President Trump Can Withhold Millions From 'Sanctuaries'

It’s about time this case got to an appellant court that has some ethics and upholds constitutional law.

Three lower courts had ruled against the withholding of funds.


Finally a great court win for President Trump. De blasio, Kenny ( Phila) and other Leftists Mayors actually have to follow U.S. law.No doubt an appeal to go before the SCOTUS is coming. Lets get the planes loaded get them outta here!!!


I think they already ruled on this:

They went by the law. The Supreme Court ruled that on immigration policies, the federal government has power over the states. The law is clear, they asserted, the U.S. attorney general can impose conditions on sanctuaries receiving the money.

The three courts that ruled against this on clearly partisan grounds should now be under investigation by the DOJ for corruption.

Ha! This is why you don’t bite the hand that feeds. What are all these blue districts going to do without taxpayer money to hand out to all the illegals? As the funds start to dwindle I predict that their “undocumented” illegal constituents will become restless and violent. I hope I’m wrong about that but freeloaders don’t like when their handouts cease.

What all liberal cities do sell pot ! with a 15% tax on every sale

Alaska $39.5 million Massachusetts $106 million
California $2.75 billion Nevada $102.7 million
Colorado $1.56 billion Oregon $777.6 million
District of Columbia $17.7 million Washington $1 billion
Maine $83.4 million

Let the withholding begin!!!

PS: The administration’s efforts to deny states/cities funding were in response to sanctuary cities. Your pot is still safe.

1 Like

This is such a smart move and it should have happened on day one when Trump took office. Most large cities are completely dependent on the federal government to pay for the vast majority of their law enforcement needs. If the cities have to pull out of other pots to pay their police officers or even furlough police officers things are going to get out of hand really quickly. None of these mayors want that kind of headache on their hands even if they can blame it on Trump people just won’t care.

It went to the Supreme Court.

There is a game being played by all of these liberal infested cities of playing chicken with the law as it exists. For the most part, they are losing which is a good thing. But only after they have judge shopped and they get challenged.


As a new saying should be coined that would bitch slap the one who created this culture:

“Yes He Can”

insert smiley face__________

As of today, he can also prevent Nadler from interviewing his staff. I’ll bet Nadler is PISSED!

Screw Nadler! Screw Schiif! Screw Pelosi!

^^^^^^^^The Three Stooges^^^^^^^^

:fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: :fu: :fu:

It can’t be done, because without the federal subsidies local taxes wouldn’t be able to sustain the status quo - nowhere near it in fact. Citizens would face impossible hardships, from mortgage foreclosures to dropping dead in the streets owing to lack of sustenance. Welfare and health services would become bankrupt and consequently shut down, which would lead to an unprecedented crime wave involving erstwhile law-abiding citizens venting their fury; the police wouldn’t be able to keep on top of it, the courts would be overwhelmed, and the prisons full because of a refusal, or financial inability, to pay fines. In other words it would become anarchic; so all-in-all - bad idea!

Thanks for opining on something yet again you have proven to know nothing about. There is Federal funding and there is State and City funding that make up the majority of budgets both on the local and state level something you seem to be aloof about. Surprise surprise! So no its not a bad idea and this is all about getting states and cities to comply with Federal mandates, and The Federal government has every right to set standards for the funding it disperses to state and city municipalities.

If withholding the ‘millions’ of the federal subsidies precept would make no difference to the sanctuary towns/cities then I seriously doubt that president Trump will exercise his option to withhold it. :roll_eyes:

Why are you commenting on this subject without having a basic understanding on how budgets work in our country? Its clearly obvious that you have not one clue on how they are constructed or how they work, otherwise why would you ask such a question based on obvious ignorance on your part?

Whether I have a basic understanding of the subject or not, or whether by my ‘ignorance’ ( :roll_eyes: ), pre-supposing that the objective is to sanction those towns/cities but doing so will prove to be ineffective, then it’s patently obvious to anyone with more than half a brain there’s no point it ordering it: therefore according to your rationalising, the proposition to withhold is moot?

Thanks for sharing an opinion to which has no basis on a basic understanding of how or what this issue actually means and proves further that having any meaningful discussion with you is a waste of time, especially ones constructed with a distorted perception such as yours!

It’s a legal quid pro quo. The sanctuaries get the money only if they follow the pecking order regarding immigration laws. Federal law takes precedence over state law and city ordinances…regarding anything related to immigration.

They will comply.

1 Like

Now that’s what I call of cogent reply. It’s nice to get a reply without the usual insult of ‘ignorant’ and ‘BS’ occurring again and again. But I still don’t get how the loss of ‘millions’ of dollars can have no material effect.

It will have several effects.

One is that the sanctuary Governors and Mayors will shit watermelons trying to figure out how to get along without the money short of going bankrupt or taxing their constituents into relocating, thus losing more revenue.

Another is that they won’t be able to do that, so they will comply with the requests from ICE for access to criminal illegals aliens…or face loss of grant money and suffer significant fines in court. They may even be subject to punitive damages awarded in civil lawsuits brought by victims of criminal illegal aliens that they refused to turn over to ICE.

1 Like