Image 01 Image 03

Trump should target Los Angeles first for “Sanctuary City” fight!

Trump should target Los Angeles first for “Sanctuary City” fight!

LA LA Land is in no fiscal condition to wage “lawfare” on Trump’s immigration policies.

Now that Barack Obama’s farewell speech is over, and there is less that 10 days until the inauguration, speculation is beginning about the actions that Donald Trump will take in his first 100 days in office.

Doubtless, immigration will be on the top of his task list. Alan Gomez, immigration reporter for USA Today, notes that Trump will have broad presidential powers in dealing with “sanctuary cities”.

Trump will be armed with a range of powerful options, including federal lawsuits and the power to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in grants that states and cities rely on.

“The Trump administration can largely get the results it is seeking and a real meaningful end to most of these sanctuary policies through a combination of carrots and sticks,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, who has advised the Trump transition team on its immigration enforcement options. “The point is not to go around whacking all these little cities and counties, it’s to get them to do the right thing. And for the die-hards, to confront them.”

While there are many cities that would make tempting targets, I would like to propose he start with Los Angeles. To begin with, the area is filled with smug, anti-Trump elites like Meryl Streep.

However, beyond that, city officials just created a $10 million fund of taxpayer dollars to defend those identified for deportation during the anticipated crackdown on illegal immigration.

If approved by lawmakers, Los Angeles’ two top government agencies could find themselves in the position of using public funds to challenge policies sought by the White House and Republican Congress.

The fund represents another provocative pushback against the Trump agenda in heavily Democratic California, but outside legal experts said the local government agencies are likely within their right to use the money for these purposes.

Los Angeles City Atty. Mike Feuer said the fund will ensure that there is “more fairness and more effectiveness in the immigration system.” He cited statistics showing that immigrants who have representation have a better chance at succeeding in court.

This move comes as the city is short millions of dollars in legal costs, and will have to borrow $70 million to meet expenses.

[A] surge in legal settlements, along with court judgments against the city, is outpacing the city’s ability to keep up.

With payouts projected to total at least $135 million this fiscal year, budget officials said Monday that the city needs to immediately borrow up to $70 million to avoid dipping into its emergency reserve fund.

Trump should unleash the full force of federal fury on this city, which is clearly in no fiscal condition for the upcoming battle.

Additionally, he would be doing the rest of the state a favor. The California Policy Center estimates that California state and local governments owe $1.3 trillion as of June 30, 2015, and Governor Jerry Brown just submitted a record-setting state budget. One of our small towns has defaulted on its pension debt.

Between paying for the legal costs of illegal immigrants, and the sex change operation for murderers, it is obvious that neither our state or local politicians can’t and won’t spend our money responsibly.

So, on January 21st, Trump should initiate a robust response to the threats and antics that California politicians have engaged in since his election by targeting Los Angeles first when addressing the nation’s sanctuary city problems. I suspect the rest of the nation will appreciate it…and it’s not like losing California is going to cost him the 2020 election, either.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


UnCivilServant | January 11, 2017 at 1:27 pm

The entire state of california has been oficially classed as a violator under the law as required for immediate action. So would it be better to hit the state or the city?

    Walker Evans in reply to UnCivilServant. | January 11, 2017 at 1:38 pm

    Hit LA first; it is less able to sustain such a fight and it would set a precedent. When LA goes down, with whatever penalties might accrue, other cities would have incentive to reconsider their positions.

    On the other hand we are talking about California, aka Leftist Land; no one in his right mind would take bets on any political body there doing something rational.

      Twanger in reply to Walker Evans. | January 11, 2017 at 1:44 pm

      Cut one from the herd at a time.
      Encourage the others to sit in silence on the sidelines, hoping they won’t be next.
      Classic predator/prey approach.

      Never take on the whole herd at once.

        gustafus21 in reply to Twanger. | January 12, 2017 at 9:41 am

        Trump needs to make an example of these lice. As to Streep, we pay her to be somebody else … That’s when we like her.
        Hubbie to Meryl- “not tonight honey…could you be someone else?”

      UnCivilServant in reply to Walker Evans. | January 11, 2017 at 1:59 pm

      Hit LA first; it is less able to sustain such a fight

      I wouldn’t put it past Jerry Brown and his Supermajority to pour resources into LA to sustain its battle. I’m pretty sure any legal battle against a piece of California will be a legal battle against all of California, but if you hit just one city, you’ll then have to hit each other city. Knock out the whole state using the available tools and counter the lawsuit using the precedent that said Arizona was not allowed to enforce a separate immigration policy (really enforce the laws as written, but still…)

        Subotai Bahadur in reply to UnCivilServant. | January 11, 2017 at 2:44 pm

        It is not necessarily an either/or. Hit LA. If California joins the battle, hit the entire state government.

