Archive for the ‘Trump and sanctuary cities’ category

A Familiar Judge Wastes More Of Our Time Over Sanctuary City Orders

November 21, 2017

A Familiar Judge Wastes More Of Our Time Over Sanctuary City Orders, Hot Air, Jazz Shaw, November 21, 2017

Judge William Orrick III is certainly making a name for himself and becoming a hero of the #RESIST movement, but if he continues to have his findings overruled upon review it may not do much for his career. It’s also worth noting that prior to taking the bench, Orrick had a long history as a generous political donor while he was working as an attorney in the private sector. A quick look at Open Secrets shows the lengthy list of politicians who have benefitted from his generosity.

Wouldn’t it be shocking to find out that they were all conservatives and Republicans? Naw… just kidding. He gave to Hillary Clinton (2006), Rahm Emanuel, the Democratic Party of Iowa, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, Bill Clinton (multiple times), Barack Obama in 2004… shall I go on? I think you get the idea.

******************************

Here we go again.

A judge in northern California has stepped in to “permanently” block one of President Trump’s orders regarding Justice Department grant money for sanctuary cities which refuse to uphold the law. This action will obviously be appealed, as several other such rulings have been, but for the time being, District Court Judge William Orrick III scores himself another turn in the headlines. (Associated Press)

A federal judge on Monday permanently blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick rejected the administration’s argument that the executive order applies only to a relatively small pot of money and said Trump cannot set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.

The judge had previously made the same arguments in a ruling that put a temporary hold on the executive order targeting so-called sanctuary cities. The Trump administration has appealed that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

It’s a stretch of the imagination to declare it a coincidence that this is the same judge they found to block a different sanctuary city order back in April. And given the location where the case was heard, the first round of appeals will go to the 9th Circuit, which means the ruling will probably go to the Supreme Court eventually. Much like the travel ban, it’s clear that you can eventually find a judge to rule however you like, providing you’re willing to shop around.

The decision itself remains just as dubious as the previous ruling. Orrick is claiming that the President doesn’t have the authority to repurpose funds which Congress has already authorized. That’s vague at best and seems to ignore the fact that we’re talking about money given to the Executive Branch for the purpose of issuing grants. That means there’s an application process (which we’ve covered here before) and not everyone who applies for one will receive the funding. Further, it’s the Justice Department who determines the criteria for receiving such grants. Congress simply made the funding available to set up and maintain the program.

Judge William Orrick III is certainly making a name for himself and becoming a hero of the #RESIST movement, but if he continues to have his findings overruled upon review it may not do much for his career. It’s also worth noting that prior to taking the bench, Orrick had a long history as a generous political donor while he was working as an attorney in the private sector. A quick look at Open Secrets shows the lengthy list of politicians who have benefitted from his generosity.

Wouldn’t it be shocking to find out that they were all conservatives and Republicans? Naw… just kidding. He gave to Hillary Clinton (2006), Rahm Emanuel, the Democratic Party of Iowa, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, Bill Clinton (multiple times), Barack Obama in 2004… shall I go on? I think you get the idea.

So we’ll apparently put the brakes on any progress in enforcing immigration law for the time being. And the to-do list for the Supreme Court grows even longer.

Jeff Sessions Meets with Mayors as Court Blocks President Trump’s Order on ‘Sanctuary Cities’

April 26, 2017

Jeff Sessions Meets with Mayors as Court Blocks President Trump’s Order on ‘Sanctuary Cities’, BreitbartIan Mason, April 25, 2017

The ruling may not, however, effect Sessions’s demands for compliance. The DOJ grants he is threatening to withdraw already had their own provisions preventing them from being dispensed to jurisdictions that fail to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 before President Trump’s executive order.

*********************

The mayors of 15 large American cities, including some from so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions, met with Attorney General Jeff Sessions in Washington Tuesday to discuss the DOJ’s efforts to cut funding from cities that frustrate federal immigration enforcement.

Session’s Justice Department sent a letter to eight sanctuary cities and the “sanctuary state” of California last week demanding they show compliance with federal immigration laws or lose law enforcement grant money. In a statement issued after Tuesday’s meeting, Sessions clarified what he expects from cities in states in the fight against illegal alien crime:

 The Department of Justice will fulfill our responsibility to uphold and enforce our nation’s immigration laws, including 8 U.S.C. 1373.  Under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice required certain grantees to certify compliance with federal law, including 8 U.S.C. 1373, as a condition for receiving grant funding.

