The Supreme Court May Soon Kill Sanctuary Cities for Good

In May 2017, tired of dealing with the increase in violent crime and the strain on social services associated with immigrant-friendly “sanctuary cities,” the Texas legislature enacted a law designed to ensure members of state and local law enforcement uphold their oaths to defend the Constitution.

This bill required police officers, prosecutors, jail staff, and other public officials to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel, including issuing ICE detainers for incarcerated immigrants and requesting proof of citizenship status during routine traffic stops.

A federal judge in liberal San Antonio blocked the measure before it could take effect, holding that it impermissibly discriminated against ethnic minorities and violated the Constitution. But on March 13, 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the San Antonio court’s holding and said the law can stand.

Although this case may make it to the U.S. Supreme Court, with three of the Court’s most far-left justices over the age of 80, there’s a plausible chance that the case will be heard by the most conservative Supreme Court in decades.

In other words — the Supreme Court may have a serious chance to kill sanctuary cities for good.

One provision of this anti-sanctuary-cities law is the ICE detainer mandate. This statewide law obligates law enforcement agencies to notify the Department of Homeland Security before an illegal alien is released from police custody, and allows these agencies to hold the alien for an additional 48 hours beyond their sentence so ICE can take custody.

Police departments need only probable cause to suspect that a criminal defendant is an illegal alien, which can mean those who refuse to speak (or refuse to speak English) can expect to have a chat with ICE officials before they see daylight again. Only showing a valid Texas driver’s license or government-issued ID will be enough to defeat an ICE detainer.

Not only does this bill require compliance with President Trump’s ICE agents, who have a commitment to cracking down on illegal immigration not seen since before the Obama administration, it provides criminal penalties and steep fines for state and local officials who violate the ICE detainer mandate. Any private citizen is able to file a complaint with the Texas Attorney General. If an investigation of this complaint reveals that the official is allowing suspected illegal aliens to walk free, this official can be charged with a misdemeanor, removed from office, and fined up to $1,500 for each day the law is being violated. For second or subsequent offenses, this fine shoots up to $25,000 per day.

And best of all, Texas officials won’t need to worry about being sued for complying with the state’s new immigration law. The State of Texas is now required to indemnify city, county, and local governments against any legal claims stemming from their compliance with an ICE detainer request. This means that non-immigrants who lose their job or are otherwise harmed as a result of being held on an ICE detainer aren’t allowed to recover any money by suing the city or county for unlawful detention, helping protect local taxpayers.

The popularity of Texas’s law and its recent constitutional victory in a federal district court could embolden other states to follow the state’s lead and enact their own laws — relegating sanctuary cities to the history books. By promoting cooperation between local and federal law enforcement while also punishing the blatant violation of federal immigration laws seen in cities like San Francisco, Dallas, New York City, and San Diego, the State of Texas has taken an important step in the nationwide fight against illegal immigration.

And with President Trump in the White House and a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate, the federal government has finally begun sanctioning states that permit sanctuary cities to thrive. By reducing highway funding and other much-needed federal funds, the federal government is sending a strong message that its immigration laws aren’t optional.

Many are hopeful that this marks a promising development in the continuing battle against illegal immigration. Even liberal-minded states may not be able to handle having their highway funds cut. These states may, in turn, put pressure on the sanctuary cities within their borders or pass legislation, like that seen in Texas, to ensure that sanctuary cities remain a thing of the past.

~ Liberty Planet


Most Popular

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More



Most Popular
Sponsored Content

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More