Category Archives: immigration

Sanctuary Cities and Federal Funding

Posted on by
1

San Francisco asked a federal judge Wednesday to block President Trump’s order threatening to strip federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities that bar police from enforcing immigration laws.

This suit has a good chance of succeeding.  In 1987’s South Dakota v Dole, the Supreme Court ruled (in a dispute over the State’s minimum drinking age and Federal highway funds transfers to the State) that the Federal government cannot withhold already agreed Federal funds from a State in order to coerce State acquiescence with Federal wishes.  Funds can be withheld to “persuade,” but the withheld funds must be related to the question at hand rather than a blanket withholding, and the amount withheld cannot be coercive in its size, but only persuasive.  Without naming a threshold for the amount, the Court held that the 5% withholding imposed by the Federal government was not coercive.

Right or wrong, that’s the law of the land as things stand.  Congress and the President will have to statutorily overrule the Supreme Court to enable such a broad withholding of Federal funds from San Francisco.

On the other hand, stopping sending all Federal funds to all cities altogether would bypass the Court’s ruling (although legislation still would be necessary to stop completely the funds transfers).  In the end, we have to ask why the citizens of Illinois, for instance, should have to pay any part of, let’s say, San Francisco’s expenses at all.

It’s true enough that we’re all in this republican democracy nation of ours together, and so we support each other.  But that mutual support includes cities like San Francisco not creating themselves as burdens on the rest of our nation with its irresponsible, profligate spending while demanding OPM to pay for that spending.

Disingenuous Targeting

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that President Donald Trump has signed a revised Executive Order that imposes a short moratorium on entry into the US from six (down from seven under his original EO) Middle Eastern countries.  Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin has filed suit in Hawaii’s Federal District Court to try to block this new EO.  The EO, Chin claims, will damage Hawaii’s

economy, educational institutions, and tourism industry; and it is subjecting a portion of the state’s citizens to second-class treatment and discrimination, while denying all Hawaii residents the benefits of an inclusive and pluralistic society.

This is disingenuous.  The folks whose entry is being temporarily blocked represent a vanishingly small per centage of Hawaii’s tourist population.  The foolishness of “damage” to educational institutions I’ve already addressed regarding a Washington Federal judge’s ruling on the earlier EO.  Chin’s beef about Hawaii citizens is nothing more than a cynically dragged red herring: the EO doesn’t even address American citizens, much less those who also are citizens of Hawaii.  This EO impacts only some refugees and potential immigrants.

About those refugees and potential immigrants: Chin made this charge in his filing, and he actually kept a straight face as he filed it:

This new executive order is nothing more than Muslim Ban 2.0.  Under the pretense of national security, it still targets immigrants and refugees.

Of course, the EO cannot be a ban; it’s a temporary moratorium with an expiration deadline.  More than that, it cannot be a ban of Muslims; it impacts only about 10% of the world’s Muslims.

Of course, it does target potential immigrants and refugees—those are folks outside our nation, and they are not citizens of our nation.  As such, these people have no right to enter our nation without our prior permission, nor do we have an obligation to let them in.  That’s what nation means, that’s what borders are for.

Nor do we know who these folks are, really—which is why the EO imposes the moratorium: to give State and DHS time to improve our vetting procedures, another requirement of the EO, and a requirement carefully ignored by Chin.

Of course Chin knows all of this.  The utter disingenuousness of this Democrat’s charge ought to get his filing dismissed on its face.

Does a foreigner on foreign soil have Fourth Amendment rights?

Posted on by
1

That’s the subtitle of a Wall Street Journal op-ed.  The answer should be obvious, too: it would be the height of jingo-ism to assert US government jurisdiction over non-citizens outside our borders—outside, for instance, the 14th Amendment’s subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Firing into another country at a foreign national, especially one that’s a citizen of the country being fired into, could well be a violation, but that potential would be a violation of a different set of circumstances than the question before the Supremes in the present case, Hernandez v Mesa.  That other set of circumstance has to do with international relations, foreign policy, the nature of casus belli, and on and on—and all purely political matters, not legal ones, and so not only a different set of circumstances, but a matter that’s outside the reach of court jurisdiction.

A Good Move

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a new sheriff in Phoenix, the one replacing Sheriff Arpaio, who was defeated in the election last fall.  The new cop has withdrawn Arpaio’s policy of holding prisoners for as long as “necessary” for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to come get those flagged for deportation.

I agree.  Cooperation with the Feds is a two-way street; the Feds have to work with the locals, too.

[New Sheriff Paul Penzone] won’t hold immigrants flagged for deportation by federal authorities past their release date in a major policy change.

He can’t, with any legitimacy.  ICE will need to do their part and move faster even as Penzone continues to cooperate fully with them.

Penzone said ICE officers will remain in his jail to screen everyone who is booked, but he will no longer detain inmates past their release dates to accommodate the agency.

They’re Already Paying

Posted on by
Reply

Hundreds of people in the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez gathered on the edge of the Rio Grande River on Friday to form a “human wall” to protest US President Donald Trump’s plans for a wall between the countries.

Thanks for the assist, Protestors.  As we both know, the wall is necessary—metaphorically if not literally—in order to control our borders, regardless of who pays for it.  Just be sure, guys, that you leave openings in it for easy, legal border crossing, just as we intend to do.