Las familias inmigrantes ilegales en Estados Unidos – DW Documental

“No soy política, soy realista. ¿Qué ocurrió en el pasado? El gobierno anterior prometió mas empleos, una y otra vez año tras año, decían que querían apoyar a los inmigrantes y estuvieron en el poder 8 años. Pasaron 8 años en la casa blanca y no hicieron nada. Ahora con el nuevo gobierno, al menos sabemos que no ayudaran, que no apoyaran a la comunidad inmigrante (…). Yo también soy inmigrante, pero soy una ciudadana estadounidense. Amo este país y lo respeto, y a los niños les enseño a respetar y amar su país y estarles agradecidos porque la gran mayoría de ellos son ciudadanos estadounidenses”. Nora Sandigo, “The Great Mother”.

“Es diferente porque Obama tenia otra forma de decir las cosas, podian tener el mismo significado pero no dolían tanto. Este presidente se expresa como si no fuéramos personas, sino cosas que estamos en el mundo y que solo cuando le resultan útiles se convierten en alguien”. Rose, esposa de inmigrante salvadoreño deportado de los EE.UU.

Video: DW Documental

Para los que en USA dicen “Entrar Ilegalmente a mi País es como Entrar sin Permiso a mi Casa”

Estos últimos meses han sido de rallies frente a los edificios federales de varios estados, estos han incuído marchas, protestas y manifestaciones contra las políticas migratorias del actual presidente de los EE.UU. La voz de muchos manifestantes estadounidenses se esta haciendo escuchar y felizmente existe sentido común en los reclamos. Por otro lado, tenemos a quienes apoyan al presidente de los EE.UU. y cuyos argumentos son tan básicos y desinformados como los Tweets de su líder. Uno de los mas comunes es: “Entrar a este país sin permiso es como entrar a mi casa sin mi autorización, yo le disparo y asunto arreglado”. Frente a este tipo de afirmaciones carentes de sentido y mayor análisis, es muy útil primero hacer una diferenciación de lo que es considerado un delito federal y un delito a nivel estatal; en segundo lugar, es siempre productivo, además, revisar la gravedad del delito, a saber, misdemeanor o felony; y por último qué tipo de sanción que recibiría esa conducta prohibida en ambas jurisdicciones. A continuación presentamos este tipo de opiniones y la diferencia entre ambas conductas prohibidas.

Imagen: Facebook

Federal:

8 U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.

(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 8, § 275, 66 Stat. 229; Pub. L. 99–639, § 2(d), Nov. 10, 1986, 100 Stat. 3542; Pub. L. 101–649, title I, § 121(b)(3), title V, § 543(b)(2), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4994, 5059; Pub. L. 102–232, title III, § 306(c)(3), Dec. 12, 1991, 105 Stat. 1752; Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title I, § 105(a), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–556.)

Indiana (Jurisdicción Estatal):

Burglary is punishable as follows:
(a) Burglary in the first degree: by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or six years.
(b) Burglary in the second degree: by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.

Conclusión: No es lo mismo ingresar ilegalmente a los Estados Unidos, e ingresar sin permiso a la casa de una persona en ese país, asimismo, tanto el “mens rea” como el “actus reus” son diferentes para ambos tipos penales, así como el nivel de responsabilidad y las penas o sanciones.

Fuentes:

US Code

Indiana Criminal Code

Fact checking: ¿La ‘Ley de Separación de Familias’ fue aprobada en 1997 o ‘por los Demócratas’?

No existe una ley federal que obligue a la separación de padres e hijos en las frontera de los EE.UU.; La política que ha producido este resultado fue aprobada en mayo de 2018.

Lo que se dice:  “Se promulgó una ‘ley para separar a las familias’ antes de abril de 2018 y,  por consiguiente, el gobierno federal no puede dejar de aplicarla”. (A “law to separate families” was enacted prior to April 2018, and the federal government is powerless not to enforce it.)

