They left a few out
Justice Department Sends Letters to 29 Jurisdictions Regarding Their Compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373
The Department of Justice today sent the attached letters to 29 jurisdictions that may have laws, policies, or practices that violate 8 U.S.C. 1373, a federal statute that promotes information sharing related to immigration enforcement.
“Jurisdictions that adopt so-called ‘sanctuary policies’ also adopt the view that the protection of criminal aliens is more important than the protection of law-abiding citizens and of the rule of law,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “I urge all jurisdictions found to be potentially out of compliance in this preliminary review to reconsider their policies that undermine the safety of their residents. We urge jurisdictions to not only comply with Section 1373, but also to establish sensible and effective partnerships to properly process criminal aliens.”
The following jurisdictions have preliminarily been found to have laws, policies, or practices that may violate 8 U.S.C. 1373:
- Albany, New York;
- Berkeley, California;
- Bernalillo County, New Mexico;
- Burlington, Vermont;
- Contra Costa County, California;
- City and County of Denver, Colorado;
- Fremont, California;
- Jackson, Mississippi;
- King County, Washington;
- Lawrence, Massachusetts;
- Los Angeles, California;
- Louisville Metro, Kentucky;
- Middlesex, New Jersey;
- Monterey County, California;
- Multnomah County, Oregon;
- Newark, New Jersey;
- Riverside County, California;
- Sacramento County, California;
- City and County of San Francisco, California;
- Santa Ana, California;
- Santa Clara County, California;
- Seattle, Washington;
- Sonoma County, California;
- Washington, District of Columbia;
- Watsonville, California;
- West Palm Beach, Florida;
- State of Illinois;
- State of Oregon; and
- State of Vermont.
The letters remind the recipient jurisdictions that, as a condition for receiving certain FY2016 funding from the Department of Justice, each of these jurisdictions agreed to comply with Section 1373.
The Department of Justice periodically reviews the laws, policies, or practices of jurisdictions that previously certified compliance with Section 1373 as a condition of their FY2016 Byrne JAG awards.
In addition to raising concerns about these jurisdictions’ Section 1373 compliance during FY2016, the Justice Department asked jurisdictions to determine that they will comply with Section 1373 should they receive an FY2017 Byrne JAG award.
Jurisdictions that were found to have possible violations of 8 U.S.C. 1373 will have until December 8, 2017 to demonstrate that the interpretation and application of their laws, policies, or practices comply with the statute.
Topic(s):Grants
Press Release Number:
17-1292
www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sends-letters-29-jurisdictions-regarding-their-compliance-8-usc-1373
DOJ threatens to subpoena 23 jurisdictions over sanctuary city policies
The Justice Department on Wednesday threatened to subpoena 23 jurisdictions if they don’t turn over information about their “sanctuary” policies — triggering a backlash from mayors across the country who pulled out of a White House meeting.
In letters to New York City, Chicago, San Francisco and other jurisdictions, the Justice Department demanded records relating to whether these localities are “unlawfully restricting information sharing by law enforcement officers with federal immigration authorities.”
“I continue to urge all jurisdictions under review to reconsider policies that place the safety of their communities and their residents at risk,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “Protecting criminal aliens from federal immigration authorities defies common sense and undermines the rule of law.”
I can end this nonsense in one hour, TOPS.
Freeze all the assets of every politician instituting “sanctuary” as a SECURITY BOND to pay for any damages or injuries done by the CRIMINALS they are HARBORING.
Yes, “sanctuary implementors” DO OWE DAMAGES for any harm their law breaking leads to. By the way, why is a clerk jailed for refusing to do her duty and register homosexual marriages,but these politicians and police are not jailed for allowing sanctuary cities and refusing to do THEIR duty?
Cannot say it often enough, these politicians took an oath to uphold the CONSTITUTION of the United States and therefore cannot whine that they do not have to enforce Federal Law. Every judge or politician blocking that wall is providing material aid and support to Narco Terrorists. Anyone who provides “sanctuary” to an illegal is harboring criminals, PERIOD. And if that illegal commits a crime the sanctuary providers is a ACTIVE ACCOMPLICE to the crime and is PERSONALLY Financially Liable for FULL restitution and gets to serve time for the crime…………… BOOK’EM DANNO. If the “Appointed Defenders” of Our HOUSE refuse to do their duty, they are accomplices and personally responsible for the results. “Public Officials” That refuse to enforce the immigration laws and provide “sanctuary” to ILLEGALS automatically assume personal financial responsibility for ANY crimes and any damages created by said ILLEGALS. They also are accessories to any crimes committed by their ILLEGALS and should be JAILED as Accomplices. Same applies to any priest/church that provides “sanctuary”
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
You are right again Zap….. The word Sanctuary is totally misused these days. It should be renamed “HIDEYHOLE” as that is exactly what it is.
There is NO SUCH THING as “sanctuary”.
—— RULES of SANCTUARY ——-
you want “sanctuary? you have live by the RULES,
but ILLEGALS broke the RULES to get into America so they cannot HAVE sanctuary
because ILLEGALS don’t want to live BY THE RULES of sanctuary
The fugitive had to remain within the walls of the sanctuary, abandon his or her oath to the king, followed which they had a short period of time to leave the country.
READ THAT AGAIN — “a short period of time to LEAVE THE COUNTRY.”
AND AGAIN — ” LEAVE THE COUNTRY.”
They were considered to be “dead”, so much so that their land was forfeited to the King and their wife considered to be a widow. If they refused to renounce their oath, they could be starved out of the sanctuary.
Henry VIII of England even took to branding them with a hot iron before they left the country just in case they tried to return; they could then be quickly spotted and arrested.
ecclesiastical immunity has no legal standing.
Yup we need to brand these illegals with a BIG Letter like either an I or an S……when we kick them out…..preferably on their forehead….maybe a tattoo would suffice.