8 U.S.C. 1373 prohibits local jurisdictions from preventing the Immigration and Naturalization Service from getting immigration status information on people they detain.

At least two leaders from such jurisdictions attended the morning meeting with the Attorney General, Mayor Mitch Landrieu of New Orleans, and Mayor Steve Adler of Austin. The Associated Press reported the mayors saying the legal definition of that term “sanctuary cities” was clarified at the meeting.

Cutting funding from sanctuary cities has been a centerpiece of Session’s new policy at DOJ and a major effort of the Trump administration. The meeting with mayors was to serve as an opportunity to explain these efforts to city leaders, beginning with the already announced plan to withhold law enforcement grants. In his statement, Sessions explained:

We are pleased that the mayors who met with us today assured us they want to be in compliance with the law.  The vast majority of state and local jurisdictions are in compliance and want to work with federal law enforcement to keep their communities safe.  Of course, compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373 is the minimum the American people should expect.  We want all jurisdictions to enthusiastically support the laws of the United States that require the removal of criminal aliens, as many jurisdictions already do.

A U.S. district court ruling, handed down only hours after Sessions met with the mayors, frustrates wider efforts by the administration to stop grant money flowing to jurisdictions that refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373. The ruling, by Judge William Orrick of the San Francisco-based U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, blocks a section of President Donald Trump’s February executive order authorizing the withdrawal of all federal funds from such jurisdictions. That authority will now be suspended while the lawsuit, launched by a group of California sanctuary cities, works its way through the courts.

The ruling may not, however, effect Sessions’s demands for compliance. The DOJ grants he is threatening to withdraw already had their own provisions preventing them from being dispensed to jurisdictions that fail to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 before President Trump’s executive order.

L.A. Mayor Garcetti’s Message to Smugglers: “The Coast is Clear”

March 28, 2017

L.A. Mayor Garcetti’s Message to Smugglers: “The Coast is Clear”, Front Page MagazineMichael Cutler, March 28, 2017

In addition to ordering that the LAPD will ignore violations of immigration laws, on March 21, 2017 the Los Angeles Times published a report, Port, airport police barred from enforcing immigration laws that must have been “music to the ears” of human traffickers, terrorists and transnational criminals seeking to violate the borders of the United States for malevolent purposes.

Smugglers will find additional encouragement to head for Los Angeles now that Mayor Garcetti has proclaimed that Los Angeles Port Police, who patrol the harbors of Los Angeles will not cooperate with Customs and Border Protection.

********************************

For years mayors of cities across the United States have declared their cities to be “Sanctuary Cities” that would gladly shield illegal aliens from detection by immigration law enforcement officers.

On March 23, 2017 Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti was quoted as stating:

In Los Angeles, we don’t separate children from their families because it’s inhumane. In Los Angeles, we don’t demonize our hard-working neighbors just because they speak a different language or come from a different country. That’s un-American.

Of course our immigration laws have absolutely nothing to do with deporting (removing) aliens who speak a foreign language.  The reasons that an alien becomes subject to deportation can be found in Title 8 U.S. Code § 1227 – (Deportable aliens).

Garcetti’s lies feed the outrageous false claim that proponents of effective immigration law enforcement are xenophobic racists.

If Garcetti wants to discuss “Un-American” conduct he should consider that our borders, including our nation’s coastline and our immigration laws, are our first and last line of defense.

If he wants to discuss how inhumane it is to “separate children from families” he should consider the plight of families that have lost loved ones, including children, toe crimes of illegal aliens.

On March 25, 2017 Fox News interviewed Don Rosenberg whose 25 year old law student son was killed by an illegal alien in San Francisco.

Garcetti has now promulgated a new set of restrictions on Los Angeles’ port police that exacerbate the immigration crisis for his city and for the entire country.

We will consider this new development shortly but let us first consider that the statements and policies promulgated by Mayor Garcetti and mayors of other “Sanctuary Cities” has served to entice aspiring illegal aliens from around the world to head for the United States, by whatever means are most convenient for them, to enter the United States.

This includes entering the United States without inspection by running our northern or southern borders, stowing away on ships or by surreptitiously gaining access, without detection to the United States along our nation’s 95,000 miles of coastline.

In point of fact, while there has been much attention paid to the lack of security to be found along the U.S./Mexican border, seaports and coastlines have been traditionally, indeed for millennia, vulnerable to smuggling activities.

