Posted on 08/14/2017 6:34:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
President Donald Trump issued an executive order to stop subsidizing cities which obstruct immigration law. Chicago filed suit in response. Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to continue collecting federal dollars while ignoring federal policy.
Chicago is a “sanctuary city.” That sounds nice, kind of like Oskar Schindler protecting Jews from the Nazis. It actually means protecting illegal aliens who commit crimes from being punished and deported. When President Donald Trump took office, some 300 jurisdictions, including 106 cities, actively interfered with federal law enforcement.
The Chicago case arose from a drunk driver and illegal alien. Shortly after completing probation for a DUI offense, Saul Chavez ran over and killed Dennis McCann, a pedestrian headed to dinner with a friend. Surely Chavez deserved to pay for his crime.
Yet Cook County refused to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when Chavez was released on bond. Naturally, he fled.
Noted Attorney General Jeff Sessions: “To a degree perhaps unsurpassed by any other jurisdiction, the political leadership of Chicago has chosen deliberately and intentionally to adopt a policy that obstructs this country’s lawful immigration system. They have demonstrated an open hostility to enforcing laws designed to protect law enforcement—Federal, state, and local—and reduce crime, and instead have adopted an official policy of protecting criminal aliens who prey on their own residents.
Responded the mayor: “Chicago will not be blackmailed into changing our values, and we are and will remain a welcoming city.” However, the president didn’t say that Chicago couldn’t continue to protect criminals. Only that it had to do so on its own dime. If the city wants federal dollars, it should comply with federal law.
Obviously, many Americans disagree passionately over the issue of immigration. But not in question is the fact that immigration law is made by Congress and enforced by the president.
Many other issues, such as welfare, are best left to states to decide and manage. But not immigration. Ultimately the federal government must decide who is allowed to enter America and under what conditions.
What the Constitution does not do, however, is allow the federal government to force states to enforce national law. It is federalism 101. The Supreme Court ruled that the Tenth Amendment prevents Uncle Sam from “commandeering” the states for its own purposes.
The result is a good balance. States (which include cities and other localities) cannot override federal policy. They cannot enact statutes inconsistent with national law. That includes who enters America.
However, states retain sufficient sovereignty to refuse to cooperate if they so choose. In this case, some local governments contend that cooperating with ICE discourages those here illegally from cooperating with law enforcement.
At the same time, however, as the president recognizes, the Constitution does not require Washington to hand out money to states. Indeed, such transfers can be bad policy, since local politicians have less incentive to be careful with “free money” from Congress. And it is especially bad policy for the national government to underwrite states which seek to thwart national policy.
Hence the Trump administration’s proposal to withhold money from so-called “sanctuary cities.” They still can act as they wish. But they will lose federal funds.
There’s some $27 billion at stake for the 106 self-declared municipal sanctuaries for law-breaking. Actually, the administration’s announcement alone was sufficient to scare Miami straight. Florida’s largest city agreed to stop obstructing immigration law enforcement.
The more general reaction, however, was for recipients to run to court, tying up the administration’s proposal. New York and San Francisco are but two which say they are going to follow Chicago to the courthouse.
Of course, filing lawsuits now seems to be the “American way.” However, the Founders never intended for judges to rule the U.S. The people voted for political leaders who promised to clamp down on illegal immigration. As in the travel ban case, which is headed to the Supreme Court, where the president likely will be vindicated.
In the meantime, some states are acting to back federal law. In May Texas began implementing legislation which bars local officials from withholding immigration information from federal agencies. Bills have been introduced in at least 31 other states to bar cities and counties from becoming sanctuaries to illegal aliens and criminals.
For too long local officials have obstructed federal immigration law with impunity. The Constitution protects the right of states to say no. But the Constitution does not require national taxpayers to subsidize lawbreakers. The president’s message is simple: play ball or pay the price.
PING
Besides gaining more criminals under the guise of ‘sanctuary’, what does a self-proclaimed ‘sanctuary city’ gain?
It likely isn’t tax dollars, because many illegals are engaged in under-the-table dealings.
Is it FED welfare/social services money? If so, is that sufficient to pay for the added problems (crime, etc.) associated with being a ‘sanctuary city’?
Or is it under-the-table money the politicians receive from drug-related cartels and gangs?
.... “Chicago will not be blackmailed into changing our values, and we are and will remain a welcoming city.”....
That is costing the city lives and injury. But, it is the liberals’ way.
Great question. The answer, of course, is that the city loses, big time, in terms of increased crime and decreased entry level employment opportunities for bona fide citizens.
The winners are the people who run the cities, democrat politicians, who can count on the "immigrant" vote AND look like heroes to their delusional followers.
