Telling Sanctuary Cities to Enforce Federal Immigration Law: Just How This Works

Umkay. The 10th Amendment more or less says what powers aren't handed to the federal government in the Constitution -- or rightfully given to the federal branch by an act of Congress -- devolves to the states. What's more, the Supreme Court basically said you can't force states to expand Medicaid, under Obamacare, through threat of withholding federal money. And yet Jeff Sessions shall try. Again, and again.

Mr. Attorney General, beat dead horse.

Nobody is going to accuse Jeff Sessions of refusing to swim upstream, or piss into the wind, for that matter. As the chief law enforcement of the United States, enforcing the law is rightfully his business. What should not be his business is engaging in futile pissing contests with the states. And yet:

The Justice Department wrote to eight cities Friday afternoon that have declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants, demanding they submit proof of compliance with federal immigration law and threatening their federal grant money if they fail to do so.

In a statement accompanying the letter to Chicago, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Las Vegas, Miami, Milwaukee, New York, and Sacramento, the Justice Department erroneously equates the cities’ policies limiting information sharing with federal immigration officials with a spike in crime in those areas.

(No spike in crime, lowest crime across the nation in more than four decades, immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born...)

This is not the first time Jefferson Beauregard has issued this threat or, possibly, even the second. Who can count amid the general chaos that is the Trump administration? And yet here we are.

Many legal experts believe this would violate states’ 10th Amendment rights, as well as a number of Supreme Court rulings that held that the federal government cannot coerce local governments to adopt a certain policy by withholding federal funding.

Ya think? So how do you think this will go? Here's my take:

1. Sessions says what he just said.
2. Bunch of cities say no.
3. Sessions finds a willing department that will deny federal funds for something (will he actually find any departments willing to do that? Hmm.).
4. The cites sue his ass.
5. A judge issues a stay against the cutoff of funds.
6. ??? (we wait however long)
7. A judge rules against Sessions, who appeals and loses, and then appeals and loses, and the Supreme Court rules against him.
8. ???
9. Trump gets impeached (or not), or it's 2020 and they're all chased out on their butts.

Something like that. Meanwhile, Jeff and Donald and the meanies act all screw you (mostly) Mexicans, and America rises yet again in the eyes of the world.