Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
February 23, 2018, 01:06:51 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down
Author Topic: Why isn't the Obama Administration pursuing "sanctuary cities"?  (Read 16904 times)
Getbig IV
Posts: 3224

« Reply #100 on: August 05, 2017, 06:14:24 PM »

Simple, it needs 60 or more votes to pass.
Already stated in the quote he was replying to. Read, read, read.....

You'd be one of the crazies voting against America. That's the point. That there are so many like you that have no respect for America in positions of power and look to their party only instead of what is good for the country.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 52770

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #101 on: August 07, 2017, 09:12:17 AM »

How in the world did we get to the point where city leaders think they can violate federal law by protecting illegal aliens?  As much as I hate the current two-party system, I am glad there is at least some check on these people, even if the GOP sucks. 

DOJ fires back at Chicago's sanctuary-city lawsuit threat
Published August 06, 2017
Fox News
The Department of Justice on Sunday fired back at Chicago’s plans to sue the feds for threatening to withhold crime-fighting money to sanctuary cities.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel formally announced Sunday that his city would file a lawsuit Monday against the Trump administration for vowing to block federal grants to cities that don't comply with federal immigration law.

The Justice Department called out the mayor in its response. “In 2016, more Chicagoans were murdered than in New York City and Los Angeles combined. So it’s especially tragic that the mayor is less concerned with that staggering figure than he is spending time and taxpayer money protecting criminal aliens and putting Chicago’s law enforcement at greater risk,” department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores told the Chicago Sun-Times.


The dispute centers around so-called Byrne grants for cities' law-enforcement groups. On Thursday, federal officials published an updated application for the grants, which Emanuel compared to “blackmail.”

Chicago is depending on the $3.2 million from the program to buy police vehicles. The grants are named in honor of former New York City police officer Edward Byrne who was murdered in 1988. Still, the grant is just a tiny fraction of the city's budget, The Chicago Tribune reported.

“Chicago will not be blackmailed into changing our values, and we are and will remain a welcoming city,” Emanuel said. “The federal government should be working with cities to provide necessary resources to improve public safety, not concocting new schemes to reduce our crime-fighting resources.”


A requirement added to the application would force local jurisdictions to report to federal officials about the release of illegal immigrants from police custody at least 48 hours in advance.

According to the Sun-Times, former high-ranking Justice Department lawyer Ed Siskel, now Chicago Corporation Counsel, doesn’t believe Sessions has the authority to change the requirements of the federal grand program because it was created by Congress, and doesn’t believe he can force local law enforcement officials to comply with federal immigration policy.

Emanuel announced more details about the lawsuit Sunday, saying withholding the grants would violate the rights of Chicagoans.


“Chicago will not let our police officers become political pawns in a debate,” Emanuel said. “Chicago will not let our residents have their fundamental rights isolated and violated. And Chicago will never relinquish our status as a welcoming city.”

Emanuel added, “The city of Chicago may be the first to bring a lawsuit, but I’m also confident we will not be the last.”
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 52770

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #102 on: August 16, 2017, 10:28:29 AM »

California sues DOJ over threats to withhold federal funds to sanctuary cities
By Barnini Chakraborty
Published August 14, 2017
Fox News

California is suing the Trump administration for threatening to withhold funds for sanctuary cities, accusing the Justice Department of “pure intimidation” and arguing the state – not the federal government – should be the one to allocate its law enforcement resources.

"When President Trump threatened to defund our local law enforcement's ability to do its job and protect our people, he picked the wrong fight," state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said.

'He picked the wrong fight.'

- California Attorney General Xavier Becerra
California, which could lose more than $28 million, is the first state in the nation to sue over sanctuary city restrictions on public safety grants.

“It’s a low blow to our brave men and women who wear the badge, and to the communities they serve,” Becerra said, when announcing the lawsuit.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed his own lawsuit against the DOJ, arguing the government is trying to unfairly force the city’s hand.

“These conditions do not appear in any federal statue, and they do not reflect the will of Congress in appropriating funds,” the lawsuit said. “To the contrary, the new conditions are simply the latest attempt by the Trump administration to coerce state and local jurisdictions into carrying out the federal government’s immigration enforcement priorities.”

The showdown over so-called sanctuary cities has been heating up in recent months as some local governments have refused to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, though a wave of smaller, cash-strapped communities have shed their sanctuary status. 


