Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

What could Chicago lose?

Posted in:

Illinois

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Monday a crackdown on “sanctuary” cities and states – of which Chicago is one – with a pledge to “claw back” or cut all Justice Department federal funds from localities sheltering illegal immigrants.

Sessions made the announcement at the start of the daily White House briefing, which is a surprise only in its timing. President Trump had earlier made the threat to yank federal funds.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has staunchly defended Chicago as a sanctuary city that welcomes immigrants.

Citing criminal acts by several illegal immigrants, Sessions said sanctuary city policies violate “federal law. The president has rightly said this disregard for law must end.” […]

Sessions said he is “urging” the localities to “rethink these policies” because “these polices make our cities and states less safe.”

OK, so what do these Justice Department grants pay for?

* Here’s one out of state example…

Most recently, its Office for Victims of Crime announced a grant of almost $8.5 million in support for victims of last year’s mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando.

* We’re talking about maybe $4.1 billion in grants…

Laurie Robinson, a former assistant attorney general under Presidents Clinton and Obama who headed the Office of Justice Programs, which oversees grants, said the statute implementing SCAAP gives an attorney general broad power to decide who gets money.

“They could cut off drug programs, domestic violence grants, violence against women grants,” she said.

Other grants won’t be as easy to end. Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services program distributed $208 million in 2015 to local agencies. But that money is distributed using a formula established by Congress, meaning an attorney general can’t revoke grants without lawmakers’ approval.

Click here to see a list of currently available grants.

* The CTBA took a look not long ago and found that if the feds stopped “funding related to immigration and law enforcement,” it would cost Chicago $78 million. The group didn’t break that out further, however, to just law enforcement dollars.

But the BGA did identify one grant which will surely apply…

The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, which injects funds to local law enforcement agencies, including at least $9.6 million to the Chicago Police Department, has also been in the chopping block.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:23 pm

Comments

===Mayor Rahm Emanuel has staunchly defended Chicago as a sanctuary city that welcomes immigrants.===

The President and his Attorney General are giving the Mayor everything he could have hoped for and more. Please cut grants for domestic violence and violence against women. The Mayor has shored up his Latino support, now he needs more women. Lol.

In politics, you define yourself by who your enemies are. Rahm has decided to make Trump and Sessions his enemies. Smart move.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:29 pm
Requiring compliance with a political agenda or allowing victims of domestic violence to go without services? What have we come to? /s

Comment by Earnest Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:30 pm
What exactly has Chicago done that violates federal law?

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:30 pm
So how, exactly, is Sessions ddfining “sanctuary city?”

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:31 pm
===Rahm has decided to make Trump and Sessions his enemies===

And Rauner.

Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:32 pm
Some of these programs Trump was already targeting for cuts. His proposed budget would zero out VAWA grants and the COPS program.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/01/19/trump-budget-draft-targets-cops-crime-victims#.OURVQBSel

Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:33 pm
This is not a problem for Chicago assuming they enact some sort of city earnings tax.

Comment by blue dog dem Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:34 pm
I don’t see how this will hold up in court. Obamacare attempted to force states to expand Medicaid, and if they didn’t, they would have lost all Medicaid funding. Courts ruled the feds couldn’t coerce the States like that. I don’t see how this is different.

Also, it seems like there is barely a connection between immigrants and the grants. To force the States to make 21 the drinking age, they threatened to withhold highway dollars and this was upheld as constitutional. I believe an important aspect was the relationship between teens drinking and driving and the feds paying for roads.

Comment by My button is broke... Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:50 pm
Doesn’t take much to make the Rauner enemy list.

I mean, the guy has been sticking it to the likes of Catholic
Charities and Lutheran Social Services. Their only offense has been to fulfill their state contracts in good faith.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:50 pm
It’s funny how these people will use the excuse of states rights to defend xenophobia. Then they will use the power of the federal government to promote it. It’s going to be a long four years.

