Time’s up! Trump’s Justice Dept. issues final warning to ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions

By Andrea Noble - The Washington Times - Thursday, October 12, 2017

The Justice Department has issued a final warning to five of the 10 jurisdictions it accused of having “sanctuary” policies that defy federal immigration laws, saying they have until Oct. 27 to submit additional evidence proving compliance or risk losing grant money.

Letters conveying the Justice Department’s preliminary assessment of the jurisdictions’ local laws and policies were sent Wednesday. Cook County, Illinois; Chicago; New Orleans; New York City; and Philadelphia were all warned that the Justice Department believes they cities have laws of policies that run afoul of federal immigration law.

At stake is millions of dollars in federal grant money that is supposed to go only to jurisdictions that comply with section 1373 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code. That law prohibits policies that restrict communications with federal immigration authorities “regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

The letters sent to each city highlighted specific laws that the Justice Department has identified as being in violation of 1373.

In the case of Philadelphia, officials said an executive order that prevents local officials from providing immigration authorities with any notice of a person’s release from custody unless the person has been convicted of certain felony offenses is a violation.

A police policy that prevents the transmission of the immigration status of any immigrant who is a victim of a crime was also highlighted as a violation.

Two other jurisdictions — Milwaukee County, Wisconsin and the state of Connecticut — were told Wednesday that a preliminary assessment found no evidence that their laws violated 1373.

“I commend the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office and the State of Connecticut on their commitment to complying with Section 1373, and 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,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “We urge jurisdictions to not only comply with Section 1373 but to establish sensible and effective partnerships to properly process criminal aliens.”

The Justice Department had earlier cleared Clark County, Nevada and Miami-Dade County of any violations of federal law.

Officials had also put the California Board of State and Community Corrections on notice, but the state was not included in the Justice Department’s follow up warning issued Wednesday. It was not immediately clear why it was not included.

The Obama administration first raised the issue of potential violations in 10 jurisdictions last year, and the Trump administration followed up by sending letters demanding proof of compliance.

“Jurisdictions that adopt so-called ‘sanctuary policies’ also 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,” Mr. Sessions said.

The jurisdictions accused of violating federal immigration statutes had previously defended their local policies, saying they were compliant and should not lose grant funding.

Philadelphia officials struck a defiant note, writing in a letter to the Justice Department that a local policy banning city officials from inquiring about residents’ immigration status does not violate federal law because if the city doesn’t have the information, its officials can’t be required to share it.

“The federal statute does not require cities to inquire about or collect immigration status information, but only prohibits cities from restricting the sharing of that information if they have it,” wrote City Solicitor Sozi Pedro Tulante.

In the DOJ assessment, officials wrote that an executive order may be in violation of federal immigration law and city officials would have to certify that the policy does not ban local police from sharing information with federal immigration authorities with federal immigration officers.

“The Department has determined that Philadelphia would need to certify that it interprets and applies this Executive Order to not restrict Philadelphia officers from sharing information regarding immigration status,” DOJ officials wrote.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...jurisdictions/

Quote:

---

Officials had also put the California Board of State and Community Corrections on notice, but the state was not included in the Justice Department’s follow up warning issued Wednesday. It was not immediately clear why it was not included.

---

Wonder why?

They are probably still working on it. They had been working on the others weeks if not months before California passed its law, which was rather recent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean

Wonder why?

---

I suspect Attorney General Sessions is working on a more direct attack on California's new sanctuary state law. I expect a lawsuit against the state of California's new law in the future. I just don't see how the law can go unchallenged.

Quote:

---

Letters conveying the Justice Department’s preliminary assessment of the jurisdictions’ local laws and policies were sent Wednesday. Cook County, Illinois; Chicago; New Orleans; New York City; and Philadelphia were all warned that the Justice Department believes they cities have laws of policies that run afoul of federal immigration law.

---

Yes indeedee, they do! No federal funds!

SHARE

JUSTICE NEWS

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, October 12, 2017


Justice Department Provides Last Chance for Cities to Show 1373 Compliance

The Justice Department today responded to seven jurisdictions following a preliminary assessment of the jurisdictions’ compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373. These jurisdictions were identified in a May 2016 report by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General as having laws that potentially violate 8 U.S.C. 1373.

The following jurisdictions have preliminarily been found to have laws, policies, or practices that may violate 8 U.S.C. 1373:

• Cook County, Illinois;
• Chicago, Illinois;
• New Orleans, Louisiana;
• New York, New York; and
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The department found no evidence that the following jurisdictions are currently out of compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373:

• Milwaukee County, Wisconsin; and
• the State of Connecticut.

The department also previously sent letters to the following jurisdictions notifying them that the department found no evidence that they are currently out of compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373:

• Clark County, Nevada; and
• Miami-Dade County, Florida.

Jurisdictions that were found to have possible violations of 8 U.S.C 1373 will have until Oct. 27, 2017 to provide additional evidence that the interpretation and application of their laws, policies, or practices comply with the statute.

