Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Mon May 22, 2017, 06:02 PM May 2017

Sessions issues narrow definition of sanctuary city

Source: Politico



By JOSH GERSTEIN 05/22/2017 05:40 PM EDT

President Donald Trump's administration issued a notice Monday making clear officials will narrowly interpret a January executive order stemming the flow of federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities, after some mayors feared the White House might apply it broadly to cut off money from local governments with which it disagrees on immigration policy.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo saying that Trump's order will only apply to grants from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security "and not to other sources of federal funding."

In addition, Sessions said the only localities whose current funding will be in jeopardy will be those that "willfully refuse to comply" with a specific provision in federal law. The provision prohibits cities from barring local employees such as police officers from communicating with federal officials about suspects who may be in violation of immigration laws.

The memo seems consistent with what Sessions and other officials told a visiting delegation of mayors last month. They were concerned that the administration might use a broader definition of "sanctuary jurisdiction" that could impact many cities and counties that do not routinely honor federal detainers, which are requests to hold suspects believed to be in the country illegally but who are being released from jail or prison.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2017/05/22/sanctuary-cities-sessions-238688

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sessions issues narrow definition of sanctuary city (Original Post) DonViejo May 2017 OP
Pucker Power is the Power of the Hour nt Xipe Totec May 2017 #1
That's probably illegal, too. procon May 2017 #2
THIS BumRushDaShow May 2017 #3
Somebody, somewhere get this sawed-off little freak into court! He can't defend any mpcamb May 2017 #4

procon

(15,805 posts)
2. That's probably illegal, too.
Mon May 22, 2017, 06:27 PM
May 2017

Unless there's some part of the original bill authorizing the funding for those grants that made them contingent on states not participating in sanctuary provisions, then Brother Beauregard can't come along and add such restrictions after the fact.

BumRushDaShow

(128,905 posts)
3. THIS
Mon May 22, 2017, 06:42 PM
May 2017

They keep trying to erect smoke and mirrors around their pronouncements due to the ignorance of the masses about appropriations law, but eventually they are outed.

mpcamb

(2,870 posts)
4. Somebody, somewhere get this sawed-off little freak into court! He can't defend any
Mon May 22, 2017, 08:23 PM
May 2017

of the trash that spews from his twisted beak, and it's time someone, somewhere called him on it.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Sessions issues narrow de...