Trump and Sessions Tackle the Sanctuary Cities Problem while ProgDems File Lawsuits to Try to Prevent the Use of Federal Law

We are in the middle of President Trump's historic trip around the Middle East in his effort to begin the peace process, not just between Israel and the Palestinians, but including Moslems of good faith everywhere who are ready to stand up to ISIS and Al-Qaida and get rid of the islamic terrorism that is ruining their children's hopes for a normal future. But, there are other stories -- one tracks the success President Trump and his administration are having in limiting illegal entry into the US and the Progressive Democrat demented effort to halt his success. • • • FEDERAL COURT CASES TO SUPPORT SANCTUARY CITY FUNDING. President Trump was recently handed another questionable legal defeat when a federal court California blocked his executive order calling on the Justice Department to yank grant money from sanctuary cities. Judge William H. Orrick, who has been accused by a political blog of buying his court seat by accepting his appointment from President Obama shortly after “bundling and donating at least $230,000” to Obama’s campaign, ruled last Tuesday that the US government must continue providing money to counties that defy federal law and protect illegal aliens from the consequences of their law-breaking. Santa Clara County and the County of San Francisco asked the the court to block President Trump’s executive order cutting off federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to abide by federal immigration laws. The counties complained that the executive order from Trump affected all federal funding, but Department of Justice lawyers explained it only affected the programs they specifically mentioned. Acting Assistant Attorney General Chad Readler had explained the funding cutoff was for three specific DOJ and DHS grant programs “that require complying with a federal law that local governments not block officials from providing people’s immigration status.” The Trump administration issued the order, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” because sanctuary cities allow dangerous criminals to return to the streets. The Trump EO states : “It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a state, or a political subdivision of a state, shall comply with [federal law].” The order says jurisdictions that “willfully refuse to comply” are “not eligible” for federal grants. • A review of recent state-level legislative activity shows that by putting these jurisdictions in the spotlight, Trump is rapidly changing the lay of the land. Last week, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law a complete ban on sanctuary cities, and at least 32 other states have similar legislation in the works. Mississippi, Georgia, and Indiana have already passed laws that will, in theory, punish any cities or public institutions for harboring illegal immigrants. • There is no legal definition of a “sanctuary city,” but the term is usually applied to cities that refuse to fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities. This usually means local jail officials are forbidden from notifying ICE about an undocumented prisoner and barred from detaining such a prisoner, even if federal authorities issue a request. As a candidate, Trump talked about Kate Steinle, a young San Francisco woman murdered by an often-deported illegal immigrant. In a major immmigration speech in September, Trump said : “We will block funding for sanctuary cities. We will end the sanctuary cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths. Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars, and we will work with Congress to pass legislation to protect those jurisdictions that do assist federal authorities.” • President Trump has kept his word. Because of his efforts, the number of states cracking down on sanctuary cities has greatly increased. The National Conference of State Legislatures says 18 states considered anti-sanctuary laws in 2016, compared to the four states that proposed them in 2015 under Obama. • • • ARE SANCTUARY CITIES SAFER? No. Trump and local governmant efforts to eliminate sanctuary cities have met significant resistance, but it’s clear that the defenders of these policies do not have the facts on their side, although they like to play fast and loose with the crime statistics. • In an op-ed written to oppose the new Texas law, four sheriffs -- including Sally Hernandez of Travis County -- wrote: “Immigrants who are here are significantly less likely to commit crimes. In fact, FBI crime statistics have found that labeled ‘sanctuary’ cities experience lower rates of all crime types, including homicides.” • In early April, WND published a summary of crime statistics based on the 2016 FBI report, "The Politics of Refuge: Sanctuary Cities, Crime and Undocumented Immigration." Sanctuary cities do experience higher crime rates than do non-sanctuary cities. An August 2016 study of the relationship between “sanctuary city” policies and crime rates shows that cities refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities consistently have significantly higher violent crimes rates than do non-sanctuary cities with similar populations and demographics. The study, published last fall by researchers from the University of California-Riverside and Highline College in Des Moines, Washington, is frequently cited by proponents of “sanctuary cities” who ignore or downplay one important detail -- the