The Supreme Courtroom is dismissing Sanctuary Metropolis circumstances on the request of Biden Admin

The previous government had aimed Cities with so-called “protected areas” based on the claim that restricting cooperation with mass deportation agents puts communities at risk. But that claim has always been a lie. “Cities that have adopted ‘sanctuary” policies have seen no increase in crime due to their decision to restrict cooperation with federal immigration services, according to a new report from Stanford University. “ The Washington Post reported last year. “The data show that the guidelines were effective in limiting the deportation of nonviolent offenders, but not increasing crime rates in these cities.”

Not that the previous government really cared. An anti-immigrant agenda had to be implemented and it was ready to free states from critical funding to achieve it. “The lower courts in New York and San Francisco had drawn different conclusions about the Justice Department’s authority to withhold funds approved by Congress in support of local police forces, ”the Wall Street Journal continued.

“This order was unconstitutional before the ink was even dry,” said San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera after a November 2017 ruling against the previous government. The city had been the first place in the nation to sue the previous government over politics. “This president and his administration have tried to twist facts, stir up fears and demonize immigrants for cheap political points,” Herrera continued.

Immigration rights advocate have long noticed that in contrast to right-wing topics of conversation, so-called “protected cities” follow the law Refusal to hold immigrants for ICE unless there is an arrest warrant. courts have already decided Over the years police detain immigrants after their release date for ICE to pick them up is unconstitutional. Some places had to pay a lot of time to work with ICE. Last October, Los Angeles County agreed to pay $ 14 million to settle a class action lawsuit.

The Supreme Court had previously granted Biden administrative motions regarding two more cases that arose from the previous administration, the racist and stupid border wall that Mexico never paid for, and its anti-asylum policy, which remains in Mexico. The Biden government asked the court to remove the cases from their calendar, which it then did. “Both cases are pending but are likely to be dismissed as contentious as the Biden Justice Department will not defend either facet of Trump’s immigration policy,” according to NBC News reported.

Comments are closed.