this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025

116 points (97.5% liked)

Progressive Politics

2975 readers

280 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

116

Plan to skewer US sanctuary city mayors backfires on Republicans (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 4 months ago by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Before a packed room on Capitol Hill, the House oversight committee, led by its Republican chair, James Comer of Kentucky, sought to portray sanctuary cities – a city that touts municipal laws that protect undocumented migrants – as havens for criminal activity and foreign gangs.

“The point that we’ve got to iron out today is that we have to have cooperation with federal law to turn over those illegal criminals to Ice and we’ve heard reports and many of you have said publicly that you are going to obstruct that,” Comer said. “That is against the law. And we’re going to hear more about that today.”

But instead of cornering the mayors, Republican lawmakers seemed to inadvertently provide them a national megaphone to sell their approaches to local governance and immigration.

“If you wanted to make us safe, pass gun reforms,” Boston mayor Michelle Wu said. “Stop cutting Medicaid. Stop cutting cancer research. Stop cutting funds for veterans. That is what will make our cities safe.”

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20250306122406/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/05/mayors-sanctuary-city-immigration

all 18 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[+] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 38 points 4 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yeah the ICE generally don't seem like the type to care about disapproval.

collapsed inline media

I tried to find a photo I saw recently with like five of these cucks in a military humvee and mounted gun roaming through downtown, but I'm having trouble finding things with search engines lately.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think I get the SS/Gestapo comparisons now.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Well yeah there is the way they dress, but it's moreso because of the fact that they're a militarized federal entity who reports directly to the president instead of the regular military branches centralized in the pentagon who answer directly to congress. They are literally the President's private police force, the only thing missing is a private court so he can start issuing uncontested warrants and seizures.

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The Executive Office For Immigration Review (EOIR) is a sub-agency of the United States Department of Justice whose chief function is to conduct removal proceedings in immigration courts and adjudicate appeals arising from the proceedings. These administrative proceedings determine the removability and admissibility of individuals in the United States. As of January 19, 2023, there were sixty-eight immigration courts and three adjudication centers throughout the United States.

Immigration adjudication does not conform to the separation of functions as prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act. Instead, the Department of Homeland Security initiates removal proceeding against a litigant; the immigration judge is employed by EOIR. In the removal proceeding, the U.S. Government is represented by an Assistant Chief Counsel, often referred to as a "DHS attorney" or "trial attorney." Unlike criminal adjudications in Article III courts, litigants in removal proceedings do not have a constitutional right to counsel, except in narrow circumstances.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is important contextual information and I thank you for adding it, but the EOIR have very strictly limited authority and it's the the DHS who initiates proceedings and DHS attorneys who prosecute.

Let me paint you a picture. The other day, Trump asked for 20 Billion climate change funds to be taken back from Citibank tasked with dispersing the funds. The federal prosecutors office declined. It got sent to another prosecutor office. A veteran career prosecutor resigned. An interim attorney filed for seizure, instead. A Judge denied the warrant because no evidence of crime or wrongdoing was presented, necessary for seizure of assets.

If Trump had his own court, he wouldn't have had any pushback at any level of this interaction.

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Oh, I very much agree.

I would put money on him trying to push everything through illegally with his cronies though and make the judicial system try to keep up. I'm just saying a framework exists for him to exploit.

But I'm not a lawyer, so I'll leave the doomsaying for people who actually know what they're talking about.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

She refused to allow ICE to enter homes, or turn over immigrants, without a warrant. It doesn’t sound like much, but there are plenty of mayors that are giving them free rein.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Its good in the sense this stuff is brought up and made known even if it is being ignored. I recently saw a post where someone is like, someone needs to make these things known and that is the job of the democrats and they are failing. Well yeah failing but not for lack of trying. Its the old you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. I actually have first hand experience with a community of undocumented not talking to police and it was early 2000's but many of these rules improved that type of communication. Without it the gangs rule the neighborhood and they become those so called no go zones.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Wu absolutely killed it. I hope she runs for Congress. If you haven’t watched the hearing, I highly recommend it.

https://youtu.be/4r7VnYaCQB4

[–] sxan@midwest.social 3 points 4 months ago

She really did, didn't she? Thanks for sharing!

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 months ago

well, that did it.

first, they're afraid to face voters back home, because even their voters are starting to catch-on that letting maga nuts run roughshod all over the federal government is not a good thing.

now they aren't gonna let 'hostile' witnesses into those sorts of hearings anymore, either, just ones that will lie to help advance their twisted agenda.

[–] justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io 5 points 4 months ago

The optimism that the fascists will allow their opponents to speak is amusing.

And the notion that even if they do, that the media corporations will cover it unspun is even less likely.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Even these mayors ignore a big issue. In my city the main cause of violent death and injury is traffic violence, even more than homicides. Yet neither liberals or conservatives want to talk about this issue for some reason.

The concern about safety is all performative.