Valor de la afirmación: FALSA

Origen: A mediados de junio de 2018, muchas personas se preguntaban sobre la existencia de una “ley para separar familias”, en especial si la supuesta legislación fue aprobada por el presidente Barack Obama, el presidente Bill Clinton o “los demócratas”:

  • ¿Hubo separación de padres e hijos al cruzar la frontera con los Estados Unidos bajo la administración de Barack Obama?
  • Se informa repetidamente que la separación de familias inmigrantes ilegales es una política creada por la administración Obama. ¿Es esto cierto o es solo la política del Attorney General Jeff Sessions?
  • ¿La administración del presidente Obama separó a los niños de sus padres cuando llegaron ilegalmente a los EE. UU.? Un contacto en mi FaceBook dice esto y quiero saber si esto es cierto.
  • NEWSWEEK: OBAMA MANTUVO MÁS DEL DOBLE DEL NÚMERO DE NIÑOS EN ALBERGUES COMPARADOS CON TRUMP
  • Bill Clinton promulgó una ley que legalizó la separación de los inmigrantes ilegales y los hijos de estos. Los inmigrantes fueron obligados a entregar a sus hijos durante la administración de Barack Obama?
  • LA LEY PARA SEPARAR A LOS PADRES DE SUS HIJOS CUANDO CRUZAN ILEGALMENTE LA FRONTERA FUE APROBADA EN 1997. ¿AHORA ES UN PROBLEMA?

Aunque las preguntas arriba formuladas han sido muy variadas, la pregunta subyacente en ellas era esencialmente la misma: si existió una denominada “ley para separar a los padres de los niños” antes de la administración de Donald Trump. En algunas versiones, la administración del presidente Bill Clinton aprobó tal ley, y en otras versiones, el presidente Barack Obama detuvo el doble de niños separados de sus padres durante su presidencia.

El 5 de junio de 2018, Trump atribuyó la política a los demócratas en general:

Sin importar cómo las familias ingresaron a los Estados Unidos, no existe una ley federal que estipule que los niños y los padres sean separados en la frontera. El aumento en la cantidad de niños detenidos y separados de sus padres se debió directamente a un cambio en el cumplimiento de la política anunciada repetidamente por Jeff Sessions en abril y mayo de 2018, según la cual los adultos (con o sin hijos) son procesados penalmente por intentar ingresar a los Estados Unidos:

  • La política de “tolerancia cero” que anunció [en mayo de 2018] incluye a los adultos que intentan cruzar la frontera, entre ellos muchos que planean solicitar asilo, que son puestos bajo custodia y enfrentan un proceso penal por ingreso ilegal. 
  • Como resultado, cientos de menores están siendo alojados en centros de detención y se mantienen alejados de sus padres. 
  • Durante un período reciente de seis semanas, casi 2.000 niños fueron separados de sus padres después de cruzar ilegalmente la frontera, cifras publicadas el [15 de junio de 2018]. 
  • [El Procurador General] Jeff Sessions señaló que aquellos que ingresaran a los Estados Unidos de forma irregular serían procesados penalmente, lo que significa un cambio en una política de larga data que acusaba a la mayoría de los que cruzaban la frontera por primera por un delito menor (misdemeanour offence).

Se confirmó en un factchecking sobre una supuesta declaración hecha por el Fiscal General Jeff Sessions referida a una “ley para separar a los niños”. Si bien Sessions no hizo la declaración que se le atribuye, a principios de abril de 2018 realizó una serie de comentarios sobre una nueva iniciativa fronteriza que implica la separación de los niños de los padres en las entradas fronterizas:

  • “Si está ingresando a un niño en el país, entonces lo procesaremos judicialmente y ese niño será separado de usted como lo exige la ley … Si no le gusta esto, entonces no meta niños a través de nuestra frontera. […] No queremos separar a las familias, pero tampoco queremos que familias entren ilegalmente en la frontera [.] Les instamos a que no lo hagan.”

