FAIR Supports DHS's Move to Cut Sanctuary Funding for Cities
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which represents the largest public interest organization focused on immigration policies in the United States, has publicly endorsed the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) choice to terminate funding for sanctuaries. This specific funding, known as the Shelter and Services Program (SSP), has been under scrutiny, especially in places like Chicago, Pima County in Arizona, and Denver. FAIR has taken a robust stance in the ongoing legal challenge initiated by these jurisdictions, arguing that their claims of harm because of funding cuts are unfounded.
In their legal arguments presented in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, FAIR contends that the plaintiffs—the jurisdictions in question—lack the legal authority to claim harm due to the loss of SSP funding. According to FAIR, this funding loss is directly connected to the jurisdictions' own unlawful sanctuary policies, which intentionally obstruct federal immigration enforcement efforts. This violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution puts these local policies at odds with federal immigration laws, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The organization asserts that policies such as Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance, Pima County's restrictive regulations, and Denver's Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act significantly inhibit cooperation with federal authorities. These sanctuary measures prevent local governments from sharing crucial information, like release dates for detained individuals, with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, thereby complicating effective immigration enforcement.
Dale L. Wilcox, FAIR's executive director and general counsel, has stated emphatically, "Sanctuary policies undermine the rule of law and the federal government's constitutional authority to enforce our nation's immigration laws." Wilcox further underscores that it is not reasonable for cities that actively counter federal immigration enforcement efforts to expect federal tax dollars to sustain their defiant policies.
Moreover, Mateo Forero, an attorney for FAIR, pointed out that the sanctuary jurisdictions are being harmed by their own choices. According to Forero, the argument that jurisdictions have standing to contest DHS's funding decision is fundamentally flawed because their injuries stem from their deliberate refusal to comply with federal laws. He emphasized that such obstruction is not only a violation of cooperation frameworks Congress established but also undermines national security and public safety.
FAIR's position highlights a significant debate surrounding local versus federal authority over immigration policies and reflects ongoing tensions between various governmental levels in the U.S. With their advocacy firmly rooted in principles of law and enforcement, FAIR continues to challenge those sanctuary policies that they believe compromise federal objectives. This case is a critical example of how immigration issues shape legal battles across the country, demonstrating the complexities of federalism in addressing immigration enforcement. The outcome of this case, City of Chicago v. Department of Homeland Security (No. 125-cv-5463), will likely set important precedents for future local and state interactions with federal immigration laws and funding decisions.
FAIR's ongoing commitment to reforming immigration policies prioritizes national interests over local dissent, as they continue to pursue heights of advocacy that delineate compliance with immigration laws, aiming to create a system that they believe better serves the country’s overall security and economic stability.
In their legal arguments presented in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, FAIR contends that the plaintiffs—the jurisdictions in question—lack the legal authority to claim harm due to the loss of SSP funding. According to FAIR, this funding loss is directly connected to the jurisdictions' own unlawful sanctuary policies, which intentionally obstruct federal immigration enforcement efforts. This violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution puts these local policies at odds with federal immigration laws, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The organization asserts that policies such as Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance, Pima County's restrictive regulations, and Denver's Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act significantly inhibit cooperation with federal authorities. These sanctuary measures prevent local governments from sharing crucial information, like release dates for detained individuals, with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, thereby complicating effective immigration enforcement.
Dale L. Wilcox, FAIR's executive director and general counsel, has stated emphatically, "Sanctuary policies undermine the rule of law and the federal government's constitutional authority to enforce our nation's immigration laws." Wilcox further underscores that it is not reasonable for cities that actively counter federal immigration enforcement efforts to expect federal tax dollars to sustain their defiant policies.
Moreover, Mateo Forero, an attorney for FAIR, pointed out that the sanctuary jurisdictions are being harmed by their own choices. According to Forero, the argument that jurisdictions have standing to contest DHS's funding decision is fundamentally flawed because their injuries stem from their deliberate refusal to comply with federal laws. He emphasized that such obstruction is not only a violation of cooperation frameworks Congress established but also undermines national security and public safety.
FAIR's position highlights a significant debate surrounding local versus federal authority over immigration policies and reflects ongoing tensions between various governmental levels in the U.S. With their advocacy firmly rooted in principles of law and enforcement, FAIR continues to challenge those sanctuary policies that they believe compromise federal objectives. This case is a critical example of how immigration issues shape legal battles across the country, demonstrating the complexities of federalism in addressing immigration enforcement. The outcome of this case, City of Chicago v. Department of Homeland Security (No. 125-cv-5463), will likely set important precedents for future local and state interactions with federal immigration laws and funding decisions.
FAIR's ongoing commitment to reforming immigration policies prioritizes national interests over local dissent, as they continue to pursue heights of advocacy that delineate compliance with immigration laws, aiming to create a system that they believe better serves the country’s overall security and economic stability.
Topics Policy & Public Interest）
【About Using Articles】
You can freely use the title and article content by linking to the page where the article is posted.
※ Images cannot be used.
【About Links】
Links are free to use.