The American Council of Immigration does not approve or oppose candidates for elected offices. We aim to provide an analysis of the impact of elections on the US immigration system.
Efforts to punish so-called “sanctuary cities” have returned. On his first day of office, President Trump refused to denial of “sanctuary” jurisdiction to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) and overseen the “sanctuary” jurisdiction to pursue civil or criminal cases against them. We have signed an executive order. The DOJ then repeatedly threatened state and local officials with criminal charges if they filed civil suits against Chicago and New York. Most recently, Trump issued another executive order sought all departmental and agency directors to consider federal grants for the jurisdiction of the “Abet” sanctuary.
Currently, Congress is considering a Bill with No Relief of the Sanctuary Urban Act (HR 32). Specifically, the bill defines the jurisdiction of the sanctuary and that the federal government “uses” these jurisdictions to “use” to benefit immigrants who have not been documented. It allows you to withhold funds.
Funds covered under HR 32 threaten the well-being of all community members, including US citizens and legal permanent residents. This is because many important programs are offered without considering legal status and thus benefit both undocumented and those with legal status and American citizens. These programs include the National School Lunch Program, Wheel Meals, Head Start, Public Transport, Disaster Response Services and more. There are also several programs that benefit U.S. citizen children who may have at least one undocumented parent, such as Food Stamp and Medicaid.
During Trump’s first term, the court repeatedly blocked DOJ’s efforts to halt crime-related federal grants to sanctuary cities, finding the Attorney General lacked the power to impose additional conditions. HR 32 not only grants its authority, but also expands dramatically, leaning a balance of power in favor of the federal government over states and cities.
The bill also broadly defines “sanctuary jurisdiction.” Under its broad definition, “sanctuary” includes states, counties, or cities that restrict communication with DHS or that restrict notification of release to immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) detainees or ice It will be available. The first part of the definition is consistent with 8 USC 1373, an existing law that already follows the jurisdiction of the sanctuary. The second attempts to force jurisdiction to comply with ICE’s “detainees and notification requests” which are voluntarily under federal law. ICE uses detainees to keep suspected people undocumented to local law enforcement agencies after the date of their release from local criminal custody, usually up to 48 hours, and to ICE agents Give time to obtain custody of the
In June 2024, ICE determined that approximately 700 local agencies in Washington, DC, in addition to 32 states, would either provide limited cooperation or be uncooperative in line with ICE detainees and notification requests. did. In other words, these are jurisdictions that choose not to cooperate with the ice in retaining non-citizens for federal immigration authorities, as permitted by current law. Nevertheless, according to this list, these jurisdictions are considered “sanctuaries” under HR 32, and thus risk losing federal funds for important programs that serve both non-citizens and citizens. There is.
The bill also overlooks the complexity of how states, counties and cities shape policies regarding interactions with federal immigration authorities. Many local governments have restricted cooperation through court rulings that prohibit local law enforcement from holding individuals solely for federal immigration purposes. In other words, when you work with federal immigration agencies, you often have the responsibility you want to avoid with local agencies. Other local governments lack control over the very policies the bill is trying to punish.
Furthermore, the bill could violate the constitution. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot force states or regions to control federal programs. The bill directly contradicts this principle by putting pressure on local governments to divert scarce resources to federal immigration enforcement rather than community needs.
The current political situation gives the broader powers given by HR 32 by the ripening of abuse. The Trump administration, along with Tom Homan, a senior Trump adviser on mass expulsion, is looking at local policies that will increase ice pressure and limit the scope of ice to dismantle and block and limit the dismantling .
The Trump administration recently froze federal funds and circumvented constitutional powers that create uncertainty in Congressional spending and community. HR 32 codifies this dangerous force and can arbitrarily withhold the important resources that cities, counties and states rely on every day.
Consider contacting members of the council and urging them to vote against HR 32.
Submitted below: Sanctuary City
