It would be helpful to know what percentage of federally-funded county services are made us of by illegal immigrants and what percentage of sanctuary city federally-funded and school district services as well, to include total costs as well.

I'm neither here nor there on the issue of illegal immigrants.

What I have an issue with is this state demanding federal funds while not wanting to follow federal laws. It's a pretty entitled attitude...

"Dad, I got a D in math and yeah I ignored your curfew, but you still owe me that smartphone and a new car."

Maybe turn over dangerous criminals like you're supposed to and avoid all of this legal mess? Just a thought from silly me.

For every dollar of taxes Californians send to Washington, we get about 75¢ back in federal funding. They're using our tax dollars to help out states with worse economies. If they stop sending funds, we should divert our federal tax dollars to the state and be self-sufficient. "No Taxation Without Representation"

For the poster: Swm
"Maybe turn over dangerous criminals like you're supposed to and avoid all of this legal mess? Just a thought from silly me."

Actually, we're not "supposed" to do anything. The federal government cannot set rules for state & local law enforcement. The point of sanctuary cities/counties is that local law enforcement doesn't check the person's immigration status when they stop someone. However, if the police stop someone and find outstanding warrants, etc., they will arrest them. Being a sanctuary city/county doesn't mean they get to hide their crimes, it just means that anyone that lives here (legally or not) can feel safe reporting crimes without the threat of being deported.

Thanks, James. I was about to write up an explanation for these posters but your summary is fantastic. A lot of people seem to have some strange misconceptions about what a sanctuary city is.

@James

If that is what we believe, fine. But state taxes and Federal Taxes are separate buckets. Just because you pay federal taxes doesn't mean you get it all back. Just like the state taxes I pay doesn't necessarily come back to the city in which I live. That is part of living in a large community or organization. You get the benefits of Federal highways no matter what state you drive in. You get the benefit of federal administration over things that cross state boundaries.

If you don't want to follow federal laws, fine. But to do so and still expect Federal funds is hypocrisy.

Thank you James. You are right; there is no law requiring local police to call up Federal immigration authorities and say, "Hey, we have someone here who looks Mexican so you may want to deport him. Don't worry, even though we have nothing to hold him for, we'll throw him in jail for as long as it takes for you to get here and take him off our hands."

We are following federal law. Even sanctuary cities don't interfere with federal law enforcement. However, the federal government cannot compel our state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal laws, that's well-settled law.

The problem that Republicans are running into is that the federal government would have to spend a ridiculous amount of money to enforce this themselves, for no real result except harassing otherwise law-abiding residents, tearing apart families, and destroying communities.

@Waverly Park

I don't know enough about it to say if we are or are not complying with Federal law. If we are, then the argument should not be that it's unconstitutional because that's a really thin premise if you ask me.

The argument should be to show that we are in fact in compliance with Federas law.

If we are not in compliance by our choice, then we should shut the #$%& up.

Makes sense, we should take legal advice from the guy who doesn't even know what a sanctuary city actually is...

idolizing this sanctuary city nonsense is leading us all astray.. why would anyone want to turn criminals loose again and again for the innocent public to deal with...WHY? if a criminal is in custody..whether illegal or legal citizen..police depts cooperate with other jurisdictions all over the country and notify them when they have a wanted criminal in custody.. why fight the feds and ICE....why ignore the law for an illegal? it is totally unfair to have a set of rules for citizens and another made up set of rules for illegals.. If we want this huge illegal immigrant problem solved....we had best start by cooperating and being civil. the criminal illegals are already so bad that they are making the decent illegals look bad... If we don't cooperate and compromise and be civil now.. it will be increasingly difficult if not impossible to ever get a pathway to citizenship or work permits or any reasonable solution... starting a war with our federal government over illegal criminals is insane.

@ @dude "otherwise law-abiding". Well sure, leaving aside that little "oopsie, came across the Border illegally".

Thank you so much to the Board of Supervisors and the County's Executive team for taking action and asking our justice system for relief from the threats made by the current administration. We are fortunate to have a Board which cannot be intimidated into supporting actions which will divide families and cause irreparable pain to our fellow community members.

@pollyanna,

You seem to be misinformed about what a sanctuary city is. Please read James' post above, he explains it quite well. Long story short, sanctuary cities already do exactly what you're asking for. I don't blame you for getting it wrong, since there's a concerted disinformation effort set up to confuse people.

Sanctuary cities protect families and communities, so victims of crimes, like domestic abuse or robbery or assault, don't have to be afraid of reporting it to the police. This keeps everyone safer and is just good, smart policy.

