PDA

View Full Version : Squeezing Sanctuary Cities



NightTrain
11-22-2016, 09:27 AM
Kudos to Rep. John Culberson of Texas!

While there's still a couple of months before Trump takes the wheel, GOP Congressmen have been busy preparing lists of the offending sanctuary cities, counties and States and calculating how much money is sent to each annually.

I expect there will be dozens of course corrections on Day 1, and it would be very satisfying to see this being one of the first.

I don't think even one 'Sanctuary' will continue their quixotic quest to aid and abet illegals here in the country when millions are withheld by the Federal Government. They need those funds, and when those are removed from the equation, there's going to be a serious budgetary problem that will get a lot of local politicians fired. So they'll cave, because as we all know, re-election is Priority #1 for 99% of politicians.


Sanctuary cities and other jurisdictions will now have to choose between protecting illegal aliens and receiving federal law enforcement grants thanks to the work of a Texas congressman.Texas Representative John Culberson (R-TX) used his position as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science and the congressional power of the purse to force the Department of Justice (DOJ) to enforce existing law requiring state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with immigration officials. Culberson announced in February an agreement with outgoing Attorney General Loretta Lynch to block federal law enforcement grants to jurisdictions with sanctuary policies, Breitbart Texas reported. Since that time, the Texas congressman has been working with DOJ officials to certify the top-ten jurisdictions not in compliance with the law.


Citing his committee’s power over the DOJ’s budget, Culberson stated in February:


Any refusal by the Department to comply with these reasonable and timely requests will factor heavily in my consideration of their 2017 budget requests, and whether or not I will include language in the fiscal year 2017 CJS appropriations bill prohibiting the award of law enforcement grants to jurisdictions that harbor illegal aliens. I will include language in this year’s bill requiring the DOJ to amend the application process for Byrne JAG, COPS, and SCAAP grants so that grantees must certify under oath that they are in compliance with section 1373 of title 8 of the United States Code.


The law was passed in 1996 during the administration of President Bill Clinton to force local and state jurisdictions to cooperate with immigration officials or risk losing federal funding. Part of the process requires the federal agency’s office of inspector general to certify that a jurisdiction is not in compliance in order to block funding.


“The law requires cooperation with immigration officials 100 percent of the time,” Culberson told Breitbart Texas in an exclusive interview. In February, Culberson provided Attorney General Lynch with a list of more than 300 sanctuary cities compiled by the Center for Immigration Studies.


From that list, the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General compiled a top-ten list of sanctuary jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions receive about 65 percent of federal law enforcement grants managed by the DOJ he said. Those jurisdictions include the entire states of California and Connecticut; Orleans Parish in Louisiana; New York City; Philadelphia; Cook County, Illinois; Miami-Dade County, Florida; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Clark County, Nevada. These jurisdictions have received more than $342 million in federal payments.


The 16-page report from the inspector general’s office was completed in May 2016, but was initially marked as “Law Enforcement Sensitive,” Culberson told Breitbart Texas. This marking prevented making the information public. Since that time, he used his power over the agency’s budget to force the inspector general to remove the classification. This was accomplished late last week, the congressman said.


He stated that the DOJ has notified these jurisdictions that unless they become 100 percent compliant with the law, they will not be eligible to receive these grants for the next fiscal year. The grant process begins in January 2017, Culberson explained. “The applications are taken in February and March and the awards are announced early in the summer months,” he stated.


While the law was passed in 1996, it took Culberson’s actions to force the DOJ to finally enforce the law for the first time in July 2016. “I had to stand on their ‘air hose,’” Culberson explained referring to Congress’ power to cut a federal agencies’ funds. “For those on the top-ten list, it is done.”


“The critical steps have already been taken,” Chairman Culberson stated. “President Trump and Attorney General Sessions will, on day one, be able to strip the funding from these sanctuary jurisdictions simply by enforcing existing law.”


...


In addition to blocking future federal grants, the incoming administration can use this same law to recover funds that have already been paid to these jurisdictions, the congressman explained. “This means, the State of California could be forced to repay the more than $3 billion in grants received over the past 10 years,” he told Breitbart Texas.

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/11/21/sanctuary-cities-risk-losing-doj-funds-2017-texas-congressman-says/

I can't help but notice on this map that it mirrors blue regions on the electoral map :

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9495&stc=1

$342 million here, $3 billion there... pretty soon you're talking real money.

