Prospect Park (New Jersey) Mayor Mohamed Khairullah Wins Kudos for Sanctuary City Exec Order

a reply to: buster2010

Actually, some federal grants have wording that does allow the government to remove federal funding for non-compliance with immigration laws.

For example:
SCAAP, Byrne/AG, COPS Grants

www.bja.gov...

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.

source

And more to come:

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.

a reply to: carewemust

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.

There you go keep up that he must be a Muslim so he must be a terrorist mentality. What other groups of people do you irrationally fear?

In the last month there has been two trends that have concerned me.

1) the rise of populist movements around the world has moved us closer to state vs state war. To be clear I'm not saying the populist movements are wrong; just that this is a byproduct to be mindfull of.

2) As this OP demonstrates; there appears to be an increase in the brake down in the rule of law with in countries. Smaller and smaller groups of people are deciding to subvert the law. Again don't get me wrong; on this one issue these people might be morally right; it is the continued trend that is dangerous.

These two macro and micro issue show we are moving closer toward larger conflict between people. This has concerned me much more then the Trump controversy of the week. What's worse is that people I would consider decent and thoughtful are engaging in the deavisness. With no level headed people left who will save us from ourselves?

USA is at war!
all your enemys are getting in an making a foot hold.
they are take over government positions to get more in.
in they had on military uniforms and weapons.
it would be a attack and war, then you Would fight back.

but as they take over in a soft way.
You Let them win the war.
when USSR China and others
start fighting IN US for what Was your land.
you will know you Dont have a USA any more.

So, the obvious solution is to send all the refugees to his city

Let this sanctuary city deal with all the problems that come with providing services , housing, education etc to the refugees

PS, I'd love to see how many refugees are being housed in Hollywood

a reply to: windword

So your argument is funding?

a reply to: seasonal

So your argument is funding?

Not my argument. The Mayor's argument. From your OP:

“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.”

It was also the argument of the Mayor of Miama/Dade County, until he caved under Trump's threat.

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.
www.washingtonpost.com... erm=.23826ed5148a

It's also a force behind California's Trust Act

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.
www.catrustact.org...  

a reply to: windword

I wonder if it is "cheaper" to remove illegals or to allow illegals?

If funding is such a hardship?

If Trump really wanted to get rid of illegals, he could pass a national law that would create a $ 10,000 fine for being in the country illegally.

Also, $1,000 per day for overstaying your visa.

The fine would be split by the local community and the feds.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: seasonal

Hmmm...

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....

*sarcasm off*

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.

I'm getting sick of your anti-trump posts. Worry about your own country, twit. How about we redirect all these refugees and illegals to Britain?

And yes, a government official isn't supposed to fall out of line when the commander in chief makes orders. That mayor should be removed.

a reply to: Wildbob77

Do you think that illegal aliens have a cool $10,000?

Edit, are you thinking another law on top of another law on top of another law on top of a fine is going to do something to stem the flow of illegal aliens?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Interesting comment.

So..............do you have Sanctuary cities, villages, towns, or "counties" for illegal immigrants in the UK?

Or are you simply intimating that while its not o.k. for the UK, the US should be a sanctuary for illegal immigrants?

If you have tight immigration laws in the UK that are vigorously enforced and a situation where illegal immigrants are jailed and deported once apprehended in the UK, why shouldn't the US have the same protections?

Seems like a rather odd double standard to me.

a reply to: TonyS

Differing opinions are welcome.

Sometimes you can't believe people are so willing to vote or be in favor of things that against their and their countries best interest.

a reply to: windword

well, who should pay for it?
the federal government?
where does the federal government get money from?
the tax payers
where do states and cities get their money from?
the tax payers

so, regardless of whether the fed pays for it or the cities and states pay for it, the people who are really paying for it in the end are the taxpayers.

what you are really asking is, why should the tax payers have to pay to enforce the laws?

originally posted by: luke1212
a reply to: neo96

Doesn't federal law Trump state law?

yes they do, and when trump`s DOJ gets around to enforcing the laws there will be a lot of butt hurt sanctuary city mayors and city councils facing charges of conspiracy to violate federal immigration laws, and maybe aiding and abetting illegals.

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?"

No one is asking the locals to start deportations.

a reply to: Tardacus

This post is just too dumb to even answer. Just sayin.

a reply to: seasonal

And there you have it, what happen when foreign immigrants take over the country they invade using the established political system.

And people still think is a joke what is happening and about to happen in America.

I am sure the state government is backing this major too.

Perhaps he should be send back to law school so he can learn more about the constitution of the US.

I give up

a reply to: Teikiatsu

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?"

That's not the problem. The problem is that ICE isn't showing up to collect these people, and local jails are being forced to detain them indefinitely, until ICE and Homeland Security figure it out what to do with them, AFTER they've served their time for whatever crime they were convicted of.

Also, some of these people being detained are non-criminals that were discovered through their children's school for reporting or witnesses a crime or minor traffic violations.