Thread: 40 Sanctuary Cities Pledge to Risk Federal Funds Under Trump

by JOHN BINDER
14 Dec 2016
New Orleans, LA

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana – 40 sanctuary cities which refuse to comply with federal immigration officials in order to deport criminal illegal immigrants are now risking federal funds with the incoming Trump administration.

The list of sanctuary cities, the majority of which have been declared such before President-Elect Donald Trump’s victory, and those who have declared themselves following his election were compiled by POLITICO in a new report about what is in store for municipalities unwilling to comply with federal immigration law.

The following sanctuary cities have reaffirmed their pro-illegal immigration policies:

Appleton, Wisconsin
Ashland, Oregon
Aurora, Colorado
Austin, Texas
Berkeley, California
Boston, Massachusetts
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Chicago, Illinois
Denver, Colorado
Detroit, Michigan
Evanston, Illinois
Hartford, Connecticut
Jersey City, New Jersey
Los Angeles, California
Madison, Wisconsin
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Nashville, Tennessee
New Haven, Connecticut
New York, New York
Newark, New Jersey
Newton, Massachusetts
Oakland, California
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Phoenix, Arizona
Portland, Oregon
Providence, Rhode Island
Richmond, California
San Francisco, California
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Seattle, Washington
Somerville, Massachusetts
St. Paul, Minnesota
Syracuse, New York
Takoma Park, Maryland
Tucson, Arizona
Washington, D.C.

Meanwhile, four more cities have declared sanctuary status after Trump’s election:

Santa Ana, California
Burlington, Vermont
Montpelier, Vermont
Winooski, Vermont

Sanctuary cities under Trump face a massive issue, where they could see all of their federal funding stripped if the President-Elect follows-through on his immigration plans through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Under Trump’s plan, not only would he strip federal funding to sanctuary cities, but also build a border wall along the US-Mexico southern border, enforce E-verify, go after businesses misusing foreign guest worker visa programs and ramp up border patrol agents to keep Mexican drug cartels at bay.

However, officials in sanctuary cities like San Francisco, California have declared that being a sanctuary is “in our DNA,” as Breitbart Texas reported.

Likewise, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has said “Chicago always will be a sanctuary city.”

In California, for instance, politicians are now eyeing a plan to turn the entire state into a sanctuary jurisdiction where illegal immigrants can be shielded from federal immigration law, as Breitbart California has reported.

With that proposal, though, comes billions of dollars that would be lost in federal funds to the state if Trump’s immigration plan is enforced.

In Philadelphia, millions of dollars would be stripped due to policies that allowed an alleged illegal immigrant child rapist roam free, as law enforcement failed to hand over the illegal to immigration authorities, as Breitbart Texas reported.

Even President Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and Attorney General Loretta Lynch have said that stripping federal funding to cities refusing to enforce federal law is entirely doable.

“DOJ can take action against jurisdictions receiving grants when they are not in compliance with federal law,” Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) said of DOJ policies. “If jurisdictions choose to implement sanctuary policies that prevent them from cooperating with federal immigration authorities, they are putting their federal grant money at risk unless they change their policy to comply with federal law.”

Other cities, like Aberdeen, Washington, Baltimore, Maryland, Fresno, California, Las Vegas, Nevada, Long Beach, California, Mesa, Arizona, New Orleans, Louisiana, Northampton, Massachusetts, Princeton, New Jersey and Springfield, Oregon, which border on the verge of sanctuary city policies have, have said they too do not plan on changing their policies.

There are over 300 sanctuary cities nationwide.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/...l-funds-trump/

Fine, we'll cut off their funds and use them to reduce the deficit.

I suspect they'll start singing a different tune when the threats to withhold federal funds becomes a reality. Are these cities going to explain to their citizens that taxes must be raised to protect illegal immigrants? Increasing taxes is the only way they'll be able to make up for the shortage of federal money. Start negatively impacting peoples wallets and you're going to get their attention!

I have no reason to believe our new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, won't attack the sanctuary problem head on. He attempted to do so as a Senator in 2015.

Excerpt:

Sessions, chairman of a Senate subcommittee on Immigration and National Interest, was joined by co-sponsors Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in introducing the bill, dubbed the Protecting American lives Act.

The bill would "require state and local jurisdictions to notify the federal government when a criminal alien is in their custody; it will withhold funds from any local jurisdiction that releases an alien after a federal detainer has been placed on them; and it will establish a 5-year minimum prison sentence for deported aliens who attempt to illegally re-enter the United States," Sessions said in a statement.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/se...ticle/2568833#!

