Sanctuary City Funding

PUBLISHED: 5:04 PM 8 Oct 2018

Federal Court Rules Withholding Funding To Sanctuary Cities ‘Unconstitutional’

They argued that denying funding makes sanctuary cities and states less safe.

A California federal judge ruled that withholding funding to sanctuary cities and states is 'unconstitutional' and considered 'presidenial overreach.'

Any republican concerned with the detrimental effects of illegal immigration will attest that democrats advocating for such do not have the American people’s best interest in mind. A blatant demonstration of this can be, unsurprisingly, seen from California once again.

On Friday, a federal judge issued a ruling regarding the Trump administration’s withholding of federal funds to ‘sanctuary’ cities and states. Those on the left have argued that in preventing these unlawful cities from obtaining funding from the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program, the administration makes them less safe, a horrendous claim considering that the money in question is the country’s federal tax funding, yet the cities and states in question refuse to abide by federal immigration laws.

Last year, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions mandated that per President Donald Trump’s promise to make the country safe again, federal public safety funding would not be allocated to territories refusing to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

This included granting ICE “access to jails and prisons,” notifying immigration authorities “when detainees were being released,” and guaranteeing that local jurisdictions were willing to work “with federal authorities.”

Of course, following the law is low on the democratic agenda, and in August 2017, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming that withholding $28 million in funding “would undermine law enforcement and deter police cooperation by immigrations, a major population in the state.”

Horrendously, the left was successful in undoing President Trump’s attempt to deter illegal immigration when, on Friday, San Francisco Federal Judge William Orrick ruled that withholding funding was ‘unconstitutional’ and subsequently “stayed a nationwide injunction pending appeal.”

Judge Orrick ordered that the associated funding “must be released” to non-law-abiding California cities.

Also pending appeal are cases filed by dems from cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and San Francisco.

Becerra claimed that the recent ruling was a ‘victory’ and that “the Trump administration cannot use restrictions on public safety grants as a way to crackdown on illegal immigration.”

He further said that, “We will continue to stand up to the Trump administration’s attempt to force our law enforcement into changing its policies and practices in ways that would make us less safe.”

The ruling also noted that the aforementioned cooperation requirements for federal funding eligibility are not acceptable as a means of regulating such.

Considering that liberals in office are essentially promoting illegal immigration, a violation of federal law, it is safe to say that they believe federal funding should be handed out regardless of a city or state’s policies which encourage unlawful activity.

Thankfully, the Trump administration does not share such a view and has referred to ‘sanctuary’ places as no more than “safe havens for illegal immigrants who are also violent criminals.”

Yet the left has been quick to claim otherwise, with San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera claiming of the prior withholding: “These unconstitutional grant conditions were yet another example of presidential overreach.”

So, now, according to the left, the president attempting to secure the border is considered ‘overreach.’

While states may govern themselves as their leaders choose, this does not take precedence over federal law, and conservatives would agree that President Trump’s attempt to explain this to leftist places is not unreasonable.

Also of republican opinion is the belief that illegal immigrants provide no benefit to the United States, considering both crime and economic detriment.

Crossing the border illegally is a crime itself, yet those willing to do so are often involved even more malicious activities.

Economically, providing safety funding for sanctuary cities and states is arguably a waste of money considering that such would likely be used to counteract effects of illegal immigration, making it a wash.

At least with AG Sessions’ attempt to withhold funding, sanctuary territories were punished for their refusal to abide by federal law and prevented a further waste of funds.

Dems, unfortunately, got their way once again with Orrick’s ruling, at least for now; however, the Trump administration is nowhere near the end of its attempt to combat illegal aliens and their effect on the country.

The construction of President Trump’s ‘wall’ along the U.S. and Mexico border is underway, and his administration is sure to appeal the recent ruling in upholding the commander in chief’s promise to enforce immigration policies to the benefit of Americans’ safety.

However, it is truly baffling and equally disheartening that democratically ruled areas have such severe opposition to abide by the law of the land which protects the people.

Yet there are always consequences to such, as seen in the ‘sanctuary’ that liberal places such as California have become.

While illegal aliens do not necessarily remain in border states, thus affecting the entire country, their presence is admittedly more notable is such areas.

Sanctuary cities and states may continue to allow illegal immigrants to flood their population, but the Trump administration is still at work to combat this issue for its horrendous harm on the entire nation.