Donald Trump made stopping illegal immigration and the deportation of those who are here illegally a centerpiece of his campaign. To say that his position created controversy is a major understatement. Not only did it create heated debate within the United States, but other nations, notably Mexico, weighed in on the issue.
From one standpoint, one would have to wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, there are laws governing immigration just like a myriad of other activities. Why would immigration laws be singled out for non-enforcement? The answer to that issue lies in a desire among those on the left, such as Mr. Obama, to fundamentally change America while generating more voters for liberal candidates.
But what about this “showdown” that’s looming between the Trump administration and what are referred to as “sanctuary cities?”
First, look at the size of the problem: “At the Southern border, agents are on pace to apprehend almost 600,000 illegal immigrants, the highest number in eight years. The surge is coming largely from Central American migrants, far outpacing those from Mexico.”
While many are making the trek because they are not sure what to expect from the Trump administration, others are crossing the border for a different reason: “But another driver is the knowledge that certain major cities offer “sanctuary” protections from deportation. Those same cities are now gearing up to fight on their illegal immigrant residents’ behalf against the incoming president.”
“Sanctuary cities” are those that have specifically declined to prosecute or turn over for deportation illegal immigrants.
Some have gone so far as to set up funds to help illegal immigrants fight federal law. For example, “[i]n Los Angeles, Mayor Eric Garcetti announced the creation of the L.A. Justice Fund, a multi-million dollar fund to provide legal assistance to immigrants facing deportation.”
Further evidence of how absurd this is comes directly from the Mayor’s lips: “In announcing the fund, Garcetti vowed to fight for the ‘good and law-abiding immigrants of Los Angeles.’ Asked if those with a criminal record would be excluded, however, he said no.” Well, one might suppose that if you are going to support the violation of laws, why stop at just immigration laws?
What is now heating up the issue is the end of the Obama administration and the inauguration of the Donald Trump now less than a month away. So these sanctuary cities are likely going to spend some of their money on legal fees they don’t have to battle laws they shouldn’t fight.
Texas Congressman Culbertson puts the issue in proper perspective when he “…says federal law prohibits local and state law enforcement from refusing to share immigration status information with federal authorities. He believes the law will give Trump the power to follow through in denying funds to sanctuary cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago and New York.”
Continuing, “’The president can cut off their money at noon on January 20, 2017 if they do not change their sanctuary policy and hand over criminal illegal aliens in their custody to be deported,’ Culberson told Fox News.”
Cutting off federal funds to bastions of failed liberal social and financial policies such as Los Angeles, Chicago and New York will get their attention. One could conclude that the politicians’ strategies in those cities is to create such profound social and economic problems that the federal government is almost forced to intervene with loads of cash.
That strategy might have worked under President Obama, but it’s likely to run into a brick wall with Donald Trump. It would be foolish to expect Trump to perpetuate a strategy designed to increase and solidify a base of Democratic voters through the violation of federal immigration laws.
What the mayors of those sanctuary cities are about to learn is that “the halcyon days are over.”
Source: Fox News