CHICAGO MAYOR RAHM EMANUEL STRONGLY DEFENDED "CHICAGO VALUES" (circa 2009)
Ballet dancer Mayor Rahm Emanuel gracefully plied into the controversy created after Alderman Proco Joe Moreno (1st ward) publicly announced his opposition to Chick-Fil-A opening in his ward b/c the Christian food company demurred WRT homo-marriages.
Mayor Rham chuckled while doing a graceful plie: "It's easy to do business in Chicago when you know 'the rules.' Chick-Fil-A can open in our town as long as it adopts 'Chicago Values'.....listed as follows: "
(1) weekly cash pay off to the alderman;
(2) hire six of the alderman's friends who work only random days of the month,
(3) BIG AL from the Mayor's office picks up all cash in brown paper bags at CFA's back door,
(4) Chick Fil A staff trained by Chicago PD to shoot 10-12 customers per month,
(5) Any CFA customers actually killed must be registered to vote as Democrats at the autopsies,
(6) $100,00 campaign contribution to Obama,
(7) free food to Jesse Jackson, Jr, who is now "convalescing in jail," b/c he screwed up buying Obama's Senate seat....and free sandwiches to ex-Gov Blago now in jail for running an auction to sell Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder.
Simply, criminals side with other criminals. The pols supporting “sanctuary” are criminals. Every one.
Illegal immigration costs Illinois $3.85 billion per year. This number is a low estimate in a particularly low year because of the budget crisis happening in Illinois currently. So let’s put that number in perspective.
Illinois is in a budget crisis and on the verge of bankruptcy. Their state debt is upwards of $64 billion. Their credit rating is a BBB-, which is one notch above a junk/non-investment rating. They are also projected to have their credit further downgraded.
Illinois also has unpaid bills upwards of $15 billion (with $800 million per year just in interest payments) and $130 billion in unfunded pension liabilities. Hell Illinois can’t even fund its lotteries anymore.
Why? Because Illinois can’t pass a budget. This doesn’t mean they stop spending though. In fact, the spending target for Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner is $37.3 billion for the upcoming fiscal year, and the House just agreed to cover $36.5 billion of that.
No matter which way you slice it, or what spending bill passes, illegal immigration will eat roughly 10% of that spending.--SNIP--
Heck, I'm just surprised the Mayor is even taking time from perusing his vast holdings (that would include his federal inheritance). Rahm's got a bundle to keep track of......the money just rolls in.......keeps rolling in.
=============================================
BACKSTORY---OBAMA GAVE RHAM EMANUEL TWO KEY JOBS Soon as they occupied the WH, Obama placed his COS Rahm Emanuel in control of the US Dept of the Treasury (oversees the IRS).
PAUSE TO REFLECT First-term Obama had tight control of Treasury; Obama calculatedly placed his then-COS Rahm Emanuel in a dual role.......in the WH and at Treasury. Obama had a stranglehold on Treasury via COS Rahm Emanuel's dual role
==========================================
THE SMOKING GUN---WSJ REPORT--On Jan 20, 2009 Timothy Geithner was appointed Obama's Secy of the Treasury. But within three weeks, the Obama White House tightened its grip on Treasury. Obama put his COS, Rahm Emanuel, in charge of Treasury---Rahm Emanuel's dual role was an unusual move.
When he got to Treasury, WH COS Rahm Emanuel was so involved in the inner workings that the phrase "Rahm wants it" had become an unofficial mantra among subservient govt staffers, prostrate in obeisance, scurrying to accede to Rahm's wishes, according to Treasury government officials. Reported by WSJ / 05/31/09
More here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124113406528875137.html
=============================================
==========================================
It is imperative that Pres Trump make an inquiry to the US Dept of the Treasury to ask what RAHM AND Obama were doing at the US Treasury after Obama got elected.
Treasury HAS a huge Rahm/Obama paper trail. One can get awfully rich awfully fast knowing the Fed's Treasury moves in advance.
The Iran connection could prove to be even more interesting considering the hundreds of millions Obama secretly gave to Iran. Where did he get all those tax dollars?
like the 55 mph speed limit of years ago.
The Feds couldn’t force the states to adhere but they could withhold road funds to the states when they didn’t.
POTUS should take this to SCOTUS as precedent was set in South Dakota v. Dole.
“Chicago will not be blackmailed into changing our values, and we are and will remain a welcoming city.” Could have fooled me as I always felt threatened just passing through the place.
Yet Cook County refused to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when Chavez was released on bond. Naturally, he fled.
___________________________________
why wasn’t he denied bond ???
did nobody consider he was a flight risk ???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.