Court system supposed to protect us from overbearing politicos, but no more

Thus far, the federal court system has been sympathetic to Chicago in striking down efforts by President Donald J. Trump to eliminate the city’s laws that prevent its local police from being used by federal immigration officials to supplement their own efforts in harassing people.

The high court now Trump's rubber stamp?

But a part of me is constantly reminding myself that we haven’t heard the final word yet, and it’s always possible the ultimate court will come down in favor of the president – just because he’s the president from a certain political party.

WILL THE SUPREME Court of the United States use its 5-4 conservative-leaning majority and ultimately feel like issuing an order striking down “sanctuary cities” because it’s the desire of Donald Trump?

There already are those people who think the Supreme Court is inclined (possibly Wednesday morning) to rule against Illinois political interests in a case now pending as to whether public employee labor unions have a right to require government workers to join and pay dues.

Then, there’s the ruling the high court made Tuesday morning that says Trump’s efforts to impose travel restrictions against people from certain Middle East countries is acceptable – no matter how much many complain about its immorality, and how lower courts have ruled it is illegal.

Could “sanctuary cities” wind up facing the same fate some day? It is an issue yet to come before the high court. Yet it could also be a significant issue of sort come 2019.

TRUMP: Can't govern w/o allies in charge

THE SUPREME COURT, in the opinion issued Tuesday, said the president has the authority to get involved through executive orders in immigration policy, and also said it wasn’t terribly interested in hearing arguments about discrimination against Muslims.

But in the part that particularly amazes me, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s opinion, “we (the court) express no view on the soundness of the (Trump immigration) policy.”

Meaning, the idea of the judicial branch providing a balance (specifically, being the force that keeps government officials from overstepping their bounds when they react too far) isn’t one that the high court particularly feels like honoring.

That is a scary thought, if you think about it.

ROBERTS: Backing up the president

BECAUSE THE MAJORITY of our society that is relying on the concept of “checks and balances” to keep a Trump presidency from imposing serious, and lasting, harm could find themselves let down beyond belief.

Just like what could happen in the case of Janus vs. AFSCME. That’s the case based on a lawsuit originally filed by Mark Janus, an Illinois government employee who resents the idea that he had to join the labor union in the first place.

His lawsuit seeks to strike down any such membership requirements in order to have his job, and theoretically could require the union to have to go back to each of its members and seek their permission to charge them union dues.

With anti-labor forces hoping they can persuade many workers to refuse to pay up, meaning the unions would lose significant revenues and be undermined to the point where they would become ineffectual.

MANY THINK THE current partisan leanings of the court will result in Janus prevailing – with those of us inclined to support labor hoping for a partisan political miracle.

Will union take a blow from high court?i

Which also is why I’m wondering what will become of the sanctuary cities issue – which thus far the courts have said the federal government is overstepping its bounds in trying to cut off federal funding to those cities wishing to protect all people from police harassment.

That is how it is perceived – as in local cops getting involved in immigration issues that they technically have no jurisdiction over and no particular knowledge about.

Those who support the “sanctuary city” concept believe it’s a matter of federal immigration officials doing their own jobs when it comes to immigration law. Will partisan politics cause the high court to ultimately disagree?

  -30-

Chicago calling Trump’s bluff when it comes to matter of sanctuary cities?

The Chicago City Council is showing no signs of giving in to xenophobic-motivated pressures to give up its self-appointed designation as a “sanctuary city,” which means our local police and other officials won’t turn over information they acquire about people to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.
 

EMANUEL: Calling presidential bluff?

A non-citizen whose immigration status is less than certain won’t have to face the prospect of deportation because they got caught speeding or making an improper right turn. In fact, city officials on Wednesday announced an intent to create a new kind of identification card that would give legitimacy to all Chicago residents, regardless of their citizenship status.

NOW WHY DOES it matter that Chicago, a sanctuary city for decades, is keeping this status – along with Cook County and suburbs such as Cicero, Evanston and Oak Park?

It is because we’re in the Age of Trump where we have a presidential-type who made it clear early on he wants to use immigration as a way of scoring cheap political points for himself.

Not that he’s interested in doing the serious reform that would make sense of our nation’s immigration regulations. Heck, that would be even more difficult to fix than trying to redo health care reform. And we all have seen how incompetently the Trump types handled that issue.

