Who Will Pay For Sanctuary Cities Tomorrow?

Exactly one year ago I wrote, "No One is Liberal When It's Their Life" in describing the political aftermath in the wake of the horrific ISIS attacks in Paris. Liberal Socialist French President Francoise Hollande underwent an amazing transformation from chastising those who did not want to accept Muslim refugees to stating that "we are going to lead a war which will be pitiless" over the course of two short months.

It has been said that "there are no atheists in foxholes". When the bullets and bombs start flying in war those in the middle of it are looking for a higher power to see them through harm's way.

It seems to me that there also exists a corollary aphorism.

There are no liberals when it is your life and security at risk.

If you don't believe it, look no further than the actions of French President Francois Hollande in the aftermath of the horrific ISIS attacks in Paris several weeks ago.

A year later Hollande has no political future. The two leading candidates for President in left-leaning France are a centre-right conservative and a far right wing conservative.

Isn't it curious that when it is your life on the line that your perspective can change rather rapidly?

The same goes for when it is your money.

I am looking forward to seeing how many mayors and college presidents who have declared they have no intention of abandoning their sanctuary city (or college) status maintain that promise if they are at risk of losing federal funding.

As of July, 2015

This is how the New York Post described Mayor Bill deBlasio's position on sanctuary city status in light of the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States.

New York will remain a “sanctuary city” for undocumented immigrants, Mayor de Blasio promised on Friday — even if Donald Trump makes good on his threats to yank federal funding in retaliation.

In fact, the city will reject federal aid that comes with objectionable “strings attached,” such as requiring local cops to turn over people they learn are here illegally, an action that, as a sanctuary city, New York won’t allow, he said.

How much federal funding does New York City receive?

$10.6 billion according to CNN Money.

I wonder how willing New York City taxpayers are going to be to chip in to plug that hole in the city's budget to protect illegal immigrants?

How about in Chicago where Mayor Rahm Emanuel has made similar comments?

The City of Chicago will receive $1.3 billion in federal grants this year according to their budget document.

Or in San Francisco where Mayor Ed Lee recently said this.

“Being a sanctuary city for me is the DNA of San Francisco.” “We’ll always be a sanctuary city. We’re not going to change who we are."

San Francisco risks almost $1 billion in federal funding on the sanctuary city issue. I guess we will find out exactly how much it is really in their DNA to defy federal authorities and harbor illegal immigrants at that amount of money.

The most amusing defenders of sanctuary status are the colleges and university groups who are urging college administrators to defy federal government authority on the issue.

I would hope most college presidents and their boards are smarter than that. Most colleges and universities would have to shut the doors but for the federal funds that support these institutions. In fact, I was surprised to learn that the federal government now provides more funding to higher education than the states do. In the 25 years leading up to 2012, states provided 65% more funding to colleges and universities (principally state-sponsored institutions) than states did. In recent years, the feds have dramatically increased funding while state funding has been scaled back (principally due to Medicaid and other welfare costs) reversing history.

The federal government annually provides more than $100 billion in federal student loans, $30 billion in Pell grants and $2.5 billion in straight grants to higher education each year. Beyond this, the federal government also funds numerous research grants to these institutions ($25+ billion) and over $30 billion in federal veterans' benefits annually.

How many students, parents or alums of these institutions of higher learning would be willing to fund the revenue shortfall caused by the loss of federal funds to protect illegal immigrants?

I doubt we will find one.

Sanctuary cities is but one issue involving illegal immigration which explains why the liberal left is so terrified by a Trump presidency. Their worst fears have been confirmed with the selection of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General who is the U.S. Senate's strongest advocate against illegal immigration. That is why I expect that he will be the cabinet officer that takes the most heat in the confirmation process.

Quite simply, the law is on the side of Trump involving immigration law. He does not need to pass any new immigration or enforcement laws. He merely needs to start enforcing laws that have been on the books for decades but which recent Administrations' have chosen to ignore. This has been most particularly true of Obama who not only ignored the law in many cases but circumvented it by executive orders as well.

Byron York in the Washington Examiner explains the nightmare facing the Democrats.

There are extensive, and in some cases, strict immigration laws on the books, passed by bipartisan majorities of Congress. Obama wanted Congress to change those laws. Congress declined. So Obama stopped enforcing provisions of the law that he did not like. A new administration could simply resume enforcement of the law — a move that by itself would bring a huge change to immigration practices in the United States. No congressional approval needed.

There are laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally. Laws providing for the deportation of people who entered the U.S. illegally and later committed crimes. Laws for enforcing immigration compliance at the worksite. Laws for immigrants who have illegally overstayed their visas for coming to the United States. Laws requiring local governments to comply with federal immigration law. And more.

The Democrats may see the tables turned on them completely on the issue of immigration with Trump in the White House and with minorities in both the House and Senate.

A Trump administration would not need to ask Congress to pass any new laws to deal with illegal immigration. If there was a presidential order involved in Obama's non-enforcement, Trump could undo it, and if there were Justice Department directives involved, Sessions could undo them, and if there are Department of Homeland Security directives involved, the still-to-be-nominated secretary could undo them.

Trump does not even need to pass a law to begin to "build the wall". "The Secure Fence Act" to build a 700 mile double-layer fence was already passed by the House and Senate and signed into law 10 years ago. All it needs is some Presidential will and some additional funding (from Mexico?).

Sanctuary cities?

We will see if they survive if the federal money is shut off.

Who will pay for sanctuary cities tomorrow? Will it be in their DNA?

In the meantime, it does not look like Washington, DC will provide much sanctuary for Democrats on the issue of immigration in the near term if Donald Trump stays true to his views on the campaign trail.