In March 2016 it was reported that US agents nearly caught $194 million worth of cocaine in a narco submarine.   The drugs were lost when, despite the efforts of Customs and Border Protection personnel, the boat sank in the Pacific Ocean off the California Coast.  The news report claimed:

In 2012, 80% of the illegal drugs smuggled to the US came on maritime routes, and 30% of the illegal drugs delivered to US shores via the sea were carried on narco submarines, according to a 2014 study cited by Vice News.

Back on June 9, 1993 the New York Times reported, “SMUGGLED TO NEW YORK: The Overview — 7 Die as Crowded Immigrant Ship Grounds Off Queens; Chinese Aboard Are Seized for Illegal Entry.”

Often aliens seek the “services” of alien smugglers also known as “Human Traffickers” who may help guide illegal aliens to evade the inspections conducted at ports of entry and the Border Patrol along unprotected sections of our land borders.  They also may arrange for aliens to enter the United States without being inspected by concealing them on ships as stowaways.

Smugglers may work in conjunction with unscrupulous employers and hence coerce smuggled aliens into becoming indentured workers at various employment venues to pay their smuggling fees.

Sometimes this involves coercing young women into becoming prostitutes at brothels.

All too often these hapless aliens find that they can never earn enough money to fully pay off the smugglers.  They become virtual slaves in the United States.

Additionally, often aliens who are smuggled into the United States are forced to become “mules,” becoming human “beasts of burden” carrying large quantities of narcotics on their person as they illegally enter the United States.

Smuggled aliens face extreme violence at the hands of the smugglers.  In fact, because smugglers are so likely to rape young female aliens that many young women, who seek to be smuggled into the United States, take birth control pills beginning months before they make their attempts to run our borders to keep from getting pregnant.

In some instances, the services offered by alien smugglers enable terrorists and transnational criminals to enter the United States and other countries.

Aliens may also enter the United States through ports of entry via the inspections process and gaming the inspections process and/or the visa process and violate the terms of their admission as established by the specific visas they used to enter the United States.

In such instances alien smugglers / human traffickers may pay a critical role of providing documents or reaching out to corrupt government officials to procure documents and visas.

Page 61 of the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel” contains this excerpt:

Exploring the Link between Human Smugglers and Terrorists 

In July 2001, the CIA warned of a possible link between human smugglers and terrorist 

groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and Egyptian Islamic Jihad.149   Indeed, there is 

evidence to suggest that since 1999 human smugglers have facilitated the travel of 

terrorists associated with more than a dozen extremist groups.  With their global reach and connections to fraudulent document vendors and corrupt government officials, human smugglers clearly have the “credentials” necessary to aid terrorist travel.

My dad used to say that “Nothing is so good it could not be made better or so bad it could not be made worse.”

Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti has found a way to make things worse; far worse and, not just for the beleaguered residents of his city of Los Angeles, but for the security of the United States and for safety of everyone in the United States.

Once aliens enter the United States by any means whatsoever, they are able to easily travel across the United States.  Foreign criminals and terrorists can easily set up shop in any town or city they wish, with Sanctuary Cities being the most advantageous to them.

In addition to ordering that the LAPD will ignore violations of immigration laws, on March 21, 2017 the Los Angeles Times published a report, Port, airport police barred from enforcing immigration laws that must have been “music to the ears” of human traffickers, terrorists and transnational criminals” seeking to violate the borders of the United States for malevolent purposes.

Smugglers will find additional encouragement to head for Los Angeles now that Mayor Garcetti has proclaimed that Los Angeles Port Police, who patrol the harbors of Los Angeles will not cooperate with Customs and Border Protection.

Law enforcement officers who are encumbered by such restrictions prohibiting them from enforcing immigration laws, find themselves in a professional bind.  They are aware of their oaths of office for which they risk their lives every day that they go on duty.  They recognize that our Constitution and our laws are not to be treated as a menu at a restaurant where patrons may opt for the soup but not the salad.

The fact that a law enforcement officer may run afoul of outrageous and, in my judgement, illegal sanctuary policies may decide that the safest way to do their jobs is to minimize the possibilities that they may act in violation of the dictates promulgated by the mayors of Sanctuary Cities.  The best way to accomplish this goal of professional/personal survival is to take the fewest actions while on duty.