El 7 de mayo de 2018, la cadena de noticias CNN informó que hasta abril de 2018, los funcionarios de inmigración fueron autorizados a actuar con total discreción para tratar con las familias o con menores no acompañados que ingresaban a los Estados Unidos sin documentación:

  • Desde hace mucho tiempo se ha considerado que se comete un delito federal menor al ser capturado luego de ingresar ilegalmente en los Estados Unidos, con una sanción de hasta seis meses de prisión, sin embargo, la administración no siempre ha remitido a todos los detenidos a juicio. Los detenidos han sido puestos rápidamente en procedimientos de inmigración y, a menos que cumplan con el umbral para presentar una solicitud de asilo válida, pueden ser deportados rápidamente del país.
  • El plan actual del Department of Homeland Security (DHS) no establece métodos especiales para aquellos que reclaman asilo cuando son detenidos. Si bien se les permite continuar con su solicitud y eventualmente se puede confirmar que tienen un derecho legítimo a vivir en los EE. UU., aún podrían tener una condena por entrada ilegal al país.

Ese mismo artículo dejó entrever que las familias “podrían ser” separadas, lo que indica que en la primera semana de mayo de 2018, la separación de los niños de las familias aún no había comenzado:

  • La administración de Donald Trump ha decidido encausar a las personas atrapadas cruzando la frontera ilegalmente en un enjuiciamiento federal, una política que podría resultar en la separación de muchos más padres y sus hijos en la frontera.
  • Esta medida incluso significaría que aun cuando los inmigrantes capturados cruzando ilegalmente la frontera tengan solicitudes de asilo válidas, ellos podrían terminar con condenas penales de tipo federal en su historial, independientemente de si un juez finalmente encuentra que tienen derecho a vivir y permanecer en los EE. UU.
  • La Secretaria del Department of Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, promulgó oficialmente esta política el [7 de mayo de 2018], de acuerdo a lo informado por un funcionario del Departament of Homeland Security quien declaró bajo anonimato. Esto calza completamente con la “política de tolerancia cero” del Departamento de Justicia aplicada a los cruces fronterizos ilegales, bajo la cual el Fiscal General Jeff Sessions ha ordenado a los fiscales federales que presenten cargos penales contra todas las personas encausadas por cruzar ilegalmente la frontera, lo mas que sea posible.

Los rumores indicaban correctamente que las “detenciones familiares” en su conjunto se produjeron antes de la administración Trump, pero a partir de agosto de 2015 las familias en la frontera raramente eran separadas. Otras versiones del rumor sostenían que el gobierno de Barack Obama separó más niños de sus padres que la administración Trump, una afirmación derivada de un “telefono malogrado” relacionada con el hecho de que una afluencia de menores no acompañados provenientes de América Latina cruzó la frontera a partir de 2014 en adelante. En esos casos, los menores viajaban principalmente sin sus padres.

Con respecto a las afirmaciones de que la “ley para separar familias” se aprobó en el año 1997, su origen se debe a un comunicado del Department of Homeland Security (DHS) de febrero del 2018 que indicaba: “vacíos legales [que] son ​​aprovechados por menores, familias y contrabandistas de personas”. La declaración de DHS afirmó que las políticas de inmigración existentes “crean un factor de atracción que abre las puertas para una mayor inmigración ilegal y alienta a los padres a pagar y confiar sus hijos a organizaciones criminales”.

Sin embargo, ni el Flores settlement de 1997 ni la Ley Contra el Tráfico de Personas de 2008 citada en esa publicación de ninguna manera estipulaban que el gobierno separara a los niños de sus padres:

  • Un portavoz de la Casa Blanca refirió la declaración del DHS con respecto a un acuerdo legal de 1997 y una ley antitrafficking de 2008 que afecta a menores que son detenidos sin un padre presente con ellos:
  • Según el acuerdo de 1997, el DHS podría detener a niños no acompañados capturados en la frontera solo por 20 días antes de entregarlos a familias de acogida, albergues o patrocinadores, hasta que se resuelvan sus casos de inmigración. El acuerdo se amplió más tarde a través de otras sentencias judiciales para incluir tanto a los niños no acompañados como a los acompañados.
  • La Ley de Reautorización para la Protección de Víctimas de Tráfico de Personas (William Wilberforce, 2008) requiere que los menores no acompañados provenientes de otros países que no sean México y Canadá sean puestos bajo la custodia de la Oficina de Re-ubicación de Refugiados o familiares en los EE. UU. El proyecto de ley bipartidista fue aprobado por consentimiento unánime y firmado por George W. Bush.
  • Sin embargo, ni el acuerdo judicial, ni la ley de 2008 requieren que la administración Trump “separe familias”.

