New AG Can ‘Flip the Switch’ To Stop Funding Sanctuary Cities - Day 1

[jimnyc]

So yeah, some cities out there want to flaunt the law and have these sanctuary cities. Quite a few went public since the election stating they will remain a sanctuary city and that no one should worry. --- Now they shouldn't whine and complain if/when they should lose funding in the future, or have funding taken back. This isn't rocket science, simply follow the law.

-----

New AG Can ‘Flip the Switch’ To Stop Funding Sanctuary Cities, Says Texas Congressman

HOUSTON, Texas – The Trump Administration will be able to “flip the switch” on federal funding to the nation’s top-ten sanctuary jurisdictions on day one, says U.S. Representative John Culberson (R-TX).
Speaking to a group of supporters in Houston this week, Culberson said existing law allows the Trump Administration to not only stop future funding to these jurisdictions, but actually take back past funding. Culberson, who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, said he has briefed members of the Trump transition team about the report from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Inspector General (OIG) that details the defunding process.

Using the “power of the purse” entrusted to Congress, Culberson told the gathered supporters he has been able to “step on the air hose” of the DOJ and force the certification of ten sanctuary jurisdictions as not being in compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, an existing law that requires 100 percent cooperation from local and state jurisdictions in order to receive DOJ grant funding.

The report from the OIG report states:


Section 1373 states in relevant part:
(a) In General. Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, 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.

(b) Additional authority of government entities. Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:

( 1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2) Maintaining such information.
(3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.

The report continues, explaining the legislative intent of the law to be, “to prevent any State or local law, ordinance, executive order, policy, constitutional provision, or decision of any Federal or State court that prohibits or in any way restricts any communication between State and local officials and the INS.”

“99 percent is not good enough,” Culberson stated. “These jurisdictions must cooperate 100 percent in order to qualify for these DOJ grants. They must choose between protecting illegal aliens and receiving federal funds.”

Rest here - http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/12/18/new-ag-can-flip-switch-stop-funding-sanctuary-cities-says-texas-congressman/

[NightTrain]

I can't wait to see how fast they cave. It's going to be beautiful.

[Elessar]

Too many people really misunderstand federal grants and funding.

The new administration can flip that switch in an instant.

To be eligible for them, you have to be compliant with federal law and statutes.

Example: To be awarded federal grants for FEMA or DHS monies, even a local government
has to be compliant with the National Disaster Preparedness Plan, which is federal law created
by the GWB administration. It applies to cities, counties, and state's governments.

This was partly a result of 9/11, and solidified by Katrina in Louisiana - who was not compliant.
They had no DPP on file.

[fj1200]

So yeah, some cities out there want to flaunt the law and have these sanctuary cities. Quite a few went public since the election stating they will remain a sanctuary city and that no one should worry. --- Now they shouldn't whine and complain if/when they should lose funding in the future, or have funding taken back. This isn't rocket science, simply follow the law.

-----


Too many people really misunderstand federal grants and funding.

The new administration can flip that switch in an instant.

To be eligible for them, you have to be compliant with federal law and statutes.

Not as easy as "flipping a switch" methinks.

Sanctuary Cities Are Safe, Thanks to Conservatives (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-29/sanctuary-cities-are-safe-thanks-to-conservatives)
President-elect Donald Trump says he will make “sanctuary cities” help deport immigrants by taking away (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-11-16/sanctuary-city-mayors-gird-for-fight-as-trump-threatens-budgets) their federal funding if they don’t change their policies. The good news is that he and Congress can’t do it -- not without violating the Constitution.

Two core rules of federalism preclude Trump’s idea: The federal government can’t coerce states (or cities) into action with a financial “gun to the head,” according to Supreme Court precedent developed by Chief Justice John Roberts in the 2012 Affordable Care Act case (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393). And federal officials can’t “commandeer” state officials to do their work for them under a 1997 decision (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html) that involved gun purchases under the Brady Act.
...

Another federalism doctrine, known as the “anti-commandeering principle,” says that the federal government can’t require state officials to enforce federal law. Its leading formulation was written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in the 1997 case of Printz v. U.S. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZO.html)
The Printz decision struck down provisions of the Brady Act that required state and local law enforcement officials to do background checks of firearm purchasers. Scalia reasoned that the federal system separates state officials from the executive chain of command that covers federal employees. And he concluded that the constitutional system of federalism bars Congress from pressing state officials into service to execute federal laws.
That’s exactly what Trump wants to make city officials do: cooperate in the enforcement of federal law. The Constitution makes immigration law the purview of federal, not state government.
That means it would be illegal commandeering to require state officials to enforce federal law. Checking immigration status is no different from doing a gun background check.
It’s well worth noting that the gun-to-the-head doctrine and the anti-commandeering principle were both developed by conservative justices to thwart progressive results. But the beauty -- and the sting -- of constitutional law is that doctrines developed in one political setting can be deployed in another.

...