Non-Sanctuary Grants

PUBLISHED: 3:00 PM 28 Jun 2018
UPDATED: 5:57 PM 30 Jun 2018

DOJ Awarding Funding To Cities Enforcing Immigration Policies

The grants had been withheld after Chicago sued the DOJ.

Sanctuary cities and states will no longer receive a noteworthy grant for failing to uphold federal immigration laws.

Sanctuary cities and states are infuriating to patriotic Americans, given that such policies encourage illegal immigration and oppose federal law. Since taking office, one of President Donald Trump’s main focuses has been on immigration reform and securing the U.S. border. Last year, he attempted to punish offending sanctuary cities by withholding grant funding, unsurprisingly met by liberal opposition.

In a victory announced Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Justice revealed that it may now award grant funding to cities that do not adopt illegal, sanctuary-type protections. Such funding had been since withheld since last year after the city of Chicago, Illinois fought new grant recipient rules in court.

Named after a fallen NYPD police officer, Edward Byrne, the Byrne Justice Assistant Grant was established in 2006 to fund police departments and other community services throughout the country requiring “equipment, training, personnel, or other pressing needs.”

Yet considering the danger that illegal immigrant criminals have on law enforcement officers, in July 2017, the Department of Justice on behalf of the Trump administration determined that sanctuary cities are undeserving of such funding, adding new requirements in determining eligibility.

Such violations clearly oppose federal law which requires “state and local governments” to cooperate with any immigration efforts.

However, these had yet to be included in any clauses pertaining to Byrne grant recipients. Given the recent increasing concern surrounding illegal immigration, the DOJ imposed additional requirements in legitimizing this.

To receive the grant, corresponding cities were to comply with the following policies: to alert the Department of Homeland Security 48 hours prior to releasing detained illegal immigrants and to “allow access to correctional facilities or detention facilities to meet with ‘aliens’ and inquire about their right to be in the United States.”

Illustrating its incomprehensible desire to assist criminal illegal immigrants, Chicago opposed the new requirements in filing a lawsuit against Attorney General Jeff Sessions, claiming inadequate authority to implement such restrictions.

It ridiculously argued that withholding the city’s funding would pose a safety concern, while continually allowing dangerous illegals to remain in the U.S.

Although the suit was specific to Chicago, the district court outlandishly “issued a [temporary] nationwide injunction saying the conditions couldn’t be applied to any Byrne grants.”

The DOJ subsequently withheld the money, pending the final outcome.

However, such funds were able to be released and distributed following an appeals court’s recent decision ruling that a district court does not have the power to “tie the hands of the entire county” despite its authority over Chicago.

This has since permitted the Justice Department to rightfully award Byrne grants to cities that comply with immigration and deportation policies.

The department wasted no time in awarding such funds, as it has already distributed “nearly $200 million.”

States, counties, and cities such as Chicago, of course, have not received funding for failing to comply with the new policies.

The other offending jurisdictions ineligible for the grant include the usual liberal suspects, as in January, the DOJ notified 22 others that they did not comply with federal immigration policies and, depending on the outcome of the trial pending at the time, may be ineligible for the Byrne grant.

Among such traitorous locations included the entire states of California, Illinois, and Oregon, along with specified cities and counties in Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Vermont, and Washington.

While the recent ruling is assuring for national security, the enforced policies should be common sense considering the ethical dilemma of funding cities which foster crime and threaten the nation’s safety.

Department of Justice spokesman Devin O’Malley expressed this beautifully, commending “jurisdictions that share the department’s commitment to keeping criminal aliens off our streets and our law-abiding citizens safe.”

Naturally, the recent policies and ruling enforcing them have been met with liberal opposition as those on the left continually demonstrate their lack of concern for national security in opening their borders to virtually everyone.

Taking the ethical approach to immigration in favor of illegals over citizens, some have gone as far as to claim that the DOJ the Trump administration are ‘counterproductive and counterintuitive’ in “working to strengthen police-community trust” by infringing upon liberal cities,’ such as Chicago’s, supposed ‘welcoming policies for non-violent immigrants.’

Unfortunately, this only further shows that while the left and right may share the goal of safer communities, there are extreme differences in their attempts, the liberal way, of course, being utterly absurd.

Whether an undocumented immigrant has committed a violent crime in the U.S. or not, they have already violated federal law by simply crossing the border.

Thankfully, this is finally being addressed proactively as President Trump continues to uphold his promise to put America first.

While the cities and states that oppose these goals may continue to support illegal immigrants, they will at least no longer be federally eligible for the honorable grant.