Image 01 Image 03

Democratic Mayors Vow Resistance Against Trump’s Sanctuary City Crackdown

Democratic Mayors Vow Resistance Against Trump’s Sanctuary City Crackdown

Resist we much!

Resistance is so en vogue these days.

A handful of Democratic mayors are promising to fight President Trump, who’s suggested halting federal funding to cities who refuse to abide by federal immigration laws and regulations.

Mayors in Boston, Chicago, and Seatle are wailing the loudest:

“[It’s an attack] on Boston’s people, Boston’s strength and Boston’s values,” Boston Mayor Marty Walsh (D) told reporters during a press conference Wednesday, according to USA Today. “If people want to live here, they’ll live here. They can use my office. They can any office in this building.”

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D), meanwhile, stated his city intends on openly operating as a sanctuary city.
“I want to be clear,” he said during a press conference in the nation’s third-largest city. “We’re going to stay a sanctuary city.”

“We welcome people, whether you’re from Poland or Pakistan, whether you’re from Ireland or India or Israel and whether you’re from Mexico or Moldova, where my grandfather is from, you are welcome in Chicago as you pursue the American Dream.”

Seattle Mayor Ed Murray (D), meanwhile, said that his city could withstand legal challenges from the Trump administration over the matter.

“This city will not be bullied by this administration,” he said Wednesday. “We believe we have the rule of law and the courts on our side.”

“Rule of law and courts on our side” is a nice rallying platitude, though wholly incorrect. States, particularly rogue municipalities are not permitted to abide by federal law at their leisure. The Civil War taught us that much.

I’m all for a good federalism debate, the 10th amendment being one of my favorites, but mayors believing they have the authority to arbitrarily enforce federal regulations are what we call down here, “too prissy for their britches.”

Despite widespread reporting to the contrary, there is no mention of restricted funding in President Trump’s Executive Order on Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements issued Wednesday.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Dry up federal funds + use what cash you have to fight in court and provide benefits to non-citizens.

Sounds like the sort of problem that solves itself.

TruthOverPower | January 26, 2017 at 6:18 pm

Here’s what I don’t understand… Didn’t we have this discussion as a nation already? Wasn’t AZ slapped down when they said that they were going to enforce the federal laws o illegal immigration?

If so, isn’t this the same thing? It’s a federal decision?

    Ragspierre in reply to TruthOverPower. | January 26, 2017 at 7:50 pm

    No, it’s really very different. Not exactly the opposite, but kinda…

    In the case of Arizona (which I supported and still do) the state was found to be acting in the stead of the feds. ACTING is the operative term.

    In the case of sanctuary cities, it’s a great example of passive-aggressive on a grand scale. Nobody is ACTING so much as refusing to act. It’s not like the city is moving illegals out of the way of the Federal LEOs; they just refuse to cooperate.

      sidebar in reply to Ragspierre. | January 26, 2017 at 8:40 pm

      Tell my why such behavior, when done deliberately and with forethought would not violate 8 U.S. Code § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii). On the surface it would seem that the United States Department of Justice could bring criminal charges against public officials who as a matter of policy refuse to honor or check for ICE detainers when performing criminal record checks on arrestees.

        Ragspierre in reply to sidebar. | January 26, 2017 at 9:28 pm

        I can’t, and it’s not in my wheelhouse. I’ve made the same argument, but it remains it’s never been done.

        Not to say it can’t be done. It will be a hill to climb, IMNHO.

        Milhouse in reply to sidebar. | January 27, 2017 at 12:22 am

        Because that clause, if applied to states and their subsidiaries, would be unconstitutional. The tenth amendment forbids the federal government (which includes Congress) from commandeering state resources or personnel to enforce its laws.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | January 27, 2017 at 1:21 am

          And since when is federal grant money a state resource?

          sidebar in reply to Milhouse. | January 27, 2017 at 5:07 am

          Federal Criminal Statutes circumscribe the behavior of State Officials. In fact the Justice Department has a Public Integrity unit dedicated to using the United States Code to prosecute State and municipal officials.

