Sanctuary Cities are Stupid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.

Or maybe because they are aware of the federal appellate court rulings indicating that they are not supposed to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.

Or maybe because they are aware of the federal appellate court rulings indicating that they are not supposed to do so.

And yet some jurisdictions still do it. Must not be an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.

Or maybe because they are aware of the federal appellate court rulings indicating that they are not supposed to do so.

And yet some jurisdictions still do it. Must not be an issue.

They can if they want to, but feds can't force states to. That's the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.

Or maybe because they are aware of the federal appellate court rulings indicating that they are not supposed to do so.

And yet some jurisdictions still do it. Must not be an issue.

They can if they want to, but feds can't force states to. That's the point.

Well that is exactly what I said. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to. I didn't say anything about forcing them to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.

Or maybe because they are aware of the federal appellate court rulings indicating that they are not supposed to do so.

And yet some jurisdictions still do it. Must not be an issue.

It's not an issue because some jurisdictions are not yet getting their hands slapped? That's probably because those particular actions have not been challenged. Doesn't mean it isn't problematic, and that they won't be held accountable for that in the future.

Legal consequences take time, and change is slow. Rulings are made, and appealed, and there are new rulings that set precedence. And some jurisdictions aren't going to want to change.

Here is where the thinking is currently at for the federal appellate level (link is to Newsweek, but there are plenty of others): Police Who Help ICE Detain Undocumented Immigrants Could Be ‘Violating Fourth Amendment,’ Experts Say

What Tukwila, Washington, officers didn't realize was that Macarreno had flagged an "administrative" rather than a "judicial" warrant. Had the officers known the difference, he may not find himself days away from deportation.

"They are two very different things," Kristie De Peña, who serves as the Director of Immigration and Senior Counsel at the Niskanen Center, told Newsweek.

"A judicial warrant requires two things—a genuine issuance by a judge, and it has to be supported by some determination of probable cause," De Peña explained.

An administrative warrant, on the other hand, need only be signed by an immigration officer. Once they are issued, an "ICE detainer" can be placed on a person's file.

"All [a detainer request] needs to say is that ICE has initiated an investigation into a person's status. It doesn't really mean anything beyond that, so obviously that kind of opens itself up to challenges," De Peña said, adding that there is "no legal requirement that local law enforcement have to comply."
Concerns

In fact, De Peña said law enforcement officers who do execute administrative warrants issued by ICE may be "violating the Fourth Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

In July, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires that ICE detainers be supported by probable cause.

These cases are going to continue to be contested until there is clear guidance issued. It may not happen under Trump, but it will be settled. The fact that everyone isn't on the same page at this moment doesn't mean it "must not be an issue." Actually, it's a looming one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.

Or maybe because they are aware of the federal appellate court rulings indicating that they are not supposed to do so.

And yet some jurisdictions still do it. Must not be an issue.

They can if they want to, but feds can't force states to. That's the point.

Well that is exactly what I said. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to. I didn't say anything about forcing them to

They don't want to because they have more important things to do, like going after violent criminals, thieves, etc.. They don't regard undocumented immigrants who otherwise don't break local laws as a danger to society. If you really think going after an undocumented farm worker is more urgent than a child abuser, well, I guess that shows you where your priorities are. And before you say they can do both, no, they can't if they have limited resources. Many large cities have very little room in their local jails, and they don't have unlimited budget.

Here's a thought... why not spend some of that border funding to build more holding cells in the interior of the country, and hire more ICE agents to do sweeps. I'm sure the R farmers would appreciate ICE agents arresting their workers because they don't support illegal immigrants, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.

Or maybe because they are aware of the federal appellate court rulings indicating that they are not supposed to do so.

And yet some jurisdictions still do it. Must not be an issue.

They can if they want to, but feds can't force states to. That's the point.

Well that is exactly what I said. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to. I didn't say anything about forcing them to

They don't want to because they have more important things to do, like going after violent criminals, thieves, etc.. They don't regard undocumented immigrants who otherwise don't break local laws as a danger to society. If you really think going after an undocumented farm worker is more urgent than a child abuser, well, I guess that shows you where your priorities are. And before you say they can do both, no, they can't if they have limited resources. Many large cities have very little room in their local jails, and they don't have unlimited budget.

Here's a thought... why not spend some of that border funding to build more holding cells in the interior of the country, and hire more ICE agents to do sweeps. I'm sure the R farmers would appreciate ICE agents arresting their workers because they don't support illegal immigrants, right?

Would you really like all those people "swept"? How about both side come together to hammer out reasonable, seasonal guest worker programs (like you come solo and return. to home country once ayear, no criminal record and health testing). How about that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.

Or maybe because they are aware of the federal appellate court rulings indicating that they are not supposed to do so.

