Washington D.C.—America’s capital city—will lose at least 25 percent of its entire budget in in terms of President Donald Trump’s new Executive Order barring federal funds to cities which protect illegal invaders.
President Trump—who has so far lived up to his campaign promises in spectacular fashion—announced the cutting of federal aid to “sanctuary cities” in one of two executive orders, with the second ordering the construction of an anti-invasion wall on the U.S.–Mexico border.
The cutting off of aid to the so-called “sanctuary cities” will have major repercussions for almost all of the 364 counties and 39 cities officially identified by the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as “having a policy that is non-cooperative and obstructs immigration enforcement.”
While Washington D.C. will lose $3.35 billion, or 25 percent of its budget, the city of New York is set to be the single biggest financial loser.
Currently, New York City gets $10.4 billion—or 12 percent—of its total budget from federal funds.
New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer said in November 2016 that cuts in federal aid to New York will have a “devastating impact” and pointed out that the city’s police department receives 61 percent of its $380 million Intelligence and Counter-terrorism budget from the federal government.
San Francisco, which also refuses to enforce immigration laws or to inquire about the immigration status of residents, will lose at least $1 billion—or at least 11.2 percent of its annual budget.
Chicago—former president Barack Obama’s hometown and another large center which actively promotes the illegal invasion of America—stands to lose more than $1 billion in federal funding, equivalent to 10 percent of the city’s budget.
Providence, Rhode Island, will lose 10 percent of its city budget, amounting to $71 million, while Denver, Colorado, will lose 9 percent of its budget, or more than $175 million.
Oakland, California, will lose at least 4 percent of its budget, or $52 million.
Minneapolis, St Paul, will lose 2 percent of the city budget, or more than $25 million.
Los Angeles will lose at least 2 percent of the city’s budget, or $507 million.
Santa Fe, New Mexico, will lose about 2 percent of the city’s annual budget, or about $6 million.
Aurora, Colorado, and Seattle, Washington, will each lose about 1.8 percent of their total budgets, while Seattle will lose about 3 percent of its police budget.
Portland, Oregon, will lose about 1.3 percent of its total budget and up to 2 percent of its police budget.
As detailed on the Ohio Jobs & Justice Political Action Committee (OJJPAC) website—one of the original PACs to first highlight the issue of “sanctuary cities,”—there is legislation which specifically outlaws this sort of protection for illegal invaders.
In 1996, the 104th U.S. Congress passed Pub. L. 104-208, also known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). This law requires all local governments to cooperate with ICE, but in spite of this, all the “sanctuary cities” have ignored it.
“Sanctuary” policies most commonly instruct local or state government employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal invaders living in or passing through their communities, counties, or states.
These policies also blur the legal distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens, so illegal aliens can have access to the same taxpayer funded programs and benefits available to legal permanent resident aliens.
For example, the Governor of Maine instituted an Executive Order entitled “An Order Concerning Access to State Services by All Entitled Maine Residents,” in 2004.
That Order limits state employees’ ability to report the presence of illegal aliens, which has led to scores of illegal invaders moving to Maine in search of public benefits and valid Maine drivers’ licenses. These driving licenses are then used to drive in other states.
The Republican-controlled Utah Legislature passed its own package of “immigration bills” in May 2011, granting illegal invaders the right to live and work in that state.
Police in Utah also refrain from inquiring about anyone’s legal status unless they are stopped or arrested for serious misdemeanors or felonies.
As OJJPAC noted, “illegal aliens are not immigrants.” By definition, an “immigrant” is a foreign national (alien) who legally emigrated to the U.S. and has applied for and was granted lawful permanent resident status by the U.S. government.
“When a foreign national is illegally smuggled into the U.S. or violates visa restrictions—he or she is an unauthorized (illegal) alien present in the U.S. in violation of U.S. law, and subject to deportation under Title 8 of the U.S. Code § 1227, Deportable aliens,” OJJPAC points out.
Another false argument public officials use to justify sanctuary policies is “public safety.”
OJJPAC said that in order to “gain support for the adoption of sanctuary policies, some public officials claim that sanctuary policies serve as an effective ‘community policing’ tool.
“This fallacious argument goes as follows: ‘Illegal aliens who are witnesses or victims of crimes, won’t report the crimes for fear of arrest and deportation.’
“However, illegal aliens cannot possibly be victims of crime in the U.S. (or be witnesses to crimes) if they if are not in the U.S. Nor can illegal aliens continue to victimize thousands of U.S. citizens each year if they are removed from the U.S. and kept out by an aggressive border and interior enforcement policy,” OJJPAC pointed out.
“Logically, public safety is improved by enforcing immigration laws, including the prosecution of those individuals whom have aided and abetted illegal aliens by adopting illegal sanctuary policies.”
The previous Obama administration often filed lawsuits against any state or local government attempting to crack down on illegal aliens in their jurisdictions, while claiming that it was unable to prevent local authorities from establishing “sanctuary areas” for invaders.