I am up early this morning to provide a full 46 page PDF copy of our fair city's lawsuit against the Trump administration's abusively unconstitutional attempts to bludgeon our city into revoking her sanctuary city status.
We are a big shouldered city, one with generally wide open minds. We believe in the fundamental dignity of all human beings, regardless of the papers in their pockets (or the lack thereof). We believe that our communities are made richer both spiritually, and economically, by including all people of good will we encounter here, in this improbable dream we call. . . America [H/T BHO 44]. And so, we will stand shoulder to shoulder, with all our brothers and sisters -- regardless of documents (so long as they are and remain tax-paying, productive and contributing members of our communities), to resist 45's hateful targeting -- singling out, really -- of Chicago. Do read it all (a 46 page PDF file) -- and a bit:
. . . .Chicago is one of America’s great cities, a metropolis of almost 3 million people that has attracted migrants and immigrants of different races, nationalities, and creeds to the shores of Lake Michigan for nearly two centuries, seeking good jobs and better futures for themselves and their children. . . .
Since the 1980s, the City has directed its police officers to prioritize local law enforcement and public safety rather than diverting time, attention, and resources to investigating residents’ immigration status. Now codified as the Welcoming City Ordinance, this policy promotes public safety by ensuring that no city resident or visitor, regardless of immigration status, is afraid to cooperate with law enforcement, report criminal activity to the police, testify as a witness in court, or seek help as a victim of crime; and by ensuring that police officers focus on criminal activity occurring in Chicago instead of federal civil immigration infractions. The Welcoming City Ordinance represents a clear, concerted, and smart policy choice in favor of inclusion and strong relations between the community and law enforcement. Chicago, its residents, and its leaders have stood behind that choice for over a generation. . . .
. . . .[45, himself, actually. . .] may not arrogate to himself the powers that our Constitution reserves to Congress, on the one hand, or to state and local governments on the other. It may not unilaterally concoct and import into the Byrne JAG program sweeping new policy conditions that were never approved (and indeed were considered and rejected) by Congress and that would federalize local jails and police stations, mandate warrantless detentions in order to investigate for federal civil infractions, sow fear in local immigrant communities, and ultimately make the people of Chicago less safe. Nor may it continue to insist that Chicago certify compliance with Section 1373 even as it withholds clear guidance about the City’s prior certifications while implying that it does not accept them, or others like them, for some ill-articulated reason. . . .
The expanded [City of Chicago] Welcoming City Ordinance provides that undocumented individuals will be detained at the federal government’s request only when Chicago has an independent reason to believe they might pose a threat to public safety: for example, if they have an outstanding [non-trivial] criminal warrant, have been convicted of a felony, are a defendant in a criminal case where judgment has not been entered and a felony charge is pending, or have been identified as a known gang member. . . .
[M]any courts have held that detaining persons for additional time solely because of an ICE detainer request is unconstitutional or otherwise unlawful. County of Santa Clara v. Trump, Nos. 17-cv-00574-WHO & 17-cv-00485-WHO, 2017 WL 1459081, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017) (“Several courts have held that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for local jurisdictions to hold suspected or actual removable aliens subject to civil detainer requests because [such] requests are often not supported by an individualized determination of probable cause that a crime has been committed.”); see, e.g., Morales v. Chadbourne, 793 F.3d 208, 214-218 (1st Cir. 2015); Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634, 643-645 (3d Cir. 2014). . . .
Confession: I had a very small hand in some of the above-quoted language. . . and so, I naturally endorse the filing of this federal lawsuit. I for one will not simply sit idly by, and watch Mr. Trump (vainly and largely impotently) try to rip our city asunder, by pitting us, one against another. No, I too believe in the audacious, hopeful dream that is. . . America. Thank you Mr. Mayor; and thank you, Mr. Obama before him: we in Chicago are better than this -- we are better than 45's mindless demonizing of any one group of "others".
Now, it happens that Mr. Trump's mother was an unlawful immigrant. I do not care. It also happens that (under his latest "50 per cent reduction" nonsense) 45's own father would not have been eligible to enter America, at Ellis Island. Again of itself, about this fact, I do not care.
While the irony there is delicious -- it is paramount to recognize that Mr. Trump's view of America is not even consistent with the entirely unearned benefits of a citizenship he now claims for himself -- and a few others, alone.
It is always thus with small handed (and small minded) tyrants. Resist. Resist. Resist.
Me? I am soaring this morning, after a wonderful evening in our fine city, at a roof-top bar, and then later at the Gage, with my grown son and his smart as a whip significant other. What a great time to be alive -- in one of the greatest cities on Earth! Now. . . onward!
UPDATE: Rather tardy with this, but here is the Friday filing of the fine reply brief of the State of Hawaii, in the continuing defeat of Muslim Ban 2.0, in the Ninth Circuit.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment