'We're going to see more': Sanctuary cities cave in face of Trump's funding threats

Image result for not a sanctuary city anymoreSeveral towns, cities and counties around the nation are caving to President Trump's threat to pull funding, and abandoning their "sanctuary" pledges to shield illegal immigrants from federal authorities.

Dayton, Ohio, dropped a policy that restricted the city’s cooperation with immigration officials pursuing illegal immigrants arrested for misdemeanors or felony property crimes, according to the Dayton Daily News. Police Chief Richard Biehl said federal authorities will no longer be impeded by the city when pursuing illegal immigrants being held by his department.

Other communities that have dropped policies of shielding illegal immigrant suspects from Immigration and Customs Enforcement include Miami-Dade and Dayton, are Saratoga, N.Y., Finney County, Kan., and Bedford, Penn., according to The Center for Immigration Studies, which keeps a list of sanctuary communities.

“We are reviewing policy changes at a multitude of other jurisdictions as well,” said Marguerite Telford, CIS’s director of communications, who said the organization is “being inundated” by officials on its sanctuary map who want to be taken off.

The mayor of Miami-Dade County, which was considered a sanctuary community, made headlines recently when he changed a policy that called for refusing to hold arrested immigrants for immigration officials unless they committed to reimbursing the county for the cost of detention.

Telling reporters that he did not want to imperil hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, Mayor Carlos Gimenez ordered jails to comply with federal immigration detention requests.

The changes have come on the heels of President Trump’s executive order giving the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security the power to cut federal funding to communities that are deemed sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Trump also has authorized the DHS to publish a weekly list of sanctuary communities.

read more:


Views: 612

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Looks to me The Rats are leaving a sinking ship! Gee, Can this be Voters Revenge on those American Traitors?   

See how much power is in the vote when we have a true American running for office.

Well at least that's a start.

So much for their "so called" principles....they blinked...it will be interesting to see what happens to San Francisco, Chicago and New York when they lose all their federal funding...

They are in the 9th Circuit so some commie judge will say ya can't take their federal breast away

The heck with cutting funding arrest the city leaders for Obstruction of Justice.

That's what I've been wondering about.

They (evil doers) have found that Trump is a "man of his word"! That is a new thing in political life. When have we ever seen a president come out swinging and fighting for "We the People"! He started before he was sworn in. God has answered our prayers and raised up and man some years ago who would experience things that we have no idea about. Trump was groomed by God to do this job just as Moses was groomed in Egypt before he could use him. Now as God empowered Moses He will empower Trump to accomplish what He wants. We are in the process of being blessed. Sit back and watch the salvation of the Lord!

Amen, Brother! All the Glory to the Father.
Even without the perceived,albeit perhaps imminent threat of withdrawal of federal funds, one would think the Kate Steinle case in San Francisco could or would have served not just a landmark but a benchmark case of what tragedy could befall ordinary innocent US citizens if the so-called 'sanctuary' status is maintained in open defiance of federal mandate. But yet, to confound the issue and as if to insult the memory of a lovely 32 year old woman and now the lifetime lament of her grieving family, the city council of San Francisco has now elected to hire a former AG to argue for and fight for retention of the sacrosanct autonomy, as it were, of the city of San Francisco to pretty much continue as a "safe" haven for illegal noncitizens with criminal records. That the city of San Francisco can or may "successfully" argue its case at the level of the APPELLATE COURT, given the hubristic notoriety of the US 9TH
District Appeals Court in San Francisco as being the bastion of liberal jurisprudence, what about its record with or at the USSC? If the DOJ of the Trump administration elects to elevate such cases all the way to the SCOTUS, what then are the chances that the city of San Francisco, its mayor and city council that their "legal victory" at the Appellate Court level would continue thereby lording over the rest of the federal legal landscape in regard to immigration laws while indirectly or worse even directly thumbing their noses at President Trump right there in his nick of the woods, Washington DC?
If I am a betting man, I would bet the last dollar in my wallet with President Trump when he tweeted,"See you in Court".
If I am a resident in the Bay Area and about to pay the law firm of former US Attorney General, Eric Holder their requisite legal fee of hundreds of thousands of $ from the city or state taxpayer's contingency funds, I'd be shaking in my boots and nervously biting my thumb nail. And this is not to mention the spectre of not getting the millions of federal funds for the city just because of its arrogant display of liberal buffoonery and likely sheer utter disdainful contempt and pathological hatred for President Trump.

