Illinois Democrats tells feds to stop trying to 'usurp' state authority over immigration
"These policies are in accordance with the law, maintain local autonomy, boost local economies, focus law enforcement resources on serving local needs, and promote effective policing strategies that foster trust between police and the communities they serve," reads a letter by Rep. Jesus Garcia and Sen. Richard Durbin.
The letter noted how the Justice Department labeled both Illinois and Chicago as "sanctuary jurisdictions" in its latest public listings, and rebutted the assertion that either the state or city is committing any sort of violation.
The letter, backed by several Illinois Democrats, pointed to the state's TRUST Act – signed by then-Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican. Critics have long called it a sanctuary-style policy for barring police from holding people over immigration status alone.
"Similarly, the Chicago Welcoming City Ordinance prevents the arrest or detention of an individual solely on the basis of a civil immigration violation and prevents local officials from giving ICE access to detainees unless such access is based on a legitimate law enforcement purpose that is not civil immigration enforcement," Garcia and Durbin wrote.
"Consistent with the Illinois TRUST Act, the Welcoming City Ordinance does not prevent ICE from engaging in immigration enforcement activities," they said, adding that Cook County – which includes Chicago – has similar policies.
They claimed, citing court precedent, that state or local authorities holding people without an immigration detainer violates the Fourth Amendment – while federal detention does not.
"Therefore, in passing these laws, Illinois, Cook County, and the City of Chicago – along with hundreds of other jurisdictions across the country – protect local resources while ensuring compliance with the Constitution and leaving the enforcement of federal immigration law to federal officials."
Garcia, who emigrated from Durango, Mexico, in 1965, went on to ask DHS and the DOJ in return to stop trying to allegedly "usurp" their authority, "as lawmakers who value the rule of law, public safety, and the U.S. Constitution" when it comes to critiquing how Illinois handles immigrants.
"These laws neither impede nor interfere with the enforcement of federal immigration law by federal authorities."
The Justice Department confirmed receipt of the letter but declined further comment.
Fox News Digital also reached out to DHS for comment but did not hear back by press time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
After D.C., Trump says he might use the National Guard to ‘take back' other cities. Can he actually do that?
When President Trump announced his plan Monday to send 800 National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., to crack down on what he described as 'crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor' in the nation's capital, he also issued a warning to other cities around the country. "We're going to take back our capital," Trump said. "And then we'll look at other cities also.' But can Trump actually send federal forces elsewhere? And what cities might he target? Here's everything you need to know about the president's warning. What did Trump say about sending the National Guard into other cities? During his news conference on Monday, Trump singled out Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Baltimore and Oakland, Calif. as 'other cities also that are bad, very bad.' 'They're so far gone,' he continued. 'We're not going to let it happen. We're not going to lose our cities over this. And this will go further. We're starting very strongly with D.C. and we're going to clean it up real quick, very quickly, as they say.' Beyond that, the president didn't elaborate on his plans. But he did issue what amounted to an ultimatum: 'self-clean up' or else. 'Other cities are hopefully watching this,' Trump said. 'Maybe they'll self-clean up, and maybe they'll self-do this.' But 'if they don't learn their lesson, if they haven't studied us properly,' he continued, 'then I'm going to look at New York in a little while. … And if we need to, we're going to do the same thing in Chicago, which is a disaster.' Later Monday, Trump issued an executive order directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to coordinate with state governors and "authorize the orders of any additional members of the National Guard to active service, as he deems necessary and appropriate, to augment this mission." What does the law say about Trump's plans? Trump's actions in Washington, D.C., are legal. As you may remember from elementary school, D.C. isn't a state. It isn't part of any other state either. It doesn't have a constitution of its own. Instead, D.C. is what's known as a 'federal district,' and it's been mostly under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress since its founding in 1791. In 1973, Congress passed the Home Rule Act, which allowed D.C. residents to elect their own mayor and council members. But the law doesn't give D.C. complete autonomy. Even now Congress controls its budget. Congress also has the power to review and block local legislation. The president, meanwhile, still appoints D.C.'s judges — and he still leads its National Guard. He can also take control of the District's police force by invoking Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, which is precisely what he did Monday. But Trump doesn't have the same powers across the rest of the country. Under current law, governors are in charge of each state's National Guard and the police are largely controlled locally. Trump has already challenged some of these rules. Over the objections of state