The California suit comes on the heels of another filed in early August by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. In that 46-page complaint, Emanuel claimed the DOJ, under the stewardship of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, wants to slap unfair conditions on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, a long-running federal crime prevention grant.

The DOJ fired back at the time, with a department spokeswoman reportedly saying "it’s especially tragic that the mayor is less concerned with that staggering figure than he is spending time and taxpayer money protecting criminal aliens."

Calls to the DOJ for comment on the California suit were not immediately returned.

The crackdown on sanctuary cities lines up with Trump’s promised prioritization of the issue on the campaign trail. Members of his administration have repeatedly tried to link violent crime to illegal immigration – though mayors of sanctuary cities have pushed back on that assertion.

While not a technical term, “sanctuary cities” are places that have refused to work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials after detaining undocumented immigrants. By law, they are required to inform the feds when they have an illegal immigrant in custody, even if he or she has not been convicted of a crime.

There are an estimated 200 to 608 local and state governments with some sort of sanctuary policy in place – however, their degree of cooperation varies. Some work with federal authorities on felony convictions while others only comply in civil investigations. There are a few places that refuse to cooperate altogether.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 52770

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #103 on: August 23, 2017, 04:04:42 PM »

LA sues Trump administration over sanctuary city crackdown
By Elizabeth Chou, Los Angeles Daily News
POSTED: 08/22/17

“We’re filing a lawsuit against the (Donald) Trump administration ... to seek an injunction to block the imposition of unconstitutional civil immigration conditions on a vital crime-fighting grant,” City Attorney Mike Feuer said at a news conference at City Hall in downtown Los Angeles.

The lawsuit was filed in the Bay Area, where the city also is requesting to join San Francisco and other jurisdictions in litigation against the federal government, officials said.

The new conditions were recently added to the Justice Department’s Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, which the city receives annually.

• RELATED STORY: LA leaders want city contractors to reveal ties to Trump’s border wall

The Los Angeles area could lose out on the federal grant, anticipated to be worth about $1.9 million in the upcoming year, if the city is unable to comply with new grant rules announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on July 25.

Feuer has said local officials will have a difficult time meeting the requirement in which a city must notify the Department of Homeland Security at least 48 hours before it plans to release “an alien in the jurisdiction’s custody” wanted by U.S. immigration officials, usually as part of what is known as a “detainer” request.

The city rarely holds anyone in custody for longer than 48 hours, and to do so without a warrant or “probable cause” could violate the detainee’s constitutional rights, Feuer contended.

Those detainer requests often come to the city many hours into a person’s stay in a Los Angeles jail, according to the city attorney.

Feuer on Tuesday described the administration’s plan as “overreaching.”

• RELATED STORY: Pastor detained by ICE ‘assumed multiple identities,’ agency says

The executive branch does not have the power to impose the new immigration conditions, and only Congress can make major changes to rules for the grant, which is handed out each year to cities and local law enforcement agencies that meet a criteria formula, Feuer said.

“For 20 years, Los Angeles has applied (for) and received funding for this program,” Feuer noted. “This case is about protecting public safety and ... about the limits on the power of the Trump administration, limits on the executive branch to impose its will.”

“Federal grants to protect public safety are not weapons,” he said, referring to Trump’s statements earlier this year that he would use such funding against cities that in “his view didn’t comport with his version of immigration policy in this country.”

Justice Department spokesman Devin M. O’Malley said that violent crime in Los Angeles is up since 2014, so it is “baffling that the city would challenge policies designed to keep residents of L.A. safer, especially from the scourge of transnational gang activity,” such as those associated with groups like MS-13 and the 18th Street Gang.

O’Malley said that the goal of “reversing sanctuary city policies is about more than just enforcing federal immigration law by detaining criminals here illegally — it’s about re-establishing a culture of law and order, where crimes are punished and people are deterred from committing them.”

• RELATED STORY: Labor groups want to know if LA sheriff is ‘colluding’ with Trump over ‘sanctuary state’ bill

Feuer said his office worked on the lawsuit closely with Covington & Burling LLP, a law firm that is offering pro bono help to the city. Eric Holder, a former U.S. attorney general under the administration of President Barack Obama, is a partner at the firm, and Mitch Kamin serves as the attorney there that is working on the L.A. case.

Earlier this month, Feuer argued that the federal government has had a practice of explicitly stating that the 48-hour notification requirement would only apply if it is possible or “practicable” for the city, but the new grant rules do not make that clear.

Feuer warned that the city could be forced to take legal action against the federal government if Department of Justice officials failed to respond to an Aug. 7 letter seeking “written guidance that unambiguously clarifies” the rule by the end of the week.

The grant application is due Sept. 5, but federal officials have yet to respond with the clarification request, Feuer told reporters late last week.

Attorneys for the Justice Department initially told him they were “hoping to issue a refinement,” then postponed providing the clarification to later this week, Feuer said.

• RELATED STORY: LA leader to Feds: ‘We’ll have to sue’ if you don’t clarify new sanctuary rules

The city now has a short time frame to apply for the grant, which is used to help pay for Community Law Enforcement and Recovery, or CLEAR, a joint-agency program that was started in 1997 to curb gang-related violence. The program operates in nine areas in the city, including the LAPD’s Foothill Division in the San Fernando Valley, northeast Los Angeles, South Los Angeles and Boyle Heights.

Los Angeles’ lawsuit also follows a legal challenge by Chicago on the new Byrne justice grant rules targeting cities with so-called “sanctuary policies.

Since assuming office in January, Trump has vowed to take federal funds away from cities with “sanctuary” policies aimed at protecting undocumented immigrants, particularly policies that may block communication and cooperation between local and federal authorities about someone’s immigration status.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 52770

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #104 on: September 18, 2017, 09:44:36 AM »

California lawmakers approve landmark 'sanctuary state' bill to expand protections for immigrants
Senate Bill 54 prevents officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations. (Sept. 18, 2017)
Jazmine Ulloa    
California lawmakers on Saturday passed a “sanctuary state” bill to protect immigrants without legal residency in the U.S., part of a broader push by Democrats to counter expanded deportation orders under the Trump administration.

The legislation by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), the most far-reaching of its kind in the country, would limit state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevent officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations.

After passionate debate in both houses of the Legislature, staunch opposition from Republican sheriffs and threats from Trump administration officials against sanctuary cities, Senate Bill 54 was approved Saturday with a 27-11 vote along party lines. But the bill sent to Gov. Jerry Brown drastically scaled back the version first introduced, the result of tough negotiations between Brown and De León in the final weeks of the legislative session.

ALSO: Democrats' road to winning back the House goes through California »

The decision came hours after a federal judge in Chicago blocked the Trump administration's move to withhold Justice Department grant funds to discourage so-called sanctuary city policies.

On the Senate floor minutes before 2 a.m. on Saturday, De León said the changes were reasonable, and reflected a powerful compromise between law enforcement officials and advocates.

“These amendments do not mean to erode the core mission of this measure, which is to protect hardworking families that have contributed greatly to our culture and the economy,” he said. “This is a measure that reflects the values of who we are as a great state.”

It's a wrap for the California Legislature for 2017. Here's what lawmakers accomplished
Officially dubbed the “California Values Act,” the legislation initially would have prohibited state and local law enforcement agencies from using any resources to hold, question or share information about people with federal immigration agents, unless they had violent or serious criminal convictions.

After talks with Brown, amendments to the bill made this week would allow federal immigration authorities to keep working with state corrections officials and to continue entering county jails to question immigrants. The legislation would also permit police and sheriffs to share information and transfer people to immigration authorities if they have been convicted of one or more crimes from a list of 800 outlined in a previous law, the California Trust Act.

Some immigrant rights advocates who were previously disappointed with the list of offenses under the Trust Act, were dismayed to see the same exceptions applied in the so-called sanctuary state bill. The list includes many violent and serious crimes, as well as some nonviolent charges and “wobblers,” offenses that can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor, which advocates said has the potential to ensnare people who do not pose a danger to the public.

But immigrant rights groups did not withdraw their support for Senate Bill 54 and also won some concessions. Under the additions to the bill, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would have to develop new standards to protect people held on immigration violations, and to allow immigrant inmates to receive credits toward their sentences serviced if they undergo rehabilitation and educational programs while incarcerated.

Gov. Jerry Brown and Senate leader Kevin De León strike deal on changes to 'sanctuary state' legislation »

The state attorney general’s office would have to develop recommendations that limit immigration agents' access to personal information. The attorney general also has broad authority under the state constitution to ensure that police and sheriffs agencies follow SB 54’s provisions should it be signed into law.