Perhaps we could send all the criminal illegals to San Francisco and build a huge wall around IT!

it seems to me that the officials who make the decision to break federal law should be arrested for BREAKING THE LAW ! just like you or I. THAT will make the others get in line and think twice about breaking the law again. TRUMP and his DOJ need to make a statement that there is a new Sheriff and breaking the law will not be tolerated 




Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Horrible: Democrats Set The Constitution On Fire With Fraudulent Impeachment

House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday morning after an investigation that violated fundamental provisions of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The investigation of the president began with the complaint of a so-called “whistleblower” who turned out to be a rogue Central Intelligence Agency employee, protected by a lawyer who had called for a “coup” against Trump in early 2017.

Democrats first demanded that the “whistleblower” be allowed to testify. But after House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) was found to have lied about his committee’s contact with the “whistleblower,” and after details of the “whistleblower’s” bias began to leak, Democrats reversed course. In violation of the President Trump’s Sixth Amendment right to confront his accuser, Democrats refused to allow the “whistleblower” to testify. They argue the president’s procedural rights, even if they existed, would not apply until he was tried in the Senate — but they also invented a fraudulent “right to anonymity” that, they hope, might conceal the whistleblower even then.

Schiff began the “impeachment inquiry” in secret, behind the closed doors of the Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) in the basement of the U.S. Capitol, even though none of the testimony was deemed classified. Few members of Congress were allowed access. Schiff allowed selective bits of testimony to leak to friendly media, while withholding transcripts of testimony.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), having allowed the secret process to unfold, legitimized it with a party-line vote authorizing the inquiry. The House resolution denied President Trump the procedural rights enjoyed by Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, and denied the minority party the traditional right to object to witnesses called by the majority.

Rather than the House Judiciary Committee, which traditionally handles impeachment, Pelosi also deputized the House Intelligence Committee to conduct fact-finding; the Judiciary Committee was turned into a rubber stamp. Schiff held a few public hearings, but often failed to release transcripts containing exculpatory evidence until after they had passed.

In the course of the Intelligence Committee’s investigation, Schiff quietly spied on the telephone records of his Republican counterpart, Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA). He also snooped on the phone records of a journalist, John Solomon; and on the phone records of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, acting as President Trump’s personal lawyer.

Schiff’s eavesdropping violated both the First Amendment right to press freedom and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Yet he proceeded undeterred by constitutional rights, publishing the phone logs in his committee’s report without warning, confirmation, or explanation, alleging that Nunes and the others were part of a conspiracy to assist the president’s allegedly impeachable conduct. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee asked the Intelligence Committee’s majority counsel, Daniel Goldman, to explain the phone logs, he refused to answer,

Ironically, Schiff had done exactly what Democrats accuse Trump of doing: abused his power to dig up dirt on political opponents, then obstructed a congressional investigation into his party’s and his committee’s misconduct.

Democrats’ articles of impeachment include one for the dubious charge of “abuse of power,” which is not mentioned in the Constitution; and one for “obstruction of Congress,” which in this case is an abuse of power in itself.

Alexander Hamilton, writing about impeachment in Federalist 65, warned that “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Democrats have fulfilled Hamilton’s worst fears.

The Trump impeachment will soon replace the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson — which the House Judiciary Committee staff actually cited as a positive precedent — as the worst in American history.

In service of their “coup,” Democrats have trampled the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Republic has never been in greater danger.

You don't get to interrupt me

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service