      Arminius in reply to Ragspierre. | January 27, 2017 at 1:20 am

      Yes, they’re refusing to act. But a lot of federal grants, particularly law enforcement grants, are in actuality payments to cities, counties, and states TO act. TO cooperate with federal law enforcement. After all, you’re not likely to be pulled over for running a red light or driving with a tail light out by an FBI or ATFE agent. Even for more serious crimes such as rape or murder, the initial law enforcement contact will be local, county, or sometimes state law enforcement. If they refuse to cooperate then they deserve to lose the money.

      If you as a mayor or governor accept such grants as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which reimburses local governments for the cost of jailing criminal illegal aliens, yet your own policies actually make the problem worse, then there is no reason to expect the rest of the country to pay for your mess. Pay for it out of your own pocket.

Imagine for a moment that a mid-sized southern US city declared itself to be a “Life Sanctuary” city, in solidarity to the Right-to-Life movement. Imagine that city closed all the abortion clinics and refused to cooperate with the federal government with regard to abortion and pregnant women in the city. Imagine that they cited exactly the same rationale as the current immigrant sanctuary cities cite?

Question: how long would it take for the advocates of the current immigrant sanctuary cities to attack the “Life Sanctuary” cities?

To ask the question is to answer it.

    Ragspierre in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 26, 2017 at 6:57 pm

    No, Steve. Much as I love your impulse here…and bless your heart…your analogy is completely left-footed.

    Start with your basic “shut down abortion clinics”. There is no Federal LEO analog to a private abortion clinic, and here nobody is, in their wildest dreams, shutting down ICE or any other Federal LE agency.

    They don’t even BEGIN to get in their way. IF ICE wants to make a sweep in Sand Franciso, they DO, and nobody is going to impede them from the city. Nobody denies them access to the SFPD or sheriff’s shops, either.

    The only way they provide “sanctuary” is by having their own LEOs turn a blind eye to the issue of where people are from, and refusing to cooperate with the Federal LEOs in identifying and holding people they KNOW are here illegally.

    Now, I’m no expert on any of this, so I could have some of this incorrect, but the Federal gubmint cannot COMPEL them to act differently. Not without a declaration of marshal law, which would never happen on these facts.

      Petrushka in reply to Ragspierre. | January 26, 2017 at 7:11 pm

      There are states that are considering sanctions against cities. California not among them.

      I would expect a protracted battle involving things like voter ID and welfare.

        Ragspierre in reply to Petrushka. | January 26, 2017 at 7:16 pm

        My state of Texas is one of the leaders. It’s hard to know how this shakes out at the state level, but I’m very hopeful we can thread the needle here. Texas has several sanctuary cities and quasi-sanctuary cities, and a couple like San Antonio that are WAY too influenced by narco terrorists.

    Milhouse in reply to stevewhitemd. | January 27, 2017 at 12:25 am

    If they close down the abortion clinics they are criminals. But they don’t have to enforce the federal laws banning people from bothering the clinics’ patrons. Let the feds enforce them.

Let the cities declare themselves sanctuaries.
Instead of fighting it in court, or withholding federal funds, let’s go the opposite route.

Let’s notify all the cities that if they refuse to cooperate with federal immigration, then we will send 10X the amount of ICE agents into their cities. The ICE agents will perform daily sweeps and will have a zero tolerance platform. Any and all illegals will be sent to deportation centers immediately!

I imagine that would end the sanctuary cities popularity pretty quickly.

    mariner in reply to fogflyer. | January 26, 2017 at 10:56 pm

    And people found harboring illegals will be arrested right alongside the illegals.

    THAT’S what will bring real change.

georgia peach | January 26, 2017 at 7:02 pm

If, as brilliantly planned, all crimes committed in sanctuary by illegals are published, the public will see and blame these Dem mayors.It is really on them.

    4th armored div in reply to georgia peach. | January 26, 2017 at 9:43 pm

    –>all crimes committed in sanctuary by illegals are published<–
    1 – how does anyone know the status of the criminal ?
    2 – who in the MSM would dare risk publishing ?
    3 – why would the FEDS not charge the LEOs with dereliction of duty and failing to honor their oath to 'defend and protect' the US and State Constitutions ?

