What do you think of drying up federal money to cities who won't help enforce immigration laws?

Answer 1

Dont Worry
They'll Get What's Comin To Them

You Just Gotta Look On The Other Side Of That Coin

When The ILLEGAL ALIENS Flock To Them By The Millions
(A Reaction To Ordinances In Hazleton,
And Farmers Branch, For Instance)

And THEY (Sanctuaries) Find Themselves
Incredibly Overwhelmed By The Massive Numbers
Of Out Of Work ILLEGAL ALIENS

With No Funds To Support Them
Not Enough Housing To Shelter Them
Not Enough Jobs To Employ Them
And Not Enough Resources To Sustain Them ??

What Do You Think Will Happen ?


The city of Maywood -
a 1.2-square-mile town
with a population of just over 28,000
96 percent hispanic
More Than 60 Percent ILLEGAL ALIENS
eight miles south of Los Angeles -
a pocket for illegal aliens,
lauded by immigrant advocates
and decried by detractors.

A "Sanctuary City"

I Wonder How A 1.2-square-mile town
with a population of just over 28,000
Would React To A Swarm
Of 50,000 Or 100,000 People
Seeking Refuge From US Immigration Laws

As More And More Cities, Counties And States
Begin To Add Legislature And Local Ordinances
Refusing Housing And Employment To ILLEGAL ALIENS
Those ILLEGAL ALIENS Will MIGRATE
To Known Safe Havens

.

Answer 2

I think it's a great idea. They have taken an oath to enforce our laws. Not just the ones they like. Most of the sanctuary cities are major cities. I say take their homeland security money away. I know here all they're doing is putting up more cameras to be able to send you a ticket in the mail to pay, instead of making it a secure city.

Answer 3

Yes, I'm all for this. However, don't see how this can happen since the Federal government, itself, does not enforce our immigration laws.

Answer 4

Why do cities need federal money in the first place?
The federal government just makes them jump through draconian hoops to qualify... most of which suppress rights of citizens and land owners...

Whatever happened to state/county Sovereignty? Self sufficiency? Was it replaced by deficit "share the wealth" socialist politics?

Answer 5

sure, for lower than the established performance, which i assume is determined by the practice of the feds. i'm no longer knowledgeable about the wanted roles of the feds vs. the states vs. cities or counties. If the feds are meant to implement a similar guidelines interior a similar way the different jurisdictions are and the feds are literally not following their personal criteria then the different jurisdictions might want to easily be held to the criteria to the point maintained by the feds. If those criteria are literally not met by the states/cities/counties then the punishment might want to initiate after warnings in writing and could contain graduated discipline of those persons responsible for no longer assembly the criteria. you won't be able to withhold funding, because money is critical to maintain the criteria. the topics favor to be corrected by having those who're responsible for the placement both substitute their defective habit or get replaced with those who will impressive the topics. complications of this type commonly are literally not concerning money instantly tied to the certain project, hence border enforcment, yet truly are concerning key those who're no longer doing their interest wisely, both because they are incompetent or because they don't pick to finish for what ever reason. the placement can perfect be corrected by a substitute in key human beings's habit or alternative by yet another human being. each and every from time to time monetary rewards and carry backs on different unrelated unnecessary or "puppy" initiatives might want to correctly be useful at replacing habit, yet this may purely be finished if the major human being at fault won't be able to get replaced or replaced by further direct ability. Taking federal money for states/cities/counties far flung from them or protecting it decrease back is problematical to do. Getting undesirable performers to develop their habit or perhaps bumped off is likewise problematical. that's the reason needed substitute commonly takes many years or by no ability takes position.

Answer 6

that another good idea but how will that happen when the federal government want even enforce the immigration laws

Answer 7

I think if that city or county is using Federal funds to enable illegal immigration, then they are using taxpayer dollars in a fraudulent manner and they should be penalized by the shrinking or cutting off of their funds.

Answer 8

Okay so now it is up to Cities to do the Job for the Federal Government and if we don't do their jobs for them they will not pay us our dividends of the funds that we need for our citizens... what you suggest is preposterous..... and sounds like IN-HOUSE SLAVERY..... Oh where does the Federal Government get money anyway....... From the tax payers of each state....Come on get a grip on reality.

Answer 9

I am for this wonderful idea! If anyone says it's not possible, they don't realize they live in America. Look at all we have accomplished since we won the Revolutionary War!
(No one has tried this idea yet folks, no one has demanded through laws or bills yet for states to stop giving illegals welfare)

Answer 10

It's a great idea, but it will never happen. We can't even get states to stop giving welfare to illegals, free hospitalization, etc., and on top of that, we just had a bunch of liberals who are pro illegal voted into office. In other words, we are screwed, and by our own hand.