A city that creates and facilitates any type of “sanctuary city” should have all federal funding halted immediately. Any effort to aid and abet illegals, especially ones that are criminal and/or violent should never, ever be tolerated.
Just for the ones that do not know, many cities and states get fed subsidies for various things, like infrastructure/improvements/welfare and many more things, etc…
134 Likes
Crazy how this is even a thing. Yes, pull the dang funding !
39 Likes
Anyone wonder why a city would be getting “Federal” funding to begin with? My tax dollars shouldn’t be going to support a city in another state. Cities that need federal help need to have an audit to see where they are mismanaging their city taxes.
45 Likes
Trump has said that he will stop federal funding for sanctuary cities.
31 Likes
This should be a local issue/choice.
Federal money should not be used for local choices.
23 Likes
I would vote for this, but I’m out of votes.
Absolutely, I had the same idea.
These people are trying to defend them, so let them do it with their own money.
All the illegals should be flocking to those areas already. They will see a huge surge in illegals. Their streets will be even more flooded than they already are. And without federal funding to pay for their cushy lives, they wont be able to afford to keep them.
16 Likes
The funding needs to be completely pulled not just from one specific section. Total defunding.
7 Likes
A lot of cities depend on federal funding to staff emergency services like 911. Most cities do not generate enough funds to fully staff emergency services.
1 Like
This is why the entire unlawful tax system needs a total revamp. The NESARA provisions include items to eliminate the FED, the IRS (no personal income tax), institute a flat sales tax on “luxury” or new items only, eliminate property tax, etc. Bring it on!
6 Likes
Same for Universities…I think they have things covered with tuition and their endowments.
7 Likes
Absolutely! Imagine how quickly these deep blue idiot pools will change their tune.
5 Likes
Totally agree should be implemented ASAP
4 Likes
As far as cutting federal aid to sanctuary cities and states, I would be in favor of cutting federal funding of social services (i.e. Medicare, Medicade, food assistance, SNAP, etc.). Cut education funding to schools and universities.
Leave funding for infrastructure necessary for interstate commerce, ports, roads & highways. States, like California, could use funding cuts as reasons to sway public opinion by using shipping port shutdowns to extort the government to relent.
2 Likes
While I agree wholeheartedly, it cannot be done without congressional action as the law now stands. The POTUS nor his director of OMB can legally withhold funds allocated and approved by congress. From the administration of Thomas Jefferson until 1974, the POTUS had the power of impoundment. It was repealed by act of congress in 1974 and presumably withstood court challenges. This was congressional overreach. They got it passed on support based on reaction to Watergate (which was probably a coup d’etat performed by the CIA; deep throat was its deputy director) and Nixon’s frequent use of impoundment. IMO, the act wshould have been overturned by the courts but was not.
This is an example of why we, the owners of our government, should not rely on congress for laws that affect the separation of powers and especially laws that affect checks and balances. All such MUST be embedded in the constitution. Although a constitutional amendment denying the power of impoundment to the POTUS might have been ratified, it would have taken longer and the implications would have been more widely debated and the states - are more sensitive to wishes of the publice than is congress, would have made the decision, not the COTUS and the wimp who allowed our Iranian embassy to be overrun without consequences.
So, getting back to matter of withholding funds to sanctuary cities or any other entities, we first must amend the constitution and reinstate the power of impoundment to the office of the POTUS. No doubt such power would be used both for and against issues, but it is a very important check on congress and would help restore a modicum of the checks and balances the nations founding fathers so cherished.
My advice is to not waste your time, intellect, political capital or love for America on this issue. It is all futile. Instead, become active in CoS movements. Eventually, maybe, we can get to one such as this and change the constitution to limit congressional power. There are other more important changes that should come before it though, like a requiremnt to balance the federal budget except during national emergencies and requiring states to approve deficit spending proposed by congress even it the POTUS signs off. We are on the precipice of a grave national emergency due to our national debt. Trump might have been the worst of the last 6 POTUSes at increasing the national debt. After controlling the budget, the next amendment needs to be term and total service limits for all branches of the federal government.
Think more deeply, folks. Please.
2 Likes
If Joe Biden could withhold $1 billion in aid to Ukraine to leverage the oust of its top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, in March 2016, why can’t we withhold money to sanctuary cities?
Plus the Legislative Branch only passed a continuing resolution that essentially extended the current funding levels into the new fiscal year until a budget can be agreed upon. Since there is in effect no budget when Trump takes over the Republic majority in Congress can in effect withhold funding for sanctuary cities.
1 Like
@Eveline Evans
I don’t know that Biden could, in fact, withhold those funds. He threatened to do so, sure. We don’t know what would have happened if he had left without his wishes being met.
I don’t understand the point about the continuing resolution nor the reference to the budget. The continuing resolution simply allows funding to proceed as authorized . . . and borrowing to pay for it if need be. At least, that’s my understanding of how it works.
If someone can point me to other information (not opinion), I’d love to see it.
I Absolutely Agree 100 Percent!
Gonna add that any city that harbors illegals should have all government officials involved in that policy to be arrested for treason on the spot and taken away to GITMO.
4 Likes
This is an odd concept and probably undefinable and unenforceable. Probably a better concept or principle that can be applied to all is that ‘population dense’ cities should be fully self-sufficient by their own populations. This supports the principle of personal responsibility. And that city can choose to support homeless or immigrants as they see fit. This becomes a self solving problem when they pay for their choices.
3 Likes
Agree. Add this to the policy.