Comment by Ducky LaMoore Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 2:50 pm
Emanuel is pandering for ethnic votes. Ironically, many of the people benefiting from Rahm’s actions are ineligible to vote, but he expects that their friends and relatives who can vote will support him. While Emanuel plays with the progressives, Chicago is likely to forfeit millions.

These are not new rules or new Congressional laws.
Trump is merely enforcing existing laws that Obama largely ignored. Chicago needs to get with the program. The Feds set immigration laws and local governments do not.

Comment by Wake Up Call Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 3:11 pm
Why is enforcing immigration laws xenophobic? I understand the context of Trump/Rauner that any call for immigration controls may trip that alarm in most, but the underlying idea that enforcing immigration laws is xenophobic is what I do not understand. Can someone be so kind to explain this concept. I am not being snarky or argumentative, I am really trying to understand this.

Comment by FormerParatrooper Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 3:12 pm
WakUp Call, what federal laws are the city violating?

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 3:16 pm
===existing laws that Obama largely ignored.===

That’s a fun talking-point but the record is clear: no President in U.S. history allowed more deportations than Barack H. Obama.

Obama largely ignored. Lol. Another one duped by fake news, misinformation and a strong desire to have his worldview confirmed by anecdotes even when the data contradict it.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 3:25 pm
How does it help Rahm to lose all of that Federal Funding?

Enforcing immigration law did not used to be racist or xenophobic when Bill Clinton and Harry Reid spoke about it. Bill Clinton received standing ovation in the State of the Union for sating so.

Only the pandering to the extreme left wing of the Democratic party has made these policies racist or xenophobic.

I don’t understand taking an oath to enforce the law and only doing so to the laws you agree with.

Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 3:29 pm
Paratrooper, this story may help explain:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/03/25/she-thought-trump-would-deport-bad-hombres-instead-hes-deporting-her-law-abiding-husband/?utm_term=.b797e1d3f8f2

I know, I know, “what part of illegal don’t I understand,” blah, blah blah.

By any objective measure, it is both impossible and unwise to forcibly deport every single undocumented immigrant. It is also inhumane and counter-productive. Given that reasonable people arrive pretty quickly to this conclusion, the only other answer for those intent on carrying out mass deportations is, to quote Merriam-Webster:

“fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign.”

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 3:29 pm
The Printz v. US decision from the US Supreme Court is instructive. In that case, a sheriff sued the feds saying that they couldn’t force him to perform background checks as required under the Brady bill. The Court agreed saying the feds couldn’t commandeer sheriffs citing the 10th amendment. If the feds can’t force sheriffs to perform background checks, I don’t know how they can force local law enforcement officers to enforce immigration laws.

I remember a lot of people citing the 10th amendment not too long ago…

Comment by My button is broke... Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 3:39 pm
So does Rauner go to bat for Chicago to receive it’s fair share of Fed dollars? He is the Governor and should probably make a call to Trump. Or does he wait it out and keep his mouth shut hoping the problem just goes away?

Comment by DuPage Bard Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 3:40 pm
47th, Thank you. My intent is not to argue here, but to try to understand. Your reply actually gives me more questions.

Comment by FormerParatrooper Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 3:51 pm
LP, your boss could set you straight about “taking an oath” and being selective about what mandated responsibilities to fulfill.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 3:51 pm
Immigration enforcement is a Federal concern. Chicago has refused to cooperate with the Feds dating back to an executive order signed by Mayor Harold Washington.
The Chicago Police Department is not to cooperate with ICE agents. The Cook County Jail will not respect detainer requests for criminal aliens sought by ICE.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 3:55 pm
** WakUp Call, what federal laws are the city violating? **

I see wordslinger has being obtuse and obfuscating the issue down to a fine art. “willfully protecting those that are in the U.S. illegally”. It may not be a direct violation of federal law, but they will soon find out that there are repercussions.

Comment by Dave's Not Here Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 3:57 pm
By any objective measure, it is both impossible and unwise to forcibly deport every single undocumented immigrant. It is also inhumane and counter-productive. Given that reasonable people arrive pretty quickly to this conclusion, the only other answer for those intent on carrying out mass deportations is, to quote Merriam-Webster:

“fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign.”