This is consistent with the principle of “Big cases- big problems, little cases- little problems:  No cases- No problems!”

As I noted in the conclusion of my testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 20, 2013 on the topic, “Building An Immigration System Worthy Of American Values,”

I want to make this clear: Law enforcement is at its best when it creates a climate of deterrence to convince those who might be contemplating violating the law that such an effort is likely to be discovered and that, if discovered, adverse consequences will result for the law violators. Current policies and statements by the administration, in my view, encourages aspiring illegal aliens from around the world to head for the United States. In effect, the starter’s pistol has been fired, and for these folks, the finish line to this race is the border of the United States.

Back when I was an INS special agent, I recall that Doris Meissner, who was at the time the Commissioner of the INS, said that the agency needed to be ‘‘customer oriented.’’ Unfortunately, while I agree about the need to be customer oriented, what Ms. Meissner and apparently too many politicians today seem to have forgotten is that the ‘‘customers’’ of the INS and of our Government in general are the citizens of the United States of America.

Clearly Mayor Garrett and mayors of other “Sanctuary Cities” need to be reminded who their constituents are and the true meaning of their oaths of office.

Garcetti and his “mayoral partners in crime” should read my previous article, “Opponents Of Border Security And Immigration Law Enforcement Aid Human Traffickers.”

Law and Order Returns to the Border

January 26, 2017

Law and Order Returns to the Border, Front Page MagazineJoseph Klein, January 26, 2017

trump4

President Donald Trump is doing something incredibly rare for a politician in Washington, D.C. He is keeping his word. Two of the most important of his campaign promises were to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into this country and to suspend the admission of “refugees” from countries prone to terrorism until a system of “extreme vetting” is put into place. On Tuesday night, President Trump tweeted out a teaser: “Big day planned on NATIONAL SECURITY tomorrow. Among many other things, we will build the wall!”

After eight long years of Obama administration policies that endangered the security of the American people, President Trump is placing Americans first — before illegal aliens and self-declared “refugees” from terrorist prone countries. 

The president began fulfilling his promises on immigration by signing two executive orders on Wednesday at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), whose responsibilities include overseeing immigration and border security. Mr. Trump also took part in a ceremony installing his new Secretary of Homeland Security, retired Marine General John Kelly. In his remarks following the signing, President Trump emphasized that DHS is a “law enforcement agency.” He added that “beginning today, the United States gets back control of its borders.”

The first executive order he signed redirected funds already appropriated by Congress towards paying for the construction of the border wall he has promised between Mexico and the United States. Additional funding appropriations will be required from Congress for completion of the project. However, President Trump still intends that Mexico will ultimately reimburse U.S. taxpayers for the expenditures through one means or another, including possibly redirecting monies presently slotted for foreign aid to Mexico or using revenue from border taxes. President Trump’s action came on the same day that Mexico’s foreign minister, Luis Videgaray, was due to arrive in Washington to help prepare for the visit of Mexico’s President Enrique Pena Nieto later this month.

The order would end the “catch-and-release” policies the Obama administration utilized, under which illegals awaiting removal hearings were released. More detention facilities along the border are planned for construction. According to Immigration and Custom Enforcement figures cited by Fox News, 179,040 of the 925,193 illegal immigrants who have evaded a scheduled deportation had criminal convictions.

The Trump administration is anticipating roadblocks put in its way by legal challenges, including activists’ exploitation of environmental laws to block construction of the wall. However, the administration should be able to prevail and move forward expeditiously. The REAL ID Act of 2005 gives the Secretary of Homeland Security “the authority to waive all legal requirements such Secretary, in such Secretary’s sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads” along U.S. borders. Federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction to hear challenges to the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination, but a “cause of action or claim may only be brought alleging a violation of the Constitution of the United States.” Melinda Taylor, an environmental law professor with the University of Texas, said, “The new administration has a wild card they can pull and it’s in this law. The language in this law allows them to waive all federal laws that would be an impediment to building any type of physical barrier along the border, including a wall.” Actually, “the authority to waive all legal requirements” in the statute would extend to state and local laws and regulations, as well as federal laws. The president’s constitutional authority derives from his fundamental constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” – in this case, the nation’s existing immigration laws.

President Trump signed a second executive order addressing the so-called “sanctuary cities,” which have been openly defying federal immigration law enforcement. They may face the loss of certain federal funding if they continue their 21st century version of segregationist Governor George Wallace’s “stand in the schoolhouse door” in opposition to federally mandated school desegregation.

