Will Taxpayers Come to the Aid of Sanctuary Cities? – IOTW Report

Will Taxpayers Come to the Aid of Sanctuary Cities?

Sunday, 29 January 2017, 16:30 MJA Uncategorized 25

CPR: President Donald Trump started the process of denying federal grants to cities that don’t cooperate with federal immigration laws. Mayors of many large California cities, but not all, have declared they will resist the order and keep sanctuary status for undocumented immigrants. If the president is eventually successful in denying funds to sanctuary cities will local taxpayers bail out cities with additional tax revenue? That would be the ultimate test of voters’ support or rejection of sanctuary city policy.

We are a long way from that point but it is worth considering. Congress has to approve the reduced revenue to sanctuary cities. Lawsuits will be adjudicated since challenges are bound to be filed claiming the federal government cannot deny funds for local policies. Local government leaders in California also promise to establish funds for individuals to defend themselves against federal immigration deportation actions. These lawsuits and legal defense funds will add to taxpayer costs.

The debate over sanctuary for illegal immigrants is being fought on moral grounds. One side calls it a human rights issue. The other side asks how long civil society can function if people or institutions pick and choose the laws they will obey.

But support for and against the sanctuary policy may ultimately be measured in dollars and cents.

One indication of support or lack thereof for sanctuary policy is a poll conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Government Studies. MORE

25 Comments on Will Taxpayers Come to the Aid of Sanctuary Cities?

  5. From a Constitutional stand point it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration.
    Sanctuary cities willfully break the law, contrary to the Constitution and rule of law.

  11. The other side asks how long civil society can function if people or institutions pick and choose the laws they will obey.

    So tell me about eric holder on bo’s balls.

  12. Yeah, that’s why they love big government because someone else does the work and pays the bills. Of course they are oblivious to their own tax burden. Actually take care of someone? That’s gubbermint’s job.
    But arrests should be made. Mayors, sheriffs, anyone who acts to protect a criminal (illegal aliens inclusive) should be prosecuted under federal law. And the next time they look for a job that will be on their application – indicted for a federal offense.

  13. Dianny,

    Last figure I heard was 58%. I imagine the other 42% is mostly illegals. LOL. Most of that 58% lives a good distance from SF or LA. Plus I have serious doubts if you could get any conservative angry enough to Rebel anymore.

  17. If the fools in sanctuary cities want to keep electing pro sanctuary types, the FOOLS should pay the price. What worries me is the state of California in bankrupt and the fools who are responsible are going to be coming to you and I asking for a bail out. Phukkem.

  19. It will only get worse before it gets better. I’m all for a little pain on the local level, they after all, are the goofs that want this type of shit. Having the federal government pay for it only nationalizes the burden of local decisions, that is wrong.

    The rich liberals in Chitcago can afford the tax burden created if they want to house illegals and circumvent federal law. That’s the price you pay bitches!

    As a result, these liberal enclaves will only become more liberal. The increased taxes will chase everyone else out. It won’t happen over night, but I’m looking forward to this consolidation, it makes easier for me to avoid the goofs altogether!

  21. California tax payers would revolt at bailing out their cities. The chaos about to shake this state just could be the turning point politically and could lead to speeding up the State of Jefferson project. I’m fine with either.

  23. @cato January 29, 2017 at 5:03 pm

    > Sanctuary cities willfully break the law

    But they don’t.

    “Sanctuary” areas – states, counties, cities, schools – do not thwart federal employees from doing what they are paid to do. They prioritize their own employees activities, and their own resources. It is no more unacceptable for management to say that it’s employees can not look into someone’s citizenship, than to say that they can not look into their xerfriend’s bank accounts, or play Candy Crush on “the clock”. It is no different than a bank forbidding it’s employees to inform a customer’s non-customer spouse that the customer has overdrawn their checking account.

    If somebody t-bones your car, and in the course of collecting information for your insurance claim, you – and the local police – discover that the other driver owns the locally registered and licensed car, but has no local citizenship – and hence no driving license – to go with his blood alcohol level, it is perfectly reasonable, as a management prerogative, that they can take him into custody on suspicion of being drunk, while being forbidden from using their employer’s resources – wage time, equipment, legal status – to pursue immigration charges. Now, if you call ICE, and they are waiting at the door to collect the other driver when he’s released, and the local police are ordered to use whatever force is necessary to prevent that – I’ll go along with “willfully break[ing] the law”. (And hope for as much gusto when EPA shows up.) But “no expenditure doing ICE’s work, on our dime” is no different than “there’s an election coming up, call the press, and round up the usual suspects – on overtime”.

Comments are closed.

iOTWreport.com ©2024 ----- iOTWreport is not responsible for the content of comments. All opinions in comments are solely the commenter's.