User:James Cobb/sandbox

'Jurisdiction of policing sanctuary cities: Federal vs. Local

The matter of immigration and who has the jurisdiction federal verses local,  to detain and deport  immigrants is a tricky and unclear issue, because the constitution does not have a clear cut answer. Since the constitution does not clearly define who has power over immigration both the federal government and local government make points that defend their claim. This issue of who has jurisdiction has been highly debated and has dated back all the way to the Alien Act of  1798.  . Opponents to local level policing tend to use the Naturalization Clause and the Migration clause as textual confirmation of federal power as they are both in the constitution. Because of the Supremacy Clause which is generally interpreted to mean that federal law trumps state law, the supreme court the, majority of the time sides with the federal government . Certain states have been more heavily affected by illegal immigrants than others and in response have attempted to pass legislation that limit undocumented immigrants access to public benefits.

One of the most famous cases being Arizona's SB 1070 law which was passed in 2010 and then later struck down in 2012 by the supreme court.  States like Arizona, Texas and Nevada justify their aggressive actions as a result of the failed efforts of the federal government to address the problems of immigrants crowding school, hospitals and changing the cultural landscape which are most visible on a local level. . This ambiguity and confusion over jurisdiction is one of the reasons why policing of sanctuary cities varies widely depending where you are in the country. 

Sandbox/entry#2 Dr. Haeen please look at this for me this is my second draft.

Hi Daniel, This material looks very well-developed. I underlined some problems in the writing. I also noted where I think you have a new idea popping up and, therefore, a new paragraph. Thinking back to your previous work, you might start the section with a sentence along the lines of "Despite difficulty in defining legally what counts as a "sanctuary city," the term and communities labeled as such have been a key focus for ...." The citations needs to be fixed to take people directly to the article in question. Regards, Dr. Haenn

Trump Administration Agenda on Sanctuary Cities:               

There has been recent difficulty in defining legally what counts as a "sanctuary city," the term and communities that have been labeled as such have been a key focus for the Trump administration and Republicans in Washington.  The Trump administration released a list of  immigration principles to congress in October. The administration's list included the funding of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, a crackdown on the influx of Central American minors and curbs on federal grants to sanctuary cities. A pledge to strip "all federal funding to sanctuary cities" was a key campaign theme for Donald Trump. In an executive order, Trump declared that jurisdictions that "refuse to comply" with 8 U.S.C. 1373, a provision of federal law on information sharing between local and federal authorities, would be ineligible to receive federal grants.Despite strong statements by the Trump administration regarding its intent to financially penalize states and localities that do not fully cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, little has been done when it comes to new policies regarding sanctuary jurisdictions. As a result, states and cities have had varying responses to president Trump's executive order.

In response to Trump's order, 33 states have introduced or enacted legislation requiring local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE officers, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and theirs requests to hold, non citizen, inmates for deportation. In contrast, other states and cities have responded by not cooperating with federal immigration efforts or showcasing welcoming policies towards immigrants.One of the most notable states being California, which has openly refused the administration's attempts to "clamp down on sanctuary cities". A federal judge in San Francisco agreed with two California municipalities that Trump's attempt to cut them off from federal funding for not complying with deportation requests and is unconstitutional. A similar case in Chicago was filed and a federal judge in Chicago ruled that the Trump administration may not withhold public safety grants to sanctuary cities. These decisions have been seen as a setback to the administration's efforts to force local jurisdictions to help federal authorities with the policing of illegal immigrants.

 Officials around the country who oppose the president's policies make the claim that complying with federal immigration officers will ruin the trust established between law enforcement and the immigrant communities. Those who support the president's policies claim that by protecting immigrants from immigration enforcement cities, and states with so called sanctuary policies, it make their communities less safe and undermine the rule of law.Further debates will be needed to establish policies that both sides can agree upon.  Third Post draft:

History of Sanctuary Cities in the USA.

The movement that established sanctuary cities in the United States  began in the early 1980's. The movement  traces its roots to religious philosophy, as well as in histories of resistance movements to state injustices. The sanctuary  city movement took place in the 1980s to challenge the US government’s refusal to grant asylum to certain Central American refugees. These asylum seekers were arriving from countries in Central America like El Salvador and Guatemala that were politically unstable. More than 75,000 El Salvadorians and 200,000 Guatemalans were killed by their governments in hopes to suppress the communist movement in those countries at the time. Faith-based groups in the US Southwest initially drove the movement of the 1980s, with eight churches publicly declaring sanctuary in March 1982. John Fife, a minister and movement leader famously  wrote in a letter to Attorney General William Smith, saying that the "Southside United Presbyterian Church will publicly violate the Immigration and Nationality Act" by allowing sanctuary in its church for those from Central America. An important milestone for sanctuary cities movement in the USA occurred in San Francisco In 1985, this city passed the largely symbolic “City of Refuge” resolution. This resolution was followed by a 1985 city ordinance, "City of Refuge". This city ordinance made it  prohibited to use city funds and resources to assist in federal immigration enforcement, which is the defining characteristic of what a sanctuary city is today in the United States.  The federal government, under President Reagan, responded by criminalizing the movement and continues to be illegal today. As of 2017, because of this movement there are over 300 cities, states and counties that consider themselves sanctuary cities.