City of Chicago
Mayor's Press Office   
April 19, 2018

Emanuel, Senator Durbin and City Officials Celebrate Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Affirmation Supporting Injunction Against Trump Justice Department

Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Federal District Court Ruling Installing a Nationwide Injunction Preventing New Conditions on Public Safety Grants

Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Chicago Corporation Counsel Ed Siskel, First Deputy Superintendent Anthony Riccio, City Clerk Anna Valencia and Aldermen Michelle Harris (8), Ray Lopez (15), Michael Scott (24), Danny Solis (25), Walter Burnett (27), Margaret Laurino (39), Tom Tunney (44) and community leaders celebrated the ruling from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a nationwide injunction that prevents the U.S. Department of Justice from imposing new conditions on a federal grant that provides critical crime prevention funds for community policing efforts and other public safety measures.

“Chicago is proud to lead the way in the legal fight against the Trump Justice Department. Immigrants and refugees from around the world have always looked to Chicago as a place where the American Dream is possible. We will not be bullied, intimidated or coerced into making a false choice between our values as a welcoming city and the principles of community policing. From the time Chicago refused to comply with the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 to today, our great city has always stood our ground. Today’s ruling is further confirmation Chicago is on solid ground legally and morally,” said Mayor Emanuel.

In its opinion, the Seventh Circuit wrote “The Attorney General in this case used the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement. But the power of the purse rests with Congress, which authorized the federal funds at issue and did not impose any immigration enforcement conditions on the receipt of such funds.” On that basis, the court upheld the injunction against the conditions.

A majority of the judges also concluded that the conditions were properly enjoined on a nationwide basis because the “conditions on the receipt of critical law enforcement funds…have been imposed by the Attorney General without any authority in a manner that usurps the authority of Congress—made more egregious because Congress itself has repeatedly refused to pass bills with such restrictions.”

The ruling is the latest victory in a legal battle that began in August 2017, after the Department of Justice published the application for FY2017 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program, which provides states and cities with federal funding to support local law enforcement efforts. In September, Judge Harry D. Leinenweber of the Northern District of Illinois awarded the City of Chicago a preliminary injunction, and the Attorney General appealed that ruling.

“The Trump Administration exceeded its legal authority by trying to cut off the federal funds our police use to fight gun violence in Chicago. It was a dangerous and irresponsible decision to pressure local communities to join in the President’s mass deportation agenda, and I’m glad the 7th Circuit has upheld this injunction,” said Sen. Dick Durbin.

Unlike previous applications, this year’s iteration required that new conditions be met in order to be eligible for grant funding. These conditions include the certification of compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, a federal statute that bars restrictions on federal-local sharing of immigration status information; unlimited access to local police stations and law enforcement facilities by U.S. Department of Homeland Security personnel to interrogate arrestees; and the requirement that cities provide DHS with notice prior to an arrestee’s release, which would require detaining residents longer than is permissible under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

“We filed this suit because the Attorney General does not have the authority to add these requirements to a grant program created by Congress and cannot commandeer local law enforcement to carry out federal immigration law functions,” said Corporation Counsel Siskel. “We believe that Judge Leinenweber appropriately issued the injunction and this ruling makes clear that he was correct.”

Over the years, Chicago has used Byrne JAG funds for a variety of purposes that benefit public safety, including the purchase of SWAT equipment, police vehicles, radios and tasers. Last year, the City of Chicago received $2.3 million in Byrne JAG funds.

The City of Chicago is being supported in its legal efforts in this case by two outside law firms, Riley Safer and Wilmer Hale, who are providing their services pro bono.

In addition, a variety of stakeholds signed onto amicus briefs for the appellate brief, including:
  • Asian Americans Advancing Justice
  • Erie House
  • National Immigrant Justice Center
  • American Civil Liberties Union
  • Illinois Business Immigration Coalition
  • Anti-Defamation League
  • Certain Members of Congress
  • Current and Former Law Enforcement Leaders
  • Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, and Immigration Law Scholars
  • California State Legislature
  • States of New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, and the District of Columbia
  • County of Santa Clara, 23 Additional Cities, Counties, and Municipal Agencies, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the International Municipal Lawyers Association, and the International City/County Management Association
###

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
March 7, 2018

Justice Department Files Preemption Lawsuit Against the State of California to Stop Interference with Federal Immigration Authorities

