Should sanctuary cities lose federal funding? | The Tylt
Should sanctuary cities lose federal funding?
San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Seattle, and Los Angeles are among the estimated 60 sanctuary cities, and many of these cities' mayors have publicly stated they will refuse to cooperate with the White House's crackdown on undocumented immigrants.
Critics of sanctuary cities say cities cannot pick and choose which laws they decide to comply with. Federal law mandates undocumented immigrants convicted of crimes should be removed from the United States. Refusing to follow that mandate makes the country unsafe, and cities that defy those laws should suffer the consequences
But other data shows sanctuary cities are actually safer and more productive, and their immigrant communities have better relationships with the police, which aids everyone's safety. Tom K. Wong,assistant professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, writes:
The data support arguments made by law enforcement executives that communities are safer when law enforcement agencies do not become entangled in federal immigration enforcement efforts. The data also make clear that, when counties protect all of their residents, they see significant economic gains. By keeping out of federal immigration enforcement, sanctuary counties are keeping families together—and when households remain intact and individuals can continue contributing, this strengthens local economies.
Immigration and border security are two of the top reasons Trump was elected. His promise to deliver law and order is being welcomed by millions of Americans, who say deporting illegal immigrants who commit crimes is simply common sense.
BREAKING: AG Sessions will withhold grant money from sanctuary cities!