Donald Trump Challenges Mayors in Sanctuary Cities (Audio)

enforced strongly. That, of course, was President Trump in signing the executive order, but mayors of sanctuary cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Boston pushed back, vowing defiantly to continue to protect their immigrant populations. Here's Mayor Rama Manuel of Chicago. Whether you're from Ireland, or India or Israel, and whether you're from Mexica or Moldovia, where my grandfather came from, you are welcomed in Chicago as you pursue

the American dream. Some six fifty billion dollars could be at risk, but Trump may be legally limited in his authority to withhold federal funds based on cooperation with his policies. Ap point officials in New York and California said they're ready to litigate. As California Governor Jerry Brown made clear, we will defend everybody, every man, woman, and child who's come here for a better life and has contributed to

the well being of our state. Joining us today are Jennifer Shakoon, professor at the University of California Irvine School of Law, and Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies. Jennifer, there's no clear definition of sanctuary city, and the policies of sanctuaries cities seem to vary widely. Are there any policies they all adhere to. No. I think one of the things that's interesting is the President is used the term sanctuary almost as if it's

a legal term of art. But there is a great deal of right the among sanctuary cities UM and also other departments and agencies that practice policies that might be characterized by some as sanctuary policies UM. So there's a

lot of diversity. I think some things that features that they might have in common UM would include, UH, not using local resources state or local resources, the resources of state and local agencies UM to investigate immigration status of their own accord um and with their own resources in Jessica Um, donald t top of course, is threatening it to cut off funds to cities. What kinds of funds

do cities received from the federal government? Putting aside for a second whether the president actually would be able to legally withhold that money. Well, first of all, it's not true that there's no definition of a sanctuary city in

federal law. And if you read the executive orders, you see that it's clear that they're going to be using a US Code thirteen seventy three, which says that no jurisdiction can in any way prohibit or restrict their officers communication with federal immigration authorities, and no one can shield criminal aliens from detection by the federal government. And so um,

this is the section. These are the sections of the law that the Department of Justice has already said that anyone applying for d o J Law enforcement grants has to be in compliance with and they've said that policy. You know, sanctuaries who have policies and in that are inconsistent with that law are going to see their funding with health. So this is already on track, and it's

perfectly in conformance with the law. Right now, we're talking about Department of Justice funding UM for law enforcement purposes, but President Trump has directed his administration to look at other kinds of funding that could be potentially uh at

risk for the sanctuaries. And not only that UM. According to this executive order that was released yesterday, they could be subject to prosecution, which could include the imposition of fines in certain kinds of cases where criminal aliens who are released by the sanctuaries go on to harm others.

And further, they're going to be releasing the information on the individual criminal aliens who are released by the sanctuary jurisdictions so the public can see exactly what's going on here, and the leaders of these sanctuary jurisdictions can explain to the public why they release these people instead of allowing Ice to take custody of them for deportation. And so I think this is a real game changer, Jennifer, do

you agree. Hasn't the Supreme Court rule that the US can only cut funds from states and cities that violate its policies if the funds are cut from programs that are related to the policies that are being violated. Yes, that's right, And let me just streuss that for decades um state and local actors have made decisions about how to be involved in immigration enforcement. And so we can think of this and not as a recent phenomenon of

a few large jurisdictions announcing sanctuary policies. We can think about Special Order forty, the order that prohibits members from the Los Angeles Police Department from investigating immigration status. That

order has been around since the late nineteen seventies. When a state or a local agency or department found that getting involved in immigration enforcement undermined its core functions like community safety, or education or public health, that agency often made a choice to protect the integrity of its core mission by staying out of federal immigration investigation and enforcement.

In mid Congress and acted a series of measures, including the one that Jessica referred to, that we're designed to promote voluntary cooperation between state and local actors and the federal government. But Congress did not enact measures that would force state or states or localities to take on federal

investigation and federal inforce worsement of immigration law. Nor could they, as he just referenced, those kinds of efforts would be found constitutionally impermission impermissible, and they've been found constitutionally impermissible in cases like Prince versus the United States. So there's a limit to what the federal government can do in terms of ordering uh, the participation and cooperation of states and localities when they want investigation, um and enforcement of

immigration law. To say, Jennifer, let me ask that, Jessica, respondent, Just isn't isn't that Prince case pretty pretty clear? The federal government can't withhold money from state governments that are not You can't can't require them to enforce federal law at risk of losing federal funding. Isn't that clear? Well, the federal government is not asking state and agencies to enforce federal law. What they're asking them to do is not to obstruct enforcement of law and not to illegally

prohibit local officials from communicating with federal immigration authorities. That's what this is about. That's how this is defined in the Executive Order, and that's consistent with federal law. So, Jessica, let me just clarify, you said, Jessica, Jessica, just want to clarify. So you said that your understanding this executive order is that it it's trying to keep cities from

prohibiting their employees from communicating. Is that all it does or doesn't it require them to tell federal authorities that they have somebody in custody. Absolutely not, No, that's not what the order says. It refers specifically to the section of law that I reference date US Code through seventy three. But it also leaves open the possibility of prosecution or fines for anyone who facilitates the illegal presence of someone in the United States. And that's that's a that's a

type of sanctuary policy. Also, uh, and that's a different question. It's not forcing anyone to do something that's contrary to federal law or that would be commandeering of resources. So I think some of these sanctuary jurisdictions are really overreacting to what people are saying. Now, I'd like to think that they would do the right thing and cooperate at all times with ice, because that's you know, that's what the public expects and that's what keeps our community safe.

But this executive order is I'm early within the bounds of all right, the established law. Jennifer Hole that thought, we are now going to go to Philadelphia, where President Trump is addressing the GOP retreat.