and local officials, he deployed nearly 5,000 National Guard members and U.S. Marines to Los Angeles in June after a new round of ICE workplace raids sparked protests marred by sporadic violence. California Gov. Gavin Newsom swiftly sued the administration to end the mobilization, claiming that Trump was violating the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the president from deploying the armed forces to participate in domestic law enforcement operations unless he declares that an insurrection is underway. A federal judge agreed with Newsom, but an appeals court blocked that ruling. Now Trump and Newsom are facing off in a three-day trial that began on Monday in San Francisco to determine whether Trump has the authority to do what he did in L.A. in other cities such as Chicago and New York. A verdict is expected Wednesday. What does Trump hope to accomplish by mentioning other cities? Whether the president sends federal forces into other cities remains to be seen; much depends on the outcome of the current trial in California (and any subsequent appeals). In the meantime, Trump was clear on Monday: He wants to pressure Democratic-run cities to change certain policies he disagrees with. One policy he mentioned was cashless bail, which eliminates the requirement for defendants to pay money to be released from jail before their trial. Supporters say the policy addresses disparities in the justice system, where those who can afford bail are released while those who cannot remain incarcerated; critics (like Trump) say that it puts the public at risk by releasing potentially dangerous individuals back into the community. Maybe other cities will 'get rid of the cashless bail thing and all of the things that caused the problem,' Trump said Monday. 'I mean, if you go back, this whole thing with cashless bail is a disaster. So many problems came that we never had before.' Have local officials pushed back? Yes. As Yahoo News reported Monday, 'the president's description of crime in Washington, D.C., is not reflected in official statistics, which show that the city had its lowest violent crime rate in over 30 years in 2024. The rates of homicide, sexual abuse, assault with a dangerous weapon and robbery all fell by at least 25% compared to 2023, according to statistics from the U.S. attorney's office for the district.' On Sunday, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, cited similar statistics to claim that Trump is prioritizing politics over policy. 'If the priority is to show force in an American city, we know he can do that here,' Bowser told MSNBC. 'But it won't be because there's a spike in crime.' Officials elsewhere have repeated that message. On Monday, the U.S. Conference of Mayors responded to Trump's actions and statements by touting a "nationwide success story" of plummeting crime rates. An FBI report released Aug. 5 found that between 2023 and 2024, violent crime nationwide dropped by 4.5%, with murder and non-negligent manslaughter falling by nearly 15%. "Ultimately, the best public safety outcomes are delivered by local police departments and local officials, who know the communities," Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt, president of the mayors' conference, said in a statement. "America's mayors never see takeovers by other levels of government as a tactic that has any track record of producing results."
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
Trump tells Goldman Sachs CEO to hire a new economist after bank says consumers will pay bulk of tariff costs
Tariffs Investing Donald Trump InflationFacebookTweetLink Days after Goldman Sachs' top economists published research claiming price increases stemming from higher tariffs are poised to soon be borne mostly by consumers, President Donald Trump is urging the bank's CEO, David Solomon, to get a new economist. 'Tariffs have not caused Inflation, or any other problems for America, other than massive amounts of CASH pouring into our Treasury's coffers,' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Tuesday. 'David Solomon and Goldman Sachs refuse to give credit where credit is due.' 'I think that David should go out and get himself a new Economist or, maybe, he ought to just focus on being a DJ, and not bother running a major Financial Institution,' Trump added. Solomon previously performed regularly at high-profile events. However, facing pressure from the bank's board, he gave up his DJing side gig two years ago. A report Goldman Sachs economists published over the weekend estimated Americans 'absorbed 22% of tariff costs through June,' but that this share will rise to 67% by October if tariffs 'follow the same pattern as the earliest ones.' Trump did not specifically reference that report in his post, however. Goldman Sachs declined to comment on the president's remarks. The bank's chief economist, Jan Hatzius, is one of the most followed economists both in Washington, where he's met with former President Joe Biden and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, and on Wall Street. Hatzius, an author of the report predicting the share of tariff costs consumers will cover, was an outlier in most circles of economists in 2023 for correctly predicting the US economy wouldn't enter a recession. On tariffs, Hatzius' team's forecasts share similarities with that of other leading financial institutions that are warning that consumers will experience tariff-related sticker shock. However, that hasn't been the case so far despite a slew of higher tariffs Trump has enacted over the past few months. New inflation data published Tuesday showed consumer prices rose 0.2% in July, keeping the annual inflation rate at 2.7%, according to the latest Consumer Price Index.
