Up To $56M At Risk In Trump Order

Paul Bass PhotoNew Haven potentially has tens of millions of dollars in federal grants at risk thanks to an order announced Wednesday by President Donald Trump to take action against “sanctuary cities” — although at least one Yale legal expert questioned whether the order can pass constitutional muster.

Trump announced the move, part of two detailed executive orders carrying out campaign promises to build a wall along the southern border of Mexico and deport more undocumented immigrants, during a speech at the Department of Homeland Security.

“We are going to restore the rule of law in the United States,” Trump declared. “We are going to get the bad ones out.… We are going to get ‘em out. And we’re going to get ‘em out fast.”

Mayor Toni Harp responded by reaffirming that the city will not rescind its orders aimed at protecting undocumented immigrants. “Throughout its history this nation has been a beacon to those who flee oppression and persecution — who seek freedom and opportunity instead; this rash act by a new President seems completely contrary to that ideal,” Harp stated in a release from her office. “New Haven, one of some 300 ‘sanctuary’ cities, counties, and states nationwide, will continue to embrace residents arriving from wherever they used to live, will work to make them feel welcome and safe, and will act to protect its ability to do so.”

In an interview, Harp reaffirmed that she has asked her corporation counsel to explore a legal challenge to Trump’s order if the president tries to enforce it against New Haven.

“Sanctuary city” is a loosely defined term. It generally refers to cities with policies that protect or help undocumented immigrants. There are hundreds across the country, including New Haven.

In Section 9 of one of the two orders he signed Wednesday, Trump defined sanctuary cities as “jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373,” a law requiring local governments to share information with federal authorities about individuals’ citizenship immigration status. New Haven has a police general order directing police officers not to inquire into citizens’ immigration status when they stop them or interview them, one of numerous steps aimed at building trust with immigrants so they will cooperate with police in reporting crimes committed against them. Trump also announced Wednesday that he is reviving a version of that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) program known as “Secure Communities,” with which New Haven has specifically refused to cooperate.

Trump’s order directs his homeland security secretary and his attorney general to “ensure” that sanctuary cities “are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as [they deem] necessary for law enforcement purposes.” The order gives the secretary “the authority to designate” communities as sanctuary cities, and orders the attorney general to “take appropriate enforcement action” against them.

The order also directs the secretary to issue a weekly “comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens” in jurisdictions that don’t participate in the detainer program, and orders the president’s budget director to compile information on what federal grants those cities receive.

New Haven currently has in the pipeline $43 million in approved federal community development block grants, Title I education funding, TIGER redevelopment design money, prison reentry, and Department of Justice law-enforcement support (including the “Byrne” grant to make Newhallville safer), according to Harp.

Of that total, $20 million is for the TIGER grant, which is aimed at reconnecting downtown to the Hill over the Route 34 almost-abolished Connector. Of the rest, New Haven has received about $13.5 million of the total promised, with another $36.5 million yet to arrive, Harp said.

It was unclear at this point whether the order would affect money approved but not released. Or grants on which the city has drawn down some, but not all, the money. Or how the grant total would be calculated. Or whether federal money flowing through the state government would be affected.

Until more details emerge, “we’re business as usual,” police spokesman Officer David Hartman said. “We’re not immigration officers. We’re here to serve people in our community regardless of immigration status. It’s not too soon to be worried about it, but it’s too soon to speculate about any operational changes.”

Harp argued that New Haven’s policies earn the trust of immigrants, thereby helping make the city safer by encouraging them to work with police. “If you’re really concerned about public safety, you don’t make whole communities feel uncomfortable about speaking to police,” Harp argued. “This makes us less safe.”

She also questioned how the president can interfere with rules for grant distribution established by an act of Congress.

Wishnie: The Law’s Clear

Yale Law Professor Michael Wishnie (pictured), an expert in immigration law, said Harp is onto something with that point.

Wishnie cited three broad reasons that he questions whether Trump’s sanctuary city defunding order can be enforced.

Two reasons have to do with the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court — including the current incarnation — has long interpreted the 10th Amendment to the Constitution as preventing the federal government from directing the actions of state, county or local officials, Wishnie said. Most recently, it upheld that view in the Printz case, ordering that the feds cannot require local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on gun buyers as part of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

And the Constitution forbids the executive branch from using “highly coercive conditions” on funding to accomplish the same goals through the back door, Wishnie said, citing the first clause of Article 1, Section 8. The most recent example of the Supreme Court upholding that principle came in the decision upholding the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which threw out conditions placed on Medicaid.

However, in the past the federal government has been allowed to put some conditions on funding — such as when it tied federal highway money to a requirement that states set speed limits at 55. Wishnie said the key point is how central the purpose of the funding is to the condition, and how “coercive” the condition is. So a legal challenge to Trump’s order may indeed test “how coercive is too coercive,” he said. “But on the face of it, he [i.e., Trump] seems to claim very broad authority to impose very coercive conditions on federal grants,” which has not passed muster with the courts.

Finally, Wishnie noted that federal grant programs usually are set by Congress, which makes the rules for how to spend the money.

“Congress, when it creates federal grants, generally writes a statute. The agency that administers those programs writes regulations. Lower down than that, they’ll have contracts that set the conditions for the grant. Many of the statutes passed by Congress will say things like, ‘you will spend these dollars based on the following criteria.’ Where Congress has specified the criteria, the president is not able to say, ‘here’s a fourth criterion.’ Even this president lacks the power” to do that, Wishnie said.

Trump’s executive order invoked the national interest.

“Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States.  These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic,” it read in part.

“Although Federal immigration law provides a framework for Federal-State partnerships in enforcing our immigration laws to ensure the removal of aliens who have no right to be in the United States, the Federal Government has failed to discharge this basic sovereign responsibility.  We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement.  The purpose of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies (agencies) to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.”

Local Opposition Sparked

Markeshia Ricks PhotoLocal immigrant-rights activists plan to hold a demonstration against Trump’s order at City Hall Thursday at 5 p.m.

“President Donald Trump today declared war on immigrant families by targeting the cities that offer them sanctuary from hateful policies like the ones his administration is embracing,” said one of organizers, national immigrant-rights activist Kica Matos, declared Wednesday in a statement issued after Trump’s speech by Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM).

“By issuing an executive order to cut funding to the hundreds of cities and counties who have identified as sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants Trump is cementing his stamp of hatred and bigotry to a huge segment of our population. The faith community founded sanctuary cities to protect refugees and immigrants from harsh policies and will continue to do so. The immigrant rights community and its supporters will continue to fight hard to protect our families from all egregious policies.”

“We are heartened that so many sanctuary cities, including New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles, have vowed to fight the Trump administration. We encourage all sanctuary cities and counties and all Americans who believe that keeping families together rather than tearing them apart is what our federal government should be focused on.”

New Haven officials have been preparing for Trump to launch the actions he announced Wednesday. School officials have drawn up a plan for helping schoolchildren if feds reprise the raid they conducted here in 2007. Harp has directed her corporation counsel to prepare a legal challenge to any federal action taken against the city based on a “sanctuary city” designation.

Tags: , , ,

Post a Comment

Commenting has closed for this entry

Comments

posted by: anonymous on January 25, 2017  4:33pm

If the entire state is determined to be a “sanctuary state,” could Federal revenues to state coffers (and, indirectly, town coffers throughout CT) be impacted?

posted by: Henry J. Fernandez on January 25, 2017  4:48pm

Mayor Harp’s statement was clear, concise, rapid, honorable and just.  That’s what we need from elected officials as New Haveners and people across the United States are threatened.  Bravo!

posted by: Truth often hurts on January 25, 2017  5:16pm

Cut ALL funding to ridiculous “sanctuary cities”...Long overdue.  If you are not a “legal” citizen then you must go back to the country that you came from…. Enough is enough.  No more sanctuary cities harboring people who came illegally.  Round them up and round their children up and deport them.  There is a legal and proper way to become a citizen of the United States.  Come here officially, pay taxes, earn the right to vote, and help make America great again!

posted by: Timothy G. ORourke Jr. on January 25, 2017  5:18pm

New Haven is one city that certainly needs the money that our illegal polices have now jeopardized. Not only has the City given false hope to immigrants but the City has deprioritized her obligation to her documented citizens, for whom she especially exists.

posted by: sbxstr on January 25, 2017  7:07pm

Okay, so if you chose to ignore US law, how can you decry losing US funding for some of your wants? It’s called a contract, you give something and you get something. What part of ‘illegal alien’ do you not understand? We may be a nation of ‘immigrants,’ but my fathers’s family was here when the Crown ruled and my mother’s came through Ellis Island. They either knew English or learned it and assimilated. Without public assistance.

posted by: AverageTaxpayer on January 25, 2017  7:19pm

I’m glad that we’re ready to fight back against Trump.

That being said, CAN WE QUIT MAKING HEADLINES ON THIS ISSUE?

The way I see it is that we’re essentially daring Trump to take action against New Haven, (as opposed to Hartford, or Bridgeport, or a city in some other state).

Trump can’t wait to show everyone how tough he is on this issue, (hello!?!!). Therefore isn’t it foolish to talk publicly about how ready we are to fight him on this, basically calling attention to ourselves amongst a plethora of targets?

Fwiw. A lot of people are going to get hurt before all is said and done. That’s inevitable. I just don’t want it to be New Haven families on the front lines of this fight.

posted by: alphabravocharlie on January 25, 2017  8:12pm

The powers that be need to think long and hard about this. New Haven could be hit on two fronts; loss of Federal $ and the expense of a protracted legal battle.

posted by: TheMadcap on January 25, 2017  8:33pm

“We may be a nation of ‘immigrants,’ but my fathers’s family was here when the Crown ruled and my mother’s came through Ellis Island. They either knew English or learned it and assimilated”

Yes, the assimilated so well there were little Italys, Germanys, Greeces, ect all over the place complete with daily newspapers and even radio shows in non English. White people are delusional.

posted by: Boris Sigal on January 25, 2017  8:53pm

As a first generation immigrant, I am proud to live in a sanctuary city like New Haven and I commit to doing everything I can to make sure it remains a welcoming city for all.

posted by: Noteworthy on January 25, 2017  9:35pm

Hysteria, Pandering and Dishonesty Notes:

1. It is not mutually exclusive to care for illegal immigrants but therefore cannot cooperate when needed with federal law enforcement. To make such a claim is completely dishonest and creates a false narrative that pushes participants into the farthest corners.

2. To demand federal money with no strings is childish, spoiled and entitled. It’s also a poor example of good parenting and city stewardship.

3. While we have always welcomed the oppressed - few stories can be independently verified.

4. Hate is a word that should seldom be used. It is incendiary and extreme. Those who use it with this subject matter overstate their case to the extreme, to such a point of dishonesty that it squanders one’s integrity.

5. It is not hate to want control over the borders of this country nor is it hate to require those who seek asylum or immigration to follow the rules and laws. Likewise, it is not hate to ask cities who are the recipient of huge sums of taxpayer money, to conduct themselves with decorum and deference to those laws.

6. What we need, like so much in government, is real reform. Clearly what we have is not working, in some respects is not fair. So instead of denigrating and fighting - perhaps proponents of open borders and city leadership could show some maturity. It is in short supply.

posted by: Kevin McCarthy on January 25, 2017  9:42pm

I’m a Ph.D., not a lawyer, but I think there is a real question as to whether New Haven is a sanctuary city as defined by the executive order. According to the article, the order defines a sanctuary city as one that “wilfully refuses”  to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Under this section, states and municipalities may not restrict officials from sending information regarding a person’s immigration status to ICE or receiving such information from ICE. Similarly a state or municipality may not restrict government entities from sending such information to ICE, requesting and receiving it from ICE, maintaining it, or exchanging it with other government entities. But nothing in this statute requires police departments to inquire as to a person’s immigration status, the key element of New Haven’s policy. If the NHPD has information about a person’s immigration status, effectively it must share this information with ICE. But this section does not require a police department to collect the information in the first place. In fact, neither the term “collect” nor any term like it appears in the section.

posted by: sbxstr on January 25, 2017  9:58pm

“Yes, the assimilated so well there were little Italys, Germanys, Greeces, ect all over the place complete with daily newspapers and even radio shows in non English. White people are delusional.”

I think it is “they assimilated,” not “the assimilated” and “etc,” not “ect.” And what sort or racial comment is “White people are delusional.” Yes, for a period of time there were “little Italys” et cetera, et cetera ... and yes, even today, there may be ethnic enclaves, such as the south end of Hartford, Conn, near where I live, but they are not isolated from American culture. For many years, Boston was run by the Irish, maybe still is.

“As a first generation immigrant, I am proud to live in a sanctuary city like New Haven and I commit to doing everything I can to make sure it remains a welcoming city for all.”

So, as a new immigrant, you feel it is your right to decide which laws of the USA you choose to honor? This is NOT assimilation. This is arrogance.