In a speech to the California Peace Officers' Association’s Legislative Day, Attorney General Jeff Sessions today announced that the Justice Department has filed a legal action against the State of California, Governor of California Jerry Brown, and Attorney General of California Xavier Becerra, seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief based upon the enactment and implementation of certain provisions of three California laws—Assembly Bill 450 (AB 450); Senate Bill 54 (SB 54); and Assembly Bill 103 (AB 103)—which intentionally obstruct and discriminate against the enforcement of federal immigration law. The complaint contends that the laws in question are preempted by federal law and impermissibly target the Federal Government, and therefore violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. As a result, the Justice Department is seeking to permanently enjoin these state statutes, which are contrary to federal law and interfere with federal immigration authorities’ ability to carry out their lawful duties. In addition, the Justice Department is continuing to review other related California enactments.
 
The complaint, accompanying motion for a preliminary injunction, and declarations from Department of Homeland Security and Department of State officials—filed last evening in the Eastern District of California—spell out in detail the extent to which each of these laws have interfered, and will continue to interfere, with federal law enforcement efforts.
 
AB 450 prohibits private employers from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration officials—including officials conducting worksite enforcement efforts and other enforcement operations. It also requires that private employers notify employees in advance of a potential worksite enforcement inspection—despite clear federal law that has been on the books for approximately three decades that has no such requirements. An April 22, 2017, report on AB 450 compiled by the California State Assembly’s Committee on Judiciary states that the law is designed to frustrate “an expected increase in federal immigration enforcement actions.” California has demonstrated its intent to enforce this law: on Jan. 18, 2018, California Attorney General Becerra issued a warning to employers in the state that his office would “prosecute those who violate [AB 450] by voluntarily cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) efforts.” Additionally, failure to comply with AB 450 could result in a fine for the business owner ranging from $2,000-$10,000. California employers are thus caught between what many may feel is a civic duty to cooperate with the enforcement of federal law, and a state government that penalizes such lawful cooperation.
 
SB 54 restricts state and local law enforcement officials from providing information to federal immigration authorities about the release date of removable criminal aliens who are in their custody. These criminal aliens are subject to removal from the United States under federal immigration law, and SB 54 interferes with federal immigration authorities’ ability to carry out their responsibilities under federal law. SB 54 also violates 8 USC 1373, a law enacted by Congress, which promotes information sharing related to immigration enforcement. The state law also prohibits the actual transfer of criminal aliens to federal custody, which creates a dangerous operating environment for ICE agents executing arrests in non-custodial settings. In a declaration provided to the Court, ICE Deputy Director Thomas Homan states that these “at-large arrests. . .unquestionably involve a greater possibility of the use of force or violence by the target . . . and have greater access to weapons, exposing officers, the public, and the alien to greater risk of harm.” 
 
Remarkably, with this law California attempts to shield from federal law enforcement removable criminal aliens who have committed crimes in the state of California and across the country. In doing so, California is releasing onto its streets those removable criminal aliens who have already shown a willingness to engage in criminal activity—as evidenced by their state or local detention for violating state law—and who therefore are most likely to commit crimes in the future.
 
AB 103 imposes a state-run inspection and review scheme of the federal detention of aliens held in facilities pursuant to federal contracts. This includes review of immigration processes and the circumstances in which aliens were apprehended, and also requires access to privileged federal records that are under ICE’s control. With this law, California is trying to regulate federal immigration detention, which it cannot do under the Constitution. California does not impose such an inspection and review scheme on other similar detention facilities that do not house civil immigration detainees—in other words, this is a special review regime that applies only to facilities that house civil immigration detainees. This different treatment shows that California is seeking to regulate the federal government, which is not permitted under well-established Supreme Court precedent.
 
“The Department of Justice and the Trump Administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions today told law enforcement officers attending the California Peace Officers Association’s 26th Annual Law Enforcement Legislative Day, referencing AB 450, SB 54, and AB 103. “We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. And I believe that we are going to win.”
 
“Our duty at the Department of Homeland Security is to enforce and uphold the nation’s security laws as passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the President,” said Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen for the Department of Homeland Security.  “California has chosen to purposefully contradict the will and responsibility of the Congress to protect our homeland. I appreciate the efforts of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice to uphold the rule of law and protect American communities.”
Office of California Attorney General
Tuesday, March 6, 2018

Attorney General Becerra: California's Legal Challenge to Trump Administration's Conditions for Federal Funding Will Move Forward

Court sets aside dueling motions from parties  

SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Xavier Becerra issued the following statement after the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the federal government’s motion to dismiss and the State’s motion for preliminary injunction in a case involving the Trump Administration's attempt to withhold federal funding from California law enforcement.
While the court declined to enter an injunction based on the record before it, the court ruled that the case will continue, affording California the opportunity to seek relief again once there is a more complete record for the court. California will press for a permanent resolution of the lawsuit to secure from the federal government critical public safety funding for eligible jurisdictions across the state.