Una serie de rumores sobre la controvertida separación de familias en la frontera sostuvo que la política se presentó antes de la administración Trump, ya sea como resultado de una “ley” de 1997 o de supuestas políticas de administraciones anteriores. Esas afirmaciones resultaron ser falsas. Ninguna ley federal requirió o sugirió la política de separación familiar anunciada por el Procurador General Jeff Sessions como el habia indicado en varios de sus comentarios durante abril y mayo de 2018.

Snopes.com ha estado involucrado durante mucho tiempo en la batalla contra la desinformación, un esfuerzo que no podrían sostener sin el apoyo de sus lectores.

Si desea obtener más información acerca de cómo puede ayudarles, haga clic aquí.
Filed Under: Barack Obama Bill Clinton Donald Trump Family SeparationImmigrant Children Jeff Sessions Trump AdministrationUnaccompanied Minors

Fact Checker: Kim LaCapria

Featured Image: Brooke Binkowski

Published: 8 June 2018

Traducido al español de: snopes.com – Was the ‘Law to Separate Families’ Passed in 1997 or ‘by Democrats’?

La Unión Europea alcanza de madrugada un acuerdo sobre inmigración

Sin embargo, el “primer ministro italiano defendió en la reunión que debe aplicarse el principio de que ‘nada está acordado hasta que todo está acordado’ y que Roma se reserva el derecho de evaluar su posición sobre todas las partes del documento final hasta que se conocieran las decisiones en inmigración.” Lea mas en: euronews

Video: euronews (en español)

Department of Homeland Security planning to collect social media info on all immigrants

The Department of Homeland Security has moved to collect social media information on all immigrants, including permanent residents and naturalized citizens.

new rule published in the Federal Register last week calls to include “social media handles and aliases, associated identifiable information and search results” in the department’s immigrant files.

BuzzFeed News first reported the new rule on Monday. It is set to go into effect on Oct. 18 after a public comment period.

According to BuzzFeed, the new rule could also affect U.S. citizens who communicate with immigrants on social media by making their conversations the subject of government surveillance.

Read more at: thehill

Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday ordered an end to the Obama-era program that shields young undocumented immigrants from deportation, calling it an “amnesty-first approach” and urging Congress to pass a replacement before he begins phasing out its protections in six months.

As early as March, officials said, some of the 800,000 young adults brought to the United States illegally as children who qualify for the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, will become eligible for deportation. The five-year-old policy allows them to remain without fear of immediate removal from the country and gives them the right to work legally.

Mr. Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who announced the change at the Justice Department, both used the aggrieved language of anti-immigrant activists, arguing that those in the country illegally are lawbreakers who hurt native-born Americans by usurping their jobs and pushing down wages.

Mr. Trump said in a statement that he was driven by a concern for “the millions of Americans victimized by this unfair system.” Mr. Sessions said the program had “denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of Americans by allowing those same illegal aliens to take those jobs.”

Protests broke out in front of the White House and the Justice Department and in cities across the country soon after Mr. Sessions’s announcement. Democrats and some Republicans, business executives, college presidents and immigration activists condemned the move as a coldhearted and shortsighted effort that was unfair to the young immigrants and could harm the economy.

“This is a sad day for our country,” Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook founder, wrote on his personal page. “It is particularly cruel to offer young people the American dream, encourage them to come out of the shadows and trust our government, and then punish them for it.”

Former President Barack Obama, who had warned that any threat to the program would prompt him to speak out, called his successor’s decision “wrong,” “self-defeating” and “cruel.”

“Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us,” Mr. Obama wrote on Facebook.

Both he and Mr. Trump said the onus was now on lawmakers to protect the young immigrants as part of a broader overhaul of the immigration system that would also toughen enforcement.

But despite broad and longstanding bipartisan support for measures to legalize unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States as children, the odds of a sweeping immigration deal in a deeply divided Congress appeared long. Legislation to protect the “dreamers” has also repeatedly died in Congress.

