Image: Mural painted in support of immigrants in Chicago neighborhood
In January 2017, President Trump issued an executive order targeting sanctuary cities and counties. These locations are so named because they refuse to comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement requests to detain individuals, and instead protect the rights of all citizens within city boundaries. Trump's order would cut funding from the cities unwilling to cooperate with the federal efforts.
While the Trump administration argued that the order would apply to only a small amount of money no more than $1 million, U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick disagreed and found that the order pertained to "all federal grants," potentially jeopardizing hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for San Francisco and Santa Clara, known sanctuary cities. On November 20th, Judge William Orrick permanently blocked the executive order on the basis that the order was unconstitutional, and in violation of the separation of powers doctrine and the Tenth Amendment.
Those against the order rejoiced on Monday, including San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera, who commented that he was "grateful that we've been able to protect billions of dollars that help some of the most vulnerable Americans."
Discussion Questions:
What are your opinions on sanctuary cities? Should all U.S. cities comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement orders? Is it right to cut off funding for cities that refuse to comply with orders? If not, what punishments should there be, if any?
Articles:
CNN
Washington Post
NY Times
NBC
4 comments:
On a moral issue, I side with sanctuary cities. I believe they are necessary in aiding those who fall through the cracks of our current arduous and flawed citizenship process, at least until there is significant reform to the system.
On a legal basis, however, I can see the problems with sanctuary cities, especially if the federal government is trying to deport all the illegal immigrants from the country (a task already astoundingly implausible). I understand the need to control rogue cities, but I take issue with the methods Trump has used to control immigration. His executive orders seem to stand as temporary solutions to a much larger and more involved problem; in a sense, his executive orders have affixed a Band-Aid to a bullet wound, nay, amputation. But there really is no quick fix to this issue, and withholding funds seems like all a president can do without Congressional action. And while tax reform and healthcare take precedence in policy issue, there is little discussion (that I've read about) regarding immigration, apart from Trump pardoning the Arizona sheriff for enforcing improper profiling methods. I hope to see another solution, such as incentives rather than punishment, or (even better) communication to reach a compromise, but for now, it seems Trump is set on punishing those who speak out against his policies with the only effective means at his disposal: executive orders and funds.
There is no good way to deal with the illegal immigrant issue as of now, but punishing sanctuary cities as a whole is unfair in my opinion. I believe the District Court made the correct ruling, especially because San Francisco is so close to us. However, cities should try to follow governmental rulings. As the reigning candidate and party, Trump and the Republicans are supposed to be enforcing the policies they promised and repeated so many times in their debates and conferences. That's simply the nature of government. There will always be unfavorable policies, but as the "winner" of the election, they have an obligation to carry out the policies they were nominated for. I believe it was the way the President responded to the rejection of his policies that was uncalled for. While I do not have any great ideas to regulate immigration, or the current immigrants, I don't believe that punishment is the way to bend sanctuary cities to his policy.
As someone who disagrees with the administration's immigration policies, I do support sanctuary cities and their commitment to human rights. At the same time, I cannot justify it legally in my mind. Federal laws don't only exist if you feel like abiding by them. What it really comes down to is that the immigration issues our country faces need to be fixed through the complete legislative process, rather than through an executive order, but Trump likely doesn't have enough support to get such a measure passed.
While I don't agree with the Trump on administration on illegal immigrants, I believe that sanctuary cities should be abolished. You can not choose to follow laws that you like and not those you don't. It doesn't work like that. Laws are meant to be followed-- all of them. If sanctuary cities are a form of protest, then I better understand it. However, because they are breaking federal law, they deserve to be punished at least punitively.
Post a Comment