New York Post
2 minutes ago
- New York Post
Chuck Todd warns America is heading towards a ‘cold civil war' amid ongoing redistricting battles
Former NBC host Chuck Todd argued that America is heading towards a 'cold civil war' on 'The Chuck Toddcast' on Tuesday as redistricting battles in states like Texas and California continue to rage. Todd contended that the ongoing redistricting battles are 'just the latest skirmish between what is turning into a cold civil war,' and that it is President Donald Trump and the Republican Party who are 'creating this unprecedented challenge to our constitutional republic.' Advertisement 'I hate using that rhetoric. I hate using those words, but what else are you going to describe it? We are literally having a redistricting war between the states right now, and we have governors who have decided they don't care about the minority rights in their own states,' Todd argued. 'Greg Abbott doesn't care. If you don't agree with Greg Abbott, he is going to force his will upon you in the state of Texas. And if you don't agree with Gavin Newsom and how they're going — he's going to force his will upon you,' he added. The former NBC host stated that 'this is not what the founders intended,' placing blame on both sides of the aisle, but focusing in on Trump as the primary catalyst for what he describes as a 'cold civil war.' 'This is not a policy fight. This isn't the usual partisan back and forth. It is a direct stress test of whether our constitutional system actually works when a president and his party decide they don't have to care about the limits that are written down on paper,' he asserted. Advertisement 3 Ex-NBC host Chuck Todd says the U.S. is on the brink of a 'cold civil war' with the ongoing redistricting battles that are occurring in Texas and California. YouTube/The Chuck ToddCast 'Trump has spent years — parts of his first term and much so far of these first 200-plus days bending and breaking the guard rails of the republic.' While Todd criticized the Trump administration's use of federal power and Texas Governor Greg Abbott's redistricting efforts, he also took issue with the Democrats' 'fight fire with fire' approach to these perceived problems. 'The Democratic response is pretty troubling because, right now as a party, okay, as an official party apparatus, they've decided to frame this moment as a war, right? Okay, you got to fight fire with fire. This is an unprecedented moment, so they're framing this as a war,' he stated. Advertisement 3 On 'The Chuck Toddcast,' the former moderator of NBC's 'Meet the Press' mentioned that President Trump and the GOP are 'creating this unprecedented challenge to our constitutional republic.' REUTERS 'And when you tell yourself you're in a war, you start rationalizing things you'd normally not do that you would say is immoral or wrong or unprincipled. But hey, it's war and all is fair in war, right?' Todd noted that Democrats have championed independent commissions and wanted competitive district mapping for years, but now with Republicans 'openly wanting to break the rules like they're doing in Texas,' Democrats are also looking to 'break the rules' with their own redistricting efforts. 'And if you criticize that decision, as I've been doing, I've been told I'm naive, that I don't understand the stakes, that you are not taking this threat seriously,' he railed. Advertisement 3 Todd also said the Democrats' response to the ongoing redistricting battle in Texas has been deeply concerning, and with Republicans now willing to 'break the rules,' so are the Democrats. AP 'Au contraire, my friend, I do God – understand the stakes, and we are not replacing one unprincipled, unconstitutional set of leaders with another set of unprincipled, unconstitutional set of leaders.' In closing, Todd called on Republican members of Congress to 'check' Trump's power and use the tools afforded to them by the Constitution to hold him accountable for the 'unconstitutional' actions he has taken while in office. 'They've not lifted one finger of oversight. Not one… You couldn't even say there've been a weak check on Trump. It has been no check on him at all,' he asserted. 'Guess what? The Constitution can't enforce itself without people willing to wield those checks. All we have are words on yellowing parchment paper.'