I'd be totally fine with taking that money to fund The Wall - that would be delicious irony and that can be put neatly under the 'Infrastructure' column.

However, Mexico still gets first chance to pay for it. That would be very neighborly of them.

pete311
11-22-2016, 09:32 AM
Financially ruining the countries top cities. Nothing can go wrong there...

Gunny
11-22-2016, 09:54 AM
Financially ruining the countries top cities. Nothing can go wrong there...

Putting aside partisan politics and enforcing existing law. What a novel concept. I could have told you Travis and Harris counties in TX would be on the list (Austin and Houston, respectively). Where we keep our leftwnghut moonbats.

But you can feel free to explain this notion the left has that only laws that agree with your warped political views need be enforced. I wasn't aware we got to pick and choose.

NightTrain
11-22-2016, 10:43 AM
Financially ruining the countries top cities. Nothing can go wrong there...

Gotta love the Rule of Law, don't you, Petey?

I wonder how the welfare dollars will continue to flow in places like... I don't know, let's pick Milwaukee, that's on the list. Think that the mayors, legislators and sheriff might suddenly find themselves losing their welfare supporters when that happens?

If the liberals running Milwaukee suddenly lose elections, who do you suppose will take their place? Another liberal hellbent on bankrupting their fiefdom?

I think not.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
11-22-2016, 11:01 AM
Gotta love the Rule of Law, don't you, Petey?

I wonder how the welfare dollars will continue to flow in places like... I don't know, let's pick Milwaukee, that's on the list. Think that the mayors, legislators and sheriff might suddenly find themselves losing their welfare supporters when that happens?

If the liberals running Milwaukee suddenly lose elections, who do you suppose will take their place? Another liberal hellbent on bankrupting their fiefdom?

I think not.
Great post my friend, yet you misspelled-- "thiefdom"... ;)
Not a biggie since both work, but since its about libs/dems---, "thiefdom" seems a bit more accurate, wouldn't you say? -:beer:-Tyr

NightTrain
11-22-2016, 11:21 AM
Great post my friend, yet you misspelled-- "thiefdom"... ;)
Not a biggie since both work, but since its about libs/dems---, "thiefdom" seems a bit more accurate, wouldn't you say? -:beer:-Tyr


Noted! :thumb:

Gunny
11-22-2016, 11:21 AM
Gotta love the Rule of Law, don't you, Petey?

I wonder how the welfare dollars will continue to flow in places like... I don't know, let's pick Milwaukee, that's on the list. Think that the mayors, legislators and sheriff might suddenly find themselves losing their welfare supporters when that happens?

If the liberals running Milwaukee suddenly lose elections, who do you suppose will take their place? Another liberal hellbent on bankrupting their fiefdom?

I think not.


We'll have to take up a special fund to pay Sheriff David Clarke then. I know, Pete, he's a racist.:laugh:

NightTrain
11-22-2016, 11:26 AM
We'll have to take up a special fund to pay Sheriff David Clarke then.

I predict a huge wave of additional support for Clarke when Milwaukee finds themselves millions further in the red. Or if not, I think he'd make a fine addition to President Trump's cabinet.


I know, Pete, he's a racist.:laugh:

:laugh2:

Probably a Nazi, too.

What's the label we're looking for here, Pete? Little help here?

fj1200
11-22-2016, 04:09 PM
As the Trump agenda on immigration takes shape, the attack on sanctuary cities presents an unusual dynamic: A law-and-order Republican administration potentially invoking federal power to coerce local cops to bend to Washington's will.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1119/Why-Trump-might-not-stop-sanctuary-cities-The-Constitution

Ironically we have a state's rights issue. I wonder where conservatism will come down on this one. Hmm.

Gunny
11-22-2016, 04:14 PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1119/Why-Trump-might-not-stop-sanctuary-cities-The-Constitution

Ironically we have a state's rights issue. I wonder where conservatism will come down on this one. Hmm.

Protecting the sovereignty of the US border is a Federal issue.

fj1200
11-22-2016, 04:20 PM
Protecting the sovereignty of the US border is a Federal issue.

Agreed. That doesn't address the point raised however.

Black Diamond
11-22-2016, 04:22 PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1119/Why-Trump-might-not-stop-sanctuary-cities-The-Constitution

Ironically we have a state's rights issue. I wonder where conservatism will come down on this one. Hmm.

Be consistent???. Same ruling as gay marriage????

fj1200
11-22-2016, 04:24 PM
Be consistent???. Same ruling as gay marriage????