“Jurisdictions that adopt so-called ‘sanctuary policies’ also 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,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “I commend the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office and the State of Connecticut on their commitment to complying with Section 1373, and 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. We urge jurisdictions to not only comply with Section 1373 but to establish sensible and effective partnerships to properly process criminal aliens.”


Attachment(s):
Download Chicago 1373 Compliance Determination Letter
Download Connecticut 1373 Compliance Determination Letter
Download Cook County 1373 Compliance Determination Letter
Download Milwaukee County 1373 Compliance Determination Letter
Download New Orleans 1373 Compliance Determination Letter
Download New York 1373 Compliance Determination Letter
Download Philadelphia 1373 Compliance Determination Letter


Topic(s):
Immigration


Component(s):
Office of the Attorney General


Press Release Number:
17-1140

Updated October 12, 2017

https://www.justice.gov/opa/<acronym title="Google Page Ranking">pr</acronym>/justice-department-provides-last-chance-cities-show-1373-compliance

Judge Blocks DOJ from Tying Grant Program to Immigration Enforcement

The Justice Department had sought to force sanctuary cities to fully comply with federal immigration enforcement.

By Alan Neuhauser, Staff Writer |Sept. 15, 2017, at 5:13 p.m.

https://www.usnews.com/static/img/usn-logo-large.svg
Judge Blocks DOJ from Tying Grant Program to Immigration Enforcement


A federal judge in Chicago on Friday issued a nationwide injunction largely halting a Justice Department directive that had required so-called "sanctuary cities" to comply with federal immigration enforcement or risk or risk millions of dollars in law enforcement grants.

U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber of the Northern District of Illinois ruled that while the Justice Department can require cities, counties and states to certify that they are complying with federal laws, it cannot implement other conditions without the express approval of Congress.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions had announced in July that jurisdictions would need to give immigration agents access to their jails and provide up to 48 hours' notice before they release an inmate who is both in the country illegally and wanted by immigration authorities. If they did not cooperate, they could lose access to Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, which were allocated about $376 million by Congress in fiscal 2016.

Chicago, which expected to receive $3.2 million through the program this year to buy equipment, sued weeks later to stop the order from taking effect, contending that the order amounted to executive overreach.

Leinenweber, in his ruling, sided with the city.

"The Executive Branch cannot impose the conditions without Congressional authority, and that authority has not been conferred," the judge, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his ruling. "The notice and access conditions therefore exceed statutory authority, and, consequently, the efforts to impose them violate the separation of powers doctrine."

The preliminary injunction does not represent a ruling on the case itself, but it does indicate Leinenweber's view that Chicago is "likely to succeed on the merits" of its case.


It also reflects his position that Chicago faced "irreparable harm" if the conditions were allowed to remain in place on the Byrne grants.

"The harm to the city's relationship with the immigrant community if it should accede to the conditions is irreparable. Once such trust is lost, it cannot be repaired through an award of money damages," Leinenweber found.

Simply telling the city it could choose to decline the Byrne grant and leave the sanctuary policies in place, as the Justice Department contended, was also untenable.

"Forcing the City either to decline the grant funds based on what it believes to be unconstitutional conditions or accept them and face an irreparable harm … supports irreparable harm," the judge wrote.

The ruling is the latest setback for the Trump administration in its attempt to crack down on sanctuary jurisdictions and illegal immigration. A federal judge in California in April largely blocked a section of President Donald Trump's executive order that would freeze billions of dollars in federal funds to so-called "sanctuary cities" that do not fully cooperate with immigration enforcement.

Thw victory is sure to be savored by political leaders in Chicago. Sessions and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat, have been at loggerheads since the start of the Trump administration.

As Sessions and President Donald Trump have repeatedly invoked Chicago and its soaring crime rate to illustrate the threat of a potential crime wave nationwide – and, by implication, the type of lawlessness evinced by sanctuary policies – Emanuel has become one of the administration's most vocal critics and an outspoken opponent of its effort to ramp up immigration enforcement.


Leinenweber did allow a third provision to remain in place: a requirement that jurisdictions show they are complying with all applicable federal laws, including U.S. Code Section 1373, which prohibits restrictions from enacting any policy that prevents public employees from sharing someone's immigration status with the federal government.

"The most natural reading of the statute authorizes the attorney general to require a certification of compliance with all other applicable federal laws, which by the plainest definition includes Section 1373," Leienweber wrote. "The court finds that the attorney general has statutory authority to impose the compliance condition on the Byrne JAG grant."

https://www.usnews.com/news/national...on-enforcement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean

Wonder why?

---

I'm speculating that since the law wasn't passed yet and doesn't take effect until the end of the year, the DOJ was dealing with current violators, not future violators.

Georgia cities limiting cooperation with ICE amid Trump’s crackdown

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean

Wonder why?

---

Probably because Jerry Brown entire existence is about protecting illegal aliens and the only thing
that would change his mind is sitting in jail.