The orders also call for beefing up the number of U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents used to apprehend migrants at the border and to arrest and deport illegal immigrants already living in the United States. The priority will be to identify for deportation illegal aliens in this country with a criminal record and to provide the State Department with additional tools to pressure countries to take back illegal immigrant criminals whom originally came from those countries.

Notably, neither immigration executive order sought to penalize the so-called “Dreamers.” President Trump has not yet rescinded Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals executive action. President Trump made his priorities clear in his DHS remarks, declaring “we’re going to get the bad ones out.” To put a human face on what he intended to accomplish, President Trump took time out during his remarks at DHS to recognize several parents who have had to endure the grief over their children killed by illegal immigrants. “They will always be remembered,” he said.

In his DHS remarks, President Trump also mentioned how he planned coordination and partnership with Mexico to save lives on both sides of the border. He said that the wall and actions to break up the drug cartels would help keep drugs and guns from flowing between the United States and Mexico. What a relief from the days of Operation Fast and Furious, when the Obama administration’s botched gunrunning sting allowed guns into Mexico that the Obama administration lost track of. U.S. border patrol agent Brian Terry may well have been killed by one of those guns.

In addition to the immigration executive orders, President Trump is planning later in the week to sign an executive order drastically reducing the number of refugees overall who are admitted to the United States for resettlement. It would also suspend the admission of refugees from “terrorist prone” countries such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, pending the institution of an effective “extreme vetting” process. Procedures for granting visas to residents from those countries will also be carefully re-examined. While leftists and other pro-Islamists will undoubtedly cry foul and may go to court in an effort to overturn this executive order as allegedly discriminating against Muslims on religious grounds, President Trump’s action is well within his legal authority. Refugees and visitors from other countries deemed dangerous by the president acting in his capacity as commander in chief should not have a constitutional right to enter the United States anyway.

“From a legal standpoint, it would be exactly within his legal rights,” said Stephen Legomsky, who was chief counsel at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Obama administration and currently a professor at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. Legomsky went on to say that he disagreed with President Trump’s planned suspension action from a public policy perspective “because there is such an urgent humanitarian need right now for refugees.” However, the Obama administration in which he served was discriminatory in its own “humanitarian” outreach to self-declared “refugees.” It virtually ignored the truly persecuted Christian minority population seeking an escape from genocide, and favored instead the one group of migrants from the Middle East who needed refugee protection the least– Sunni Muslims. Moreover, the Obama administration had no vetting procedures in place to ensure that some of these Sunni Muslims were not bringing their Wahhabi jihadist ideology with them.

Former President Obama put Americans’ lives in danger by his ill-advised immigration and refugee policies. He also released scores of suspected terrorists from Guantanamo Bay despite at least a 30 percent recidivist rate. President Trump, by contrast, is showing that he means what he says in making the protection of the American people his first priority.

The Coming Sanctuary Cities Crackdown

December 9, 2016

The Coming Sanctuary Cities Crackdown, Front Page MagazineMatthew Vadum, December 9, 2016

boschf

Chicago is one of the best places to live in America if you’re one of the millions of illegal aliens present in the country — and free-spending, lawbreaking Mayor Rahm Emanuel is trying his best to keep it that way.

Emanuel (D), who used to be a congressman and then President Obama’s chief of staff, dropped by Trump Tower in New York on Wednesday to urge President-elect Donald Trump to abandon his campaign promise to crack down on sanctuary cities.

“I also spoke out strongly about what it means to be a sanctuary city who will support and secure the people who are here, like my grandfather who came to the city of Chicago as a 13-year old 100 years ago,” said Emanuel who actually has no real bargaining power in the equation because he’s on the wrong side of the law.

“Chicago was a sanctuary city for my grandfather. His grandson today is the mayor of this city, which is a testament to the strength of the values and ideals of America.”

Emanuel, of course, is leaving out the values that make Americans inclined to support the rule of law and therefore oppose illegal entry and visa-overstaying by foreigners.

Emanuel is a strident, in-your-face supporter of the sanctuary city movement that gave illegal aliens permission to rob, rape, and murder Americans. Cheered on by the Left, sanctuary cities hinder immigration enforcement and shield illegal aliens from federal officials as a matter of policy. They ignore immigration detainer forms which ask them to retain illegals in their custody after they would otherwise release them so Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can take custody of them.