And yet some jurisdictions still do it. Must not be an issue.

It's not an issue because some jurisdictions are not yet getting their hands slapped? That's probably because those particular actions have not been challenged. Doesn't mean it isn't problematic, and that they won't be held accountable for that in the future.

Legal consequences take time, and change is slow. Rulings are made, and appealed, and there are new rulings that set precedence. And some jurisdictions aren't going to want to change.

Here is where the thinking is currently at for the federal appellate level (link is to Newsweek, but there are plenty of others): Police Who Help ICE Detain Undocumented Immigrants Could Be ‘Violating Fourth Amendment,’ Experts Say

What Tukwila, Washington, officers didn't realize was that Macarreno had flagged an "administrative" rather than a "judicial" warrant. Had the officers known the difference, he may not find himself days away from deportation.

"They are two very different things," Kristie De Peña, who serves as the Director of Immigration and Senior Counsel at the Niskanen Center, told Newsweek.

"A judicial warrant requires two things—a genuine issuance by a judge, and it has to be supported by some determination of probable cause," De Peña explained.

An administrative warrant, on the other hand, need only be signed by an immigration officer. Once they are issued, an "ICE detainer" can be placed on a person's file.

"All [a detainer request] needs to say is that ICE has initiated an investigation into a person's status. It doesn't really mean anything beyond that, so obviously that kind of opens itself up to challenges," De Peña said, adding that there is "no legal requirement that local law enforcement have to comply."
Concerns

In fact, De Peña said law enforcement officers who do execute administrative warrants issued by ICE may be "violating the Fourth Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

In July, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires that ICE detainers be supported by probable cause.

These cases are going to continue to be contested until there is clear guidance issued. It may not happen under Trump, but it will be settled. The fact that everyone isn't on the same page at this moment doesn't mean it "must not be an issue." Actually, it's a looming one.

Give me a break. The ACLU is in every state. If they had a case they wouldve brought it by now in those jurisdictions who were participating.

The state of Massachusetts decided on their own. Texas went the other direction as they just passed a law that banned sanctuary city policies and it was upheld.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.

Or maybe because they are aware of the federal appellate court rulings indicating that they are not supposed to do so.

And yet some jurisdictions still do it. Must not be an issue.

They can if they want to, but feds can't force states to. That's the point.

Well that is exactly what I said. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to. I didn't say anything about forcing them to

They don't want to because they have more important things to do, like going after violent criminals, thieves, etc.. They don't regard undocumented immigrants who otherwise don't break local laws as a danger to society. If you really think going after an undocumented farm worker is more urgent than a child abuser, well, I guess that shows you where your priorities are. And before you say they can do both, no, they can't if they have limited resources. Many large cities have very little room in their local jails, and they don't have unlimited budget.

Here's a thought... why not spend some of that border funding to build more holding cells in the interior of the country, and hire more ICE agents to do sweeps. I'm sure the R farmers would appreciate ICE agents arresting their workers because they don't support illegal immigrants, right?

Would you really like all those people "swept"? How about both side come together to hammer out reasonable, seasonal guest worker programs (like you come solo and return. to home country once ayear, no criminal record and health testing). How about that?

Most illegal immigrants are not seasonal workers. What do you do with the majority?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.

Or maybe because they are aware of the federal appellate court rulings indicating that they are not supposed to do so.

And yet some jurisdictions still do it. Must not be an issue.

They can if they want to, but feds can't force states to. That's the point.

Well that is exactly what I said. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to. I didn't say anything about forcing them to

They don't want to because they have more important things to do, like going after violent criminals, thieves, etc.. They don't regard undocumented immigrants who otherwise don't break local laws as a danger to society. If you really think going after an undocumented farm worker is more urgent than a child abuser, well, I guess that shows you where your priorities are. And before you say they can do both, no, they can't if they have limited resources. Many large cities have very little room in their local jails, and they don't have unlimited budget.

Here's a thought... why not spend some of that border funding to build more holding cells in the interior of the country, and hire more ICE agents to do sweeps. I'm sure the R farmers would appreciate ICE agents arresting their workers because they don't support illegal immigrants, right?

No one said anything of the sort. But if you stumble across men at Home Depot or 7-11, don't just turn a blind eye.

They absolutely can do both. As you said more detention centers can be built. Eventually they will get the message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.

Or maybe because they are aware of the federal appellate court rulings indicating that they are not supposed to do so.

And yet some jurisdictions still do it. Must not be an issue.

It's not an issue because some jurisdictions are not yet getting their hands slapped? That's probably because those particular actions have not been challenged. Doesn't mean it isn't problematic, and that they won't be held accountable for that in the future.

Legal consequences take time, and change is slow. Rulings are made, and appealed, and there are new rulings that set precedence. And some jurisdictions aren't going to want to change.

Here is where the thinking is currently at for the federal appellate level (link is to Newsweek, but there are plenty of others): Police Who Help ICE Detain Undocumented Immigrants Could Be ‘Violating Fourth Amendment,’ Experts Say

What Tukwila, Washington, officers didn't realize was that Macarreno had flagged an "administrative" rather than a "judicial" warrant. Had the officers known the difference, he may not find himself days away from deportation.

"They are two very different things," Kristie De Peña, who serves as the Director of Immigration and Senior Counsel at the Niskanen Center, told Newsweek.

"A judicial warrant requires two things—a genuine issuance by a judge, and it has to be supported by some determination of probable cause," De Peña explained.

An administrative warrant, on the other hand, need only be signed by an immigration officer. Once they are issued, an "ICE detainer" can be placed on a person's file.

"All [a detainer request] needs to say is that ICE has initiated an investigation into a person's status. It doesn't really mean anything beyond that, so obviously that kind of opens itself up to challenges," De Peña said, adding that there is "no legal requirement that local law enforcement have to comply."
Concerns

In fact, De Peña said law enforcement officers who do execute administrative warrants issued by ICE may be "violating the Fourth Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

In July, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires that ICE detainers be supported by probable cause.

These cases are going to continue to be contested until there is clear guidance issued. It may not happen under Trump, but it will be settled. The fact that everyone isn't on the same page at this moment doesn't mean it "must not be an issue." Actually, it's a looming one.

Give me a break. The ACLU is in every state. If they had a case they wouldve brought it by now in those jurisdictions who were participating.

The state of Massachusetts decided on their own. Texas went the other direction as they just passed a law that banned sanctuary city policies and it was upheld.

I'm not clear how you sorted through which cases have and have not been filed, and those which are (or are not) being prepared. Could you talk me through the process?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.

Or maybe because they are aware of the federal appellate court rulings indicating that they are not supposed to do so.

And yet some jurisdictions still do it. Must not be an issue.

It's not an issue because some jurisdictions are not yet getting their hands slapped? That's probably because those particular actions have not been challenged. Doesn't mean it isn't problematic, and that they won't be held accountable for that in the future.

Legal consequences take time, and change is slow. Rulings are made, and appealed, and there are new rulings that set precedence. And some jurisdictions aren't going to want to change.

Here is where the thinking is currently at for the federal appellate level (link is to Newsweek, but there are plenty of others): Police Who Help ICE Detain Undocumented Immigrants Could Be ‘Violating Fourth Amendment,’ Experts Say

What Tukwila, Washington, officers didn't realize was that Macarreno had flagged an "administrative" rather than a "judicial" warrant. Had the officers known the difference, he may not find himself days away from deportation.

"They are two very different things," Kristie De Peña, who serves as the Director of Immigration and Senior Counsel at the Niskanen Center, told Newsweek.

"A judicial warrant requires two things—a genuine issuance by a judge, and it has to be supported by some determination of probable cause," De Peña explained.

An administrative warrant, on the other hand, need only be signed by an immigration officer. Once they are issued, an "ICE detainer" can be placed on a person's file.

"All [a detainer request] needs to say is that ICE has initiated an investigation into a person's status. It doesn't really mean anything beyond that, so obviously that kind of opens itself up to challenges," De Peña said, adding that there is "no legal requirement that local law enforcement have to comply."
Concerns

In fact, De Peña said law enforcement officers who do execute administrative warrants issued by ICE may be "violating the Fourth Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

In July, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires that ICE detainers be supported by probable cause.

These cases are going to continue to be contested until there is clear guidance issued. It may not happen under Trump, but it will be settled. The fact that everyone isn't on the same page at this moment doesn't mean it "must not be an issue." Actually, it's a looming one.

Give me a break. The ACLU is in every state. If they had a case they wouldve brought it by now in those jurisdictions who were participating.

The state of Massachusetts decided on their own. Texas went the other direction as they just passed a law that banned sanctuary city policies and it was upheld.

I'm not clear how you sorted through which cases have and have not been filed, and those which are (or are not) being prepared. Could you talk me through the process?

The ACLU does press releases everytime they sneeze. No lawsuits on this have been announced but if you know of one feel free to post it. As I mentioned Texas anti- sanctuary city law was upheld.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.

Or maybe because they are aware of the federal appellate court rulings indicating that they are not supposed to do so.

And yet some jurisdictions still do it. Must not be an issue.

It's not an issue because some jurisdictions are not yet getting their hands slapped? That's probably because those particular actions have not been challenged. Doesn't mean it isn't problematic, and that they won't be held accountable for that in the future.