“This was a hard-fought effort, but the end product was worth the fight,” Jennie Pasquarella, immigrants’ rights director with the ACLU of California, said in a statement Saturday.

The compromise helped draw support for the bill from Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount), and moved the California Police Chiefs Assn.’s official position from opposed to neutral. The California Sheriffs Assn. remained opposed.

In a statement Saturday, Thomas Homan, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said California politicians had “chosen to prioritize politics over public safety.”

“This bill severely undermines that effort and will make California communities less safe,” said Homan, who hosted a March town hall with Republican Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones on immigration enforcement that erupted in protests.

In their respective chambers on Friday, at least 20 members of the Assembly and six members of the Senate took the floor for debate on the bill, voicing complex stances on illegal immigration, federalism and the diversity of families in California.

Assemblyman Steven Choi (R-Irvine), a first-generation immigrant from South Korea, argued that he came to the U.S. legally and said the bill created “chaos” for a country built on law and order.

Others pointed to the opposition from sheriffs organizations, saying SB 54 tied officers’ hands, allowing serial thieves, chronic drug abusers and gang members to slip through the cracks. Supporters countered the Trump administration was trying to paint all immigrants in the country illegally as criminals.

They pointed to provisions in the bill that would make hospitals, schools and courthouses safe zones for immigrants from federal immigration authorities at a time of fear for some communities.

“We are ironically ending this session the way we started, talking about protecting the most vulnerable among us,” Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) said.

De León introduced SB 54 on what was an unusually acrimonious first day of the 2017 legislative session, as lawmakers in both chambers were locked in bitter debate over the still newly elected President Trump.

It was at the center of a legislative package filed by Democrats in an attempt to protect more than 2.3 million people living in the state illegally. Other legislative proposals and budget deals have expanded workplace protections against raids from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and increased legal defense services for immigrants facing deportation and financial aid for students without legal residency.

Senate Bill 54 received national attention as the U.S. Department of Justice pledged to slash government grants for law enforcement from any so-called sanctuary cities, which limit the collaboration between local and federal authorities on immigration enforcement.

In a statement Saturday, Department of Justice spokesman Devin O'Malley said “state lawmakers inexplicably voted today to return criminal aliens back onto our streets.”

“This abandonment of the rule of law by the Legislature continues to put Californians at risk, and undermines national security and law enforcement," he said.

At the request of the California Senate earlier this year, former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H Holder Jr. reviewed the bill and said it passed constitutional muster, adding that the states “have the power over the health and safety of their residents and allocation of state resources.”

Still, debate raged on and divided even law enforcement officials and associations. In Los Angeles, Police Chief Charlie Beck voiced his support, while L.A. County Sheriff Jim McDonnell was a vocal opponent.

In a statement Saturday, McDonnell said the final version of the bill was not perfect, but “reflects much of what the LASD implemented years ago and the work is well underway.”

On Friday, lawmakers said some children without legal status were too afraid to go to school, while police statistics showed a drop in reports of sexual assault and domestic violence as immigrant victims refused to come forward.

Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) said the era was reminiscent of the 1980s, when her father dreaded immigration raids.

“We are not living in a hypothetical fear,” she said. “That fear is a reality.”
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 52770

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #105 on: October 05, 2017, 02:45:53 PM »

California becomes 'sanctuary state' in rebuke of Trump immigration policy
OCT 05, 2017 | 01:40 PM

Under threat of possible retaliation by the Trump administration, Gov. Jerry Brown signed landmark "sanctuary state" legislation Thursday, vastly limiting who state and local law enforcement agencies can hold, question and transfer at the request of federal immigration authorities.

Senate Bill 54, which takes effect in January, has been hailed as part of a broader effort by majority Democrats in the California Legislature to shield more than 2.3 million immigrants living illegally in the state. Weeks before Brown's signature made it law, it was met with swift denunciations from Trump administration officials and became the focus of a national debate over how far states and cities can go to prevent their officers from enforcing federal immigration laws.

Brown took the unusual step of penning a signing message in support of SB 54. He called the legislation a balanced measure that would allow police and sheriff's agencies to continue targeting dangerous criminals, while protecting hardworking families without legal residency in the country.

"In enshrining these new protections, it is important to note what the bill does not do," Brown wrote in a signing message. "This bill does not prevent or prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Department of Homeland Security from doing their own work in any way."