And there are statues where the DOJ can criminally charge Jerry Brown.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
__________________________________________________ _______________________
Washington, D.C. 20531
October 11, 2017

The Honorable Jim Kenney
City of Philadelphia
1401 JFK Blvd., Room 1430
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1687

Dear Mayor Kenney,
Your FY 2016 Byrne JAG grant award, required you to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373; to undertake a review to validate your jurisdiction’s compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373; and to submit documentation, including an official legal opinion from counsel, adequately supporting the validation. Thank you for your recent submission. The Department of Justice has reviewed your submission, all attached documentation, and your jurisdiction’s laws, policies, and practices relating to compliance with section 1373, to the extent they were provided or are readily available.

This letter is to inform you that, based on a preliminary review, the Department has determined that your jurisdiction appears to have laws, policies, or practices that violate 8 U.S.C. § 1373. These laws, policies, or practices include, but may not be limited to:
 Executive Order No. 5-16. Section 1 of the Executive Order states that notice of a person’s release from custody shall not be provided, “unless such person is being released after conviction for a first or second degree felony involving violence and the detainer is supported by a judicial warrant.”1 The Department has determined that this section restricts the sharing of information regarding immigration status in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a).

Police Commissioner Memorandum No. 01-06. Section III.C of the Memorandum states that “immigrants who are victims of crimes will not have their status as an immigrant transmitted in any manner.” The Department has determined that this Memorandum restricts the sharing of information regarding immigration status in violation of 8 U.S.C.

An ICE detainer form ordinarily requests that a jurisdiction (1) provide advance notice of the alien’s release; and (2) maintain custody of the alien for up to 48 hours beyond the scheduled time of release. The Department is not relying on Philadelphia’s restriction of the latter form of cooperation in this preliminary assessment.

§ 1373(a). It is not the Department of Justice’s nor the Department of Homeland Security’s policy or practice to request information from state and local jurisdictions regarding the immigration status of victims. There are, however, instances where the
Department finds that requesting this information could be appropriate, such as where aperson is both a perpetrator and a victim.

Additionally, based on this preliminary review, the Department has noted that the following laws, policies or practices may violate 8 U.S.C. § 1373, depending on how your jurisdiction interprets and applies them. These laws, policies, or practices include, but may
not be limited to:
Executive Order No. 8-09. Section 2(b) of the Executive Order states that police officers “shall not . . . inquire about a person’s immigration status,” unless certain limited exceptions apply. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1373(b)(1), however, Philadelphia may not “in any
way restrict” the “requesting” of “information regarding . . . immigration status” from federal immigration officers. On its face, the Department has determined that the Executive Order appears to bar Philadelphia officers from requesting information regarding immigration status from federal immigration officers. In order to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, the Department has determined that Philadelphia would need to certify that it interprets and applies this Executive Order to not restrict Philadelphia officers and
employees from requesting information regarding immigration status from federal immigration officers. The Department is thus requesting Philadelphia to certify that it has communicated this interpretation to its officers and employees. If Philadelphia cannot provide this certification, the Department has determined that this provision
violates section 1373(b).

Executive Order No. 8-09. Section 3 of the Executive Order states that Philadelphia officers and employees “shall [not] disclose” information “relating to an individual’s immigration status.” Section 3(b)(2), however, allows disclosure when “required by law.” In order to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, the Department has determined that
Philadelphia would need to certify that it interprets and applies this Executive Order to not restrict Philadelphia officers from sharing information regarding immigration status with federal immigration officers. The Department has also determined that Philadelphia
would need to certify that it has communicated this interpretation to its officers and employees. If Philadelphia cannot provide this certification, the Department has determined that this provision violates section 1373(a).

Police Commissioner Memorandum No. 01-06. Section III.A of the Memorandum statesthat officers shall not transmit “information relating to an immigrant” unless “required by law” or certain other exceptions apply. In order to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, the
Department has determined that Philadelphia would need to certify that it interprets and applies this policy to not restrict Philadelphia officers and employees from sharing information regarding immigration status with federal immigration officers. The
Department has also determined that Philadelphia would need to certify that it has communicated this interpretation to its officers and employees. If Philadelphia cannot provide this certification, the Department has determined that this provision violates
section 1373(a).

Your jurisdiction may submit a response to this preliminary assessment, as well as any
additional evidence you would like the Department to consider, before it reaches its final determination. Please submit all additional documentation by October 27, 2017. Once the Department has had an opportunity to review your submission, the Department will notify you of its final determination.

This letter reflects the Department’s preliminary assessment of your jurisdiction’s compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. This letter does not constitute final agency action and nothing in this letter creates any right or benefit enforceable at law against the United States.

Additionally, as the United States continues to collect information about your jurisdiction, it reserves the right to identify additional bases of potential violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1373.

Sincerely,
Alan Hanson
Acting Assistant Attorney General
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-re...03046/download

Lock up Jerry Brown, Bill DeBlasio, Gutierrez, Rahm Emanuel for starters!

DOJ says Conn. compliant with immigration laws