Judge: DOJ must give money to law-breaking city

Thursday, June 7, 2018
 | 
Chad Groening (OneNewsNow.com)

gavel with U.S. flagIt was frustrating to watch a federal judge rule in favor of Philadelphia's sanctuary city policy instead of the rule of law, says a conservative activist.

U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson has ruled in favor of the City of Philadelphia after it sued the federal government for withholding grant funds in response to the city's harboring of illegal aliens.

Like other Democrat-led cities, Philadelphia has announced it is a "sanctuary city" that will defy federal immigration laws, thus setting up another city creating a legal stand-off with the U.S. Justice Department.

Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania, says the DOJ was threatening to withhold $1.5 million in grant funds to a city that changed its cooperation to demand a warrant.

Gramley, Diane (AFA of Pennsylvania)The current federal requirements give ICE agents access to jails to interview suspected illegal aliens and require local authorities to give ICE advance notice if those inmates are set to be released according to The Associated Press

"The judge wrote that it violates statutory and constitutional law," Gramley says. "I'm not sure which constitution he's reading but I believe it's written in the U.S. Constitution that part of the President's job is to defend the country."

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has vocally warned cities and counties they will be punished if they that side with illegal aliens over federal immigration agents and current federal laws. Rulings such as Baylson's, however, are helping those cities defy the DOJ and yet receive federal dollars. 

In some states such as California, where a controversial state law literally prohibits cooperation, some local jurisdictions are vowing to ignore a state law that is itself ignoring federal immigration law. California state officials, ironically, have vowed to punish those cities that are cooperating with Sessions and the DOJ. 

Gramley suggests the issue needs to go to before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It's troubling to think it has to go there," she says, "when to most Americans it's written in plain English that the President has the right to protect our borders."

Consider Supporting Us?

The staff at Onenewsnow.com strives daily to bring you news from a biblical perspective. If you benefit from this platform and want others to know about it please consider a generous gift today.

MAKE A DONATION

Comments

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details

SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY NEWSBRIEF

SUBSCRIBE

VOTE IN OUR POLL

What was your reaction to Pastor Brunson praying over President Trump?

CAST YOUR VOTE

GET PUSH NOTIFICATIONS

SUBSCRIBE

LATEST AP HEADLINES

Turkish official: Evidence found in consulate
Pompeo, Saudi crown prince meet over Khashoggi
Atlanta City Council votes to settle ex-fire chief's lawsuit
Heitkamp apologizes for ad misidentifying victims of abuse
Sessions criticizes court order on deposition in census case
U.S. employers post record number of open jobs in August
Lee won't use 'biblical' victim witness standard if governor
Trump says Warren being 'slammed' over DNA test

LATEST FROM THE WEB

CNN's sour Lemon and the bigots attacking Kanye
Call THESE black 'sellouts,' CNN!
DNA test proves Elizabeth Warren is heap big authentic
Why O'Rourke's rhetoric on police shootings is wrong—and dangerous
Campus concealed carry laws have been successful in Texas: op-ed

CARTOON OF THE DAY

Cartoon of the Day

REASON & COMPANY

NEXT STORY
SCOTUS confirms the right to pray

U.S. Supreme Court w/ flagJune brought plenty of big surprises from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), with a major one being the reversal of a case involving prayer.