Legal experts have said federal officials may try to block the law in court to keep it from being implemented. Some doubt such challenges would be successful, pointing to the 10th Amendment and previous rulings in which courts have found the federal government can't compel local authorities to enforce federal laws.

On Thursday, Department of Justice spokesman Devin O'Malley declined comment on the agency's next move. Asked whether the administration would attempt to block the state law, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Thursday that federal officials "are spending every day we can trying to find the best way forward."

"The president will be laying out his responsible immigration plan over the next week," she said. "And I hope that California will push back on their governor's I think irresponsible decision moving forward."

Brown's decision comes as local and state governments are locked in legal battles with U.S. Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions over his move to slash federal grant funding from "sanctuary jurisdictions," where city and county agencies are limited when working with federal immigration officials. A Chicago federal judge largely blocked Sessions' effort just hours before SB 54 cleared the Legislature on Sept. 16.

Last month, Sessions called California's sanctuary state bill "unconscionable." Other federal officials also have sounded off against SB 54, suggesting illegal immigration is tied to increases in violent crime.

Throughout his campaign and in his tenure as president, Trump has tried to make the same connection, showcasing the relatives of people killed by immigrants in the country illegally. And one of his earliest executive orders put cities and counties on alert that they would lose federal funding if law enforcement did not cooperate with immigration agents.

The move has struck a bitter chord in California, home to at least 35 cities that have embraced the "sanctuary" label, and where Brown and Democratic lawmakers have passed legislation to extend financial aid, healthcare and driver's licenses to thousands of unauthorized immigrants. Other bills signed by Brown on Thursday would prevent some cities and counties from adding beds to immigrant detention centers, and would extend protections for immigrant workers and tenants.

In some places, the "sanctuary city" name is largely a symbolic message of political support for immigrants without legal residency. But other cities, most notably San Francisco and most recently Los Angeles, have cut ties with federal immigration officials and sought to build up social services for families, including city-funded legal aid.

The bill's author, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De León (D-Los Angeles), has countered that the state law is defensible in court and will send a strong message against new federal policies that he argues have pushed some families further into the shadows. Research has shown sanctuary cities have lower crime rates and that immigrants generally commit fewer crimes than U.S. citizens.

De León joined Assemblyman Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) and immigrant rights advocates at a press conference in Los Angeles on Thursday, saying the new law would put a kink in Trump's "perverse and inhumane deportation machine."

"California is building a wall of justice against President Trump's xenophobic, racist and ignorant immigration policies," he said to chants of "Si, se pudo," or "Yes, we could" from the crowd.
The final language of the new law was the result of months of tough negotiations between Brown, De León and law enforcement officials. It was the centerpiece of this year's legislative proposals in Sacramento that sought to challenge Trump's stance on illegal immigration and provide protections for families amid his threats of mass deportations.

The new law will largely prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from using either personnel or funds to hold, question or share information about people with federal immigration agents unless those individuals have been convicted of one or more offenses from a list of 800 crimes outlined in a 2013 state law.

Federal immigration authorities will still be able to work with state corrections officials — a key concession Brown had demanded — and will be able to enter county jails to question immigrants. But the state attorney general's office will be required to publish guidelines and training recommendations to limit immigration agents' access to personal information. And all law enforcement agencies will have to produce annual reports on their participation in task forces that involve federal agencies, as well as on the people they transfer to immigration authorities.

The new law doesn't specify what happens if local law enforcement agencies don't comply with the new rules. But the attorney general has broad authority under the state Constitution to prosecute police and sheriff's agencies that don't comply.

For many officers across the state, the expanded restrictions won't change much. Some police and sheriff's agencies already have developed similar boundaries against working with immigration agents, either through their own policies or under local "sanctuary city" rules.

For other officers, though, the legislation would set new guidelines and has long divided police chiefs and sheriffs. The California Police Chiefs Assn. moved its official position from opposed to neutral after final changes to the bill last month, but the California Sheriffs Assn. remained opposed.
Christine Mai-Duc ✔ @cmaiduc
Romulo Avelica-Gonzalez thanks Brown for signing bill. He says it'll allow immigrants to drop off kids at school, go to doctor w/o fear
8:34 AM - Oct 5, 2017
 1 1 Reply   Retweets   2 2 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck supported the bill, joining others who said entangling police and federal immigration forces can have a negative effect on public safety, because crime victims and witnesses without legal status may refuse to come forward to authorities out of fear of deportation. L.A. County Sheriff Jim McDonnell was a vocal opponent. Even so, he said the final version of the bill, though not perfect, "reflects much of what the LASD implemented years ago and the work is well underway."

