On Wednesday, the Department of Justice announced that in its continued efforts to enforce immigration law—including in so-called sanctuary cities—it had sent letters to 23 jurisdictions requesting additional documentation to ensure those cities, counties, and states were complying with federal law. High-profile sanctuary cities, such as Chicago and New York, immediately responded by boycotting a meeting scheduled for later in the day with President Trump to discuss infrastructure.
Besides skipping the meeting, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel grumbled that “President Trump shouldn’t invite us to the White House for a meeting on infrastructure and three hours before issue the equivalent of what are arrest warrants for standing up for what we believe in and, by the way, what America believes in.”
However, contrary to Emanuel’s hyperbole, the Department of Justice’s demand for additional documentation from the select cities is not only eminently reasonable, it is required by law and Chicago previously agreed to provide this information as a condition to receiving a federal Byrne Justice Assistance Grant.
The Byrne JAG, “[n]amed after a fallen New York City police officer. . . supports state and local law enforcement efforts by providing additional funds for personnel, equipment, training, and other criminal justice needs.” To be eligible for funding, a city must comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which 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.” Additionally, in accepting the grant, cities, such as Chicago, expressly agree as a condition of the funding to cooperate with the federal government on all grant monitoring requests and provide “all documentation necessary to complete monitoring tasks.”
In April 2017, the DOJ first requested documentation from 9 jurisdictions confirming their compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Then in November 2017, following a preliminary finding that 29 jurisdictions had “laws, policies, or practices that may violate 8 U.S.C. 1373,” the DOJ sought additional information from municipalities, based on the unique laws in place in each locale.
For instance, the DOJ’s letter to Chicago expressed concern that SB31, which became effective August 28, 2017, might violate Section 1373 because it prohibits, “’comply[ing] with an immigration detainer,’ which is defined to include a request for ‘notice of release’ from custody.” The DOJ asked Chicago to respond by December 8, 2017, addressing “whether Illinois has laws, policies, or practices that violate section 1373, including those discussed above.” The letter required Chicago to “address whether you would comply with section 1373 throughout the award period, should you receive an FY 2017 Byrne JAG grant award,” and whether, “[t]o the extent Illinois laws or policies contain so called ‘savings clauses,’ please explain in your submission the way these savings clauses are interpreted and applied, and whether these interpretations are communicated to Illinois officers or employees.” The letters sent to the other 28 jurisdictions similarly pinpointed problematic local laws.
Chicago responded to the November 2017 request, but the DOJ found the Windy City’s response deficient—as well as the response of 22 other jurisdictions—which led to Wednesday’s announcement that additional information was required and if the grant recipients did not provide the requested documentation, they would be subject to a DOJ subpoena. For Chicago, for instance, the DOJ requested the following:
All documents reflecting any orders, directives, instructions, or guidance to your law enforcement employees (including, but not limited to, police officers, correctional officers, and contract employees), whether formal or informal, that were distributed, produced, and/or in effect during the relevant timeframe, regarding whether and how these employees may, or may not, communicate with the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and/or Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or their agents, whether directly or indirectly.
This demand for documentation, something Chicago promised to provide as a condition of receiving the Bryne JAG grant, backed-up by a threat of a subpoena is a far cry from the claimed “arrest warrant” Emanuel charged the DOJ with issuing. His umbrage strikes hollow, given the DOJ’s two earlier requests for documentation.
But with a base angry and dejected following the folly of Schumer’s three-day government shut-down, boycotting Trump’s mayoral meeting on Wednesday gave Mayor Emanuel and his compatriots from other sanctuary-cities the opportunity to grandstand on the issue of immigration. However, in shunning Trump’s meeting on infrastructure, the big-city Democrat mayors replicated the mistake made by their federal counterparts—creating an optic that the Left cares more about illegal aliens than the welfare of their own citizens. And criminal aliens at that!
Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge, and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct professor for the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.
If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.