actual crime statistics of the carefully selected cities chosen for the comparison model. An analysis of the data by WND reveals that non-sanctuary cities comparable in population, size and demographics consistently -- year over year -- experience and report lower percentages of violent crime as well as lower percentages of property crimes. WND says the authors of the study, researchers Loren Collingwood, Benjamin Gonzalez-O’Brien and Stephen El-Khatib, define a sanctuary city as “a city or police department that has passed a resolution or ordinance expressly forbidding city or law enforcement officials from inquiring into immigration status and/or cooperation with ICE.” The authors, says WND, admit their assumptions going into the study were that differences in crime rates would be negligible, and so; obviously, that’s what they found. Their report buries the actual statistics that show that, from 2000 through 2014, sanctuary cities have had higher crime rates than non-sanctuary cities, with the disparity growing over time. The researchers examined 54 cities in 19 states, plus the District of Columbia -- cities listed by the National Immigration Law Center that implemented sanctuary ordinances post-9/11, during or after 2002. Using city-level crime data compiled by the FBI, they assessed crime rates at the city level immediately following the implementation of a sanctuary policy. They then matched each sanctuary city to a similarly situated non-sanctuary city -- based on relevant census and political variables, creating a scenario where the two cities are as similar as possible with the exception of the sanctuary policy. The researchers claim, in conclusion, that their study shows designating a city as a sanctuary has no statistically significant effect on crime : “Our findings provide evidence that sanctuary policies have no effect on crime rates, despite narratives to the contrary. The potential benefits of sanctuary cities, such as better incorporation of the undocumented community and cooperation with police, thus have little cost for the cities in question in terms of crime.” But, the three researchers made one big mistake -- in rushing to justify their pre-conceived conclusion, they ignored their own data that shows that violent crime rates are, in fact, drastically higher in sanctuary cities than their non-sanctuary counterparts, as is evidenced by the chart the authors used to delineate their conclusion. Whereas in 2000 the sanctuary city violent crime rate was about 10% higher than in non-sanctuary cities, in 2014 it had almost doubled. • You can google Collingwood illegal immigration study to see the entire article and charts. • One of the arguments pro-sanctuary movement makes is that the policies of non-enforcement and non-reporting of immigration violations to federal authorities would have the effect of fostering cooperation between police and city officials in matters of crime reporting and finding witnesses for prosecutions. But, no data has ever been collected to suggest illegal immigrants are offering such cooperation in preventing and fighting crime in these jurisdictions. And, there is no study, scientific or anecdotal, to suggest illegal immigrants cooperate in fighting crime in these jurisdictions. At the same time, data shows criminal aliens being released by sanctuary jurisdictions commit more crimes when they get out than do non-aliens. • According to the Department of Homeland Security, from January 2014 to August 2014, more than 8,145 aliens were released from jail after arrest, after their respective jurisdictions declined an immigration detainer request from Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- 62% of them had a prior criminal record, and 3,000 of them were felons. Of the 8,145 individuals released, 1,867 were subsequently re-arrested a total of 4,298 times and accumulated a staggering 7,491 charges. • The Government Accountability Office released a report on April 7, 2005, that found criminal aliens comprise about 27% of federal prisoners. • • • THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DOES NOT WANT SANCTUARY CITIES. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has noted that in one recent Harvard-Harris poll, 80% of Americans believe that cities should make arrests, and that illegal immigrant who commit crimes should be turned over to immigration authorities. And it is no wonder -- the Department of Homeland Security recently issued a report showing that in a single week, there were more than 200 instances of jurisdictions refusing to honor ICE detainer requests for individuals charged or convicted of a serious crime. These charges and convictions against these aliens include drug trafficking, hit-and-run, rape, sex offenses against a child and even murder. Sessions says such policies cannot continue : "They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on the streets. Today, I am urging states and local jurisdictions to comply with these federal laws, including 8 USC Section 1373. Moreover, the Department of Justice will require that jurisdictions seeking or applying for Department of Justice grants to certify compliance with 1373 as a condition of receiving those awards. This policy is entirely consistent with the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs guidance that was issued just last summer under the previous administration. This guidance requires state and local jurisdictions to comply and certify compliance with Section 1373 in order to be