{"id":21740,"date":"2019-07-24T07:26:50","date_gmt":"2019-07-24T11:26:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=21740"},"modified":"2019-07-24T07:26:52","modified_gmt":"2019-07-24T11:26:52","slug":"florida-sanctuary-state-lawsuit-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2019\/07\/24\/florida-sanctuary-state-lawsuit-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Florida Sanctuary Challenge: Political Symbolism vs. Rule of Law"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A lawsuit seeking to kill Florida\u2019s new anti-sanctuary law<\/a> recycles an earlier argument used to challenge Texas\u2019s Senate Bill 4. It, too, could be headed to the legal trash bin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Florida\u2019s Senate Bill 168, signed into law by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, requires local law enforcement agencies to honor federal \u201cdetainer\u201d requests on illegal aliens. The opposing 72-page lawsuit<\/a>, filed last week in U.S. District Court, complains that such a requirement unlawfully \u201csupplants\u201d federal immigration authority. This is richly ironic, considering that the entire purpose of sanctuary jurisdiction is to usurp federal authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Curiously,\nthe city of South Miami, the lead plaintiff and only municipality in the\nlawsuit, has never received a detainer request. Sean Foreman, a\nBarry University political science professor, suggested that the court gambit\nmay be \u201cmore symbolic than one that deals with actual problems on the ground.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lawsuit\u2019s claims echo a previous failed challenge to Texas\u2019s anti-sanctuary law. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeal<\/a> ruled that administrative warrants (detainers) from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are sufficient to hold individuals ICE might deport, even if they\u2019ve been granted bail or their charges have been dropped.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A 9<\/a>th<\/a><\/sup> Circuit Court of Appeal panel<\/a> expanded on that position last week, concluding: \u201c[Local] cooperation relating to enforcement of federal immigration law is in pursuit of the general welfare and public safety.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

SB 168\u2019s opponents attempt to revive spurious assertions that enforcing immigration laws somehow hampers effective local law enforcement. Not only is there is no evidence to support this contention, but crime statistics<\/a> show sanctuary cities that shield illegal aliens to be among the most dangerous in the nation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Without\nfacts or court rulings in its favor, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC),\nrepresenting the plaintiffs in the Florida case, shamelessly plays the race\ncard — smearing SB 168 supporters as \u201chate groups.\u201d But subjective political\nlabels do not objective legal arguments make.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

State Sen. Joe\nGruters, R-Sarasota, a co-sponsor of the bill, noted SB 168 is identical to one\ndrafted in previous years by Larry Metz, a former member of the state House and\nLake County circuit judge. And summing up the view of many Florida law\nenforcement officials, Brevard County Sheriff Wayne Ivey<\/a> pointed out that SB 168 \u201csimply says we are not only\nallowed, we are going to work with our federal partners.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A lawsuit seeking to kill Florida\u2019s new anti-sanctuary law recycles an earlier argument used to challenge Texas\u2019s Senate Bill 4. It, too, could be headed to the legal trash bin. Florida\u2019s Senate Bill 168, signed into law by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, requires local law enforcement agencies to honor federal \u201cdetainer\u201d requests on illegal aliens.<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":11839,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[14],"tags":[1524,33,452,640],"yst_prominent_words":[4933,3236,2464,4919,6200,2249,6201,1995,1943,3057,2008,1963,2030,2159,2767,2857,2854,5403,4931,6202],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21740"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21740"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21740\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21741,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21740\/revisions\/21741"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11839"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21740"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21740"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21740"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=21740"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}