Yes raising taxes to shield and pay for criminal illegal aliens should do the trick. These cities will not even be able to cover the welfare rolls each month for all these criminal illegal aliens without Federal funding. Never mind fight the crime in each of them to protect their tax paying citizens. If on the outside chance cutting off funding does not work they will see an exodus out of these cities.

They show Texas as only having one city. It doesn't surprise me that Austin is one - it marches to a different tune. All that power and lobbyists money - I guess.

Make no mistake, though, Texas pretty much is a sanctuary state - has been for 40 years. Except for token rhetoric - this state has done less than nothing to help the situation. Just the opposite is true.

Originally Posted by nntrixie

They show Texas as only having one city. It doesn't surprise me that Austin is one - it marches to a different tune. All that power and lobbyists money - I guess.

Make no mistake, though, Texas pretty much is a sanctuary state - has been for 40 years. Except for token rhetoric - this state has done less than nothing to help the situation. Just the opposite is true.

I thought Gov. Abbott was acting to end sanctuary cities in Texas? I'd hate to eventually see Texas go the way of California due to a huge population of illegals.

Originally Posted by MW

I thought Gov. Abbott was acting to end sanctuary cities in Texas? I'd hate to eventually see Texas go the way of California due to a huge population of illegals.

I don't know how California really is, but I fear Texas already has gone that way. The news media in our state is no different from the national media - it has protected the illegals from the beginning, so I don't know the situation in cities - crime wise. I do know population wise, it is serious.

I know cost wise for taxpayers, it is serious.

Property taxes have gone up - auto insurance and health insurance (don't know since Obamacare).

Several years ago, our legislators stood in front of the cameras and with their faces hanging out said there was 'no new taxes'. They didn't say, the raised the price of professional licenses (you know what some need to make a living in Texas), made more professions subject to licensing, raised the price of registration for vehicles, made more things eligible for sales tax, etc.

But no new taxes!!!

Why do you think they need that money?

I know for a fact that schools get a lot of extra money for ESL or ELL students. Also ESL students are usually considered "migrant students" since their parents usually work for a farm or farm related industry and since they are considered migrants they automatically get free lunch and all of the benefits that go with free lunch(vouches for free band instruments, sports uniforms etc). We need to cut of the spigot if they are illegal immigrants. It would save the taxpayers a large chunk of money!

Originally Posted by Mayday

I know for a fact that schools get a lot of extra money for ESL or ELL students. Also ESL students are usually considered "migrant students" since their parents usually work for a farm or farm related industry and since they are considered migrants they automatically get free lunch and all of the benefits that go with free lunch(vouches for free band instruments, sports uniforms etc). We need to cut of the spigot if they are illegal immigrants. It would save the taxpayers a large chunk of money!

I was taking two of my grandchildren, primary age, to school. It was a pretty chilly, drizzly day - about 50 degrees.

As I drove up, parked, got the children out, I noticed two or three girls standing outside leaning against the building, shivering. Also, I noticed a long line of hispanic children (read that children of illegals) about 20, going into the building.

There was a lady at the door letting the hispanic children in. When I reached for the door handle to let my kids inside, she grabbed it and only allowed it open about a foot.

She asked if we were there for breakfast - hit me wrong and I answer no, we were there for an education. She then informed me if the children weren't there for breakfast, they couldn't come in until the bell rang.

Now this is on a busy street, a half block from a much busier highway. There was no one outside to watch or watch out for any children who were supposed to wait outside.

When I asked why these children couldn't wait inside, as they had always done when my kids were in school. She said there was no one to supervise them. I asked who supervised the children eating breakfast. She said they had someone to do that. Since this school's cafeteria and auditorium was one facility, I told this lady they could also watch these childrlen.

I took the door, put my children inside, motioned the other little girls inside, and talked sternly to them and told them to not let me down and read their books, and be good. They said they would.

This was before cell phones, so I had to drive 11 miles back to the house to call, and it was a good thing. I had had time to cool down a little before I called the superintendent.

When I told him, he assured me he didn't know that was happening and would make sure it didn't happen again. l told him, I hoped not, as if I saw it again, I would video it and let it be known how discriminatory, and how dangerous it was.

The kids said it was stopped.

Of those cities, these are the ones in states on our northern border,


Minneapolis, Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota
Madison, Wisconsin
Appleton, Wisconsin
Detroit, Michigan
New York, New York
Syracuse, New York
Burlington, Vermont
Montpelier, Vermont
Winooski, Vermont
Seattle, Washington