Perhaps you can quote someone from the Trump administration who says that is their plan to deport 11 million people.

If you take the administration at their word, they are talking about deporting criminals and passing Kate’s law which imposes mandatory minimum sentences on undocumented criminals who return tp the US and commit multiple felonies.

local law enforcement does not cooperate with ICE in sanctuary cities and that is in direct violation of Federal Law

Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 4:03 pm
Since when do people get to choose which laws they’ll obey and which ones they won’t? Do you all do that? I’d like to move to a sanctuary city and have the protections afforded to me. Unfortunately as an American citizen I appear to have fewer protections than those who are not.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 4:04 pm
===Perhaps you can quote===

I posted a story. You chose not to ask someone to read it for you. That’s your problem troll, not mine.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 4:06 pm
I love how these Southerners like Sessions love states rights until they don’t…

Comment by d.p.gumby Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 4:21 pm
It is my understanding that Sanctuary Cities are ones which refuse to turn over prisoners in their custody without a warrant, per the 4th Amendment. If true, I’m 100% in their corner.

Comment by AnneWith Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 4:38 pm
Dave, my question was direct.

What federal laws are the city violating? By what mechanism is the city supposed to be determining who is in civil violation of federal immigration laws? What would be the cost of that unfunded mandate?

Are those simple questions too obtuse for you, cousin?

By the way, can I see your papers establishing your lawful presence in this country? Your family members, too? You have those on you, don’t you? I’m not going to take your word for it.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 4:53 pm
It is clear that Sessions and his fans have no clue what “sanctuary cities” law enforcement does. They essentially treat all arrestees the same, provide them their due process and required constitutional rights, and release them on time — unless the individual already has a felony conviction or a judge-authorized warrant presented by a Federal agent. They don’t simply do whatever the Feds request them to do, without further legal basis. The “law” is very shaky here.

Comment by walker Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 5:24 pm
once again, a reminder from the Obama days. Obama threatened several states with the withdrawal not just of Justice funds, but funds, as in everything Federal, for schools and all, if they did not comply with the NC transgender bathroom matter as decided on a Federal level. he started referencing Mississippi after NC and it looked like a thing he would do to multiple states.

it was too far a reach. but conservatives listened and now they are in charge for another few years. sure Congress is the gang that couldn’t use 7 years to get a health bill straight, but it’s all R in the Legislative and Executive level. I think there are greater Federal money threats to come, and the cuts on their own, are significant. Losing CDBG is big. NEA and NEH cuts, horrible.

Comment by Amalia Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 7:47 pm
===Obama threatened several states with the withdrawal not just of Justice funds, but funds, as in everything Federal, for schools and all, if they did not comply===

I’m sure somebody somewhere in Obama’s Department of Justice made a threat like this, but to be clear, Obama himself did not. Moreover, his administration made similar threats against states that passed marijuana not legalization. In neither case did his administration act on the threats made by Department level administration officials.

I suspect the current Attorney General is just saying what President Trump wants his supporters to hear. Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do.

Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 8:36 pm
Wordslinger, I could produce a copy of my birth certificate in short order, as could my daughter. My wife can present her green card on demand, as she has been able to do for 26 years. Having followed the law for that long, any defense of illegals us insulting.

Comment by Dave's Not Here Monday, Mar 27, 17 @ 10:59 pm
OBEY THE LAW, OR CHANGE IT.
Presidential proclamations don’t do it.
Hiding behind judges, won’t do it.
Crying on TV, won’t do it.

Nothing changes bad laws faster than their enactment. Hate a law? Change it through Democracy and legislation.

This repugnant idea that democracy needs a political leader protecting people from the effects of a majority has been disproven throughout US history. While there will always be errors made during heightened emotions through mass democracy, it is more common to see these errors made when benevolent leaders skirt laws by not enacting them.

Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Mar 28, 17 @ 8:00 am