But Trump has said he wants municipalities to knock off this “sanctuary city” nonsense; as he views it. If they don’t, he’s prepared to crack down on them. Earlier this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions talked of “clawing back” the funds the federal government provides to support law enforcement efforts.

TRUMP: Will he unleash his wrath?

THAT’S MANY MILLIONS of dollars, depending on whose analysis one chooses to trust.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel seems to be basing his continued resistance on the premise that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold funding for these purposes. There are many attorneys who would agree with him. Municipal officials in Seattle on Wednesday filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's actions.

Although the key will be if the Trump types can find a judge who’s willing to find a legal basis to go along with the withholding. Just because Trump has yet to find a sympathetic judge for his travel restrictions doesn’t mean he will give up on this issue.

The tricky part of all this is that Trump, when he’s not bashing Mexicans as “rapists” and “drug dealers,” is going about smacking around Chicago as the place where endless murders take place. Even though if you look at the crime statistics, there are other places where one is more likely to be at risk of physical violence.

THE PRESIDENT HAS threatened to take action to have the federal government get involved in Chicago, which has led to some local types trying to pre-empt Trump trash talk by welcoming federal involvement.

Send more federal funds to support efforts that could reduce the flow of handguns and other weapons amongst the public and also the presence of narcotics – which often are the motivation for people resorting to such violence.

So what’s it going to be?

Will Trump really start cutting off funding to Chicago at a time when some people think that a serious approach to dealing with the city’s urban violence is to give it a boost? I notice that Trump met this week with Fraternal Order of Police Chicago chapter President Dean Angelo (and NOT police or city officials), who afterwards made vague statements about how “the administration is going to work with us.”

IT WOULDN’T SURPRISE me if Trump made some sort of cut, because I always was skeptical that Trump really cared about the situation in the parts of Chicago that never would have had any contact with his riverfront hotel. Chicago is something he can use to take rhetorical potshots and work up his rural base of supporters.

Nothing more.

If anything seeing Trump make such cuts based on “sanctuary cities” would prove how unserious the man is about dealing with issues. Because dealing with issues is hard work.

All the Trump presidency seems to be about is that old orange guy continuously bellowing about how your (you being a grouchy, middle-aged white guy) problems in life are somebody else’s fault! While we don’t do a thing to resolve them.

  -30-

FREEMAN-WILSON: Sympathetic

EDITOR’S NOTE: Gary, Ind., is NOT a sanctuary city, yet Mayor Karen Freeman-Wilson expressed a sympathetic attitude on the issue – or at least one that will be bound to offend the sensibilities of the nativist elements of our society who can't comprehend anything that deviates from their narrow vision of what things should be like.

Now they want to “lock up” Rahm? "Sanctuary city" will be battleground

It never fails to amaze me the level of nonsense that gets spewed by people with regards to immigration policy, particularly when the topic of sanctuary cities arise.
 

Will 'sanctuary' cities be the first issue...

Chicago is one such place – where people whose immigration status is uncertain are supposed to not fear interactions with local police because our cops don’t automatically turn over such information to federal immigration officials.

IN SHORT, GETTING pulled over for a traffic ticket or a petty offense will be treated solely as the petty offense it is, and not balloon into an immigration hearing with deportation consequences.

But now that we’re in the era where we will soon have a “President Donald J. Trump” who campaigned on the notion that he was going to give rise to the number of deportations from this country and otherwise keep out people he deems undesirable, it has some wondering what happens next.

I stumbled across an Internet comment (anonymous, of course) from someone who wants the new president to start punishing local officials, including our very own Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who don’t get with the program on immigration enforcement.

“Trump could even prosecute Rahm for things like obstruction of justice and could lock that dirty little f*cker up for the rest of his miserable life,” he (or she) wrote.

GEE, FIRST THESE people were chanting at the Republican convention for the incarceration of Hillary Clinton. Now they want the mayor of Chicago locked up for not fitting their ideological hang-ups. For people who probably think they’re “real Americans,” I find it odd they’re so eager to turn this country into a police state!

But the pressure is being put on cities that made themselves sanctuaries because there are those ideological nut cases who want to make people not like themselves miserable. Perhaps they’re the ones who found something logical in that “self-deportation” nonsense that Mitt Romney spewed four years ago during his failed presidential bid.

But now we’re going to have to see just how far Trump is willing to carry out the trash talk of his campaign. There are those people who voted Republican because they want to believe he didn’t mean anything he said literally.