:confused: There are Federal laws that offer benefits/privileges of marriage and even the state laws did not meet equal protection IMO.

jimnyc
11-22-2016, 04:32 PM
Protecting the sovereignty of the US border is a Federal issue.

1000% correct. And if the states don't hold up their end of things, then they should rightfully have funding from the feds held back. I hope the first to do their own thing and then lose funding is California.

Gunny
11-22-2016, 04:36 PM
1000% correct. And if the states don't hold up their end of things, then they should rightfully have funding from the feds held back. I hope the first to do their own thing and then lose funding is California.

California's debt already exceeds all 49 other states combined.

jimnyc
11-22-2016, 04:39 PM
California's debt already exceeds all 49 other states combined.

From a state filled with the most idiots than the rest of the states combined, not surprising!

aboutime
11-24-2016, 09:48 PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1119/Why-Trump-might-not-stop-sanctuary-cities-The-Constitution

Ironically we have a state's rights issue. I wonder where conservatism will come down on this one. Hmm.


No States Rights Issues if the people get CA to secede fj. Everything the Liberal, Dependent on govt. cities, and citizens were used to....will cease. And a TREATY between the 49 States of the USA with Ca. will be the charge of CONGRESS. Which just happens to be REPUBLICAN Controlled in BOTH HOUSES.

I HOPE THE PEOPLE IN CA. GET WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR SOON. The sooner, the better for AMERICA.

Gunny
11-25-2016, 10:53 AM
Agreed. That doesn't address the point raised however.

Sure it does. Has less to do with being conservative than using common sense. It isn't conservative to have to create a bunch of new legislation to cover all the lefty loopholes. The federal government is responsible for the sovereignty of our national border. That means keeping illegals out. All the "what if" sob stories subsequent to that basic fact are rendered moot by said fact. You ain't supposed to be here to begin with.

And since immigration IS covered by Federal law, it is not protected by the 10 Amendment. Or can I quit legally paying FICA just because such garnishment of my pay to support a worthless government doesn't suit me?

NightTrain
11-25-2016, 11:52 AM
Sure it does. Has less to do with being conservative than using common sense. It isn't conservative to have to create a bunch of new legislation to cover all the lefty loopholes. The federal government is responsible for the sovereignty of our national border. That means keeping illegals out. All the "what if" sob stories subsequent to that basic fact are rendered moot by said fact. You ain't supposed to be here to begin with.

And since immigration IS covered by Federal law, it is not protected by the 10 Amendment. Or can I quit legally paying FICA just because such garnishment of my pay to support a worthless government doesn't suit me?

That was... fucking beautiful, man. <sniff>

aboutime
11-25-2016, 06:57 PM
Sure it does. Has less to do with being conservative than using common sense. It isn't conservative to have to create a bunch of new legislation to cover all the lefty loopholes. The federal government is responsible for the sovereignty of our national border. That means keeping illegals out. All the "what if" sob stories subsequent to that basic fact are rendered moot by said fact. You ain't supposed to be here to begin with.

And since immigration IS covered by Federal law, it is not protected by the 10 Amendment. Or can I quit legally paying FICA just because such garnishment of my pay to support a worthless government doesn't suit me?



Gunny. We all need to remember that liberal thinkers like fj rarely use, or resort to using common sense. Most of them are so UNDEReducated, like Democrats normally are; that they constantly need to create new legislation...when common sense would tell them the Legislation, or Laws...are already in effect. But, they need to be in charge, and need to decide WHICH Common Sense Laws, and Legislation THEY LIKE.

fj1200
11-26-2016, 04:16 PM
Sure it does. Has less to do with being conservative than using common sense. It isn't conservative to have to create a bunch of new legislation to cover all the lefty loopholes. The federal government is responsible for the sovereignty of our national border. That means keeping illegals out. All the "what if" sob stories subsequent to that basic fact are rendered moot by said fact. You ain't supposed to be here to begin with.

And since immigration IS covered by Federal law, it is not protected by the 10 Amendment. Or can I quit legally paying FICA just because such garnishment of my pay to support a worthless government doesn't suit me?

Adding more stuff not connected to the issue doesn't make the argument any better. Part of the question with sanctuary cities is what can the government force on the states/cities which is why it's a states rights issue. As you point out we have plenty of laws on the books and the Federal government can do a much better job of its responsibility.

I believe the government's taxing power has been well established IIRC.