Myrtle Beach, SC, & Orlando, FL February 8, 2016
Prescott Valley, AZ Correspondent-Sanctuary cities should be prohibited from receiving federal funds or any federal assistance. At the present, sanctuary cities continue to receive such funding, and it is the state and federal government’s responsibility to see that funds are barred from being distributed to any sanctuary city. When federal immigration laws are being ignored, there is no choice but to cut funding to any locality, not in compliance with the law.
States and cities that harbor illegal aliens must be denied all funds that support illegal jurisdictions. Some in Congress are now vowing to make 2016 the year to punish sanctuary cities. The chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee, Representative John Culberson, has exerted his authority to deny grant money to cities and towns that refuse to assist immigration officials.
Federal law compels local governments to cooperate with immigration agents or face the loss of federal funds. Culberson has also forewarned Attorney General Loretta Lynch concerning sanctuary cities. She will not be allowed to transfer money in the 2016 budget to any city government supporting illegal immigrants.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that deals with illegal immigrant deportations have reported that at least 340 localities have refused to cooperate with federal mandates. The Center for Immigration Studies has also revealed that thousands of criminal illegal immigrants have been protected from deportation and many of those released have been arrested for other crimes.
Representative Culberson has stated, “This is a complicated problem with a simple solution. State and local law enforcement agencies should not receive federal law enforcement grant money unless they are in compliance with federal law.” These same cities and towns are the very ones that continue to receive federal grant money and use a good portion of the funds to hold on to illegal immigrants, which they have refused to turn over to federal authorities.
In light of the killing of Kathryn Steinle, by a five-time deported criminal illegal immigrant last July, in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, Representative Culberson has strongly pursued the prohibition of federal funding to sanctuary cities. He has asked the attorney general to provide certification of cities and towns that have applied for various federal grants, police officer assistance programs, and state alien assistance programs. He wants verification that all of these organizations will abide by federal laws and cooperate with ICE. If the attorney general refuses to cooperate, she will face the wrath of Congress in a future spending bill as well as the denial of reprogramming requests, which would prevent her from moving any funds on her own to programs related to sanctuary cities.
Sanctuary city crimes and the harboring of illegal immigrants will only continue until the cities themselves are fully denied any local, state or federal funding. Localities that refuse to recognize federal laws and to comply with common sense solutions concerning the ramifications of illegal immigration must be stopped from receiving funds. States, cities and agencies that support sanctuary city operations must have sanctions placed against them, particularly when they refuse to cooperate with federally established laws and immigration enforcement. Public registries must be kept as well of illegal immigrants with criminal records. If ICE needs to detain them for processing for deportation, they must be allowed to perform legal actions. With the consistent refusal of these cities to accept the terrible and tragic repercussions of their protecting criminal illegal immigrants, they must be held accountable. Public cries for justice appear to fall on deaf ears. Withholding funding, at present, seems to be the only way to stop sanctuary city insanity.
Owatonna, MN Correspondent-In a word: no. As far as I know, there exists no federal law that prohibits any municipality or state from providing shelter to those in need. Politics aside, the United States was built on the premise that we welcome all peaceful and/or oppressed people who want to be free to pursue their own version of happiness. To prohibit charitable acts goes against this country’s moral and religious principals.
It is also not the federal government’s right, or obligation, or duty to influence a local government’s behavior by granting or withholding federal funds. Influencing politics and policy with money has become more prevalent in recent history and can only lead to the federal government eventually taking control of all levels of government and become the only option for changing policy or making new laws.
On the local level, it also should not be the financial responsibility of government to provide financial aid or services to refugees. Any time government gets involved, politicians will begin to play favorites and attempt to influence policy. The ruling party may decide one group of refugees may stay and/or receive assistance, while another will be shunned or refused.
The best way to treat an influx of refugees is to let private charitable and social organizations sponsor and provide aid to refugees. If a local mosque wants to sponsor and help Muslim refugees from Somalia or Syria, they should be allowed to do so within the bounds of the law. If a Christian church doesn’t wish to aid Muslim refugees, but is willing to aid Christian refugees from war-torn countries, that should be their right under the law.
Giving governmental aid to any charitable or humanitarian cause immediately forces some taxpayers to fund programs or services they may be opposed to for moral or religious reasons. That reduces each citizen’s freedom and should be opposed.
Sheffield, Jamaica Correspondent-Those individuals who weren’t formally able to seek refuge within the borders of the United States legally, did so against the law. However, upon arriving, these immigrants sought refuge in sanctuary cities. These cities, within themselves, are here to shelter illegal immigrants by adhering to certain procedures–whether by action or law. In light of the fact that these individuals are illegal immigrants within America, it is said that these sanctuary cities should NOT be allowed to receive funds or assistance from the government. Over the past few years, it might seem that the government has found a way to get illegal immigrants to cooperate with the system, by withdrawing any federal assistance. Federal funds would be apportioned to handle matters such as paying those local jail facilities to house illegal immigrants and even pay police officers.
It was also said that federal funds would be withdrawn if these individuals were found breaking the law, maybe taking the lives of American citizens. All in all, the State should attend to the affairs of sanctuary cities depending on their behavior and disposition. If they are wreaking havoc on the country, it’s best to withhold federal assistance until they come around. There’s no sense in feeding someone who tears down a home.
Gastonia, NC Correspondent– While I am fairly well-known for my liberal views on a wide variety of topics, the “sanctuary city” issue finds me about four steps to the right of Ted Cruz, although not as far into the lunatic fringe as Our Boy Donald.
How dare these cities and towns thumb their noses at U.S. immigration policy? Did 9/11 teach them nothing? Yes, we are largely a nation of immigrants, but it’s a sad fact that in this day and age open borders lead to high body counts when the wrong element comes in. Look at the rapes and attacks on women in Germany and the mind-shattering violence in France over the last year. We have every right to be careful about those we allow on our soil, and an obligation to show the door to those who seek to be here illegally.
(I DO want to advocate strongly for a much simpler path to citizenship for immigrants, but that’s for another day’s discussion.)
So, Mr. Mayor, you want to make yourself a “hero of the people” by telling your law enforcement officers not to arrest illegal immigrants? By telling your district attorney not to prosecute them? We’ll see how heroic you look when your federal highway funds are cut off, and all the other goodies in Uncle Sam’s care packages go away. This isn’t like foreign aid (another sore spot) where we write checks to companies that spit on our flag. You’re on our soil, Mr. Mayor, and you need to act like it and toe the line.
I’m no Constitutional scholar, so I’m not sure if there’s a way for the federal government to remove a local official from office. I seriously doubt such exists. However, once the roads start to collapse, the welfare checks stop coming and the Head Start programs close, a recall election won’t likely be far off.