    Impeachment of city state and federal officials violating osths taken upon entry to offices.

What a crock. These mayors should be fighting for their citizens and not to protect law breakers.

    Petrushka in reply to showtime8. | January 26, 2017 at 7:14 pm

    Aside from the extra democrat voters, It strikes me that illegals provide a bountiful source of cheap semi-slave labor, people who cannot complain about being mistreated or underpaid.

      Ragspierre in reply to Petrushka. | January 26, 2017 at 7:21 pm

      Sorry, in my experience, this is nonsense. ESPECIALLY in a sanctuary city (which is one rationale for them in the first place) illegals don’t work for less than the minimum wage, and they SURE will complain if mistreated. The worst that can happen is a bus ride home…

      I’ve known guys who turned themselves in at Christmas so they could go see their families. They were back before New Years.

Cut the money off…end of story

In his radio show today, Lars Larson addressed this topic. He said that the Democratic mayors of these cities (or the commissions of the counties) that have “sanctuary” policies are standing up for their principles, and moreover, they are perfectly free to do this.

What happens next, when the Trump Administration withholds federal funds, will show us how important those principles are to these leaders.

A true “man of principle” won’t buckle. “Withhold federal funds? Meh, we don’t need them. We’ll make do without. The principle is more important.”

Something tells me, though, that many of these cities will cave once they see just how much of their operating budget is, in fact, covered by the feds. For many, if not most, those federal funds provide a significant portion of their revenue; losing that is going to hurt, and it’s not the kind of cash that can be made up by cutting a few non-critical bureaucrat jobs and holding a bake sale.

Meh…too much drama here. Make it easy…

Pass a federal law that any person or business employing an illegal alien must pay a federal tax of $1000 per day for each such employee. Then explicitly authorize qui tam actions by any citizen of the United States so that private individuals can act on behalf of their government, splitting the proceeds 50/50 with the government.

Then just sit back, let the tax money flow in (while it does, it won’t last long), and dare the Fascist-Progressives try to now argue against the ability of the government to tax.

i hope Trump cuts all grants to the state of #Failifornia itself, as well as all the sanctuary counties and cities. the screaming around these parts would be music to my ears…

then arrest & convict the leaders under federal law for harboring illegal aliens.


The scenario the mayors are ranting about is a (so far hypthetical) one in which the Federal government allows them to go ahead and be as stupid and/or illegal as they wish, but to be aware that the Federal taxpayer might not continue to finance their outlandish behavior. That’s all, and it ain’t much; pretty weak tea, and certainly nothing approaching actual law enforcement. But the way they’re carrying on, you’d think somebody was threatening to go all RICO on them.

    Not really weak tea. More like a proper application of carrot vs. stick.

    The only difference between “then” and “now”, is that now they have to do something to get the carrot.

    [Cue the liberal MSM inflammatory-language line of calling it a “bribe”, as in, “The Trump Administration is trying to bribe cities and counties into doing away with their ‘sanctuary’ policies.”]

    If they choose to not take the carrot, Trump can still invoke the stick. What precise form the stick will take, we don’t yet know, but there are plenty of legal options. 🙂

“So, it’s treason then.” -Darth Sidious.

Read somewhere tonight the Miami gave in

MaxWebXperienZ | January 26, 2017 at 10:57 pm

Trump’s appointee said right out of the gate that funds will be withheld from sanctuaries. Democrats are grandstanding, trying to seem relevant. Clinton spent $1.2 Billion on her campaign and won a whole 19 states and 20% of counties. Donors read the emails, saw what stunning criminals the DNC is, are demanding an accounting and threatening to never donate again if they don’t get same. The DNC started the “Russian hacking” ridiculous story to divert attention and now they are “standing up for what they believe in” [even though they can’t just say “we’re marxist assclowns”].

I can’t remember which immigration story I read it in, but I read that part of Trump’s plan for the wall is to build it first where the opposition to immigration reform is the greatest.

I have a legal question related to this issue. In particular, vis-a-vis illegal aliens with records, what would prevent the federal government from holding local officials who knowingly release, without informing the feds, an illegal alien with a record, liable for any crimes they commit afterwards. I know this is a small percentage of the illegal aliens but it is a critical segment and I can’t see how this wouldn’t have popular support and I would imagine it would drive a wedge between local law enforcement and the elected officials.

    Milhouse in reply to Giuseppe. | January 27, 2017 at 12:28 am

    What would prevent it is that such a thing is impossible. Officials are never liable for crimes committed by people they release, even if they do so illegally, let alone in this case where they have every right to release them, and have no obligation to inform the feds or anyone else.

      maxmillion in reply to Milhouse. | January 27, 2017 at 1:17 am

      Congress could legislate all of that, including personal liability with no respondeat superior and no dischargeability in bankruptcy for mayors, sheriffs, members of city councils and county commissions, and other state-level executive elected officials who adopt sanctuary city policies.

Do you suppose if Birmingham Alabama decided not to enforce the voting rights act, the left would support that local resistance to Federal law?

    Milhouse in reply to BrokeGopher. | January 27, 2017 at 12:29 am

    Birmingham doesn’t enforce the voting rights act. The DOJ does.

      I think the gist of his question is, “Do you suppose that if Birmingham, Alabama, decided that the Voting Rights Act would not be enforced within the city, and no city officials or funds would be used to assist Federal authorities in enforcement — and in fact can (and will) be used to actively contravene and undermine the VRA — the left would support that local resistance to Federal law?”

      For the purposes of the question, who’s responsible for enforcing it doesn’t matter. If Federal law is the “Supreme Law of the Land”, then all officials at all levels are charged with compliance. “Sanctuary” policies are declarations that officials will not comply. The question is, “Would the Left support the same kind of local resistance to a Federal law they like, as they do to a Federal law they don’t like?”

      (Also consider the state-level “Second Amendment Preservation Acts” that say federal gun laws that infringe the Second Amendment [i.e. all of them] are null and void within the State, and Federal LEOs who attempt to enforce them can be arrested, charged, and jailed for state-level crimes. Does the Left support that local resistance to Federal Law?)

I’m all for a good federalism debate, the 10th amendment being one of my favorites, but mayors believing they have the authority to arbitrarily enforce federal regulations are what we call down here, “too prissy for their britches.”

Sorry, Kemberlee, you’re flat out wrong. It has been settled law for centuries that the 10th amendment does give them the authority to do exactly that. How do you think local authorities got away with not enforcing the fugitive slave laws, prohibition, and the Brady law?

This has to be one of the greatest Leftist lies ever perpetrated upon this country. Trump is correct to start lifting the veil on the corrosive effect illegal aliens have by publishing weekly their list of crimes committed (much like how liberals fought Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan by publishing the numbers of killed and wounded daily in local and national newspapers).
What I do not understand is that of illegal aliens do not usually speak English, have few, if any, job skills, have little to no education, very often end up on some sort of welfare, and commit crimes at rates far above that of everyone else, then why are Leftists so doggone defensive about them and willing to sacrifice their cities to protect them? The act of sanctuary cities to do all they can to protect illegal aliens seems as nothing less than pursuing suicide as rigorously as possible.
Afterall, if the nation’s job growth rate is less than our natural population increase without taking into account illegal immigration, if budgets are stretched to the breaking point such that bankruptcy is imminent, if crime rates are soaring and getting worse, and so forth, then why is it so incredibly important for these cities to protect those illegal aliens who exacerbate every one of these negative issues? It simply makes no sense what so ever.

    Miles in reply to Cleetus. | January 27, 2017 at 5:43 am

    “…then why are Leftists so doggone defensive about them and willing to sacrifice their cities to protect them?”

    The census, and thus reapportionment, is done by a ‘body’ count, not a ‘citizen’ count.
    Get a higher population count where you want it and you will move the limited number of Congressional Representative seats to places where you control the vote. May not be the only reason, but it sure is one near the top of the list.
    And congresscritters rarely seem to care about much of anything other than getting on that ‘lawful’ federal gravy train in D.C. along with the attendant opportunities for graft.