Legal consequences take time, and change is slow. Rulings are made, and appealed, and there are new rulings that set precedence. And some jurisdictions aren't going to want to change.

Here is where the thinking is currently at for the federal appellate level (link is to Newsweek, but there are plenty of others): Police Who Help ICE Detain Undocumented Immigrants Could Be ‘Violating Fourth Amendment,’ Experts Say

What Tukwila, Washington, officers didn't realize was that Macarreno had flagged an "administrative" rather than a "judicial" warrant. Had the officers known the difference, he may not find himself days away from deportation.

"They are two very different things," Kristie De Peña, who serves as the Director of Immigration and Senior Counsel at the Niskanen Center, told Newsweek.

"A judicial warrant requires two things—a genuine issuance by a judge, and it has to be supported by some determination of probable cause," De Peña explained.

An administrative warrant, on the other hand, need only be signed by an immigration officer. Once they are issued, an "ICE detainer" can be placed on a person's file.

"All [a detainer request] needs to say is that ICE has initiated an investigation into a person's status. It doesn't really mean anything beyond that, so obviously that kind of opens itself up to challenges," De Peña said, adding that there is "no legal requirement that local law enforcement have to comply."
Concerns

In fact, De Peña said law enforcement officers who do execute administrative warrants issued by ICE may be "violating the Fourth Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

In July, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires that ICE detainers be supported by probable cause.

These cases are going to continue to be contested until there is clear guidance issued. It may not happen under Trump, but it will be settled. The fact that everyone isn't on the same page at this moment doesn't mean it "must not be an issue." Actually, it's a looming one.

Give me a break. The ACLU is in every state. If they had a case they wouldve brought it by now in those jurisdictions who were participating.

The state of Massachusetts decided on their own. Texas went the other direction as they just passed a law that banned sanctuary city policies and it was upheld.

Didn't the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals just a month or two ago rule that AG Paxton’s case to pre-emptively establish the constitutionality of the Governor's bill was “unconvincing,” leaving the door open for officials in Austin, San Antonio, and other sites to sue the state and try it on its merits in court? Which they later did, with those cases in progress, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.

Or maybe because they are aware of the federal appellate court rulings indicating that they are not supposed to do so.

And yet some jurisdictions still do it. Must not be an issue.

It's not an issue because some jurisdictions are not yet getting their hands slapped? That's probably because those particular actions have not been challenged. Doesn't mean it isn't problematic, and that they won't be held accountable for that in the future.

Legal consequences take time, and change is slow. Rulings are made, and appealed, and there are new rulings that set precedence. And some jurisdictions aren't going to want to change.

Here is where the thinking is currently at for the federal appellate level (link is to Newsweek, but there are plenty of others): Police Who Help ICE Detain Undocumented Immigrants Could Be ‘Violating Fourth Amendment,’ Experts Say

What Tukwila, Washington, officers didn't realize was that Macarreno had flagged an "administrative" rather than a "judicial" warrant. Had the officers known the difference, he may not find himself days away from deportation.

"They are two very different things," Kristie De Peña, who serves as the Director of Immigration and Senior Counsel at the Niskanen Center, told Newsweek.

"A judicial warrant requires two things—a genuine issuance by a judge, and it has to be supported by some determination of probable cause," De Peña explained.

An administrative warrant, on the other hand, need only be signed by an immigration officer. Once they are issued, an "ICE detainer" can be placed on a person's file.

"All [a detainer request] needs to say is that ICE has initiated an investigation into a person's status. It doesn't really mean anything beyond that, so obviously that kind of opens itself up to challenges," De Peña said, adding that there is "no legal requirement that local law enforcement have to comply."
Concerns

In fact, De Peña said law enforcement officers who do execute administrative warrants issued by ICE may be "violating the Fourth Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

In July, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires that ICE detainers be supported by probable cause.

These cases are going to continue to be contested until there is clear guidance issued. It may not happen under Trump, but it will be settled. The fact that everyone isn't on the same page at this moment doesn't mean it "must not be an issue." Actually, it's a looming one.

Give me a break. The ACLU is in every state. If they had a case they wouldve brought it by now in those jurisdictions who were participating.

The state of Massachusetts decided on their own. Texas went the other direction as they just passed a law that banned sanctuary city policies and it was upheld.

I'm not clear how you sorted through which cases have and have not been filed, and those which are (or are not) being prepared. Could you talk me through the process?

The ACLU does press releases everytime they sneeze. No lawsuits on this have been announced but if you know of one feel free to post it. As I mentioned Texas anti- sanctuary city law was upheld.

Ah. So what number of filings would you consider to be "an issue?" I can add the ones that are pending in Texas, if you like.

[Anonymous]

Could the moderators please sign in?