Speaker 1: In his crackdown on illegal immigration, President Trump targeted sanctuary cities,
Speaker 1: signing an executive order yesterday aimed at stripping federal funds
Speaker 1: to cities that protect illegal immigrants from prosecution. The language
Speaker 1: of the order was short on specifics, although Press Secretary
Speaker 1: Shawn Spicer made the intent very clear. From here on out,
Speaker 1: I'm asking all of you to enforce the laws of
Speaker 1: the United States of America. They will be enforced and
Speaker 1: enforced strongly. That, of course, was President Trump in signing
Speaker 1: the executive order, but mayors of sanctuary cities like New York,
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, Chicago, and Boston pushed back, vowing defiantly to
Speaker 1: continue to protect their immigrant populations. Here's Mayor Rama Manuel
Speaker 1: of Chicago. Whether you're from Ireland, or India or Israel,
Speaker 1: and whether you're from Mexica or Moldovia, where my grandfather
Speaker 1: came from, you are welcomed in Chicago as you pursue
Speaker 1: the American dream. Some six fifty billion dollars could be
Speaker 1: at risk, but Trump may be legally limited in his
Speaker 1: authority to withhold federal funds based on cooperation with his policies.
Speaker 1: Ap point officials in New York and California said they're
Speaker 1: ready to litigate. As California Governor Jerry Brown made clear,
Speaker 1: we will defend everybody, every man, woman, and child who's
Speaker 1: come here for a better life and has contributed to
Speaker 1: the well being of our state. Joining us today are
Speaker 1: Jennifer Shakoon, professor at the University of California Irvine School
Speaker 1: of Law, and Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies for
Speaker 1: the Center for Immigration Studies. Jennifer, there's no clear definition
Speaker 1: of sanctuary city, and the policies of sanctuaries cities seem
Speaker 1: to vary widely. Are there any policies they all adhere to. No.
Speaker 1: I think one of the things that's interesting is the
Speaker 1: President is used the term sanctuary almost as if it's
Speaker 1: a legal term of art. But there is a great
Speaker 1: deal of right the among sanctuary cities UM and also
Speaker 1: other departments and agencies that practice policies that might be
Speaker 1: characterized by some as sanctuary policies UM. So there's a
Speaker 1: lot of diversity. I think some things that features that
Speaker 1: they might have in common UM would include, UH, not
Speaker 1: using local resources state or local resources, the resources of
Speaker 1: state and local agencies UM to investigate immigration status of
Speaker 1: their own accord um and with their own resources in
Speaker 1: Jessica Um, donald t top of course, is threatening it
Speaker 1: to cut off funds to cities. What kinds of funds
Speaker 1: do cities received from the federal government? Putting aside for
Speaker 1: a second whether the president actually would be able to
Speaker 1: legally withhold that money. Well, first of all, it's not
Speaker 1: true that there's no definition of a sanctuary city in
Speaker 1: federal law. And if you read the executive orders, you
Speaker 1: see that it's clear that they're going to be using
Speaker 1: a US Code thirteen seventy three, which says that no
Speaker 1: jurisdiction can in any way prohibit or restrict their officers
Speaker 1: communication with federal immigration authorities, and no one can shield
Speaker 1: criminal aliens from detection by the federal government. And so um,
Speaker 1: this is the section. These are the sections of the
Speaker 1: law that the Department of Justice has already said that
Speaker 1: anyone applying for d o J Law enforcement grants has
Speaker 1: to be in compliance with and they've said that policy.
Speaker 1: You know, sanctuaries who have policies and in that are
Speaker 1: inconsistent with that law are going to see their funding
Speaker 1: with health. So this is already on track, and it's
Speaker 1: perfectly in conformance with the law. Right now, we're talking
Speaker 1: about Department of Justice funding UM for law enforcement purposes,
Speaker 1: but President Trump has directed his administration to look at
Speaker 1: other kinds of funding that could be potentially uh at
Speaker 1: risk for the sanctuaries. And not only that UM. According
Speaker 1: to this executive order that was released yesterday, they could
Speaker 1: be subject to prosecution, which could include the imposition of
Speaker 1: fines in certain kinds of cases where criminal aliens who
Speaker 1: are released by the sanctuaries go on to harm others.
