Open Borders people have 4 basic arguments they push to defend the indefensible idea of sanctuary cities. All are idiotic. 1. A large portion of deportations come from detainers and a key regulation which DHS has relied on to ensure state and local governments honor and comply with them is 8 C.F.R. s 287.7(d). It states that upon a determination by the Department to issue a detainer for an alien not otherwise detained by [local police], such agency shall maintain custody of the alien for a period [generally] not to exceed 48 hours . . . in order to permit assumption of custody by the Department. Open-borders legal advocates have long argued that the shall in this regulation actually means may. This is absurd. The word shall means DO IT. Not when you get around to it. Or maybe yes, maybe no. Just DO IT. But Obama has been using this stupid notion. In Moreno v. Napolitano (2013), his DHS started to take up this interpretation. And in his memo blitz last November, Obama purported to make this view official, by severely restricting detainers under his new unilateral Priorities Enforcement Program. 2. With 287(g) agreements, open borders freaks routinely employ whats become a magic phrase under the Obama administration: limited resources i.e., state and local authorities lack the resources to train their police to carry out federal immigration duties. As with DAPA, the argument is baseless. As a federal program, 287(g) depends on federal appropriations. During the Bush administration, the federal government was actively appropriating monies for training and detainers. And as enforcement advocates argue, considering the billions of dollars that cities and states spend just on education for illegal alien children alone (Arizona spends $1.5 billion per year), they cant afford not to cooperate with the federal government. 3. Open-border advocates also say that such policies keep illegal aliens from dealing with police, but whenever this argument is made, empirical evidence is never forthcoming. Of course, we wouldnt be fretting over the non-cooperation of illegal aliens if deterrence policies like Secure Communities or E-Verify were rigorously enforced in the first place, which sanctuary cities, counties, and states don't do. And to say that illegal aliens won't report crime, because they're afraid of being deported, is ridiculous. Anyone can report crime and do it anonymously, in any number of ways. They can call from a pay phone or some public phone. They can send a snail mail letter and simply not sign it. They can buy a cheap disposable cell phone, and just throw it away. 4. Although liberals have never been supporters of states rights, they argue with a straight face, that the federal government should not and cannot compel state governments to enforce federal immigration law. They argue that the programs infringe on states Tenth Amendment rights. But elsewhere, they argue that the federal government can prohibit state governments from enforcing immigration law. The number of open-borders groups who filed Supreme Court briefs against Arizonas SB1070 law, shows how they truly feel about states rights.
Say what???... Report: DOJ Gave $342,168,401 to 10 States and Cities That Shield Illegal Aliens From Deportation August 10, 2016 | The U.S. Department of Justice gave $342,168,401 in grant money to 10 sanctuary states and cities that shield illegal aliens, even violent ones, from deportation by refusing to cooperate with federal immigration officials, according to a Judicial Watch report.
Could be a states rights issue that lands in the Supreme Court... Texas governor threatens funding cut over sanctuary cities January 22, 2017 A Central Texas sheriff's announcement her agency will be scaling back its cooperation with federal immigration agents has prompted Gov. Greg Abbott to say his office will be cutting funding for the county.