@@dude: "The problem that Republicans are running into is that the federal government would have to spend a ridiculous amount of money to enforce this themselves, for no real result except harassing otherwise law-abiding residents, tearing apart families, and destroying communities."

1. This is not a Republican problem- I'm not a Republican but I support LEGAL immigration

2. No real result? How about a significant decrease in the amount of taxpayer funds that we spend supporting (food, housing, education, healthcare) and now protecting (public funds being used to set up legal help, etc) illegal immigrants that manage to cross the border. That seems to be the criteria these days - if you get across the border, you're now a Californian and we welcome you with open arms!

3. "Tearing apart families and destroying communities" - Who is tearing apart families? The families came as a unit (or became a family after they came illegally), they can leave as a unit. And a community of laws is much stronger than a community that supports anarchy.

@James

How do we have "No Taxation Without Representation"? Please explain in relation to CA representatives and senators in in Congress. Simplistic arguments regarding the distribution of tax dollars also demand an explanation. They are about as bad as saying illegal immigrants are bad and sanctuary cities are good. Things are just not that simple. The police can conduct stops, ask for identity and conduct searches based on reasonable cause. It happens all over the country and stops a lot of crime. What role does defense spending play in your calculus? Are you suggesting agricultural intensive red states don't deserve the federal tax revenues they receive? Who is going to put food on your table? Appealing to simple logic is not going to solve anything.

Given that you live in California, you'd think you'd know that the food for the country's table is provided by...California.

Over a third of the country's vegetables and two-thirds of the country's fruits and nuts are grown in California.

There's a reason we'd be the sixth largest economy in the world if we were our own country. We work hard and excel at so many things. Those Republican states just want everyone to think we need them, when in fact it's our generosity that keeps them afloat.

@Waverly Park

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
I know what the definition of a sanctuary city is. I just don't claim to know all the legal details to say definitively that we are, or are not, in compliance with Federal law.

Unless you're a lawyer with a specialty in immigration law on both the Federal and CA State level, I seriously doubt you know much either.[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]
If we ARE in compliance, it should be easy to prove that. If we are not, then we have no legal ground to stand on.

Since we are not arguing that we are in compliance with Federal law according to this article, then I would guess that we are NOT in compliance [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

You need to step back and relax a little bit, since you're clearly getting worked up, especially with those curse words being thrown about.

Your fundamental misunderstanding is in that the Republican administration is claiming we're defying federal law. In fact, what Trump is actually doing is asserting that we're ignoring the executive branch's policy, which is distinct from legislation passed by Congress (hence Executive order).

Congress is free to attempt to pass legislation requiring that state and local law enforcement agencies be tasked with implementing federal immigration policy. They've tried before and failed. Since that didn't work, the Republican executive branch is attempting to do it by fiat. Unfortunately for Republicans, this is a power that only Congress has, hence the constitutional challenge.

It's really not that complicated.

@Sanctuary,

Seriously? Economics is not that simple. California does not grow grains and corn like the central states and midwest. Californians do not consume all of California's produce. It is sent to other red states' markets along federally funded infrastructure. California also number 2 is defense spending to the tune of 52.5 billion dollars. The spending equals jobs.

@Observer,

What are you even arguing aside from "it's complex!"

Every one of your statements has been dismantled, but you keep just saying "what about X." The inarguable fact is that we subsidize Republican states in this country, so if we didn't have to do that (e.g. they actually worked harder and produced anything of value), we'd be able to pay for all of the stuff we want. The "federal money" is our own money coming back to us, and less of it than we're giving them.

They should look to us as an example of how to run the country instead of trying to make us go along with their failed, divisive policies.

@Waverly Park

Right, this coming from someone who says "Makes sense, we should take legal advice from the guy who doesn't even know what a sanctuary city actually is..." and you think you're taking the high ground... Whatever man.

From what I understand, the Feds have an immigration policy that we have chosen to not allocate any resources towards enforcing. OK fine. But on the other hand we are whining about not getting Federal funds as a result. You don't think that's hypocritical?

Please explain how deciding to not allocate any resources to comply with a Federal policy is being compliant?

It's like a kid who tells his parents he doesn't have time to do his homework because the parents won't do it for him, and yet he still wants his new car.

If you don't want to comply with the policy, fine. Just quit whining about the hand not feeding you after you bit it.

As has been pointed out over and over in all of these articles about Republicans cutting our funding as political payback, California subsidizes the Republican states in this country.