“The 10th Amendment of the Constitution gives the people of California, not the Trump Administration, the power to decide how we will provide for the public safety and general welfare in our state. We intend to fight to protect the funding our law enforcement officers deserve,” said Attorney General Becerra. “Yesterday, the court signaled that we can continue our fight against federal government overreach that undermines the safety and values of our state.”

Last year, the Trump Administration added immigration enforcement-related conditions to law enforcement grants issued by the U.S. Department of Justice. On August 14, 2017, Attorney General Becerra filed a lawsuit challenging two of these unconstitutional conditions, which attempt to force California law enforcement officials to engage in federal immigration activities and restrict our police and sheriffs' discretion to determine how best to keep our communities safe. On October 13, 2017, the Attorney General’s office filed an amended complaint challenging a third condition that would prohibit state and local jurisdictions from restricting the exchange of information regarding residents’ citizenship and immigration status. This condition, which the Trump Administration is construing far more broadly than the State believes is lawful, was the subject of the State’s motion for preliminary injunction. The other two conditions are currently subject to a nationwide preliminary injunction obtained by the City of Chicago on September 15, 2017. 

Attorney General Becerra has consistently defended our state and local governments' 10th Amendment rights to decide how to accomplish their public safety responsibilities in the face of threats by the Trump Administration over so-called “sanctuary jurisdiction” policies. In June, he led nine states and the District of Columbia in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the City and County of San Francisco, the County of Santa Clara, and the City of Richmond in their challenge to the Trump Administration’s Executive Order targeting “sanctuary jurisdictions.” In March 2017, Attorney General Becerra filed two separate amicus briefs in support of the City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara, respectively, as they challenged the Trump Administration’s Executive Order.
# # #

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
January 24, 2018

Justice Department Demands Documents and Threatens to Subpoena 23 Jurisdictions As Part of 8 U.S.C. 1373 Compliance Review

The Department of Justice today sent the attached letters to 23 jurisdictions, demanding the production of documents that could show whether each jurisdiction is unlawfully restricting information sharing by its law enforcement officers with federal immigration authorities.
All 23 of these jurisdictions were previously contacted by the Justice Department, when the Department raised concerns about laws, policies, or practices that may violate 8 U.S.C. 1373, a federal statute that promotes information sharing related to immigration enforcement and with which compliance is a condition of FY2016 and FY2017 Byrne JAG awards.
 
The letters also state that recipient jurisdictions that fail to respond, fail to respond completely, or fail to respond in a timely manner will be subject to a Department of Justice subpoena.
 
“I continue to urge all jurisdictions under review to reconsider policies that place the safety of their communities and their residents at risk,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “Protecting criminal aliens from federal immigration authorities defies common sense and undermines the rule of law. We have seen too many examples of the threat to public safety represented by jurisdictions that actively thwart the federal government’s immigration enforcement—enough is enough.”
 
Failure to comply with section 1373 could result in the Justice Department seeking the return of FY2016 grants, requiring additional conditions for receipt of any FY2017 Byrne JAG funding, and/or jurisdictions being deemed ineligible to receive FY2017 Byrne JAG funding.
 
The following jurisdictions received the document request today:
 
  • Chicago, Illinois;
  • Cook County, Illinois;
  • New York City, New York;
  • State of California;
  • Albany, New York;
  • Berkeley, California;
  • Bernalillo County, New Mexico;
  • Burlington, Vermont;
  • City and County of Denver, Colorado;
  • Fremont, California;
  • Jackson, Mississippi;
  • King County, Washington;
  • Lawrence, Massachusetts;
  • City of Los Angeles, California;
  • Louisville Metro, Kentucky;
  • Monterey County, California;
  • Sacramento County, California;
  • City and County of San Francisco, California;
  • Sonoma County, California;
  • Watsonville, California;
  • West Palm Beach, Florida;
  • State of Illinois; and
  • State of Oregon.


