Top 10 U.S. sanctuary cities face roughly $2.27 billion in cuts by Trump policy


Top 10 U.S. sanctuary cities face roughly $2.27 billion in cuts by Trump policy

U.S. President Donald Trump’s attempt to strip municipalities of federal dollars for shielding illegal immigrants threatens $2.27 billion in annual funds for the nation’s 10 largest cities, a Reuters analysis of federal grants found.

Trump plans to make good on his campaign pledge to block federal funding to states and cities where local law enforcement refuse to report undocumented immigrants they encounter to federal authorities, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said.

"The American people are no longer going to have to be forced to subsidize this disregard for our laws,” Spicer said.

Spicer said an executive order signed by Trump on Wednesday directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to look at federal funding to cities to figure out "how we can defund those streams.


I posted something similar elsewhere but I think the thread disappeared.

How is this not federal overreach? Conservatives have been upset about the federal government overstepping their bounds for the last 8 years but now that Trump is doing it everyone is happy with it.

I see this as a violation of the principle of subsidiarity. Local police should be focusing on policing the neighborhoods. Federal agents should be investigating immigration violations. Trump wants local police to act as federal immigration agents and will punish those cities that don’t fall in line. I hope more cities resist him and his policies. I’m very proud of Boston’s Mayor Marty Walsh. I’m hoping my town follows suit. People shouldn’t have to fear deportation in order to report a crime.


It’s really not that big of a threat. For example in Portland, Or, the amount is 1% of the budget. Cities who want to remain sanctuary cities, really don’t have that much incentive to stop being sanctuary cities.


You are absolutely right it is federal overreach. The federal government shouldn’t be taxing people and giving it back to local government only if they do certain things or enact certain laws. This is a violation of federalism. But, this practice is allowed and extensively used. So for me, a person who advocates state’s rights and limited government, I’m at least glad this abusive power is finally being used to accomplish something good. Usually it is used only for really terrible things. I’m not going to oppose this on principle because the days of principled government are long over.


How much of an effect will this really have? I’m opposed to sanctuary cities but almost every city and county in my area is a sanctuary and I’m just wondering what would actually happen if they lose this funding.


It’s a big deal to our mayor. Smaller cities will suffer more than big ones.

My city has a decent number of Spanish residents (I think between 15% and 20%) and that only includes those that are citizens and residents. Including the undocumented there are probably far more. The police have to serve all: citizens, residents, and the undocumented. Add to the fact that there is already widespread mistrust towards police this will make things worse.


I never thought of the bolded part. That’s a very good point.

I’m not going to oppose this on principle because** the days of principled government are long over**.

Haha, yep.

  1. The many people employed by resettlement VOLAGS will be out of work unless the VOLAG agencies they work for cough up the money. That probably won’t readily happen during the next four years. Most of these VOLAGS don’t have finances to sustain such an undertaking for that period of time…including the Catholic Church.

  2. People that depend on sanctuaries will end up worse off than the places they fled from. Many will return to their homelands to reconnect with families and friends they left behind.


Wouldnt it be easier and more effective to go after those who employ illegals or in some way, benefit from illegal labor?

If they cannot find any work, or they are not able to be employed (earn money), makes no difference if its actually a sanctuary city or not.

Most jobs nowadays, even gas station cashiers, require passing a successful background check, so its been effective at ensuring people with certain offenses on their record are not able to be employed, seems like something similar could be set up to address this issue.


I’m not sure it is federal over reach. Cities can’t proclaim that people who violate federal law are ‘safe’ in their cities. They have to endorse federal law.

An obvious, if extreme, example is slave holding. It is a federal crime to own slaves in the US. A city can’t proclaim it will not enforce the code because they don’t agree with it.


Well, I am against sanctuary cities in principle, but if the states wish to invoke the 10th amendment, and begin to reacquire their sovereignty that the framers intended, I am all for it! As to the illegal alien/refugee issue as a whole, there are so many agendas behind this that it is very difficult to delve through to find the truth.


The example you bring up is interesting because following your argument a state was obligated to observe the fugitive slave act whose very purpose was to make sure slaves couldn’t escape to free states and remain there. In the case of this law states were compelled to help return slaves. So the question of ‘sanctuaries’ isn’t new. And, though I’m no attorney, there is precedent for making state and local government enforce federal law.


And the federal government enforced the fugitive slave act and penalized states that did not. Also JFK and LBJ enforced desegregation even though some states and cities refused to recognize the law.

Same thing. If cities want to refuse to enforce the law, then the federal government is free to penalize them, send in federal marshals, or both. The point I am trying to make is that it isn’t federal over-reach.


My grave concern is that each of these sanctuaries represent the potential of violent uprising fed by subversive homegrown and foreign radical groups. The ‘many’ might not be so willing to peacefully return from whence they came.


Employers are prohibited by law from questioning ID that’s valid on its face. Fake ID is a very big industry in this country, and the makers are very good at it. The makers use real social security numbers, so even E-verify doesn’t do any good.

There are solutions for that, but none have been employed for years.



Obama threatened to withhold funds to public schools who wouldn’t allow boys to use girls’ bathrooms. He also threatened to fine institutions who wouldn’t follow the HHS mandates in the ACA.

But at least this order is to enforce existing law as opposed to promoting an agenda that not based in existing laws.


This isn’t charitable or christian.


There are many other examples of this. I remember that states were denied federal highway funds unless they raised the drinking age to 21. That policy aimed to end at least some deaths that used to occur when recent high school grads in Illinois drove to Wisconsin for legal beer. That was federal overreach since there was no federal drinking age. Punishing cities for encouraging the defiance of federal law is less serious. Individuals who harbored criminals would fare much worse than the withholding of certain benefits.




I ran into some of this in the study of genealogy. It used to be extremely easy and free for anyone to access the Social Security Death Index. In seconds anyone could find out if a particular SS# belonged to a dead person. Under Obama it was decided that privacy concerns for the dead outweighed an easy way to stop identity theft. Many, if not most, undocumented immigrants have committed the crime of identity theft, in addition to illegal entry or overstaying visas.

If you have ever been the victim of identity theft, you may not consider that an insignificant crime. I was lucky because I found out immediately about an illegal transaction that took more than $700 from one of my bank accounts through a phony PayPal account. The money was refunded to me in less than a week. If someone opens a credit account with your SS#, you may never find out about it, but it will hurt your credit score. You could be denied credit, or pay more for it under the stricter regulations forced on banks by the previous administration.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit