Donald Trump's playbook appears to be pretty simple. Internationally, he threatens big tariff increases if countries don't do what he wants. Domestically, he threatens to cut off federal spending if states and cities don't do what he wants.
This is of dubious effectiveness in the case of tariffs and of dubious legality in both cases. In any case, his latest attempt at extortion is aimed at sanctuary cities:
President-elect Donald Trump’s advisers are discussing how to unilaterally strip federal resources from Chicago and other Democratic-run cities if they refuse to participate in deportations of undocumented immigrants next year, according to three people familiar with the conversations.
....Trump vowed mass deportations during his campaign — eliciting fierce pushback from some Democratic mayors in “sanctuary cities” and governors in blue states, some of whom are already promising to defy the president-elect’s pledges. He tried to slash funds to those jurisdictions in his first term, but with only limited success, and any similar effort in his second term could also run into roadblocks.
"Not a cent," said Vivek Ramaswamy over the weekend. That's unlikely in the extreme, but Trump could make states and cities waste hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees along the way.
If we were dealing with someone more rational, you might figure a compromise could be worked out. Maybe the funds at risk could be limited to those related to immigration. And perhaps Trump could agree that the most important thing is for cities to turn over violent criminals for deportation, not the poor schlubs who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That would make a big difference. Most sanctuary cities refuse to use local police to do the federal government's bidding, but they don't withhold every speck of cooperation. In particular, they generally hand over violent criminals to ICE for deportation when their sentences are up. You can see this in the results of a study from the National Academy of Sciences:
The top panel shows what happens to illegal immigrants with no criminal convictions. When a city adopts sanctuary policies, deportations go down significantly.
But the story is entirely different for violent criminals: There's no change before and after. Woke or not, everyone agrees it's a good idea to deport genuine bad guys.
It's also worth noting that most places don't adopt sanctuary policies just to thumb their noses at Donald Trump. They do it because maintaining law and order is easier if illegal immigrants aren't afraid to talk to the police. A highly public sanctuary policy assures everyone that they can call for help or answer questions without fear that a cop will decide to haul them in and turn them over to ICE. You may disagree on balance, but there really is a reason for this stuff.
Hmm, a majority with several conservatives on it would not allow Bill Clinton to use the line-item veto granted to him by the Line Item Veto Act, declaring said act unconstitutional.
Not that I know which way this might go. But kudos to Bill Clinton for demonstrating to conservatives what a bad idea this is.
Lovely. I want my local police, paid for by my local taxes, to focus on local crimes. If the federal government wants to wast time on rounding up immigrants, they can go hire people to do that, and Trump can figure out how to pay for it. Trump sure as shit shouldn't be able to dragoon locals into doing his dirty work--they have their own jobs to do.
☝️
If you refer to having police conduct dragnets for random illegal immigrants, I totally agree.
On the other hand, there are plenty of illegal (and legal) immigrants who commit crimes, waste public resources, and make our country less pleasant to live in.
Drunk driving, vandalism, theft, fraud, etc. are not violent crimes, but the people who do these things are not assets to the United States. If they are not citizens then they should be deported and the cities and states should hand them to ICE as soon as they are convicted or, if they are jailed, as soon as they are due for release.
In addition, there is no right for a non-American to stay in the United States. We cannot convict and punish a person just because there is a preponderance of evidence that they committed a crime but we can certainly deport such people if they are not Americans and we should do so. Local law enforcement should assist in this.
However, in the past few years we have seen an alternative approach that seems to work well.
Maybe we leave this voluntary. Any state that wants can hand such people over to ICE whenever law enforcement encounters them. States that do not wish to do so do not have to.
Criminal aliens will, of course, move to the sanctuary states and stay in them - any interaction with the government in a non-sanctuary state will result in deportation. So the sanctuary states get to enjoy the "benefits" of their policies while the rest of us get the benefits of law abiding immigrants.
What part of, "It makes your city less safe if you have a significant population that is afraid of talking to the police," did you not understand?
If you deport low level criminals, how does that result in a significant population being afraid to talk to the police? Low level criminals will be afraid, but you deport them which solves the problem.
Because more often than not undocumented immigrants are victims and/or witnesses to both violent and not violent but serious crimes committed by others, both citizens and not, so if they are afraid that the police officer would hand them over to ICE rather than take a statement from them solve the crime of which they were victims or witnesses, those crimes go unsolved. Even an idiot like you should be able to understand that very basic dynamic.
I think this rather misses the point, in exactly the intended way. You're being led around by the nose again.
Tubby doesn't give a shit about the relative efficiency of rounding up nonwhites in San Francisco. He wants to hurt people who don't kiss his ass.
This week it is shaped like sanctuary city threats. Next week it'll be something else when he needs a different distraction to salve his next failure.
You would think people would learn to stop chasing bullshit, but the problem here is Kevin wants to write, and Tubby happily serves as assignment editor. Personally, I would reflect on that dynamic.
False. Trump made rounding up illegals a top focus of his campaign, and both he and his cabinet picks are making clear that they really intend to move on it. Search "Tom Homan" and educate yourself on this.
