It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why is OJP using Byrne/JAG grant funds to enforce 8 U.S.C. § 1373? Authorizing legislation for the Byrne/JAG grant program requires that all grant applicants certify compliance both with the provisions of that authorizing legislation and all other applicable federal laws. The Office of Justice Programs has determined that 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (Section 1373) is an applicable federal law under the Byrne/JAG authorizing legislation. Therefore, all Byrne/JAG grant applicants must certify compliance with all applicable federal laws, including Section 1373, as part of the Byrne/JAG grant application process.
As OJP has previously stated, o ur goal is to ensure that JAG and SCAAP recipients are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including Section 1373 .
After Culberson met with officials within the Justice Department and made clear that their financial situation could become strained if they refused to cooperate, the department released guidance notifying all U.S. jurisdictions that they must comply with all federal law — including 8 U.S.C. 1373 — in order to receive federal grants. “I’ve effectively created an off-switch that Attorney General Sessions and President Trump can throw at noon on January 20 to cut off all federal law-enforcement grants to these cities,” Culberson tells National Review.
According to Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, three federal grants in particular would be in question for sanctuary cities: the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which provides reimbursements for the expense of incarcerating illegal aliens; Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), which funds community policing efforts; and Byrne-JAG grants, which fund miscellaneous spending for state and local law-enforcement agencies.
Though the federal government cannot legally compel states to comply with federal law, it is permitted to use financial rewards or incentives to encourage states to comply. This precedent was established in the 1992 Supreme Court case New York v. United States and has been upheld and strengthened since, and thus the Justice Department’s guidance in this instance clearly falls under constitutional precedent, Culberson reasoned.
Culberson says that other appropriations subcommittee chairmen have been supportive of his work on this issue and are interested in encouraging federal departments under their authority to issue the same guidance to all jurisdictions.
What's concerning is that Prospect Park is only 1/2 hour from Manhattan. You wouldn't want it to become a staging area for launching NYC terror attacks.
So your argument is funding?
“No department, committee, agency, commission, officer or employee of the Borough of Prospect Park shall use any Borough funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of Federal Immigration Law.”
Before Thursday, Miami-Dade was considered one of these de facto “sanctuary” communities. The county’s policy was to only hold detainees if federal immigration officials agreed to reimburse the county for the detention costs — a condition set in a 2013 resolution. This practice put the county on a list of sanctuary cities in a Department of Justice report in May, prompting county officials to push back against the label.
The TRUST Act sets a minimum standard across the state to limit cruel and costly immigration “hold” requests in local jails. These optional holds are often caused by the deeply controversial "Secure" Communities or S-Comm program. They trap undocumented and immigrant Californians – and even citizens – for extra time, at local expense, because ICE thinks it can deport them.
By entangling our local police and sheriffs in the machinery of deportation, the federal government has undermined community safety, put survivors and witnesses to crimes at risk, and wasted important local resources.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: seasonal
One wonders how it can be that this man is so monstrous as to fail to heed the will of Mr Trump! I mean, surely the people in his locality must be dreadful, just awful people to elect a man who would fail to fall in line. For shame....
Of course he is opposing it. I would expect people to start acting against these actions, developing workarounds, or just straight blocking the moves when Trump makes them. Unfortunately, this was always going to be the shape of things, once it became apparent that the universe was not kidding, when it permitted Trump to place his rump upon the commode that is the Presidency.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: BlueAjah
I am sure they can make up for it by removing the state requirements to comply with other federal laws that are not under federal power per the Constitution.
Well, that's what has to happen, some kind cohesive plan, and not the Federal Government just willy nilly forcing local communities to figure out how to bear federal fiscal responsibilities with local tax dollars.
Exactly how many local tax dollars does it cost for a police office to make a phone call and say "Yeah we have a criminal with no citizenship documentation. When will you pick him/her up?"