"Our cities should be sanctuaries for Americans – not for criminal aliens."
SANCTUARY CITIES ARE UNDERMINING LAW ENFORCEMENT: Sanctuary jurisdictions obstruct Federal immigration enforcement efforts and put law enforcement at greater risk.
  • A “sanctuary city” generally refers to a State or local jurisdiction that refuses to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement, often by rejecting “detainer” requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and refusing to share information relating to potentially removable aliens.
    • Detainers are used to request that a State or local law enforcement agency hold a criminal alien in local custody for up to 48 hours after their release on state charges to allow ICE to take custody of the alien and initiate removal proceedings.
    • State and local law enforcement agencies routinely detain suspects for violating Federal laws at the request of federal authorities.
    • The Constitution and Federal statues allow for ICE to detain illegal aliens, and for local police to do so at ICE’s request, relying on ICE’s determination of probable cause.
      • Detainers themselves establish probable cause of an alien’s removability and it would be absurd to require ICE to obtain a judicial warrant every time it detained an illegal alien.
      • Indeed, Congress authorized immigration officers, rather than Federal judges, to issue administrative warrants to arrest aliens based on probable cause to believe they are in violation of the immigration laws.
    • If this was necessary under the Fourth Amendment, immigration enforcement would grind to a halt.
  • When sanctuary cities refuse to comply with detainer requests, law enforcement officers must carry out their immigration enforcement duties in workplaces, residences, and in the streets.
    • This can lead to ICE having to enter dangerous environments to arrest criminal aliens.
  • Some sanctuary city officials have gone as far as warning illegal aliens about upcoming immigration enforcement actions, allowing criminal aliens to prepare themselves and putting law enforcement, the public, and the aliens at even greater risk.
ENDANGERING COMMUNITIES: Reckless sanctuary policies endanger the safety of our communities and obstruct immigration enforcement actions which can prevent further crime.
  • Too many criminal illegal aliens have been released into American communities and gone on to commit crimes which could have been prevented had ICE been able to take the individuals into custody.
  • In 2016, the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) arrested a criminal illegal alien for possession of cocaine for sale and other charges.
    • The individual had been deported three times previously and had prior convictions for similar offenses but was still released.
    • SFPD arrested the individual again in 2017 on charges involving the sale of narcotics, yet the city again refused to comply with an ICE detainer request and the individual was released.
  • SFPD arrested an illegal alien and alleged gang member more than ten times between 2013 and 2017 for charges including rape, assault, domestic battery, robbery, and vehicle theft.
    • On each occasion ICE’s request to have the individual transferred to their custody or receive notice before his release was denied.
  • A criminal illegal alien was arrested in Cook County, Illinois in 2011 for driving on a suspended license from a prior conviction for driving under the influence (DUI).
    • ICE issued a detainer request but the individual was released from jail and arrested less than a year later for aggravated DUI causing death.
  • Activists say sanctuary policies make illegal aliens feel safe enough to report crimes to police.
    • Illegally present crime victims and witnesses are eligible for certain immigration benefits, like the U-visa and T-visa, to encourage their cooperation in reporting crime.
IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT: President Trump’s Administration has and will continue to pursue strong immigration enforcement based on the rule of law.  
  • President Trump’s Administration has taken action to ensure our Nation’s immigration laws are faithfully enforced.
  • The Department of Justice has filed a legal action regarding three California laws that intentionally obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration law, regulate private entities that seek to cooperate with Federal authorities, and impede consultation and communication between Federal and State law enforcement officials.
  • During fiscal year (FY) 2017, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) made more than 140,000 administrative arrests and effected more than 225,000 removals.
    • From President Trump’s inauguration through the end of FY 2017, ERO made more than 110,568 arrests compared to only 77,806 in all of FY 2016.
  • However, more resources are needed to ensure law enforcement is able to do its job and enforce our immigration laws.
    • There are nearly one millions aliens in the United States with final orders of removal but not enough officers or resources to enforce the orders.
    • Many sheriffs have backed off of holding criminal aliens for fear of lawsuits.


U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs
August 16, 2017

Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks on Sanctuary Policies

Miami, FL

Remarks as prepared for delivery

 

Thank you Tom, for that introduction. I have great respect for the work you are doing. We have many members of your team here and I want to thank each and every one of you. Thank you. And thank you to all the law enforcement personnel I see out here. 
 
Mayor Carlos Giménez, thank you for your tremendous hospitality and thank you for your commitment to the rule of law and tireless work to keep the people of Miami-Dade safe.
 
I also want to recognize our acting United States Attorney Ben Greenberg. Your team here has done a fabulous job. 
 
Miami-Dade State Attorney Kathy Fernadez Rundle is here. You have been a great partner in combatting violent crime and I am so pleased to see you.
 
