Thread: Sanctuary Policy...what does it say?

William sent me thinking you would be able to help me get answers to my questions.

I have tried to locate Chicago/Cook County's Sanctuary Policy via the internet without any luck, I've contacted Cook County but they couldn't find it on their site either. It is not yet the transparent government they pledge to be.

If anybody has a link to a site(s) that has the wording to Cook County's Sanctuary Policy, its amendments and Cook County's employee policy regarding these Sanctuary Rules I would sure like to see it.

Please help me!
THANKS!

BookmarkCHAPTER 2-173
ACTIONS RELATED TO CITIZENSHIP OR RESIDENCY STATUS

2-173-010 Definitions.

2-173-020 Requesting information prohibited.

2-173-030 Disclosing information prohibited.

2-173-040 Conditioning benefits, services, or opportunities on immigrant status prohibited.

2-173-050 No private cause of action.

2-173-060 Exchanging file information.

2-173-070 Severability.
Bookmark2-173-010 Definitions.

As used in this ordinance, the following words and phrases shall mean and include:

(a) Agency. “Agencyâ€

The ENTIRE NATION is a sanctuary for illegal aliens.

There are three, very efficient, and very well known solutions to stopping illegal immigration from Mexico. None of which the US government is willing to do, for fear it will upset the underground economy or the new political monster now growing in the United States, namely illegal aliens from Mexico.

Here they are:

1: Convict and imprison employers of illegal aliens.

2: End anchor baby automatic citizenship.
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-249629.html

3: Build and patrol an effective physical wall the entire length of the 1,969 mile long Mexican border.


HOW CENTRAL IS THE ANCHOR BABY ISSUE TO IMMIGRATION REFORM
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-249629.html

This is the first time I have actually seen a written sanctuary policy. Most cities do not write them and it is just " understood." By writing a policy in this manner is this in fact not a subversion of Federal Immigration policy , and the creation of an immigration policy within the confines of Chicago contrary to Federal law? Those agencies operating within the incorporated boundaries of the city seem to be governed by city ordinance , even when dispensing services or benefits provided by the state which may in fact originate in part or whole from the federal government. Inquiry into ones legal status seems to be prohibited within these limits , even when one may not be qualified to receive said benefits or services under superseding law and or jurisdiction of the agency dispensing benefits or services. It would seem that any programs dispensing government funds, to which illegal immigrants are not normally entitled to, would have the right as well as the duty to determine a persons eligibility for any compensation given. This appears to conflict with the letter of the law and the ordinance itself. A written " sanctuary policy" would appear to violate Federal law in the same manner that Utah creating it''s own guest worker program violates federal law.

I'm searching for the NYC laws and haven't had any luck yet. Apparently the site I found the Chicago codes at needs permission from individual city/state governments to provide them.

Well anyway on my search I came across a great article from 2005 and it happens to already be on Alipac here:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-146274.html

A very good read.

Woo Hoo, I found this in a PDF format that I can't copy/paste:

http://www.nycourts.gov/library/queens/ ... ord124.pdf

Topsecret! Baby!
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-202013.html

Is this a great state or what?

4. Chicago - All of Illinois too!

U.S. Senator Dick Durbin is a good friend of illegal aliens and a stalwart supporter of the DREAM Act.

U.S. Representative Luis Gutierrez is your other friend. He’s on record saying, “I have only one loyalty, and that’s to the immigrant community.â€

I found this very interesting:

The Sanctuary Spat
The Giuliani campaign says his immigration policy in New York wasn't like that of other cities. That's not true.
factcheck.org
by Lori Robertson
December 10, 2007

Summary
In a Nov. 29 article we faulted former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani for saying flatly that New York "was not a sanctuary city" for illegal aliens. We pointed out that the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service listed the city among 32 that followed "sanctuary policies" and placed it under the heading of "sanctuary cities." Giuliani campaign officials later complained to us that the CRS was mistaken and said we should have dug more deeply and reported the CRS’ error. They characterized the CRS list as one intended to include only cities that do not allow local law enforcement to cooperate with federal authorities, and they said New York didn’t belong on such a list.

We took up their challenge, digging into the specific policies of cities on CRS' list, including those that openly call themselves "sanctuary" cities, and comparing those policies to Giuliani’s. We found the following:

The policy ordered by Giuliani as it relates to law enforcement differs only in minor respects from those of cities, including San Francisco and Cambridge, Mass., that openly called themselves "sanctuary" cities or places of "refuge." New York police could turn over the names of illegal aliens to federal immigration authorities if “suspectedâ€

In today's world and considering our continuing war on terror , activities of cartels , and the increasing evidence of " lone wolf " terrorists who may or may not be American Citizens , these policies should be abolished. It should be self evident that these so called sanctuary policies adopted by various local governing bodies inhibit the gathering and dissemination of intelligence related to activities of Foreign Nationals within the borders of the United States. Consider the fact that a person whether acting in concert with others or alone to precipitate an terroristic act desires anonymity and secrecy while planning and preparing for any such attack. Accidental or coincidental contact with any law enforcement official could possibly be the only occurrence of an opportunity to thwart such an attack. If one were to be intelligent enough in their choice of a base of operation for these purposes certainly a so called sanctuary city might be the perfect location. If such a person were stopped for a traffic violation for example , there would be little chance of that event being reported to those agencies task with National security. The cross referencing of the identity , location or purpose of that person being in the country would not be entered into any database that might possibly flag that person as one who had committed another crime in another jurisdiction or might be on a watch list of some other law enforcement agency. Sanctuary policies place the personal safety of the Citizenry of these cities, towns or states in jeopardy from garden variety criminals as well as possibly creating a haven for other elements who may have a variety of reasons and motivations to further more destructive agendas impacting the country outside the limits of these sanctuary jurisdictions.