Donald Trump has so far had several setbacks in courts and local laws against his anti sanctuary measures Archived Photo - Conspiracy Talk News

Beginning in 2018, California formally becomes the first state in the country to implement a law that aims to limit immigration only to  the most dangerous criminals.

Trump promises to extend to other states and localities of the country to deal with deporting.

The so-called “sanctuary policies“, until now protected by the federal courts that have ruled in this regard – and against Trump in their attempt to take funds from the government – will thus become one of the most powerful ways to confront the president’s assault on the undocumented immigrants, which now includes many more undocumented people who have not committed any crime and have roots and families in this country.

Apart from California, Connecticut and Oregon have “sanctuary” measures throughout the state , 239 localities have sanctuary practices instituted by law enforcement agencies, to limit their migratory work and focus on criminal issues, 23 others have resolutions and 5 have executive orders in that sense. 12 states are pending the two types of legislation, some sanctuary and others anti sanctuary.

This year that ends, 36 of the 50 states of the country considered bills for or against the sanctuary. At least 15 states want to implement a type of protection similar to that of California , which limits the transfer of detainees and response to so-called “detainers,” which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) give arrest warrants for immigrants in the hands of local authorities.

Several courts have also ruled that detainers are not mandatory, but optional and that putting a person in jail when they have no longer have a criminal charge goes against the US Constitution.

Other states in the nation seek to prevent this from happening within their borders, and prohibit counties and cities from passing sanctuary measures, such as a pending bill in Florida. But any local law will be subject to lawsuits and legal evidence and, in addition, there are already more than 200 localities that have declared some kind of “sanctuary”, mainly limiting cooperation and spending local funds in assisting ICE.

Professor Irene Bloemraad, a sociologist at the University of Berkeley, told La Opinion that California’s “sanctuary” policies will “be a model for the rest of the country, as Proposition 187 was at the time when California was against immigrants in the nineties. “

The irony of the case, added the sociologist, is that state initiatives were also used a few years ago by states like Arizona, Alabama, Oklahoma and others, to implement tougher measures against undocumented immigration , and the courts intervened to cancel almost all of their clauses, with narrow exceptions.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, throughout the country there are still about 100 bills on the issue and these promise to increase next year.

Trump’s threats, nil so far

The Donald Trump government insists that localities are doing something illegal by passing “sanctuary” measures and that they are “breaking the law.”

So far the decisions of several judges in this regard deny this argument and have failed against the federal government to apply penalties to localities for measures that are legitimate and do not go against the law and the constitution.

On May 22, 2017, Attorney Jeff Sessions issued a memorandum stating that sanctuary jurisdictions are those that voluntarily refuse to comply with the 8 USC 1373 clause and are not eligible to receive federal grants administered by the Department of Justice. or the Department of Homeland Security.

Section 1373 prohibits state and local jurisdictions from restricting communication to federal officials with information about the citizenship or immigration status of foreigners.

On July 22, 2017, the Attorney General issued an application with new grant conditions for the Edward Byrne Memorial Assistance Grant Programs that require federal immigration access to detention centers and 48 hours in advance of release.

However, several courts have already ruled on lawsuits in cities and counties across the country, and a federal judge in November barred the Trump government from suspending payment of those funds to the cities and counties it considers “sanctuaries.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here