Trump is indeed a distraction generator, and I get why you might misinterpret this particular thing that he is doing. But he repeatedly and loudly promised to round up and deport 15M immigrants. His cabinet picks are already lining up contractors to build the required detention centers. He probably knows he won't be able to deport more than 1M, but he is absolutely going to try his best.
"... going to try his best."
becuase it is a good excuse for him to create a Trump-loyal force that he can use against any opposiition.
Tom Homan and friends may think it is about immigrants, but Trump himself doesn't care at all about immigrants, it was always just a campaign issue. You can see with his actions before he started to run for president, and with his actions in the first two years in office (with Republican congress), when he could take real steps for long-term reduction of immigration.
I'm coming around the the idea that this will devolve into another grift opportunity. If a business wants ICE to look the other way, well, that can be arranged for a small gratuity. This is what kleptocracies do - they use the law to go after those who oppose them while those who play ball are left alone (see Putin, V.)
That ignores statements like "I want generals like Hitler had". If he wants just doing graft, the generals are irrelevant. He wants more than graft.
There are many reasons to believe that Trump wants more than graft, e.g. complimenting the Chinese government fo shooting their people, "love letters" with Kim, reading Hitler's speeches. You shouldn't ignore these facts when thinking about what Trump wants to do.
Well, he's a megalomaniac, too. They're not mutually exclusive.
Yes. Mr. Drum also insists on keeping the right-wing version of "woke" despite his readership (generally) knowing better.
🎯
"They do [sanctuary policies] because maintaining law and order is easier if illegal immigrants aren't afraid to talk to the police. A highly public sanctuary policy assures everyone that they can call for help or answer questions without fear that a cop will decide to haul them in and turn them over to ICE."
True. But by the time Trump is inaugurated everyone in MAGAland - from the idiots who watch Fox to the leadership of the US Senate - will be asserting that this is false, that sanctuary policies are actually worthless. By the time he has been in office a few months they will be insisting that sanctuary policies actually wreck law and order.
"And perhaps Trump could agree that the most important thing is for cities to turn over violent criminals for deportation, not the poor schlubs who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time."
The key disagreement, it seems, is the word violent. Trump's plan, it seems, is not limited to violent criminals.
In listening to the Holman (border Czar), Trump wants all law enforcement to screen for undocumented status. Further, all law enforcement to cooperate with ICE on the deportation of say, someone under arrest for drunk driving or fraud.
Some of the Trump team have made clear their belief that undocumented status is a crime in itself, so all such persons are deportable.
So you do not want to deport non-violent criminals?
It is bad to deport non-violent criminals?
Can you please explain why? Why shouldn't we deport vandals or burglars, for example?
No, but thank you for deliberately misrepresenting what has actually been said. I want those who are here illegally to be sent back to their home countries. (Though, we've built an economy that is currently dependent upon the labor of undocumented immigrants, so this only works if you also dramatically increase legal immigration. Unless extremely high inflation and shortages is what you're trying to accomplish, in which case, a massive deportation program is exactly what you need.)
What we've been saying is that we don't want the local police involved in this operation, because it would make our cities less safe if criminals have a population that is scared of talking to the police to prey on. Then again, it wouldn't take much to convince me that making cities less safe would actually be a feature rather than a bug to you.
If you hand low level criminal aliens over to ICE instead of releasing them how does that make population scared of talking to the police?
Are there ANY cities where a significant proportion of the population are low level criminal aliens?
The point of "sanctuary" policies is for civil enforcement actions. It was never about criminal activity.
It's just about how if you've got someone who isn't doing anything illegal or wrong, aside from maybe happening to be in the country on an expired visa or whatever, the local cops aren't gonna help ICE track them down and arrest. That's ICE's job, and always has been. ICE can do it.
Whether they should is unfortunately a political question and unfortunately it's what the country's (barely) voted for, but the sanctuary policies were never about refusing to cooperate entirely. It's just about not being deputized for civil enforcement actions.
The point of "sanctuary" policies is for civil enforcement actions. It was never about criminal activity.
and the point of Tubby 2.0 Immigration Policy to to please the base. Buckle up non-whites and remember the yellow star is worn on the left or the back.
I’m pretty sure most Trumpians think “sanctuary city” means people here illegally are able to commit crimes without consequence. Trump will use deportation as a tool to exact retribution from those he perceives as his enemies. He will lie and say cities he doesn’t like are harboring criminals and are hellholes because of these traitorous libs trying to destroy America. His lies will faithfully be reported by the press which will also mention that liberal mayors say that isn’t true.
Psychotestical --say it out loud and it sounds nuts,
Trump planning to invade Mexico,
https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-invasion-mexico/
Wouldn't it be great if we could turn Mexico into Syria? Think of how great that would be!
How many of these sanctuary policies were in place before Trump was first in office?
I just looked up San Francisco, Detroit, and Chicago. All were B.T.
I don't agree!
I think that if we made them, we should be responsible for them.
All we have accomplished is spreading gang activity. And we spread it to countries much less able to monitor and pacify it.
We are a very cr*ppy neighbor. If anyone in this country, left or right, actually cared about immigration, the first thing they would do is try to inspire us to get a handle on our drug and gun issues.
