Last week, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the Trump administration on a “sanctuary city” policy, allowing the Department of Justice to withhold millions of dollars in federal funding from cities and states that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities’ attempts to address illegal immigration. On Thursday, President Trump issued a warning to those municipalities and states shielding illegal immigrants from federal law.
As The Daily Wire reported last week, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can withhold millions of dollars in grants to those cities and states that set up laws designed to thwart federal efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. The ruling overturned a lower court decision forbidding the federal government from withholding the funds.
“The administration previously had refused to release the funding to seven states and New York City over their Sanctuary City policies,” The Daily Wire’s Ashe Schow reported. “The affected states are Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington.”
On Thursday, Trump sent a warning shot across the bows of cities and states continuing to impose sanctuary policies. “As per recent Federal Court ruling, the Federal Government will be withholding funds from Sanctuary Cities,” Trump tweeted Thursday. “They should change their status and go non-Sanctuary. Do not protect criminals!”
As per recent Federal Court ruling, the Federal Government will be withholding funds from Sanctuary Cities. They should change their status and go non-Sanctuary. Do not protect criminals!
43.1K people are talking about this
As reported by The Associated Press, the lower court ruling that held up the Trump administration’s 2017 sanctuary policy came as a result of multiple states and cities suing the Trump administration.
“The states and city sued the U.S. government after the Justice Department announced in 2017 that it would withhold grant money from cities and states until they gave federal immigration authorities access to jails and provide advance notice when someone in the country illegally is about to be released,” AP reported. “Before the change, cities and states seeking grant money were required only to show they were not preventing local law enforcement from communicating with federal authorities about the immigration status of people who were detained.”
As previously detailed by The Daily Wire, evidence has clearly shown that cites and states have actively attempted to thwart federal authorities from taking action against criminal illegal aliens. In a press release on a series of illegal immigration roundups in Boston in September 2019, U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) highlighted the role of sanctuary city policies in keeping criminal illegal aliens on the streets:
During the targeted action, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) arrested 80 individuals for violating U.S. immigration laws. Of those arrested, more than 60 were convicted criminals or had criminal charges pending, more than 12 had been issued a final order of removal and failed to depart the United States, or had been previously removed from the United States and returned illegally. Several had prior felony convictions for serious or violent offenses, such as child sex crimes, weapons charges and assault, or had past convictions for significant or multiple misdemeanors.
“The arrests of this targeted enforcement action clearly demonstrate the risks to public safety that are posed when jurisdictions adopt policies that prohibit cooperation with immigration enforcement officers,” acting field office director for ERO Boston Marcos D. Charles said in a statement included in the release. “Communities that shield criminal aliens by hindering cooperation between ICE and local law enforcement are only increasing the public safety threat in these communities. ICE will continue to devote the full efforts of our agency to protecting citizens and enforcing federal immigration law, despite the challenges posed by jurisdictions that prohibit cooperation.”
No comments:
Post a Comment