Immigrant rights advocates said its passage would help keep thousands of families together. Angela Chan, policy director at the Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus, said it will "improve protections for immigrants in most counties in California."

"This victory is the result of community organizing and directly impacted immigrants sharing their stories about being turned over to ICE at the hands of local law enforcement," she said. "And we look forward to working to pass stronger protections for immigrants throughout California in the years to come."
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 52770

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #106 on: October 12, 2017, 09:17:06 AM »

DOJ issues 'last chance' warning to sanctuary cities
Fox News

If the cities do not comply they could be required to pay back millions of dollars in federal money.

The Justice Department on Thursday delivered a “last chance” warning to cities suspected of having "sanctuary" policies to drop their resistance to federal immigration officials.

In a notice reviewed by Fox News, the DOJ announced that five jurisdictions “have preliminarily been found to have laws, policies, or practices that may violate” a key federal statute concerning cooperation with federal immigration officials.

They are: Chicago, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia and Cook County, Ill.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a written statement that sanctuary cities “adopt the view that the protection of criminal aliens is more important than the protection of law-abiding citizens and of the rule of law.”

Acting Director Thomas Homan pushes back against California's policy on 'America's Newsroom.'Video
ICE chief: Sanctuary cities make our job 'almost impossible'

“I urge all jurisdictions found to be out of compliance in this preliminary review to reconsider their policies that undermine the safety of their residents,” he said.

The statute in question generally bars local officials from restricting the sharing of immigration and citizenship information with federal immigration officials.


Sessions earlier this year said any cities and counties out of compliance could lose certain federal grant money.

However, a federal judge in September blocked Sessions from withholding those grants for now, while a Chicago lawsuit against the department plays out in the courts.

Thursday’s notice shows the Department of Justice is still aiming to make a final determination on which jurisdictions are skirting the law. 

The Justice Department said the five cities and counties in question will have until Oct. 27 to “provide additional evidence that the interpretation and application of their laws, policies, or practices comply with the statute.”

Officials in those jurisdictions have defended their policies. After the September court ruling, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel called the decision “an affirmation of the rule of law."

According to the Chicago Tribune, he called it a “clear rejection of the false choice that the Trump Justice Department wanted Chicago to make between our values, our principles and our priorities."

Several additional jurisdictions had been flagged in a May 2016 inspector general report as having laws that might conflict with federal requirements. But the DOJ on Thursday cleared those jurisdictions, including Milwaukee and the state of Connecticut.
Report to moderator   Logged
Las Vegas
Getbig V
Posts: 6910

In God We Trust !

« Reply #107 on: October 12, 2017, 09:55:17 AM »

Wonder how all the rest escaped notice, or so it would seem.  Whose dick did they pull, more like.  Some of the worst aren't on there.
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 52770

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #108 on: October 23, 2017, 04:42:44 PM »

Kate Steinle case that led to debate over US sanctuary cities, Trump’s call for wall is under way in court
Fox News

Laura Wilkerson, whose son was killed by an illegal immigrant, discusses the highly-publicized trial.

Kate Steinle’s murder fueled national outrage and became a flashpoint in the divisive debate over the twin issues of illegal immigration and U.S. sanctuary cities, and now her accused killer is getting his day in court.

A homeless illegal immigrant from Mexico is charged with the slaying which became a signature issue for Donald Trump as he was running for president. Trump invoked the murder in calling for the construction of a wall on the Mexican border and stepping up deportations and cracking down on illegal immigration.

The 32-year-old woman and her father James Steinle were strolling on San Francisco's Embarcadero on July 1, 2015 when she was shot.

Her father testified Monday that before she died, she said to him: “Help me, dad.”

Two days after Steinle was shot, Trump released a tough statement on the killing.

"This senseless and totally preventable act of violence committed by an illegal immigrant is yet another example of why we must secure our border immediately," he said.

"This is an absolutely disgraceful situation, and I am the only one that can fix it. Nobody else has the guts to even talk about it. That won't happen if I become president."

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 54, admits shooting Steinle but says it was an accident.

A jury of six men and six women began hearing arguments Monday in the courtroom of Judge Samuel Feng.

“This is the gun fired at a young woman named Kathryn Steinle on pier 14,” prosecutor Diana Garcia told the jury in her opening statement.