Let's stop ruining other people's countries, with our endless appetites for the wrong things. People here like to go on and on about how successful we are - but if that is based on externalizing everything bad onto somebody else, then really we are just full of cr*p.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I’ve noticed many commentators (including Kevin) making assumptions about legal impediments to Trump’s agenda. I think this is an error and fundamentally misunderstands the nature of our situation. And also the very nature of our current government and legal systems.
To begin with, it’s important to recognize that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, coupled with a supine but absolutely dominant Republican transformed the country into an absolute monarchy. On the one hand, Republican presidents cannot be prosecuted for their crimes. And on the other, the dominance and cohesiveness of the party prevents the removal of Republican presidents through the process outlined in the Constitution. And it certainly leaves Trump free to build on the intimidation of the media and also of Democratic politicians.
But it’s also necessary to understand that the courts (and the Supreme Court in particular) have slipped the bonds imposed by precedent and the written laws. We’ve seen outright lawlessness in the lower courts (particularly the fifth circuit) and we’ve seen the Supreme Court tend to moderate itself to avoid political damage to the Republican Party at election time. But my guess is that as the party cements its hold on power, that tendency will fade and ultimately disappear in favor of hard right decisions.
In other words, our legal system will continue to transform into one similar to those in Russia and North Korea.
Since the Trump supporters don't live in the sanctuary cities, why do they care?
Plenty of Trump supporters live in or travel to sanctuary cities.
Our tax dollars subsidize the costs of dealing with illegal immigrants.
It is perfectly reasonable for us to want these places cleaned up.
Yes, which is why it is so strange that you are insisting that we adopt policies that make those cities less safe. Either rational thought is alien to you, or your lying and actually don't want places cleaned up.
Do you have any evidence that deporting people convicted of misdemeanors or people who a preponderance of evidence indicates committed misdemeanors or felonies makes cities less safe?
Let's say an undocumented person commits a crime, a felony, not some administrative crime, such as being in the country without proper documentation. Wouldn't such a person be tried and imprisoned, if convicted, in the state? In fact, if they are deported, that may be their get out of jail card.
The policy in most parts of the US, both red and blue, is that such people serve out their prison sentence here and then get deported.
Shoplifting less than $950 of goods in California is a misdemeanor, not a felony. https://www.egattorneys.com/shoplifting-penal-code-459-5
If a non-citizen is convicted of shoplifting $900 worth of goods are you seriously suggesting that it is somehow wrong or bad to deport him?
I think it is up to the state whether it wishes to first imprison him and then deport him or if that is a waste of resources, but get him the hell out of our country!
If the Supreme Court justices had any commitment to precedent, including the precedents that they, themselves created, this would be a non-starter. Three of them were on the Court when it ruled that the Obama administration couldn't withhold previously committed Medicaid money if a state refused the Medicaid expansion that was in the ACA. Their rationale was that the federal government couldn't hold hostage previously appropriated money because a state refused to implement policy changes passed by the current Congress. So, a challenge to this should be successful very quickly, especially since this change in policy wasn't passed by Congress.
But, of course, these Supreme Court justices don't have respect for any precedent whatsoever.
:Perhaps Trump could agree that the most important thing is for cities to turn over violent criminals for deportation, not the poor schlubs who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time."
How do you think he can be persuaded to agree with this? He and his proxies have said repeatedly that all illegals are criminals -- that being here illegally is the crime. In their eyes, there's no difference between an illegal rapist and an illegal housekeeper. I know we're supposed to pretend that we think this is hyperbole, or a joke, or something. But it isn't.
There is another reason for "sanctuary" policy: Public health. We want illegals to be able to go to the doctor when they have e.g. tuberculosis as part of a strategy to fight communicable diseases.
"
It's also worth noting that most places don't adopt sanctuary policies just to thumb their noses at Donald Trump. They do it because maintaining law and order is easier if illegal immigrants aren't afraid to talk to the police. A highly public sanctuary policy assures everyone that they can call for help or answer questions without fear that a cop will decide to haul them in and turn them over to ICE.
"
Which wouldn't matter much if there weren't large populations of illegals...
I know this is a waste of time but I will repeat for the 100th time that the MOTIVATIONS of the people involved in this (on both sides, certainly the Rs but also plenty of the Ds) are not what you claim they are. You're never going to understand why EITHER side is doing what it's doing based on your 1990s politics playbook.
The Rs see this as battle for Western Civilization along multiple axes, one of which is law and order; and you cannot save law and order if you allow large subentities in the country to snub their noses at the very concept of law.
And if you think this framing is hyperbolic, I'd advise to take a look at what's happening in Europe right now, whether it's UK (blasphemy laws) Netherlands (anti-semitism) or Germany (endless rapes, with slap on the wrist punishment eg Maja R). Europe seems unable to fix itself, economically or culturally, they have passed the tipping point. That is what is driving R fervor.
You may look at Europe and think, yeah, that's what I want more of: degrowth, stagnation. But half the country does not feel that way, and it is the attempt to stave off that future that is driving this. Ignore that understanding at your peril.