Answer this honestly, are you receiving public assistance in New Haven? And are you legal?

posted by: TheMadcap on January 25, 2017  11:10pm

“but they are not isolated from American culture”

Listen, just because you’re too afraid to walk into anywhere where too many people are speaking Spanish doesn’t mean they’re isolated from American culture. Also grammar attacks are the last refuge of the argument scoundrel. I’m not proofreading an internet comment on my phone whike watching netflix over here

posted by: Brutus2011 on January 25, 2017  11:37pm

Trumkkkp is a fascist.

Trumkkkp will try to usurp the Constitution.

Trumkkkp is the enemy of we the people.

The time has come for us all to see through the propaganda of divisiveness and realize that our true opponents are the oligarchs.

The oligarchs supported both the Allies and the Nazis in WW II.

This time they mean to take over the world with America and Russia as their “country.”

I no longer care if you voted for Trumpkkk or Clinton.

I only care if you are willing, and able, to save our republic.

Let us put our petty differences aside and unite to defeat the enemy ...

Oligarchy & Trumkkkp.

posted by: Dean Moriarty on January 26, 2017  1:27am

Mayor Harp asserts: “will continue to embrace residents arriving from wherever they used to live, will work to make them feel welcome and safe”

Maybe she would do better to make her tax-paying residents feel welcome and safe.  They ARE after all the ones she’s sworn to office to represent.  That fact always gets overlooked.  Looking back, as a homeowner, I figure I’ve paid maybe 100K to 120K over thirty years to CONH. And I’m still not too sure about feeling"welcome” OR “safe”. 

One other point.  If it plays out that taxpayers may eventually subsidize any Federal deficits there will be a very big surprise to the powers that be.  If that were to happen I assure you there will be very valid lawsuits from residents who do not want to pay for a (liberal) idea they do not subscribe to.

posted by: jim1 on January 26, 2017  8:56am

I hope all these angry folks and more show up tonight at cityhall 6PM to discuss the peril our city is in.  It is an open forum and the public will be allowed to speak.

posted by: LookOut on January 26, 2017  10:21am

jim1 - thank you for the heads up.  I have prior commitments and will not be able to attend but a public forum where these issues can be discussed in a civil manner (please no name calling - stick to the issues) is a great way to move forward.

As someone who is not a legal expert, this seems to be a simple case New Haven facing a decision;  Is supporting illegal immigration (not all immigration) more important to the city than being fiscally stable?  Do we have the financial means to function if federal money dries up?

I would imagine there are very intelligent and passionate points on both sides.  I wish I could attend.

posted by: alphabravocharlie on January 26, 2017  10:49am

It’s interesting that this policy, which now threatens the financial stability of the City, was accomplished by administrative fiat. Maybe it’s time for a referendum.

posted by: Perspective on January 26, 2017  12:02pm

“New Haven has a police general order directing police officers not to inquire into citizens’ immigration status when they stop them or interview them, one of numerous steps aimed at building trust with immigrants so they will cooperate with police in reporting crimes committed against them.”


I find it ‘ironic’ that the very police officers who implore the community to speak with them (provide details,etc) when a crime is committed (i.e. breaking/broke the law) so they can apprehend these folks, are the very same folks who will not provide information to the authorities to apprehend someone who is breaking the the law. Hmmmm

posted by: alphabravocharlie on January 26, 2017  12:34pm

Don’t blame the PD. This was imposed on them by City Hall.

posted by: 1644 on January 26, 2017  12:53pm

Lookout: Given the the city could not function with a few months delay in Yale’s payment of a few million to the city, I cannot see how the city could function with an indefinite delay, or permanent loss of, $56 million in federal funds. Among other things, the city might find the market for its notes and bonds closed.  Harp would then need both massive service slashes (zero after school programs, closed fire stations, police layoffs, etc) and massive tax hikes.  Think Detroit before bankruptcy, where 911 responses took nearly an hour.

posted by: yim-a on January 26, 2017  1:00pm

To my knowledge, the Supreme Court has ruled similar demands or conditions on federal funds to states and cities unconstitutiona.  So much basis for a legal challenge.

posted by: TheMadcap on January 26, 2017  1:22pm

“New Haven facing a decision;  Is supporting illegal immigration (not all immigration) more important to the city than being fiscally stable?”

Thats one way to frame the argument, another is wikk the city be financially blackmailed to sell out 10-15,000 of irs residents

posted by: robn on January 26, 2017  3:03pm

“It was unclear at this point whether the order would affect money approved but not released.” NHI

It’s actually really clear that Trumps executive order on immigration can only affect federal funding for the police department and not other unrelated programs. The Supreme Court has been crystal clear about this. 2012 NFIB v Sebelius. Irony alert…,Antonin Scalias desire to prevent the Feds from allowing (sorry…coercing) Obamacare in conservative states has come back to bite conservatives in the @$$.

