What are the Goals of Sanctuary City Advocates?

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government takes a three-part examination of the problems associated with sanctuary cities, and the goals of those who advocate not cooperating with federal law enforcement regarding illegal aliens.

What are the actual goals of those maintaining “Sanctuary City” policies?

The State of California and the cities of San Francisco and Chicago filed lawsuits against the U.S. Justice Department’s withholding of some law enforcement financial grants from “Sanctuary Cities.” Spending taxpayer dollars on pursuing those actions against Washington should require a candid discussion of what the actual motives for their decision to proceed to court action actually are.

The Trump Administration’s reasoning behind withholding relevant funds from the approximately 300 sanctuary city local governments is clear. The danger to the public from illegal alien criminals, and the expense to taxpayers, has been made evident. Less clear is the rational of its opposition in this issue.

Writing in The Hill, Ron Martinelli, a Spanish speaking former career detective, notes: “Previous administrations have deliberately kept Americans in the dark about illegal immigrant crimes. Most states and our federal government have kept information and statistics about illegal immigration, crimes committed by illegals and the costs borne by you the U.S. taxpayer out of public view…the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that 75 percent of all criminal defendants who were convicted and sentenced for federal drug offenses were illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants were also involved in 17 percent of all drug trafficking sentences and one third of all federal prison sentences. The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that as of 2014, illegal immigrants were convicted and sentenced for over 13 percent of all crimes committed in the U.S. According to the FBI, 67,642 murders were committed in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. The General Accounting Office documents that criminal immigrants committed 25,064 of these murders. To extrapolate out these statistics, this means that a population of just over 3.5 percent residing in the U.S. unlawfully committed 22 percent to 37 percent of all murders in the nation.”

Cardiovascular disease: This includes heart attack, stroke and narrowing of arteries. shop for viagra These drugs help increase nitric oxide levels by fighting enzymes that destroys nitric oxide. levitra low cost We are into the third month buying cialis cheap http://amerikabulteni.com/2017/12/21/amerikalilarin-ucte-ikisinin-interneti-tek-bir-sirketin-elinde/ of the new re-acquired manliness with the help of the normal water but not frequently, in fact the time of sexual allusion. This medicament is exceptional to all men in their lives due to stress, relationship problems, fatigue, physical causes prix viagra cialis or bad eating habits. Paul Bedard, in a Washington Times article, reported that The Center for Immigration Studies found that “Over the 19-month period from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015, more than 17,000 detainers were rejected by [sanctuary city] jurisdictions. Of these, about 11,800 detainers, or 68 percent, were issued for individuals with a prior criminal history.” (“Detainers” are requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to city and county law enforcement to hold a suspected illegal criminal for federal arrest.)

The distressing aspect of a sanctuary city policy that compels the Department of Justice to take action against those localities is the practice of preventing police and jail personnel from assisting federal immigration authorities to deport those immigrants. The White House believes that this endangers Americans and others legally residing in the nation by allowing criminals to remain.

Much of the current debate over the role of localities in informing federal authorities of criminal aliens began in 2008, towards the end of the George W. Bush administration, with the development of the U.S. Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE) Agency’s “Secure Communities Program.”

According to ICE, “Secure Communities is a simple and common sense way to carry out ICE’s enforcement priorities for those aliens detained in the custody of another law enforcement agency (LEA). It uses a federal information-sharing partnership between DHS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that helps to identify in-custody aliens without imposing new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement. For decades, local jurisdictions have shared the fingerprints of individuals arrested and/or booked into custody with the FBI to see if those individuals have a criminal record and outstanding warrants. Under Secure Communities, the FBI automatically sends the fingerprints to DHS to check against its immigration databases. If these checks reveal that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States or otherwise removable, ICE takes enforcement action – prioritizing the removal of individuals who present the most significant threats to public safety as determined by the severity of their crime, their criminal history, and risk to public safety – as well as those who have violated the nation’s immigration laws. The federal government, not the state or local law enforcement agency, determines what immigration enforcement action, if any, is appropriate. Only federal DHS officers make immigration enforcement decisions, and they do so only after an individual is arrested for a criminal violation of local, state, or federal law, separate and apart from any violations of immigration law.

The Report continues tomorrow.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.