 

... upon which Rahm and Trump clash?

Yet the honest truth is that there also are those people who were most enthusiastic to vote for Trump because they WANT to believe him literally, particularly on the immigration issue.

IF TRUMP’S FIRST presidential act isn’t the full repeal of the executive orders issued by Barack Obama to offer comfort to young people who were brought by their parents without full immigration status, they will revolt.

They will want the punitive action by the federal government against urban areas in general, and sanctuary cities like Chicago in particular.

For what it’s worth, the mayor has said this week the city is not about to give up its sanctuary city status – which was enacted before he became mayor and is largely a symbolic policy. Chicago officials made it known they’re not looking to bully non-citizens.

Not that it means anyone in Chicago is immune from prosecution. For federal immigration officials have agents in Chicago on the search for those who are not supposed to be residing in this country. They can still investigate and prosecute cases.

IT JUST MEANS they have to do their own legwork, instead of being able to rely on the Chicago Police Department for some free assistance.

OBAMA: How quickly will immigration views die?

Considering that immigration is an issue that lies beyond the Chicago Police jurisdiction, it only makes sense they should butt out. Immigration officials are the ones trained in the nuances of immigration law and understand it better than a beat cop who pulled someone over for driving with a busted tail light.

We’ll have to see just how this whole issue shakes down. I don’t doubt some are eager to see urban areas punished for this issue – although the real reason is more a matter of partisan politics rather than anything else. For the urban areas, particularly places like Chicago, did NOT vote for Trump’s presidential ambitions.

They are the reason why Hillary Clinton will win the popular vote so overwhelmingly (which is what all those polls were reflecting when they showed her likely to win the presidential election) despite losing the Electoral College, and I’m sure Trump is a vindictive-enough individual to be willing to find a way to try to crack down on his political opponents.

  -30-

Cantankerous Chicago? Or just Second City’s common sense showing through?

It shouldn’t be a shock that the City Council felt compelled to make a statement against the fact that our state’s Republican governor felt compelled to go along with the partisan nonsense of other GOPers with regards to Syria.

The City Council felt compelled this week to dump on Gov. Bruce Rauner

They’re all feeling the need to “talk tough” and claim they’re going to bar any refugees of Syrian nationality from being able to enter their states – because supposedly it was the Syrians who were behind the plot to cause so many attacks on Paris last week.

OF COURSE, THAT’S nonsense. But then again, there’s rarely ever any logic behind purely political partisan rhetoric.

So with Illinois officially on the side of the ideologues, Chicago felt compelled to take the opposite side.

Which is why the City Council passed a resolution that says the “sanctuary city” status that already applies to immigration matters also applies now to Syrian citizens.

If they come here, they will be welcomed. Or at the very least, they won’t be harassed.

NOW I’LL BE the first to admit this sanctuary city status is as cheap a political statement as all the talk of refusing to permit Syrian refugees to enter the state.

Just as how state governments really don’t have the authority to close their borders to anyone, the city doesn’t really have the power to grant services to those refugees in need – particularly considering how financially strapped the city is in offering the municipal services it already is obligated to provide.

RAUNER: Envision his irate call to Rahm

This is all pure symbolism. Our city officials are letting it be known publicly how full of it they believe the governor to be for getting Illinois mixed up on this particular political issue.

The fact that it merely enhances the regional split between the urban and rural parts of Illinois (the latter of which account for roughly one-third of the state’s population – even though they prefer to think of it as 96 of the state’s 102 counties) is just a side benefit, I’m sure.

ON A PERSONAL level, I’m pleased with the City Council’s stance – even though I admit it changes nothing (except allowing President Barack Obama to excuse his home city from the nonsense his home region is participating in).

EMANUEL: Envision a wicked cackle in response

In that with all the Great Lakes states’ governors (except Minnesota) feeling the need to take this anti-Syrian stance and turning the region into a collective of nitwit-ish behavior, it is nice to be able to state the obvious difference that Chicago has.

And considering that I suspect most refugees who head this way would likely be headed for Chicago (I doubt they’re going for Cairo or Thebes – the Southern Illinois versions), we ought to make the collective statement of our sympathy for those people who are trying to escape the nonsense of their home nations that we are legitimately opposed to.

As for the fact that those conservative ideologues will now want to trash Chicago, well what else is new? Those kind of people are the ones who always want to isolate themselves in pockets of the state and nation that are cut off from the real world.

