky is described as “an authority on a wide range of issues – including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform.” He explains the situation as follows.

At issue in the lawsuit … was Section 9 of Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.”

If you read all of the news accounts, as well as the order of Judge William Orrick (an Obama appointee), you would think that Trump ordered the cutoff of all federal funding to sanctuary cities, from basic federal entitlement payments like Medicaid to discretionary grants….

But Section 9 does not affect federal entitlement programs. It is very narrowly focused. It states that it is the policy of the executive branch to ensure compliance “to the fullest extent of the law … with 8 U.S.C. 1373.”

Section 1373 law prohibits local jurisdictions from, according to Orrick, “restricting government officials or entities from communicating immigration status information to [Immigration and Customs Enforcement].”

In other words, the policies that Santa Clara and San Francisco have in place that prevent their local police from notifying ICE when they arrest or detain an illegal alien clearly and unambiguously violate federal law. [Emphasis added.]

Section 9(a) of the executive order directs the attorney general and the secretary of the homeland security “in their discretion and to the extent consistent with the law” to “ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 [sanctuary jurisdictions] are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the attorney general or the secretary.” [Emphasis added.]

            Since the Executive Order does not threaten entitlement funding at all, the lawsuit and ruling appear to be unnecessary. Von Spakovsky also explains that the executive order “is directed to the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security,” so it “only affects discretionary grants” within those two departments. He added that the Attorney General is “acting pursuant to a memorandum issued by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz last year when Barack Obama was still president. … Thus, according to the inspector general, only jurisdictions who are complying with Section 1373 are eligible for these grant programs.” He concludes his article with these paragraphs.

So while this injunction order has been painted as a big loss for the administration, it actually doesn’t seem to fit that definition.
Sanctuary cities are still going to suffer the consequences of their lawless behavior. They’ll lose some federal discretionary funds from the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

            It sounds to me that the lawsuit and ruling were completely unnecessary, but it may be a good thing for the plaintive and the judge to receive more reading comprehension assistance. Maybe, just maybe, all those liberal educators are not teaching what their students really need to know.

No comments:

Post a Comment