She pointed to Zarate, and said, “She’s dead because this man pointed a gun in her direction and pulled the trigger.”

Garcia said the prosecution’s evidence includes surveillance video from a fire station that shows Steinle falling to the ground and a splash from when Zarate threw the gun in the water.

She concluded by telling the jury when they see the video, hear the defendant’s words, hear from witnesses and hear more about the gun, they will conclude that Zarate knew what he was doing and that “he meant to shoot people on pier 14 and ended up killing Kate Steinle.”

Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said during his opening statement that his client hadn't stolen the gun, but rather found it on the pier, and it went off as he unwrapped the T-shirt.

Criminal defense attorney Philip Holloway, a former assistant district attorney, says San Francisco's sanctuary city policy led to the murder of Kate Steinle.Video
Attorney: San Francisco has Steinle's blood on their hands

He showed the jury surveillance video, attempting to prove that someone else could have left the gun where Zarate was sitting and argued that Zarate threw the gun in the water to make it stop firing.

Gonzalez portrayed Zarate as a homeless man who didn't speak English well and didn't really understand what was going on. The attorney showed video from Zarate's initial police interview in which he repeatedly said he didn't know why he shot Steinle and why he was aiming in that area.

But the prosecution said when Zarate was interviewed by detectives he first said the gun went off when he stepped on it, and then said it was wrapped up in a bag and that it somehow went off. Garcia said that eventually he admitted to deliberately firing the gun, but without explaining why, except at some point to say he was aiming at a seal.

The defense attorney told the jury that there has "never been a ricochet charge as a murder in San Francisco" and that an expert "couldn't make this shot if he tried."

Gonzalez concluded by saying, "If this had happened to a college kid or a Swedish tourist - if they had accidentally fired a gun - would they be charged with murder?"

The jury also heard from Jim Steinle, who was with his daughter on the pier when she was shot.

In a brief but emotional testimony, Jim described his close relationship with his daughter and their love of taking selfies together, one of which was taken moments before the shooting.

He cried on the stand as he recounted the details of his daughter's death. Jim said after she was shot and fell to the ground, "she looked at me with her arms out and said, 'help me dad' ...and I grabbed her and held her."

Zarate had a criminal record and had been deported several times at the time of the shooting.

Just before the shooting, he had been transferred to the San Francisco County Jail after serving a prison sentence for illegal reentry.

He was being held on a 20-year-old marijuana charge that prosecutors dismissed.

The San Francisco sheriff then released Zarate from jail despite a federal immigration request to detain him for at least two more days for deportation. The sheriff's department said it was following the city's sanctuary policy of limited cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

San Francisco, as a sanctuary city, honors immigration holds only if the person has a violent record or if a judge vetted the hold or approved a warrant.

At the time of the Steinle shooting, Trump was trailing most of the field running for the GOP presidential nomination.

Two weeks later after issuing his statement he was in first place.

As president, Trump has threatened to withhold federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities such as San Francisco. The threat has been met with lawsuits to stop the president from moving forward.

The gun Zarate fired had been stolen from the car of a Bureau of Land Management ranger several days before the shooting.

The trial is expected to last four to six weeks.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 52770

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #109 on: November 21, 2017, 03:51:22 PM »

Trump order on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge
Fox News

A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued the ruling Monday in lawsuits brought by San Francisco and Santa Clara counties. According to the judge, Trump can’t set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.

The judge had previously put a temporary hold on the executive order.

The Trump administration has appealed that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Report to moderator   Logged
Las Vegas
Getbig V
Posts: 6910

In God We Trust !

« Reply #110 on: November 21, 2017, 04:38:39 PM »

So they put Matt Gonzalez on the case of the pier shooting.  Big surprise.
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
Posts: 6910

In God We Trust !

« Reply #111 on: December 22, 2017, 07:32:09 PM »

Kinda old news, but: Pier shooting guy ended up with only a relatively minor thing stuck to him, which they're looking to fix (and realistically may succeed in doing).  

