There is a difference between the city of Nashville officials not inquiring about the legal status of people who have encounters with the police or other public servants and refusing to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency. While Nashville does not enforce immigration law we do not refuse cooperation with ICE.
In 1996 Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). This act requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency. Cities that refuse are called "sanctuary cities." President Obama did not enforce IIRIRA and allowed sanctuary cities to defy the law with impunity. President Trump has vowed to enforce IIRIRA and withhold money from Sanctuary cities. In January Trump signed an Executive Order to that effect.
Trumps effort to pull funding from Sanctuary cities has been blocked on grounds that he cannot withhold money already appropriated. The ruling blocking Trumps Executive Order on sanctuary cities said, “The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds.” The ruling also said the Executive Order may violate both the Fifth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment.
I think the Court may have ruled correctly. While, I like the intent of the order, the principle is more important than the specific facts of the case. I do not want the president, this president or a future president, to have the discretion to arbitrarily withhold federal funds. The condition to receive federal funds should clearly be stated upfront. If stated upfront in the legislation appropriating the funds, cities could be denied those funds. Federal funds often come with strings attached.
So what specifically makes a city a Sanctuary city? Cities that refuse to hold jailed illegal immigrants so they can be picked up by federal immigration officials are sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cites only hold them if there is warrant signed by a judge.
The Metro Council Agenda for June is not yet available so I have not read the bill, but according to The Tennessean, the bill would do the following, unless specifically required by federal or state law or a court order:
- Metro Nashville would not be able to use local money, resources or facilities to assist in enforcing federal immigration laws, or to share information about a person's custody status or court dates.
- Metro employees, including police, would be prohibited from requesting information about a person's immigration or citizenship status.
- The Davidson County Sheriff's Office would no longer be able to honor an immigration-related detention request unless it is accompanied by a warrant issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The bill is sponsored by Councilmen Bob Mendes and Colby Sledge and The Tennessean says there will be about ten co-sponsors. Back in January, Vice Mayor David Briley posted statements on Facebook that indicated he wanted Nashville to become a sanctuary city (link). The bill was drafted by the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition and has the support of various pro-illegal immigrant groups. Mayor Barry has mouthed platitudes about being a welcoming city, etc, but has not made any move toward becoming a sanctuary city or advocated violating federal law. While I don't doubt Megan Barry's liberal credentials she seems fairly rational and pragmatic. This bill may not pass or may be further watered down to be meaningless, the mayor may even veto it, and if passed the Sheriff may not honor it. Also, there is the question of State law which prohibits local governments from making policies that stop local governments from complying with federal immigration law and an even stronger version of such a prohibitions pending for consideration in 2018. Nashville is not a sanctuary city now, and I doubt it will become one.
No comments:
Post a Comment