Just hours after the angry reaction to Mr. Trump’s decision, the president appeared to have second thoughts. In a late-evening tweet, Mr. Trump specifically called on Congress to “legalize DACA,” something his administration’s officials had declined to do earlier in the day.

Mr. Trump also warned lawmakers that if they do not legislate a program similar to the one Mr. Obama created through executive authority, he will “revisit this issue!” — a statement sure to inject more uncertainty into the ultimate fate of the young, undocumented immigrants who have been benefiting from the program since 2012.

Conservatives praised Mr. Trump’s move, though some expressed frustration that he had taken so long to rescind the program and that the gradual phaseout could mean that some immigrants retained protection from deportation until October 2019.

The White House portrayed the decision as a matter of legal necessity, given that nine Republican state attorneys general had threatened to sue to halt the program immediately if Mr. Trump did not act.

Months of internal White House debate preceded the move, as did the president’s public display of his own conflicted feelings. He once referred to DACA recipients as “incredible kids.”

The president’s wavering was reflected in a day of conflicting messages from him and his team. Hours after his statement was released, Mr. Trump told reporters that he had “great love” for the beneficiaries of the program he had just ended.

“I have a love for these people, and hopefully now Congress will be able to help them and do it properly,” he said. But he notably did not endorse bipartisan legislation to codify the program’s protections, leaving it unclear whether he would back such a solution.

Mr. Trump’s aides were negotiating late into Monday evening with one another about precisely how the plan to wind down the program would be executed. Until Tuesday morning, some aides believed the president had settled on a plan that would be more generous, giving more of the program’s recipients the option to renew their protections.

But even taking into account Mr. Trump’s contradictory language, the rollout of his decision was smoother than his early moves to crack down on immigration, particularly the botched execution in January of his ban on travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

In addition to the public statement from Mr. Sessions and a White House question-and-answer session, the president was ready on Tuesday with the lengthy written statement, and officials at the Justice and Homeland Security Departments provided detailed briefings and distributed information to reporters in advance.

Mr. Trump sought to portray his move as a compassionate effort to head off the expected legal challenge that White House officials said would have forced an immediate and highly disruptive end to the program. But he also denounced the policy, saying it helped spark a “massive surge” of immigrants from Central America, some of whom went on to become members of violent gangs like MS-13. Some immigration critics contend that programs like DACA, started under Mr. Obama, encouraged Central Americans to enter the United States, hoping to stay permanently. Tens of thousands of migrants surged across America’s southern border in the summer of 2014, many of them children fleeing dangerous gangs.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, indicated that Mr. Trump would support legislation to “fix” the DACA program, as long as Congress passed it as part of a broader immigration overhaul to strengthen the border, protect American jobs and enhance enforcement.

“The president wants to see responsible immigration reform, and he wants that to be part of it,” Ms. Sanders said, referring to a permanent solution for the young immigrants. “Something needs to be done. It’s Congress’s job to do that. And we want to be part of that process.”

Later on Tuesday, Marc Short, Mr. Trump’s top legislative official, told reporters on Capitol Hill that the White House would release principles for such a plan in the coming days, input that at least one key member of Congress indicated would be crucial.

“It is important that the White House clearly outline what kind of legislation the president is willing to sign,” Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said in a statement. “We have no time to waste on ideas that do not have the votes to pass or that the president won’t sign.”

The announcement was an effort by Mr. Trump to honor the law-and-order message of his campaign, which included a repeated pledge to end Mr. Obama’s immigration policy, while seeking to avoid the emotionally charged and politically perilous consequences of targeting a sympathetic group of immigrants.

Mr. Trump’s decision came less than two weeks after he pardoned Joe Arpaio, the former Arizona sheriff who drew intense criticism for his aggressive pursuit of unauthorized immigrants, which earned him a criminal contempt conviction.

The blame-averse president told a confidante over the past few days that he realized that he had gotten himself into a politically untenable position. As late as one hour before the decision was to be announced, administration officials privately expressed concern that Mr. Trump might not fully grasp the details of the steps he was about to take, and when he discovered their full impact, would change his mind, according to a person familiar with their thinking who was not authorized to comment on it and spoke on condition of anonymity.

But ultimately, the president followed through on his campaign pledge at the urging of Mr. Sessions and other hard-line members inside his White House, including Stephen Miller, his top domestic policy adviser.

The announcement started the clock on revoking legal status from those protected under the program.

Officials said DACA recipients whose legal status expires on or before March 5 would be able to renew their two-year period of legal status as long as they apply by Oct. 5. But the announcement means that if Congress fails to act, immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children could face deportation as early as March 6 to countries where many left at such young ages that they have no memory of them.

Immigration officials said they did not intend to actively target the young immigrants as priorities for deportation, though without the program’s protection, they would be considered subject to removal from the United States and would no longer be able to work legally.

Officials said some of the young immigrants could be prevented from returning to the United States if they traveled abroad.

Immigration advocates took little comfort from the administration’s assurances, describing the president’s decision as deeply disturbing and vowing to shift their demands for protections to Capitol Hill.

Marielena Hincapié, the executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, called Mr. Trump’s decision “nothing short of hypocrisy, cruelty and cowardice.” Maria Praeli, a recipient of protection under the program, criticized Mr. Sessions and Mr. Trump for talking “about us as if we don’t matter and as if this isn’t our home.”

The Mexican foreign ministry issued a statement saying the “Mexican government deeply regrets” Mr. Trump’s decision.

As recently as July, Mr. Trump expressed skepticism about the prospect of a broad legislative deal.

“What I’d like to do is a comprehensive immigration plan,” he told reporters. “But our country and political forces are not ready yet.”

As for DACA, he said: “There are two sides of a story. It’s always tough.”

In: nytimes

Chicago to sue Trump administration over sanctuary city funding threat

Image: https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/newshour/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/RTX2U9ZJ-1024×730.jpg

CHICAGO/NEW YORK (Reuters) – Chicago will sue the Trump administration on Monday over threats to withhold public safety grant money from so-called sanctuary cities, escalating a pushback against a federal immigration crackdown, Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced on Sunday.

The federal lawsuit comes less than two weeks after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the U.S. Justice Department would bar cities from a certain grant program unless they allow immigration authorities unlimited access to local jails and provide 48 hours’ notice before releasing anyone wanted for immigration violations.

“Chicago will not let our police officers become political pawns in a debate,” Emanuel, a Democrat, said at a news conference. “Chicago will not let our residents have their fundamental rights isolated and violated. And Chicago will never relinquish our status as a welcoming city.”

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants provide money to hundreds of cities, and the Trump administration has requested $380 million in funding next year. Chicago, a regular target of Republican President Donald Trump because of its murder rate, expected to receive $3.2 million this year for purchasing equipment.

Emanuel said the lawsuit would prevent the Trump administration from setting a precedent that could be used to target other funding.

Under Trump and Sessions, the federal government has sought to crack down on sanctuary cities, which generally offer illegal immigrants safe harbor by declining to use municipal resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Dozens of local governments and cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, have joined the growing sanctuary movement.

The Justice Department said more Chicagoans were murdered last year than residents of Los Angeles and New York combined, and cited comments by Sessions last week saying sanctuary cities “make all of us less safe.”

Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a Sunday statement: “It’s especially tragic that the mayor is less concerned with that staggering figure than he is spending time and taxpayer money protecting criminal aliens and putting Chicago’s law enforcement at greater risk.”

Police and city officials in sanctuary cities have said deporting illegal immigrants who are not accused of serious crimes harms public safety by discouraging immigrants from coming forward to report crimes.

Chicago’s lawsuit is the first to challenge the department over the Byrne program, though city officials said they are in contact with other cities. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is also considering a similar lawsuit, the Sacramento Bee has reported.

The Trump administration has already faced legal battles over its sanctuary city policies. Last month, a U.S. judge refused to revisit a court order that blocked Trump’s January executive order denying broader federal funds to such jurisdictions, in a case filed by San Francisco and the California county of Santa Clara.

In: reuters

1 2