The Rationale for De-Funding Sanctuary Cities

President Trump has made a point of addressing the problem of cities whose mayors and city councils refuse to turn over illegal alien criminals to Federal authorities.  Now, we know that even non-criminal illegal aliens are already criminals by virtue of being in the USA without authorization, but this isn't it.  The president is not actively trying to deport those people anytime soon.

He is, as those who give him the benefit of the doubt can see, a compassionate man, and is reluctant to come down hard on people such as those brought here illegally at a young age by their parents.  Those people have nothing to do with this piece.

He is far less compassionate for those who, on top of being here illegally, are doubly criminal by virtue of having committed serious crimes while here.  Those people he intends to deport as soon as they can be found, given that they are not entitled to the due process granted to the US citizen by the Constitution.  Come here illegally, commit a serious-enough crime, and you're out of the country.

Apparently a number of cities don't follow that reasoning.  Calling themselves "sanctuary cities" (pass on the Hunchback of Notre Dame references), they have declared that they will protect such criminals by refusing to notify the Department of Homeland Security or the Customs and Border Protection people to come get them for deportation.

"You're safe here", they say to criminal aliens, which should make criminal US citizens wonder what's in it for them.

"Not so fast", says President Trump.  Not surprisingly, the Federal government sends billions of taxpayer dollars to local governments for any number of purposes.  In the largest cities, the order of magnitude is in the mid-to-high hundreds of millions, each.  US cities certainly get their share.

So the president, who has campaigned in opposition to the notion of sanctuary cities and stressed their illegality, is planning to implement a policy cutting off funding for sanctuary cities.  Already Miami, to note one city, has dropped its "sanctuary" policy rather than lose its funding.

In the meantime, we have had plenty of reactions to the policy of cutting funding to such cities.  And, needless to say, I have one as well.

You see, here's the thing.  The Federal government does not "have money", per se.  It has the funds that it has taken through taxes to fund its budget.  That budget, as we know, has for many years authorized spending of money that the government does not have.  You and I can't do that, but the government can.

The result is that while the government spends the taxpayers' money, it is, without our consent, borrowing money and spending it, leaving us, the taxpaying class, holding the credit card bill.  So accordingly, it ought to be a heck of a lot more careful what it borrows money from places like China to spend on.

Think about it, and you don't have to think hard.  If San Francisco, which gave us fog, more fog, and Nancy Pelosi, but I repeat myself, takes money from the Federal government, it is actually taking from you and me, who don't live in California at all, to give to them.  San Francisco, a sanctuary city, then uses my money to allow serial illegal alien criminals to commit crimes, be deported, commit more crimes, be deported again, ad nauseam, until one of them murders an innocent person like Kate Steinle.

If San Francisco's elected officials choose to ignore Federal law, there are consequences that they should not be surprised at.  If President Trump pulls Federal funding from San Francisco, or Chicago, he is also saying that he respects every penny the IRS seizes from hardworking Americans.  He is saying that such cities have no "right" to that money, and accordingly are subject to punishment if they disobey the law.  They certainly don't have the right to break Federal law and be rewarded by being given money from taxpayers in other parts of the country to fund lawbreaking public officials.

Very little is given by the Constitution to the Federal government, as far as authorizing it to take on.  All else, per the Tenth Amendment, is the responsibility of the states.  Border security and immigration law are among those precious few duties reserved for Washington.  If Washington is being thwarted in doing one of the few things it is supposed to do, there are indeed consequences.

I can't wait for the citizens of one of those cities to react to losing Federally-funded city services by asking why they voted for the clowns in charge in the first place.  I can't wait for the next city that calls "BS" on their perpetually failing leadership -- Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, San Francisco, New York, Baltimore (Washington, DC is hopeless) -- and starts electing conservatives to help clean up their cities.

I'll bet you can't wait either.

Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.