        There is the additional possible benefit that it may encourage the current petition drive for secession. If it passes, insist on a county by county vote. Based on the counties Trump took, all that will secede will be a coastal strip from just south of LA to north of SF stopping at the purported boundaries of the State of Jefferson. We are building a wall on the Mexican border, building one on the border of the Peoples’ Democratic Republic of Alta California. The loss of the Leftist population centers in California means the electoral vote count will shift to the point where the Democrats will never win a national election again.

        The State of California just passed a record budget. This at a time when businesses and productive citizens are fleeing the state in droves. If the state chooses to join action against the federal immigration laws, then the state becomes liable to the same sanctions as the city or county. We’ll see how deep California’s pockets are, when they receive no federal money.

    JustShootMeNow in reply to UnCivilServant. | January 11, 2017 at 2:37 pm

    If you look at the 2016 votes by county you’ll see that only a small portion of CA is blue, just like my state of MD. Whacking the state would not be fair to a substantial portion of the population. However, if the state gets involved by trying to block efforts then all bets are off and give them a whacking as well.

    Helping illegals avoid deportation is a felony under federal law. It’s way past time for CA public officials to receive federal justice.


LA county leads the state in many ways, great place for President Trump to start!

Sanctuary cities is all about campaign contributions. If the illegals were removed from the LA school system, they probably would have to fire half the teachers.

Invoke Federalism, don’t aggressively go after California, because you’ll get riots and violence, simply cut off the Federal money until they comply and see what happens. Make it California’s choice and hopefully win some converts along the way.

The GOP doesn’t need to help rally the Left in California. So if there’s a way to be one step removed, it’s a win.

    Twanger in reply to Crapgame13. | January 11, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    Good point, Crapgame13, and Obama used this threat all the time. Pull their federal funding. Let them collapse under their own weight.

I don’t know … San Francisco is awfully tempting.

This is going to be fun to watch!

Agreed, start in California and hit a bunch of city’s at

Leslie: …it is obvious that neither our state or local politicians can’t and won’t spend our money responsibly.

Double-negative makes a positive, which I’m sure based on context is the opposite of your intent. 🙂

Henry Hawkins | January 11, 2017 at 3:43 pm

Will we be so keen about using the vast power of the federal government to force states and/or cities into doing as they’re told when the Democrat Party inevitably regains control? The Democrat Party will soon regret Obama’s ungoverned abuse of executive orders, for one example of what can happen, and the GOP will come to regret using federal power in this way once tables inevitably turn and red states and cities are forced to swallow the federal dictats of the next Democrat administration.

For better or worse, California and its cities got the government they’ve voted for. The state is deeply in debt as are many of its cities. Let it play out at the ballot box and in the courts per existing law.

This is not an endorsement of sanctuary cities, but of federalism.

Let the down-voting begin!

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 11, 2017 at 4:02 pm

    “Trump should unleash the full force of federal fury on this city, which is clearly in no fiscal condition for the upcoming battle.”

    Yeah, no. That sounds WAAAAAYYYYY too Bier Hall Gary Britt for me to be comfortable with.

    IFFFFF Sessions has a clear path in the law to go after sanctuary cities, campii, whateves, fine.

    If not, look for some possible CONSTITUTIONAL legislative solution.

    Lacking that, leave Kulhifornia. Millions of us have…

      UnCivilServant in reply to Ragspierre. | January 11, 2017 at 4:13 pm

      The law to strip Sanctuary jurisdictions of federal funds is already on the books and these locations have already been classified as officially delinquent with respect to the law in a very quiet financing battle between the house and the DoJ this past year.

      The lawsuit of which I speak above is the jurisdiction inevitably challenging the application of the law already extant.

    tom swift in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 11, 2017 at 7:55 pm

    This isn’t a fanciful Republican whim; this is the rule of law. And California isn’t above it.

We desperately need emigration reform beginning with the refugee crises and mass illegal immigration.

    ConradCA in reply to n.n. | January 12, 2017 at 4:53 pm

    The reform we need to make is erecting a legal wall to prevent illegals from infesting our society.

Emigration reform to address the progress of left-wing anti-nativism, environmentalist shifts (to someone else’s backyard) and obfuscation (e.g. JournoLists, academic indoctrination) of the artificial green blight (vs the organic black blob), amoral exploitation of insourcing/outsourcing, not limited to Obama’s denial of responsibility for his adventures in social “justice” that were a first-order cause of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change from Tripoli to Damascus to Kiev and globally.