Speaker 1: And further, they're going to be releasing the information on
Speaker 1: the individual criminal aliens who are released by the sanctuary
Speaker 1: jurisdictions so the public can see exactly what's going on here,
Speaker 1: and the leaders of these sanctuary jurisdictions can explain to
Speaker 1: the public why they release these people instead of allowing
Speaker 1: Ice to take custody of them for deportation. And so
Speaker 1: I think this is a real game changer, Jennifer, do
Speaker 1: you agree. Hasn't the Supreme Court rule that the US
Speaker 1: can only cut funds from states and cities that violate
Speaker 1: its policies if the funds are cut from programs that
Speaker 1: are related to the policies that are being violated. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's right, And let me just streuss that for decades
Speaker 1: um state and local actors have made decisions about how
Speaker 1: to be involved in immigration enforcement. And so we can
Speaker 1: think of this and not as a recent phenomenon of
Speaker 1: a few large jurisdictions announcing sanctuary policies. We can think
Speaker 1: about Special Order forty, the order that prohibits members from
Speaker 1: the Los Angeles Police Department from investigating immigration status. That
Speaker 1: order has been around since the late nineteen seventies. When
Speaker 1: a state or a local agency or department found that
Speaker 1: getting involved in immigration enforcement undermined its core functions like
Speaker 1: community safety, or education or public health, that agency often
Speaker 1: made a choice to protect the integrity of its core
Speaker 1: mission by staying out of federal immigration investigation and enforcement.
Speaker 1: In mid Congress and acted a series of measures, including
Speaker 1: the one that Jessica referred to, that we're designed to
Speaker 1: promote voluntary cooperation between state and local actors and the
Speaker 1: federal government. But Congress did not enact measures that would
Speaker 1: force state or states or localities to take on federal
Speaker 1: investigation and federal inforce worsement of immigration law. Nor could they,
Speaker 1: as he just referenced, those kinds of efforts would be
Speaker 1: found constitutionally impermission impermissible, and they've been found constitutionally impermissible
Speaker 1: in cases like Prince versus the United States. So there's
Speaker 1: a limit to what the federal government can do in
Speaker 1: terms of ordering uh, the participation and cooperation of states
Speaker 1: and localities when they want investigation, um and enforcement of
Speaker 1: immigration law. To say, Jennifer, let me ask that, Jessica, respondent,
Speaker 1: Just isn't isn't that Prince case pretty pretty clear? The
Speaker 1: federal government can't withhold money from state governments that are
Speaker 1: not You can't can't require them to enforce federal law
Speaker 1: at risk of losing federal funding. Isn't that clear? Well,
Speaker 1: the federal government is not asking state and agencies to
Speaker 1: enforce federal law. What they're asking them to do is
Speaker 1: not to obstruct enforcement of law and not to illegally
Speaker 1: prohibit local officials from communicating with federal immigration authorities. That's
Speaker 1: what this is about. That's how this is defined in
Speaker 1: the Executive Order, and that's consistent with federal law. So, Jessica,
Speaker 1: let me just clarify, you said, Jessica, Jessica, just want
Speaker 1: to clarify. So you said that your understanding this executive
Speaker 1: order is that it it's trying to keep cities from
Speaker 1: prohibiting their employees from communicating. Is that all it does
Speaker 1: or doesn't it require them to tell federal authorities that
Speaker 1: they have somebody in custody. Absolutely not, No, that's not
Speaker 1: what the order says. It refers specifically to the section
Speaker 1: of law that I reference date US Code through seventy three.
Speaker 1: But it also leaves open the possibility of prosecution or
Speaker 1: fines for anyone who facilitates the illegal presence of someone
Speaker 1: in the United States. And that's that's a that's a
Speaker 1: type of sanctuary policy. Also, uh, and that's a different question.
Speaker 1: It's not forcing anyone to do something that's contrary to
Speaker 1: federal law or that would be commandeering of resources. So
Speaker 1: I think some of these sanctuary jurisdictions are really overreacting
Speaker 1: to what people are saying. Now, I'd like to think
Speaker 1: that they would do the right thing and cooperate at
Speaker 1: all times with ice, because that's you know, that's what
Speaker 1: the public expects and that's what keeps our community safe.
Speaker 1: But this executive order is I'm early within the bounds
Speaker 1: of all right, the established law. Jennifer Hole that thought,
Speaker 1: we are now going to go to Philadelphia, where President
Speaker 1: Trump is addressing the GOP retreat.