So how much federal funding does NHPD get?

posted by: Kevin McCarthy on January 26, 2017  3:56pm

TG O’Rourke, can you cite a case which has found that New Haven’s policies are illegal?  Federal law allows local police departments to serve as agents for ICE under certain circumstances. But allows is not the same thing as requires. Similarly, an ICE detainer request is exactly that, a request.

posted by: Timothy G. ORourke Jr. on January 26, 2017  8:17pm

Hello Mr. McCarthy,

Always nice to address a fellow Hibernian!

I am looking at this philosophically.  If New Haven polices were not illegal, or tantamount to it by giving illegal immigrants status for which she does not have the competency, then there would not be an issue on which the United States could push her. Being New Haven’s Sovereign, if there are no applicable laws to substantiate my claim, as you intimate, I suspect that there soon will be.  And why not?  Let’s end all of this and give people the peace that comes from a reckoning. As you, I am not a lawyer, but I think that we all can agree that peace is going to be effected through legal means on this issue once and for all. Is now not the time one way or the other? 

May the road rise up to meet you, may the wind be ever at your back. May the sun shine warm upon your face and the rain fall softly on your fields. And until we meet again, May God hold you in the hollow of his hand.

posted by: the1king on January 26, 2017  8:47pm

A question who decided that we are a sanctuary city.  I think we should vote as a city and not have some politians decide this.  We should also have some facts given to us.  How much is this costing the city every year.  How much is the city going to pay in legal fees on this illegal activity.  How many criminals have been let free.  We should know this and then have a vote.  Harp and her cronies should not have the right to decide on illegal behavior.

posted by: InsideNout on January 27, 2017  7:48am

Who are these undocumented people that are thought to be so “illegal” and threatening?  They are washing the dishes and chopping the salad in the back of the restaurants we eat in (and perhaps underpaid, so that we can choose a restaurant with more affordable prices).  They are renting houses in neighborhoods where many NHI readers would not care to live, keeping those places alive, well-kept, mitigating against the decay and abandonment of parts of our city and its housing, keeping landlords in business so that they, too, can spend money and keep our economy pumping.  They are working as lawnmowers and landscapers for your neighbor, so that their property looks decent and does not pull down the value of your home.  They are working in greenhouses so that you have some flowers to give to your sweetie on Valentine’s Day. 

They are working as roofers, up and down those ladders, working as construction workers, so that you can get things repaired at a lower cost and have some extra money to give to your synagogue, church, mosque, or any other cause you care about. They are working as private duty health care workers, staying 24-7 with your elderly mother or father, giving them loving care, freeing you up, costing you less money so that you can afford to pay the bills to send your child to a decent college.  They are running food trucks and selling dinners, trying to make it up the economic ladder (which actually GOES somewhere, in the USA), just as many of our ancestors did.  They are cleaning your house and your neighbor’s house, so that both of you will have more money to buy clothes at Walmart, which will probably cost a lot more since our president will want those clothes to be Made in the USA by higher-paid workers.  (And nothing wrong with that, but it’s going to cost us more.)  (to be continued)

posted by: InsideNout on January 27, 2017  8:00am

DACA young people (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, brought here as little children, now college educated WITHOUT federal financial aid which they are not eligible for by law—our federal tax dollars did NOT support them, FYI) have now graduated from college and are working as teachers and paras in public schools all over the country, giving back what was given to them.  They are working as social workers and staff, day and night, in group homes for mentally challenged, abandoned, and other youth.  They are running programs for greater college access, helping high-needs families negotiate available social services, writing for newspapers, pairing up with roommates and also pumping money into the economy with their paychecks. 

DACA young people are working on the staff of nursing homes and social agencies, running restaurants and bakeries, working for advertising agencies and environmental groups all over our country.  They are running tutoring and reading programs, neighborhood clean up projects, block watches and voter registration drives. They are doing just what we raise our biological children to do—to be contributors to the greater good, to pay it forward.

All of these people are making our country better, working in places where others are either not interested or not qualified to work.  WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THIS?  WHAT WILL BE OUR LOSS AS A COUNTRY IF THEY ARE DEPORTED?

posted by: robn on January 27, 2017  8:45am

Not to throw too much water on this rallying cry for progressives but New Haven does NOT face the loss of all federal funding; it (maybe) faces the loss of federal funding to police under very specific conditions related to immigration. To summarize the points in the WAPO article linked below…

1) Longstanding Supreme Court precedent mandates that the federal government may not impose conditions on grants to states and localities unless the conditions are “unambiguously” stated in the text of the law “so that the States can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds.” Few if any federal grants to sanctuary cities are explicitly conditioned on compliance with Section 1373.