Go after UC president Janet Napolitano with criminal charges of harboring.

Once people see their peers going to prison, they’ll cut out the virtue-signalling post-haste.

    Milhouse in reply to cmmitch357. | January 12, 2017 at 4:37 pm

    Refusing to work for the federal government is not “harboring”, and if it is then the law banning it is void. Nor is offering legal aid for alleged lawbreakers of any kind.

as a native of Lost Angels, #Failifornia, by all means, hit both the city AND the county first, since they are both officially sanctuary entities.

they’re both broke as 5hit.

hell, the whole state government is broke too: cut off ALL federal funding to any government entity here until the whole state complies with federal law.

BTW: according to my council office, LA gets ~#500 million in federal funds… i would not be surprised to find out it’s more than that.

my Assemblyman’s office can’t get an answer on how much $$ the state gets from DC, but it’s likely YUGE.

    Milhouse in reply to redc1c4. | January 12, 2017 at 4:41 pm

    Most of that is in programs that have existed for years, and are not related to immigration. That money can’t be cut for the purpose of compelling the city to waive its tenth amendment rights. Only money that’s related to the topic and was given in the first place on condition of cooperation can be cut.

I live in L.A. and wholeheartedly agree. The city wastes unbelievable amounts of money to start with, is forever passing resolutions to leftist causes without any effect other than to make themselves feel good, Meanwhile, water pipes break regularly, sidewalks are obstacle courses, We have Cops-a-Plenty to issue parking tickets, but when your life is in danger from a gang-member, or you need an ambulance in seconds, help is only 20 minutes away. Pension costs for municipal workers, the police, fire and LAUSD leave us already bankrupt. But never fear! we have a ban on plastic bags!

Go for it!! The attitude of the Liberals/Progressives in this state (I live in CA) is rapidly ruining it. I moved here over 30 years ago. The destruction that has been wreaked on this beautiful land is stupefying.
Meryl Streep and her Hollywood cronies sit in their gated and guarded compounds and preach their Prog nonsense. Sock it to ’em!

Federalize the Guard and arrest the governor and legislature for conspiracy.

You’re all forgetting that California, and the cities as its subsidiary entities, have the constitutional right to refuse to work for the federal government. You’re also forgetting that everyone has the constitutional right to offer allegedly illegal immigrants legal aid and representation. Neither of these things can be crimes, because Congress is bound by the constitution. Whether you like it or not, sanctuary cities are legal, and if the feds want to enforce immigration laws there, they have to do it themselves.

also, federal funds that were already in place before this issue came up, and were not originally conditioned on compliance with the immigration laws, cannot be cut more than a small amount. New funding can come with such a condition, and can be withheld if the condition is not met, but old funding can’t have such a condition attached to it. Small cuts can be made, for the purpose of persuading, rather than coercing compliance.

    Topnife in reply to Milhouse. | January 16, 2017 at 12:17 am

    I’m trying to recall which of the nine justices of the Supreme Court that you are. Granted, there are at least 4 who will probably agree with your interprotestation of the Constitution, but as of the early days of the Trump administration, the question will likely be adjudicated more clearly, and more finally.
    Certainly, the states have the choice, under the Tenth Amendment, to make determinations such as you suggest, but the Feds also have the option to deny any financial support for choices made that do not comply with national needs. We’ll soon see which way the legal oxen will drag us.
    Personally, and as a California voter, albeit a lonely one, I strongly oppose expenditure of any state funds for the purpose of sheltering those who have violated our borders, who shamelessly collect public support after violating our laws, and who take “sanctuary” shelter from prosecution for repeatedly violating our laws.
    I strongly support denial of all means of federal and state support to those who would flout the will of the American people, for what clearly amount to selfish political motives.

Trump should offer as much kindness to California as Nixon offered to Massachusetts following the 1972 election.

LA should be the first target for establishing the rule of law. The city is totally corrupt. Any attention to its violation of immigration law should be followed by further investigating by the FBI of all its other corrupt practices.

I hope Trump is as vindictive as they say. Snowflakes keep poking the bear… it’s time we poked back.

I can’t wait for Trump to shut down LA…. as to Streep… she’s paid to be somebody else. That’s when we like her.

Hubbie to Meryl… “not tonight honey…could you be someone else?”

I think it is sufficient to make it clear that sanctuary cities, states and campuses will be top priority for federal enforcement efforts. Protect illegals by policy and the illegals you try to protect will be targeted.