Unbelievable.  This guy may be the luckiest SOB to ever jump our border.  Just incredible that he could come here and pull the shit that he did, and get away with it.
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 52770

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #112 on: January 24, 2018, 12:42:13 PM »

DOJ threatens to subpoena sanctuary cities – prompting mayors to boycott Trump meeting
By Jake Gibson,   Alex Pappas   | Fox News

Exclusive: Attorney General Jeff Sessions sounds off on the shocking not guilty verdict in the Kate Steinle murder trial. Plus, Sessions comments on Mike Flynn's plea. #Tucker

The Justice Department on Wednesday threatened to subpoena 23 jurisdictions if they don’t turn over information about their "sanctuary" policies -- triggering a backlash from mayors across the country who pulled out of a White House meeting.

In letters to New York City, Chicago, San Francisco and other jurisdictions, the Justice Department demanded records relating to whether these localities are "unlawfully restricting information sharing by law enforcement officers with federal immigration authorities."

Department of Justice speaks out on 'Fox & Friends' on sending document requests on possible violations of federal law.Video
DOJ targets 23 jurisdictions on immigration policy

“I continue to urge all jurisdictions under review to reconsider policies that place the safety of their communities and their residents at risk,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “Protecting criminal aliens from federal immigration authorities defies common sense and undermines the rule of law.”

The letter drew a fiery response from several Democratic mayors -- including New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio -- who said they would boycott a planned working session with the president at the White House on Wednesday.

“I will NOT be attending today’s meeting at the White House after @realDonaldTrump’s Department of Justice decided to renew their racist assault on our immigrant communities,” de Blasio tweeted. “It doesn’t make us safer and it violates America’s core values.”

Bill de Blasio

I will NOT be attending today’s meeting at the White House after @realDonaldTrump’s Department of Justice decided to renew their racist assault on our immigrant communities. It doesn’t make us safer and it violates America’s core values.
7:33 AM - Jan 24, 2018
 1,883 1,883 Replies   1,485 1,485 Retweets   5,002 5,002 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who serves as the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, also said he would boycott the meeting.

"Unfortunately, the Trump administration’s decision to threaten mayors and demonize immigrants yet again – and use cities as political props in the process – has made this meeting untenable," Landrieu said.

The White House said the meeting would still take place with mayors who chose to still participate.

"We are disappointed that a number of mayors have chosen to make a political stunt instead of participating in an important discussion with the President and his administration," said White House Deputy Press Secretary Lindsay Walters.

The letters from the Justice Department state that jurisdictions that fail to respond will be subject to a DOJ subpoena.

“Sanctuary cities” is a phrase typically used to describe jurisdictions that restrict local law enforcement from sharing information with the federal government about the immigration status of those in custody.

“We have seen too many examples of the threat to public safety represented by jurisdictions that actively thwart the federal government’s immigration enforcement—enough is enough,” Sessions said.

The DOJ letter requests documents “reflecting any orders, directives, instructions, or guidance to your law enforcement employees” about how to “communicate with the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and/or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”

If these jurisdictions can't prove they are complying with federal law, senior DOJ officials told Fox News, federal funding could be withheld and the DOJ may demand the return of 2016 federal funding some of the cities have already received.

“We’ve given them federal dollars – your taxpayer dollars – to cooperate with federal law enforcement,” Sarah Isgur Flores, a spokeswoman for the DOJ, said Wednesday on "Fox & Friends." “They didn’t have to take that money, but they did. And when they took it, they said they would comply with federal law. So what we’re saying is if we find out you’re not complying with federal law, we’re taking the tax dollars back.”

The administration, though, has faced setbacks over trying to withhold federal funds for sanctuary cities. A federal judge in Chicago ruled against Sessions in September; a judge in San Francisco also blocked President Trump’s executive order that denied federal funding to these cities.

"President Trump might be able to tweet whatever comes to mind, but he can't grant himself new authority because he feels like it," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in November, after the city filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the president's executive order.

The jurisdictions that received letters on Wednesday, according to the Justice Department: Chicago; Cook County, Ill; New York City; the state of California; Albany, N.Y.; Berkeley, Calif.; Bernalillo County, N.M.; Burlington, Vt.; the city and county of Denver, Colo.;  Fremont, Calif.; Jackson, Miss.; King County, Wash.; Lawrence, Mass.; City of Los Angeles, Calif.; Louisville, Ky.; Monterey County, Calif.; Sacramento County, Calif.; the city and county of San Francisco; Sonoma County, Calif.; Watsonville, Calif.; West Palm Beach, Fla.; the state of Illinois and the state of Oregon.

All 23 of these jurisdictions were previously contacted by the Justice Department, which raised concerns about its laws, policies and practices.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!