The DOJ announcement is significant because the four largest grants and seven of the top 10 Byrne/JAG recipients are sanctuary cities.
Under the new rules announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, these four top grant-getters (New York City; Cook County, Illinois; Los Angeles; and Philadelphia) are likely to be disqualified from these grants in the future if they maintain their current policies toward ICE. These cities received more than $10 million in grants in 2016.”
In 2016, sanctuary jurisdictions received $32.7 million in Byrne/JAG grants.
Republican Congressman John Culberson of Texas, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that handles the Justice Department, began an initiative to crack down on the worst sanctuary city offenders.
Last year the DOJ notified the 10 worst jurisdictions that the grants would be pulled if they didn’t come into compliance with federal law prohibiting sanctuary policies.
The jurisdictions are California; Connecticut; Cook County, Illinois; Chicago; Milwaukee County; New York City; New Orleans; Philadelphia; Miami-Dade County, Florida; and Las Vegas.”
As a result, Miami-Dade County reversed its sanctuary policy and began full cooperation with ICE.
In April 2017, the Justice Department sent letters to nine of the jurisdictions (all but Connecticut) reminding them that by a deadline of June 30, they had to send documentation of compliance with the law or lose certain funding (and potentially face clawbacks [repayment] of previously awarded funding).”
Documentation of “alleged compliance” is currently under review with results expected soon. Sessions has said their statements will be reviewed carefully: “It is not enough to assert compliance, the jurisdictions must actually be in compliance.”
Section 1373 is the federal law that bars policies blocking communication between local officials and federal immigration agencies. A number of sanctuary cities claim to meet its requirements, but those claims are dubious.
The following jurisdictions have extreme sanctuary policies that, if maintained, are likely to lead to disqualification from Byrne/JAG grants under the new rules: New York City; Chicago; Cook County, Illinois; Philadelphia; San Francisco County, California; Orleans County, Louisiana; Newark, New Jersey; Travis County, Texas; Taos County, New Mexico; Lycoming County, Pennsylvania; and Butler County, Pennsylvania.”
As the controversy continues, almost daily there are news reports about crimes committed in sanctuary cities by illegal criminal immigrants who’ve been deported but returned to the U.S., or by illegal aliens freed because ICE detainer requests were not honored.
The Trump administration is reportedly seeking $380 million for the Byrne/JAG grant program in 2018, which means those cities that honor federal immigration law stand to benefit significantly.
In addition to the Byrne/JAG grants, the Culberson initiative made sanctuary cities ineligible for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which offers partial reimbursement for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens, and the Community Oriented Policing grant program if they didn’t meet requirements for basic compliance.
Liberal mayors no doubt make themselves feel self-righteous with their sanctuary city position, but they put their citizens at grave risk of violent and property crime, impose greater burdens on taxpayers for social costs of harboring illegals, and stand to lose federal funding badly needed by their law enforcement agencies.
They definitely belong on the DOJ naughty list. Obviously, there’s a new sheriff in Washington D.C.
Sanctuary Jurisdictions Receiving Byrne/JAG Grants in 2016
This article was originally published by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Source: Daily Signal
Be sure to get the “welcoming cities” here in Michigan too. Same thing different name
Great job.
He sure has done a good job of avoiding the Swamp rats though
GET CT GOV. MALLOY….WE HAVE 16 CITIES ON THE LIST!!!!!…GET MALLOY NOW SESSIONS!!!!
Be sure to get DearBorn Michigan …
Hope San Antonio, Texas and Houston, Texas and Austin, Texas on the list!!!
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
After eight long years of cover-ups, bald-faced lies, and judicial obstruction, the government has finally released thousands of documents
demonstrating that the Obama Administration created false pretenses to unlawfully siphon tens of billions of corporate cash from Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac. These documents clearly demonstrate that senior government officials knew the GSEs were on the verge of sustained
profitability and took actions to usurp all of those profits. Indeed, the documents reveal that these officials lied to the public and perjured
themselves in federal courts. The so-called “Net Worth Sweep” was unnecessary to prevent a “downward spiral.” Put simply, we now have
unambiguous evidence that the Obama varsity team knew what their statutory authorities were, willfully exceeded those authorities to steal
billions of dollars from investors, and subsequently engaged in a cover-up to hide their wrongdoing.
When you follow the cash, it’s easy to see that Fannie and Freddie have generated hundreds of billions in profits, taxes, and consumer savings.
Each held tens of billions of tangible value and maintained tens of billions in earnings power – even at the worst point of The Great Recession.
Each had the wherewithal to pay all bills and pursue its stated mission of providing liquidity when all others cannot.
Federal agencies continue to defend contrived accounting gimmicks by arguing that they followed the law and, notwithstanding, they are above
it. As more and more documents are released, the Department of Justice will see that the actions undertaken by former officials undermine their
defenses and long-established laws. Fannie and Freddie can safely return to their role of insuring the uniquely American housing finance system
against catastrophic risk with private capital. There is a proven blueprint to succeed, and we hope to successfully resolve this matter before
reaching the Supreme Court of the United States.
After all, capital markets are based on the sanctity of contracts – the original buyers’ and sellers’ expectations and rights travel with a contract
no matter who holds it. When this saga ends, we expect contracts to be honored and substantial value for all stakeholders.