The fight over sanctuary cities is heating up. Last week, a federal judge blocked President Trump’s executive order barring sanctuary cities from receiving federal fund. Judge William H. Orrick issued an injunction blocking enforcement of Section 9(a) of the executive order on the grounds that it is unconstitutionally vague.
In a statement, the White House blasted the ruling as an “egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge”:
Today, the rule of law suffered another blow, as an unelected judge unilaterally rewrote immigration policy for our Nation. Federal law explicitly states that “a Federal, State or Local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” 8 U.S.C. 1373(a). That means, according to Congress, a city that prohibits its officials from providing information to federal immigration authorities -- a sanctuary city -- is violating the law. Sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, block their jails from turning over criminal aliens to Federal authorities for deportation. These cities are engaged in the dangerous and unlawful nullification of Federal law in an attempt to erase our borders.
Trump tweeted he will appeal the ruling all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, Baltimore’s sanctuary city policy works like a charm. In a memo obtained by The Baltimore Sun, the Baltimore State's Attorney's Office says prosecutors should go easy on illegal immigrants:
In considering the appropriate disposition of a minor, non-violent criminal case, please be certain to consider those potential consequences to the victim, witnesses, and the defendant.
Will American citizens who commit minor crimes be given the same consideration?
In Philadelphia, Mayor Kenney and City Council work overtime to flout the rule of law. Last week, City Council passed a resolution that invoked a nonexistent “human right” to work in the United States:
Recognizing every person’s fundamental right to earn a living, regardless of immigration status, and affirming the City of Philadelphia’s commitment to protect and secure a safe and dignified workplace for all.
Philadelphia Daily News Columnist Stu Bykofsky noted the resolution is not worth the paper it’s written on:
There is no such right. That notion is not just harebrained, it is criminal. Under federal law, only people here legally have the privilege of a job, and they need a permit for that. Even legal visitors have no “right” to work without permission. Employers are prohibited from hiring the undocumented.
Immigration law was passed by Congress and if you don’t like it, go to Congress to change it. That’s how democracy works. You don’t ignore it or rewrite it. The Council resolution didn't reference U.S. law or the U.S. Constitution. It instead cited the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We're all Globalists, now.
In the same vein, Jay McCalla, a former deputy managing director of Philadelphia during the administrations of Mayors Ed Rendell and John Street, said Mayor Jim Kenney has some explaining to do:
While Kenney has boldly asserted the general policy, he has neither defined it nor invited public debate to affirm it. City Council adopted a resolution of support, but the few seconds set aside for a voice vote hardly qualify as a sincere sorting of the issues in what may be the most significant, potentially impactful declarations of values a city can make.
While we wait for Kenney to explain himself, check out the surprisingly evenhanded explainer from Vox.