eligible for OJP grants. It also made clear that failure to remedy violations could result in withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants. I strongly urge our nation’s states and cities and counties to consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce immigration laws and to rethink these policies. Such policies make their cities and states less safe. Public safety as well as national security are at stake and put them at risk of losing federal dollars. • Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, says that sanctuary city policies result in more crime because of the release of so many aliens back into the streets without review : “Sanctuary policies don’t actually work -- they are just an excuse for the political objections that they have for immigration enforcement. Cops will tell you that the main way they solve crimes is by evidence, not necessarily relying on witnesses.” • • • DEAR READERS, the Trump administration is cracking down on “sanctuary” cities and counties that do not cooperate with the federal government in enforcing US immigration law, but federal court temporary restraining orders are interfering with the job of taking illegal immigrant cirminals off America's streets, putting them behind bars, and deporting them. As we would expect, critics of Trump’s sanctuary-city crackdown are comparing the administration’s policies with racism and slavery. Newark, New Jersey, Mayor Ras Baraka argued Sunday that the Trump administration’s threat to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities is an attempt to intimidate local officials into becoming “fugitive slave catchers.” But Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, author of “Cops Under Fire,” has been an outspoken critic of sanctuary policies : “We are not a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of laws. When they can’t construct and build out an argument, the left resort to name calling. I’m tired of people who are on the left trying to mix this up, talking about lawful immigration verses illegal immigration.” • One way to get around the federal court tactic is being used by ICE. A recent six-week nationwide gang operation led by ICE and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) concluded with 1,378 arrests across the United States -- the largest gang surge conducted by HSI to date. The operation targeted gang members and associates involved in transnational criminal activity, including drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, human smuggling and sex trafficking, murder and racketeering. Of the 1,378 total arrested, 1,098 were arrested on federal and/or state criminal charges, including 21 individuals arrested on murder related charges and seven for rape and sexual assault charges. The remaining 280 were arrested on administrative immigration violations. Of the total arrested, 933 were US citizens and 445 were foreign nationals from 21 countries in South and Central America, Asia, Africa, Europe and the Caribbean. Numerous state, local and federal law enforcement partners, including ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, participated in the HSI-led operation, which ran March 26 to May 6. ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan said : “Gangs threaten the safety of our communities, not just in major metropolitan areas but in our suburbs and rural areas, too. Gang-related violence and criminal activity present an ongoing challenge for law enforcement everywhere. Our efforts to dismantle gangs are much more effective in areas where partnership with local law enforcement is strongest." • And, Attorney General Jeff Sessions is helping. His office sent out a letter in May to the nation's federal prosecutors instructing them to pursue the most serious charges possible against most criminal suspects. The move will send more people to prison and for much longer terms by triggering mandatory minimum sentences. Officials at the Department of Justice said the new guidelines are a direct rebuttal of policies implemented under President Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder. The memo is already being referred to as “the Sessions Memo.” The 94 US attorneys were instructed in the memo to “charge and pursue the most serious and readily provable offense.” The memo also brings back mandatory minimum sentences, which are expected to increase prosecutions and the prison population. Holder implemented the “Smart on Crime” drug sentencing policy that focused on not incarcerating people who committed low level non-violent crimes. The Obama administration used the “Smart on Crime” policy to combat what they believed was a high number of prosecutions of non-violent drug offenders. But, DOJ officials call it a “false narrative” and say unless a gun is involved, most of those cases weren’t charged period. Sessions has said a spike in violence in some big cities shows the need for a return to tougher tactics. • 8 USC §1373 is not rocket science. It states "(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. • What part of that do Progressive Democrats not get? And, if they are sufficiently educated to read 8 USC § 1373, they will certainly see that no authority exists to create sanctuary cities and to refuse to answer DOJ or ICE questions about "citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual." Attorney General Sessions should put aside withholding grants and begin filing lawsuits against these renegades who think they are above US law.