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

  • @Zombiepirate
    link
    English
    14 hours ago

    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.