After complaining about Congressional Republicans standing in the way of Barack Obama’s agenda for the past eight years, liberals are now prepared to attempt to block Donald Trump’s. Having been dominated in the House and Senate, they can’t block any legislation from being passed, but they can try to combat its implementation.
A number of mayors have banded together to combat one of Trump’s central campaign promises: combating illegal immigration. Mayors of sanctuary cities have said they’ll do everything in their power to protect illegal immigrants in their communities, among them being the mayors of New York City, Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, and many other liberal havens.
As it turns out however, mayors don’t get to pick and choose which federal laws they want to obey. The federal government will withdraw up to 10 percent of federal highway funding to states that set their age requirements to purchase alcohol below 21 – so why not withdraw other forms of funding to states or cities that would defy other laws? To put pressure on those who’ve pledged to defy Trump, he’s announced plans to do just that, and his pick for Attorney General agrees.
As the Washington Times reported: Sen. Jeff Sessions is on record saying so-called “sanctuary cities” that protect illegal immigrants should be prosecuted. He himself may get that chance next year.
Mr. Sessions is president-elect Donald Trump’s pick to be the next attorney general, and if he’s confirmed, he will mark a 180-degree turn from the Obama administration on a host of issues, but nowhere more so than on immigration, where he’s been the Senate’s leading crackdown proponent.
From his first day in office, Mr. Sessions will have the power to strip some federal funding from sanctuary cities, thanks to rulings this year by the Justice Department’s inspector general, who said federal law requires localities to cooperate with immigration agents — and who provided an initial list of a handful of the worst offenders.
“The sanctuary cities thing is huge. I think most jurisdictions are going to fold like a cheap suit,” said Rosemary Jenks, government relations manager at NumbersUSA, which lobbies for stricter immigration laws.
I can’t understand for the life of me why any city wouldn’t want to enforce their immigration laws. Bearing the costs of illegal immigration is large enough – why bear those costs AND risk losing federal funding? I’m sure residents of those cities would rather funds go towards benefiting their legal citizens.
[Note: This post was written by The Analytical Economist]