We get back less money than we're paying in to the federal government.

I've improved your terribly inaccurate analogy: it's like we're a straight A student working a part-time job. Our parents are taking our hard-earned money to spend on our drug-addicted siblings so they can party, while not giving us enough money to fix our car (which we'd have if we just kept our paycheck!)

@Waverly Park

You're just like the other guy who keeps insisting that Federal Taxes we pay should all come back to the state in which the payer lives. It doesn't work that way. That is why we have state income taxes.

I'll repeat what I said earlier which is that if your argument were legit, I should expect that the state taxes I pay should ALL come back to the city in which I live and they don't. That is part of living in a larger community and organization. Deal with it because it ain't changing.

You don't like my analogy because it doesn't support your argument. Your example is also not entirely accurate since we do not pay all of our income to the Feds. What we keep is at our discretion. Yes, it is true that a good % of Federal funds are wasted, but I would argue that a large % of our state taxes are also wasted.

We don't have to do what the Feds want. I get that.

The Feds don't have to give us what we want. That is the other part of it.

We are being so dumb about this. Just have SF and LA each hire 2 people to enforce Federal policy. It would be about $250K per year after benefits and in reality they won't be able to do much. Each city deports about a dozen people a year by picking criminals and other obvious no-brainer cases that no one will argue about. Then by the letter of the law we are compliant. They can't say anything.

By going to court we've already lost because it's now a war of attrition and the Feds can bleed a lot longer than we can. We're already screaming and they haven't even started yet. We won't win.

You're just being willfully ignorant at this point. We are already compliant with federal law. We are compliant by the letter of the law. Republicans and Donald Trump want local and state law enforcement agencies to go above and beyond what is legally required. Since they failed to pass laws through Congress requiring the states to do what they want, they are attempting to withhold federal money.

For some reason, you are insistent on not understanding the facts involved here.

@Waverly Park

I'm willfully ignorant because I will not take your word as gospel? Just because you say we're compliant, I should accept that we are? Got it.

If we are compliant, why not just prove it? Why go through all this BS about unconstitutionality, you didn't pass a law that can force states, etc. when you can just prove you are compliant? That would be the end of it. Unless of course we're not compliant.

You seem to think that I believe we're not. You seem to think I'm ignorant simply because I am saying I don't know if we are compliant or not. I am just saying that nothing you have said convinces me that we are. You just say that we are and expect me to believe it.

My argument that you will not address is that if we ARE compliant, it should be easy to prove.

Read the actual legal filing. You're arguing with your strange imagined version of what is being stated without trying to educate yourself in the slightest as to what's actually being stated.

What do you think the legal requirements are for state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration policy?

@Waverly Park

You are the one who is stating: "We are already compliant with federal law."

What I can gather from all your self-aggrandizing ramblings is this:

1) We are not complying with Federal Guidelines on immigration
2) There is no law compelling us to comply
3) Therefore you argue we are in compliance

Good luck with that. It's called not acting in good faith.

The legal argument the state is putting forth is that only Congress can withhold funding. Well, if we play these games, you are just asking for a battalion of Federal lawyers to start scrutinizing every Federally-funded project in this state and tie everything up. Have fun with that.

Honestly, I don't give a flying rip if we don't enforce the Federal Guidelines. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. I just think it's ridiculous to think the Feds won't eventually do something about it one way or the other.

I see where things have gone astray a bit. You may need a bit of a civics refresher.

In our government, the legislative branch is responsible for passing laws. This consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The executive branch is responsible for executing those laws. This consists of the President and the various federal agencies.

The executive branch cannot set domestic policies and spending further than those outlined by the legislature. For example, if Congress has not appropriated some amount of funds for a project, the President cannot unilaterally choose to spend money on that, even if he really, really wants to.

Congress has told the executive branch that it is responsible for dealing with our immigration policy. CBP and ICE are these enforcement agencies. You'll find that there are plenty of ICE offices within the state of California. What Congress has not done is delegate this authority to the States themselves. We know that they haven't because recent Congresses have attempted, and failed, to pass laws doing just that.

I hope this helps in your understanding of the situation and how our government operates!

Would you continue to give your child an allowance when he refuses to even clean his room?

@Gary, this was covered upthread, it might help if you read all the comments before posting.

"it's like we're a straight A student working a part-time job. Our parents are taking our hard-earned money to spend on our drug-addicted siblings so they can party, while not giving us enough money to fix our car (which we'd have if we just kept our paycheck!)"