New York AG Advises Resistance to Immigration Enforcement

It’s a safe bet that President Trump’s executive orders on immigration will not be the end of the fight against “sanctuary city” policies.

Days before Trump announced a paradigm shift in immigration enforcement Wednesday, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman offered guidance to local officials on how to thwart federal immigration authorities.

“Part of it is for show. Right now, we’re in a game of chicken.”

In a memo last week, Schneiderman wrote that he was providing “model language” to help cities and counties “protect this vulnerable population.”

The memo mirrors rhetoric from local officials across the country who insist they are digging in to resist Trump — even if he follows through with plans to cut federal funds to cities and counties that refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities. Immigration enforcement advocates predicted holdout jurisdictions will fall in line when push comes to shove.

“Part of it is for show,” said Chris Chmielenski, director of content and activism at NumbersUSA. “Right now, we’re in a game of chicken.”

[lz_third_party align=center includes=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFzc_Yt8rwk”]

Schneiderman listed a number of steps that local jurisdictions should take. Among them:

• Jurisdictions should not engage in activities “solely for the purpose of enforcing immigration laws.”
• Without a judicial warrant, jurisdictions should honor immigration detainers — requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities that a prisoners in local jails be transferred to ICE custody — only in “limited, specified circumstances.”
• Jurisdictions should withhold non-public information from federal immigration authorities without a warrant.
• Jurisdictions should not allow federal immigration authorities to question prisoners in their custody for immigration enforcement purposes.
• Jurisdictions should refuse to help create a federal registry based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.
• Jurisdictions should limit the collection of immigration-related information in order to ensure illegal immigrants have access to benefits and services.
• Jurisdictions should not collect and report to the public information about the detainer and notification requests by the ICE and Customs and Border Protection officials.

The memo cites court cases along with the 10th Amendment to the Constitution as legal justifications for its positions.

“It’s breathtaking in its dubious conclusions,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies.

[lz_related_box id=”277135″]

The 10th Amendment reserves powers to the states not specifically granted to the federal government. It is the favorite amendment of states’ rights advocates. But Vaughan said immigration is one of the few powers that the Constitution does reserve for the federal government. It is why, she noted, the Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration against Arizona and Alabama when those states passed laws empowering state authorities to enforce immigration laws.

“Clearly, the Constitution does not give the mayor of New York City the authority to decide who gets to stay or not,” she said.

Chmielenski, of NumbersUSA, said he expects some hardcore jurisdictions to try to block Trump’s moves to punish sanctuary policies.

“They will definitely try to challenge that in court,” he said. “I think we’re definitely going to see that over the next couple of years.”

Vaughan said Schneiderman’s memo seems more designed to give legal cover to jurisdictions that want to maintain or adopt sanctuary policies. But those jurisdictions will have a tough time persuading judges to stop the Trump administration from cutting off grant money, she said.

“They’re going to be on very flimsy ground,” she said.