(but even if they do)

2) Section 1373 is itself unconstitutional.The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/26/constitutional-problems-with-trumps-executive-order-on-sanctuary-cities/?utm_term=.a80c834080f9

posted by: Perspective on January 27, 2017  1:31pm

@InsideNout
So based on your postings, as long as a person enters this country from a foreign land and is working they do not need to abide by US immigration laws and policies?

posted by: Kevin McCarthy on January 27, 2017  6:14pm

Mr. O’Rourke, thanks for the kind words.

Federal law does not require police departments to ask the immigration status of the people they interact with. In the case of the general public, particularly crime victims and witnesses, asking about immigration status is counterproductive. Nor does federal law require police departments to honor ICE detainer requests. New Haven is simply not violating federal law. Congress could pass a law requiring police departments to detain arrestees for ICE. But that would take 60 votes in the Senate - not going to happen IMO.

Nor is New Haven presuming to take on federal powers. Immigration law is entirely a federal matter. Nothing that New Haven can do would give a person who is here illegally the right to vote or to re- enter the country. New Haven can not and should not interfere with federal officers in their enforcement of immigration law. But it is not the city’s responsibility to enforce this law.

posted by: sbxstr on January 27, 2017  10:30pm

@InsideNout
So based on your postings, as long as a person enters this country from a foreign land and is working they do not need to abide by US immigration laws and policies?

Will any of you provide a simple yes or no answer to this? My bet is no. You chose which laws to adhere to, which is not how this country works. I’d like to ignore income taxes on my 150k income, but I don’t think is would work>

posted by: InsideNout on January 28, 2017  5:50pm

My point is particularly that the children, MINORS, who were brought here with NO say in the matter, the DACA people and others,  had NO choice in it.  They did not choose to break the law by overstaying their visas, or by riding piggyback for miles and miles on their parents backs who walked across the border. Furthermore, they have deeply invested in our society, and are currently enhancing, not draining, it.  I am not against the rule of law, but I think we need to think long and hard about the consequences of this, and what is happening today, Saturday.  I think we have far more to lose, than to gain, as a country, by closing up, by considering deporting all these people, by the ill-will that this will breed in far corners of the world.  I guess we are going to find out. People and countries who throw their weight around, generally do not do well in the long term.

posted by: 1644 on January 28, 2017  6:13pm

Inside: So, if you are for the rule of law, do you oppose DACA?  While you obviously disagree with the present law, and you believe it should be changed, do you believe it should be enforced until such time as it is changed through proper legislative processes, regardless of whether it is wise or merciful?

posted by: InsideNout on January 30, 2017  12:54am

What does it take to enforce the law against DACA young people? They would have to be found (a medium hard project, Green Card holders, which they are not, have to fill out a form whenever they move, but most don’t), charged (court and lawyer time and cost), and then put on planes, not cheap either (just as an aside, how much money do you think airlines are making on these flights?  I bet our government is not buying cheap tickets from Expedia!).  Considering what is going on now in this country, these young people are going to lawyer up, and lots of people are going to step forward to help them do so.  And to what end?  To prove that we can “enforce our law”?  Considering how much time and effort that would take, in response to your question, I think it would be FAR better to let them work, let them pump their incomes into our economy as well, let them pay taxes (paying INTO our government’s coffers, rather than draining them), while the work of reforming the system is taking place.  Their presence is far less harmful than many others (like the Mob, for instance).

See this article for a far more in depth description of the dynamics.  Also note—evidently our own ECSU is smart enough to get tuition paid by funders who are giving these students scholarships, rather than having its dorms go empty (it seems ECSU is undersubscribed.)

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/magazine/the-only-way-we-can-fight-back-is-to-excel.html?_r=0

I have heard, 3rd hand source so I cannot verity, that to deport all 11 million undocumented persons estimated to be in the USA, following the due process (sketched above) it would take until 2036. NOT to mention the cost, which could be spent on education, infrastructure, rebuilding industry, creating jobs, and so on and so forth.  Oh yes, all those workers deported, maybe job creation would not be needed, the jobless can do the landscaping, health care, dishwashing, and construction that was done by those deported.