“If governments cannot respect and honor contracts, what right does it have to govern people and expect citizens’ compliance with city, county and state regulations?”
On Friday, April 21, 2017, the US Department of Justice sent letters to nine jurisdictions across the nation reminding self-declared sanctuary city, county and state governments that their fiscal year 2016 federal grant agreements mandated cooperating with federal immigration laws, placing them in breach mode for which reimbursing the federal government is a factor.
Referring to FY-2016 Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) awarded to jurisdictions by the Office of Justice Programs, federal grants require recipients meet standards set forth in U.S.C. 8 § 1383, proving compliance with federal immigration codes. Well, we all know the fiasco surrounding that national security issue. Sanctuary city, sanctuary county, sanctuary state, sanctuary campus! What next, sanctuary Starbucks?
Since the entire state of California is declared a sanctuary for illegal immigrants to hide from federal cops, one letter was sent to state leadership. Both Cook County, Ill. and Miami-Dade County, FL are among the letter recipients, as are the cities of New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Milwaukee, and Las Vegas.
The Proof of Compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 Letters contained the following language:
“Failure to comply with this condition could result in the withholding of grant funds, suspension or termination of the grant, ineligibility for future OJP grants or sub-grants, or other action, as appropriate.”
On its face, U.S.C. 8 § 1373 states:
“a Federal, State or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”
Although there is nothing ambiguous about that statement, over 500 jurisdictions across America have some confusion, as indicated by abject refusal to comply.
By implication, the letters emphasize the following default: If you continue to harbor illegal immigrants, you must reimburse the taxpayers the money you were granted, as defined in the initial agreement. The jurisdictions mentioned above were provided until June 30, 2017 to meet compliance before DoJ enforcement actions ensue.
It was the Justice Department Inspector General who scrutinized the FY-2016 grant agreements and caught the contract stipulation. It was the Acting Assistant Attorney General Alan R. Hanson who endorsed each of the nine letters, so the implication is clear that the intent is real.
So, when the going gets tough, the tough send contract agreement reminders. Then what? What if any or all of the listed sanctuary jurisdictions refuse to comply, as has been the norm? What is the procedure to recoup federal grant funds from non-compliant recipients? Of course, the inherent message in the nine letters is We know you’re not in compliance but you have a chance to do so, or pay up! As a taxpayer, I stand in support of DoJ’s contract agreement actions.
Both San Francisco opted to sue President Trump regarding his order to cut funds to their sanctuary city. Seattle filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration also. Will others follow? If governments cannot respect and honor contracts, what right does it have to govern people and expect citizens’ compliance with city, county and state regulations? What rights do local governments have to ignore federal code?
Well, a federal judge believes he is the answer to that last question! The US District Court weighs in and derails President Trump’s executive order to reroute our nation’s woeful illegal immigrant dilemma. By temporarily blocking Pres. Trump’s orders to defund sanctuary cities (including the entire state of California), California Judge William H. Orrick of the US District Court delayed the Justice Department’s momentum in seeking compliance from sanctuary jurisdictions.
With oratory constructs set forth in the US Constitution, I look forward to Justice Department attorneys pushing back against the likes of Judge Orrick—an Obama appointee and campaign financier dripping with implicit bias. As reported by Fox News, Judge Orrick suggested “plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.”
Since when do judges find it appropriate to publicly predict the outcomes of a proposed lawsuit? Aren’t his actions defeating due process? If this were the new normal, shouldn’t judges be able to freely help defendants or plaintiffs in open court proceedings?
Federal grant agreements upon which signatures were scribed await fulfillment, one way or the other. Breach of contracts is a legal premise to be battled in court, and it may take an unbiased non-sanctuary city judge to see more clearly the legal bases for which the US government has a vested interest: national security.
From local governments the same tired argument ensues: We’re afraid cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agents (as stipulated in the US Constitution) will result in less police cooperation. Maybe, but law enforcement responsibilities remain, and they do not include babysitting.
President Trump’s rebuttal to “unelected” Judge Orrick’s temporary injunction against defunding sanctuary jurisdictions made mention of the seemingly chronic nature of judicial opposition:
“Once again, a single district judge – this time in San Francisco – has ignored Federal immigration law to set a new immigration policy for the entire country.”
After the “temporary” legal upheaval settles, the Trump Train will steam ahead. Next stop, Make America great again.
Money or (Illegal) Migrants
As I compose this piece, FY-2017 federal grants are being offered. The PoliceOne.com site espouses, “Grant opportunities abound, and getting your department’s applications ready to apply for key federal grants is crucial.” They offer a free guide for applicants seeking federal grant opportunities, but what is the point if some local governments have no intention of complying with U.S.C. 8 § 1383?
The choice between free money and aiding/abetting illegal migrants becomes just as crucial. Essentially, it boils down to philosophical differences (legal wrangling) and how smaller governments can cope if a blast to the budget is sustained. But, American citizens may suffer in the tug-of-war waged by government oppositionists.
The Justice Department and the Office of Justice Programs is just one federal arm doling out millions of dollars for hiring, training, and equipping police prospects. And those are the generalities; grants also are earmarked for specific things like police bicycles and K9s, should a department wish to launch or expand such units.
To risk losing out on funding is a foolhardy notion and a sacrifice law enforcement officers can ill-afford. All in the name of “sanctuary”?
Despite the DoJ letters arriving on desks this week, President Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda rolls on…and the funds required to bolster the rank-and-file agents can come from any sanctuary jurisdiction deemed non-compliant. A similar idea—to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities and counties–is the brainchild of Texas Governor Greg Abbott. He’s gone as far as to threaten jailing Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez over her “sanctuary county” stance.
Things are heating up, and the federal government has signatures branded on nine enforceable contracts. The only potential weakness I see in the DoJ letter is allowing an “opinion from legal counsel” from each of the nine jurisdictions, “validating that they are in compliance with section 1373.” With all the “implicit bias” innuendo these days, by using that option, did DoJ offer too much wiggle room?