I’m honored to be in Miami-Dade with all of you today. I’m always so impressed when I visit: the city keeps getting bigger, business is booming, and I recently read that Miami-Dade is one of the safest major jurisdictions in the country. 
 
As you know, this was not always the case. In the 1980s, Miami-Dade was plagued by drugs. Violent crime followed. Police regularly recorded upwards of 500 murders a year. The city seemed to be crumbling.
 
But the people of Miami-Dade refused to tolerate this level of violence. And last year, Miami-Dade’s homicide count was barely a third of what it was in the 1980s. 
 
How many hundreds of lives were saved in this city because of the proactive, community policing from your police force. It wasn’t easy, but this place has truly earned its nickname today “The Magic City”.
 
Your success is even more remarkable since violent crime is surging in most places across the country – including a historic rise in the nation’s murder rate of nearly 11 percent.
 
Miami-Dade is an example of what is possible through hard work, professional policing, and a rededication to the rule of law. 
 
It is proof that the entire nation can do better.
 
During the last administration, the Inspector General sent 10 letters to jurisdictions that they had reason to believe were not complying with federal immigration law. Last week, we sent a letter to your mayor and today I’m here to announce that Miami-Dade is now in full compliance and eligible for federal law enforcement grant dollars.
 
This is wonderful news for law enforcement and the citizens of Miami-Dade. It means more money for crime fighting. And it means we are partners in keeping everyone here safe.
 
Unfortunately, some cities – like Chicago – refuse to follow your example.
 
In Chicago – a city with almost exactly the same 2.7 million person population as Miami-Dade – more than 433 people have been murdered since the beginning of the year. More than three times as many as Miami-Dade.
 
Last year, Chicago’s 2.7 million residents experienced more murders than the 12.5 million people who live in New York and Los Angeles – combined. The Chicago Police Department also reported more than 4,300 shooting victims. In the first half of last year, violent crime across the nation increased 5 percent, but in Chicago it surged 24 percent.
 
The most fundamental duty of government is to ensure the safety and liberty of its people.
 
Respect for the rule of law has broken down. In Chicago, their so-called “sanctuary” policies are just one sad example. 
 
Every year too many Americans lives are victimized as a result of sanctuary city policies whether it be theft, robbery, drugs, assault, battery, and even murder.
 
Here’s how it works right now. After the police arrest an illegal alien and charge him with a crime, they fingerprint and book him into their jail. 
 
When federal immigration authorities learn that this criminal alien is in Chicago’s custody, they can issue an arrest warrant and ask the city to either notify them before the criminal is released or to transfer him to federal custody.
 
But Chicago’s leaders have made this a political issue and direct their police to refuse both requests. 
 
Instead, the police are forced to release the criminal alien back into the community without regard to the seriousness of the crime or how long the rap sheet. 
 
This is a serious problem for the people of Chicago. A few years ago, an alien was arrested and had his license revoked for driving under the influence. Shortly after, he was arrested again for driving with a suspended license. 
 
After Cook County ignored ICE’s detainer request, the alien drove under the influence once again just a few months later and this time struck and killed a skateboarder. Another senseless death caused by a dangerous policy.
 
Tragically, in another case, an illegal alien was convicted of aggravated domestic battery. ICE lodged an immigration detainer, but again, the county did not honor it. 
 
After his release, that same alien murdered a 15-year-old girl and shot her mother. She was only 15 and she could be alive today if Chicago’s leadership had prioritized her safety over politics. 
 
Sadly, we know Chicago isn’t alone. Just three weeks ago, Sergio Jose Martinez was arrested in Portland, Oregon. Martinez is an illegal alien who has been deported at least 20 times, and police reports show that he was arrested at least 10 times just this year– accused of everything from possessing drugs to stealing a car. 
 
Federal immigration authorities properly lodged a detainer against Martinez just a few months before, asking to be notified when he was set to be released. But authorities in Oregon refused. 
 
According to allegations, Martinez then broke into the home of a 65-year-old Portland woman by crawling through her bedroom window. Once inside, he reportedly forced this woman to the ground, used scarves and socks to blindfold, bind, and gag her, and then raped her and slammed her head into the wooden floor. 
 
How can these politicians hear this story and do nothing? 
 
How can they look her in the eye and tell her they did nothing to stop this from happening? This is not an aberration. It’s too common.
 
These policies of sanctuary cities do far broader damage to the country than many understand. At its root, it is a rejection of our immigration laws and a declaration of open borders. 
 
It says if you enter the country last week with a criminal record and get to Chicago, we will not even support deporting you even after you commit a serious crime against one of our citizens. This is lawlessness.
 
And these lawless policies do more than shield individual criminal aliens – they also shelter and protect lethal gangs and transnational criminal organizations like Latin Kings and MS-13.
 
These predators thrive when crime is not met with consequences. This state of lawlessness allows gangs to smuggle guns, drugs, and even humans, across borders and around cities and communities. Sanctuary jurisdictions provide safe harbor for some of the most dangerous criminals in our country.
 
That makes a sanctuary city a trafficker, smuggler, or predator’s best friend. 
 
Now, I want to be clear about something: local police are not the problem. They risk their lives each day in service of the law and the people they protect.
 
The problem is these sanctuary jurisdictions tie our police officers’ hands and endanger federal immigration officers as well when they are forced to pursue these criminal aliens outside of the jails and prisons. 
 
Yet, these sanctuary jurisdictions have the gall to feign outrage when their police departments lose federal funds as a direct result of their malfeasance. 
 
We want to do everything we can to help state and local law enforcement, which is why we have federal grants to cities designed to aid in crime reduction. 
 
But we cannot continue giving federal taxpayer money to cities that actively undermine the safety and efficacy of federal law enforcement and actively frustrate efforts to reduce crime in their cities. 
 
So if voters in Chicago are concerned about losing federal grant money: call your mayor.
 
The city’s leaders have even gone so far as to claim that these “sanctuary” policies help reduce crime by encouraging illegal aliens to report it when it happens. But no evidence supports this claim.
 
To the contrary, Chicago has consistently had one of the lowest murder investigation clearance rates in the country. 
 
Only in one out of every four murders is a suspect even identified.
 
Far from making Chicago safer, these policies likely make cooperation with law enforcement more difficult: if there are no real consequences for the criminal, no witness will risk their life to report the crime. That means criminals walk free and victims suffer in silence.
 
And what does it say to the most vulnerable communities when even the police are unable to help keep repeat violent offenders off their streets?
 
Rather than acknowledge soaring murder counts or the heartbreaking stories told by victims’ families, Chicago’s mayor has chosen to sue the federal government. 
 
He complains that our focus on enforcing the law would require a “reordering of law enforcement practice in [the city].”
 
But that’s exactly the point! For the sake of their city, Chicago’s leaders need to recommit to policies that punish criminals instead of protecting them. They need to protect their citizens and not the criminals. 
 
Americans – all Americans – have a right to full and equal protection under law. 
 
No one understands this better than the Cuban-Americans here in Miami-Dade. 
 
When they came to America, they saw firsthand that only the rule of law and the equal application of that law can preserve our God-given rights. 
 
They understand that no single person – whether a dictator or a mayor – should determine whose rights are protected and whose are not.
 
The people of Miami-Dade know that the rule of law guarantees equality and opportunity. 
 
Protecting this guarantee is why the government of Miami-Dade made its decision to work with federal law enforcement, not against us.
 
And that is critical because it shows that this jurisdiction is serious about protecting its citizens from danger and its law enforcement officers from unnecessary risk.
 
In fact, the majority of the country believes that all cities should do the same. According to one poll, 80 percent of Americans believe that cities should turn over criminal illegal aliens to immigration officials.
 
Leaders in jurisdictions like Miami-Dade, Lansing, and Westchester County, New York, believe it too, which is why they have stood up for the people they serve by choosing the rule of law. 
 
So to all “sanctuary” jurisdictions across the country, I say this: Miami-Dade is doing it, and so can you. Work with us to enforce a lawful immigration system that keeps us safe and serves our national interest. 
 
The Department of Justice will not concede a single block or street corner in the United States to lawlessness or crime. 
 
Nor will we tolerate the loss of innocent life because a handful of jurisdictions believe that they are above the law.
 
I know that Miami-Dade will be an example of the good that comes from following the law. 
 
We have already seen that: the same Independence Day weekend when Chicago suffered more than 100 shootings and 15 homicides, Miami-Dade also had a historic number of shooting deaths – zero.
 
I hope more jurisdictions follow Miami-Dade’s leadership by choosing to follow the law, because we all want to do the same thing: protect our families and defend our country.
 
So thank you, Miami-Dade. 
 
And to all the law enforcement here—state, local, and federal—I look forward to working with you to do just that. This Department of Justice has your back and you have our thanks.
 
Thank you, and God bless you.