These sanctuary cities really ought to be called traitor cities because they are in open rebellion against the United States. Cities are creatures of the states in which they reside and under the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution the U.S. government is required to make sure that states maintain a “Republican Form of Government.” (The same clause also requires the U.S. to “protect each of them [i.e. the states] against Invasion[.]” Perhaps Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions could have his staff look into invoking the “Invasion” portion of the clause.)

These sanctuary cities may as well be flying the Confederate battle flag at city hall in their modern-day campaign of massive resistance against federal immigration law.

Bearing an uncanny resemblance to the Confederates who resisted federal authority and declared war on the United States 155 years ago, or the neo-Confederates in Southern states who resisted federal authority during the civil rights era, Democratic lawmakers and left-wing activists have been working together for decades to create large pockets of immigration anarchy in the United States where the law cannot easily be enforced.

The three criteria for a republican form of government as described in the Guarantee Clause are popular rule, absence of a monarch, and the rule of law. Immigration is a federal responsibility and sanctuary city policies undermine legitimate federal authority and are contrary to the rule of law.

Moreover, actively interfering with immigration enforcement could constitute obstruction of justice and could violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act which contains provisions making it unlawful to “harbor” an illegal alien.

The federal government needs to start arresting local officials like Emanuel for blocking the enforcement of federal immigration law. Those who enable the lawlessness of sanctuary cities deserve to be behind bars.

There are hundreds of sanctuary jurisdictions – including a few states – across the country that hinder the federal government’s immigration law enforcement efforts. Some left-wingers use the dreadful euphemism “civil liberties safe zones” to describe them. The phrase blurs the distinction between citizens and non-citizens by implying illegal aliens somehow possess a civil right to be present in the U.S.

The nation got to this point after decades of concerted collusion by radical George Soros-funded groups like the ACLU to get localities to pledge to frustrate or violate laws that protect U.S. national security. Leftist agitation has so intimidated Americans that many refuse to say the phrase illegal alien, preferring to go with undocumented immigrant or other politically correct terms less likely to generate offense.

Of course left-wingers like Emanuel and New York mayor Bill de Blasio (D) and Los Angeles mayors Eric Garcetti (D), both of whom have also recently met with the president-elect, only support the “values and ideals” that advance their side’s perverted vision of what America should be.

Since the Nov. 8 election, many mayors across the country have thrown their lot in with street gangs, criminals, and those who burden the public purse by saying they will fight Trump’s crackdown on sanctuary cities.

Chicago’s Emanuel was one of the first big city mayors to promise resistance to Trump in the days following the election. Among other mayors vowing defiance are: Bill de Blasio of New York; Marty Walsh (D) of Boston; Jim Kenney (D) of Philadelphia; Muriel Bowser (D) of Washington, D.C.; Stephanie Rawlings-Blake (D) of Baltimore; Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles; Ed Lee (D) of San Francisco; Libby Schaaf (D) of Oakland, Calif.; Tom Butt (D) of Richmond, Calif.; Ed Murray (D) of Seattle; Michael Hancock (D) of Denver; and Betsy Hodges (D) of Minneapolis.

Emanuel’s Chicago happens to be one of the five best places to live in America if you’re an illegal alien, according to Bob Dane, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). The other four places on Dane’s list are: New Haven, Conn.; Montgomery County, Md.; all of California; and all of Washington State.

Because Chicago is a sanctuary city, “You won’t be asked any questions if you keep out of trouble but should you get jailed, no one will check your immigration status even when you’re in custody,” he writes. Mayor Emanuel will “do what he can locally to continue the president’s agenda of dismantling of immigration enforcement.”

Dane adds, “Of course you’ll be expected to vote for all these folks once they figure out a way to make you legal but you’ll get used to it, quid-pro-quo voting is a Chicago-style tradition.”

Chicago, well, actually the State of Illinois, showers taxpayer-funded benefits on its illegal alien residents. Immigration status is not checked when someone applies for supplement food assistance under the Women, Infants & Children (WIC) program, the All Kids medical care for children program, public K-12 education including free school lunch and breakfast programs, and under Head Start (preschool services).

An old 2007 study by FAIR found that illegals living in the Land of Lincoln cost state taxpayers “more than $3.5 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration,” which represents about $695 for every Illinois household headed by a U.S.-born resident.

