From News Day post: On April 21, the Department of Justice sent letters to nine jurisdictions “having laws that potentially violate 8 U.S.C. §1373:” — Sacramento, Chicago, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, Las Vegas, Miami, Milwaukee, New York, and Chicago. A press release accompanying the letters charged that “many of these jurisdictions are also crumbling under the weight of illegal immigration and violent crime.”
The press release charged that, “New York City continues to see gang murder after gang murder, the predictable consequence of the city’s ‘soft on crime’ stance.” That’s a flat-out lie, according to New York’s mayor and police chief:
“[NYC Mayor Bill] De Blasio said such remarks were “absolutely outrageous”. James O’Neill, head of New York’s police department, similarly rejected the justice department’s claims, saying they showed “a willful disregard for the facts”.
“O’Neill noted that 2016 saw the fewest shootings in New York City history since it began keeping records, and that since 1993, “murder has decreased 82%, shootings have decreased 81%, and overall crime has decreased 76%. These are the facts.”
More on the sanctuary city situation:
- U.S. Department of Justice threatens so-called sanctuary jurisdictions (Immigration Prof Blog, 4/22/17)
- Sanctuary Cities Face Aid Cuts as Justice Dept. Tightens Screws (New York Times, 4/22/17)
- Justice Department warns sanctuary cities in California, 8 other jurisdictions to cooperate with immigration enforcement, Los Angeles Times, 4/21/17)
- Department of Justice Sends Letter to Nine Jurisdictions Requiring Proof of Compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (DOJ Press Release, 4/21/17)
- Text of DOJ letters to cities (4/21/17)
- Jeff Sessions exaggerates claim about ‘sanctuary’ policies and violating federal law (Politifact, 3/30/17)
- Immigration Detainers Legal Update (Immigration Legal Resource Center, October 2016)
- San Francisco seeks to block Trump’s order on sanctuary cities (NPR, 4/14/17)
- Faced with San Francisco lawsuit, Trump lawyer backs down on sanctuary cities (Immigration Law Prof blog, 4/14/17)
- Judge weighs arguments in SF, Santa Clara sanctuary cities case (San Francisco Chronicle, 4/14/17)
- Federal judge in California deals blow to Trump policy on sanctuary cities (Chicago Tribune, 4/14/17)
- Seattle sues Trump administration over sanctuary city orders (Curbed Seattle, 3/29/17)
- California Today: A Big Swing on Sanctuary Cities (New York Times, 4/24/17)
- The Trump Era Tests the True Power of Sanctuary Cities (The New Yorker, 4/18/17)
And in other immigration news
The first brick hasn’t been set, and Trump’s border wall is already going south on him (Washington Post, 4/24/17)
“Mexico won’t pay for it. Democrats hate it. Border-state Republicans don’t like it. Congressional Republican leaders would rather not undertake it. There could be an avoidable government shutdown over it.
“And yet President Trump’s budget director is pushing Congress to spend $1.4 billion to start building his wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.”
Giving driver’s licenses to those here illegally transformed many lives. Then came Trump (Los Angeles Times, 4/22/17)
“President Trump’s crackdown on immigration has spawned anxiety among those license-holders, many of whom worry that the cards will be used to identify them as being here illegally and lead to their deportations. That has prompted some to avoid getting the licenses, despite assurances from the Department of Motor Vehicles that it will not share information with immigration officials.”
In a California farm town, the border is just a line that must be crossed every day (Los Angeles Times, 4/24/17)
“The border that divides Calexico in California and Mexicali in Mexico has for generations been more of a marker than a barrier.
“In some ways, Calexico — a dusty, mostly Latino desert city of 40,000 — is today a suburb of Mexicali, which has become an industrial powerhouse and now has a population of around 700,000.
“People have family on both sides. Calexico recently built an outlet mall next to the border fence to draw Mexican shoppers. And Mexicali has long drawn Calexicans to its nightlife, Chinese restaurants and cheaper medical care.”
Downside to holding Obamacare hostage to pay for Trump’s wall? Obamacare is more popular.(Washington Post, 4/24/17)
“[L]ast week, budget director Mick Mulvaney introduced a new strategy from the administration. For every dollar that Congress approves for building the wall, Trump will accept a dollar spent on paying insurers to subsidize health care under the Affordable Care Act. Government funding is central to the Affordable Care Act’s viability, and if the administration were to oppose that funding, the health-care program would be severely undercut. In other words, the administration hopes to use Democrats’ support for the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare — as leverage for getting them to approve funding for the wall.”
Senate Democrats answer questions, raise concerns with Trump’s wall (Reveal, 4/24/17)
“The Democrats say that to avoid waiting for money from Congress, the administration will get the $15 million it needs to pay for wall prototypes by moving the funds from a video surveillance program within Customs and Border Protection….
“Many critics of President Donald Trump’s border wall have said an increased use of sensors and technology would be a better investment than an immovable wall, and even wall supporters have said it can’t work well without a corresponding increase in manpower and technology. So taking money away from sensor technology likely won’t be a popular decision.”
Farmers fear losing immigrant workers under Trump crackdown (AP/MPR, 4/24/17)
“Fruit and vegetable growers, dairy and cattle farmers and owners of plant nurseries and vineyards have begun lobbying politicians at home and in Washington to get them to deal with immigration in a way that minimizes the harm to their livelihoods.
“Some of the farm leaders are Republicans who voted for Trump and are torn, wanting border security but also mercy toward laborers who are not dangerous criminals.”