THE FACT THAT they see us as different is probably all the more evidence that we in Chicago are doing something right!

As for sanctuary city status, all it means for immigration is that the local authorities don’t join in with federal immigration officials in scouring out people for the feds to initiate deportation hearings against.

Which I suspect is what it also means for those Syrian nationals who wind up in Chicago. So long as they cause no trouble and merely try to integrate themselves into the larger mass that is Chicago, they will not be harassed by authorities. They will be left alone.

Isn’t that what the “American Way” of life is supposed to be about?

  -30-

Immigration “reform” drive won’t die off

Through the sister weblog to this site, The South Chicagoan, I often hear from the conservative ideologues who want to believe they have “killed off,” once and for all, any effort toward  immigration reform.

These are the people who want to dance with joy at the embarrassing political activity that occurred back in December, when the Senate refused to even allow a final vote on the DREAM Act, letting their ideological hang-ups insist upon thinking of young people trying to advance themselves in life as somehow subversive to their vision of the “American dream.”

YET THE REALITY is that this issue isn’t going to die off. It is not going to end until the day that the federal government (which has the ultimate responsibility to address the flaws in our nation’s immigration policy) gets off its collective duff and takes action.

The reason why that day is forthcoming is because of the young population that is growing  more and more so in our society. There’s too many people who are personally affected who are going to refuse to continue to be ignored – and too many people whose sense of compassion and decency makes us realize that the “problem” is the people who want to turn their backs on them.

That is how I see the gathering of activists that occurred Thursday at the Daley Center – the site of so many downtown protest rallies that it becomes too easy to lose track of which cause is up for debate on any given day.

Those officials holding their “National Coming Out of the Shadows” rally are marking their similar event held a year ago to the date, which was followed up by similar rallies in other cities across the nation. That is likely to be the pattern in coming weeks – people are going to be showing their continued support for this particular issue.

WHAT HAS ALWAYS amazed me about opposition to the DREAM Act in particular is that it is nothing more than people letting their ethnic hang-ups get the best of common sense, since the people who would benefit from it are the ones who are making every effort in the conventional sense to advance themselves.

Higher education, or military service – with the benefit of a visa (and eventual chance at U.S. citizenship) given only if one successfully completes it. I hardly think anyone capable of receiving an honorable discharge from the military is subversive to our nation.

There is one aspect to Thursday’s events that I think to be totally appropriate.

That rally at the Daley Center was within site (literally across the street) from the building we think of as City Hall – only the city portion is on the other side. It is Cook County officials who could look out their windows and see the young people.

CITY OFFICIALS ON LaSalle Street could pretend that nothing unusual was happening. Considering that those officials include Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel, it is ironic because Emanuel during his time as chief of staff to President Barack Obama did a good job of pretending that the issue didn’t exist.

Now the political observer in me understands his theoretical point – that the people who most oppose immigration reform measures would get so angry at anything he did on the issue that they would revolt and shut down Obama’s entire presidential agenda.

Then again, the hard-core Republican ideologues found enough reasons to try to shut down anything Obama desires to do as president. So I’m not sure that Emanuel gained anything for the president by steering him away from anything more than cheap rhetoric on immigration reform-related issues.

Now that we’re going to have Emanuel as mayor, he’s no longer in a position to continue to stall activity on this issue. Which means the voters of Chicago may well have done the nation a favor – although whether or not Obama’s new chief of staff, William Daley (as in the brother of departing mayor Richard M.) will be inclined to care about this issue remains to be seen.

IF BILL DALEY is really attuned to the mood of his hometown, he will have to care. Because this remains an ethnic city, where even the “white” people are fully aware of their ethnic backgrounds – and where the Latino people who take a heightened interest in this issue (because it relates to how we’re perceived as a whole, regardless of our citizenship status) have risen ever-so-close to the day when they’re exactly one-third of the city (29 percent, to be exact, according to the 2010 Census Bureau results).

This remains a “sanctuary city” where it is official policy that local police have no business getting involved in federal immigration enforcement. It makes us the antidote to places that view Arizona as some sort of model for local officials – whose training doesn’t come close to preparing them – desiring to meddle with this issue.

Which likely means that “the Chicago Way” is the way for the nation to follow. And there was a whole gathering of young people who on Thursday were more than willing to lead those of us who are reluctant down the proper path.

  -30-