Immigration status is not considered in the provision of emergency healthcare services, including end-stage kidney disease services, and for pregnancy care.

Among the top 25 counties in the U.S. with the highest illegal alien populations, just five don’t offer public healthcare programs for illegals.

Cook County, Ill., which includes Chicago, is one of the 20 counties on the list that does offer care. It has an estimated illegal alien population of 323,000, and 20,000 of them a year are treated under a county healthcare program. Additionally, states are allowed to extend Medicaid eligibility to illegal aliens, and 16 have created programs covering illegals.

Emanuel is so determined to fork over tax dollars to illegals that he’s moving forward with creating a municipal identification card to open government coffers to those who have no legal right to be in this country.

“Chicago is and has been a city that welcomes everyone, and an individual’s background should never be a barrier to participating in the economic, social or cultural life of Chicago,” Emanuel said in October. “With this program, we ensure that all Chicago residents have the identification they need to access vital services.”

Alderman Ameya Pawar (D) hailed the planned ID card because it will “provide our undocumented and homeless neighbors with the needed identification to access critical city services and cultural resources.”

Alderman Danny Solis (D) said the ID will help many Chicago residents. “All residents of Chicago, regardless of their immigration status, will feel safe and secure and [the card will] give residents access to services they need to contribute to our great city.”

In September, Emanuel and some aldermen proposed expanding the protections that Chicago provides illegal aliens. According to Ted Cox at DNAinfo, the “Welcoming City” ordinance “would outlaw verbal abuse aimed at undocumented immigrants based on their race or citizenship, as well as banning threats made against them to reveal their undocumented status to federal immigration authorities.”

Seemi Choudry, director of the Mayor’s Office of New Americans in Chicago, said the expanded protections are intended to “make the city safer and more attractive for immigrant communities” and protect their “respect and dignity.”

The other four cities on Dane’s list bend over backwards to accommodate illegal aliens.

In 2007 New Haven, Conn., beat Chicago to the punch, becoming the first place in America to offer ID cards to its residents “regardless of age or immigration status.” The ID “has embedded holograms so that no one can ever steal your identity,” Dane notes.

In Montgomery County, Md., Casa De Maryland case workers help illegals to find jobs and “an IRS-issued taxpayer identification number because, of course, you’re here illegally and not eligible for a real Social Security number.”

California rolls out the red carpet for illegal aliens which helps explain why close to a quarters of all illegals in the U.S. live there. The state spends $21.5 billion a year on illegal alien health care, education, welfare, other state benefits, and criminal justice. This works out to $2,438 for every California native-born household. And illegals get in-state tuition rates in what Dane calls “the Dream State for Illegal Aliens.”

Washington, he explains, “accepts Mexican Matrícula Consular ID cards as proof of identification,” unconcerned with FBI and Department of Justice warnings that the cards can be utilized by criminal and terrorists.

It’s hard to say exactly how much sanctuary jurisdictions like Chicago spend on illegals because they tend not to make such figures easily available.

But because of a landmark 2013 study by the Heritage Foundation, we know that across the country:

In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers.

Those figures were based on the calculation that “all unlawful immigrant households together have an aggregate annual deficit of around $54.5 billion.” The aggregate annual deficit for all unlawful immigrant households “equals the total benefits and services received by all unlawful immigrant households minus the total taxes paid by those households.”

The Heritage report, which was vigorously attacked by the Left and by open-borders groups on the Right, explained that unlike lawful immigrants, illegal aliens do not have access to means-tested welfare, Social Security, or Medicare but they do take in government benefits and services. For example, children in illegal alien households receive heavily subsidized public education. Many illegals have U.S.-born children and they are eligible for the full range of government welfare and medical benefits. And illegals use the roads, parks, sewage systems, police and fire protection in the communities where they live.

Although open-borders propaganda typically claims that illegal aliens are hardworking and industrious, among illegal alien households with children, 87 percent accept benefits from one or more welfare programs, compared to just 52 percent of native households. Many illegals are unemployable because they don’t have the skills needed for the jobs available.

But these sobering statistics are mere details to Rahm Emanuel and Bill de Blasio and all other big-city Democrats.

They need illegal aliens in order to stay electorally competitive (and mow their lawns and clean their swimming pools) so they’re desperately hoping President-elect Trump will throw them a lifeline by betraying his own supporters.

If Trump wants a second term in the Oval Office, he’ll tell Emanuel where to go.