Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 1885

Should Sanctuary Cities That Don't Enforce Immigration Law Lose Federal Funding?

Argument in favor

Sanctuary cities are actively subverting the federal government’s efforts to enforce immigration law. As such, they shouldn’t be eligible for federal funding. As long as sanctuary cities refuse to help enforce federal immigration law, they shouldn’t be allowed to continue receiving federal funding.

TexasTRex's Opinion
···
06/14/2019
Harboring criminals should require loss of federal funding. The government is more than happy to take away money from its citizens for other reasons. A direct violation of the law shouldn’t be any different. Sorry it hurts the local citizens, but they need to stand up to their elected officials and tell them to stop it if they don’t like it. There are consequences to choices.
Like (94)
Follow
Share
JustJeeps's Opinion
···
06/14/2019
Aiding and abetting a Felon is a crime. If Democrats want to prosecute everyone to prove “No one is above the law”, then that can’t mean: “No one is above the laws WE CHOOSE TO Enforce.” We are either a country that enforces our laws or we are not.
Like (66)
Follow
Share
Sterling's Opinion
···
06/14/2019
By declaring as a sanctuary city they have decided that the laws of the federal government do not apply to them. Thee is nothing wrong with doing that but with that decision there should be consequences including a loss if funds from the entity whose laws they have decided to snub.
Like (51)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

It may not be constitutional for Congress to enact this bill, as the Supreme Court has previously found it unconstitutional for Congress to withhold federal funding from states and localities in retaliation for their refusal to implement a federal program.

Kodiwodi's Opinion
···
06/14/2019
This has been asked and answered so many times now. No. If you remove federal funding from Sanctuary Cities and States because they are doing what they feel is morally and ethically correct, than you must remove funding from other states presenting laws on what they feel is morally and ethically correct. It would also open up the whole taxation without representation issue as well and would they need to pay taxes to the Feds. Gosh it just sucks not to be equally bigoted doesn’t it? Jason, you mean like Washington DC? I agree Lance. Then the Feds whose responsibly it is to enforce immigration without the military or local police should lose these sanctuaries taxes. Wonder what the red states will do without the blue states taxes?
Like (173)
Follow
Share
Deirdre 's Opinion
···
06/14/2019
Instead of hurting people why don’t you all try helping people
Like (76)
Follow
Share
Robert's Opinion
···
06/14/2019
Mean spirited and vindictive I have no use for this kind of democracy
Like (72)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house has not voted
      house Committees
      Committee on the Judiciary
      Immigration and Citizenship
    IntroducedMarch 26th, 2019

What is House Bill H.R. 1885?

This bill — the No Federal Funding to Benefit Sanctuary Cities Act — would prohibit a sanctuary jurisdiction from receiving federal financial assistance. It’d also protect state or political subdivisions that comply with a detainer by deeming them to be agents of the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) authorized to take actions to comply with the detainer.

A “sanctuary jurisdiction” is defined as a state or political subdivision that has a statute, policy, or practice in effect that prohibits or restricts information sharing about an individual's immigration status, or compliance with a lawfully issued detainer request or notification of release request.

Impact

Sanctuary cities; federal funding for sanctuary cities; unauthorized immigrants in sanctuary cities; and law enforcement complying with DHS in sanctuary cities.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 1885

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-DepthRep. Francis Rooney (R-FL) reintroduced this bill from the 115th Congress to prohibit a sanctuary jurisdiction form receiving federal financial assistance and protect local law enforcement officers within sanctuary cities who cooperate with the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS):

“Sanctuary jurisdictions that harbor criminal illegal aliens are a clear violation of federal law and place citizens of their communities in danger. As I have stated on many occasions, we are a nation of laws – we cannot make exceptions based on feelings and emotion. If these cities choose to break federal law, they should not be rewarded with funding.”

America’s Voice, a liberal immigration reform group, argues that “scary things can happen when immigrants become afraid of the police.” It cites the example of Houston, where the police chief noted that the number of Hispanics reporting rape had decreased 42.8% from 2016 to 2017 and the number reporting other violent crimes had dropped 13%, despite crimes reported by non-Hispanics increasing over the same period (Houston has resisted a Texas law precluding it from operating as a sanctuary city). Similarly, in March 2017, the Los Angeles Police Department reported decreased sexual assault reports due to “a climate of fear in immigrant communities” and NPR reported that fear of deportation had caused four women to drop domestic abuse cases in Denver (Los Angeles and Denver are both sanctuary cities). With this in mind, many law enforcement officers, including the Fraternal Order of Police, a membership organization that endorsed Donald Trump in the 2016 election, have endorsed backing off on the idea of punishing cities or their police departments for immigrant-friendly sanctuary policies.

In its 2012 decision in the Obamacare case National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court found that Congress couldn’t constitutionally take away all Medicaid funding from states if they didn’t expand Medicaid coverage. In its ruling, the Court wrote, “Permitting the Federal Government to force the States to implement a federal program would threaten the political accountability key to our federal system.” Arguably, the same principle may apply in this case.

Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a crackdown on sanctuary cities a centerpiece of his time at the Justice Dept., where he said sanctuary cities are safe harbors for violent international cartels. In a 2017 speech, Sessions said sanctuary cities put “innocent life, including the lives of countless law-abiding immigrants, in danger.”

This bill has one cosponsor in the 116th Congress, Rep. Ron Wright (R-TX). In the 115th Congress, it was sponsored by Rep. Luke Messer (R-IN) with five Republican cosponsors’ support and didn’t receive a committee vote.


Of NoteThe National Conference of State Legislatures notes that sanctuary policy has recently emerged as a point of tension between federal, state and local authorities. As a form of opposition to Trump administration policies on immigration, some jurisdictions have limited their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents in order to protect low-priority immigrants from deportation while still turning over those who have committed serious crimes.

President Trump threatened to withhold funds from sanctuary cities in a 2017 executive order. However, in a 2-1 decision in August 2018, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the order was unconstitutional; but it also ruled that a lower court went too far in blocking the order nationwide. Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Sidney Thomas wrote, “Absent congressional authorization, the administration may not redistribute or withhold properly appropriated funds in order to effectuate its own policy goals.”


Media:

Summary by Lorelei Yang

(Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com / Radu Bighian)

AKA

No Federal Funding to Benefit Sanctuary Cities Act

Official Title

To ensure that State and local law enforcement may cooperate with Federal officials to protect our communities from violent criminals and suspected terrorists who are illegally present in the United States, to stop taxpayer dollars from flowing to jurisdictions that fail to comply with Federal law, and for other purposes.

    Harboring criminals should require loss of federal funding. The government is more than happy to take away money from its citizens for other reasons. A direct violation of the law shouldn’t be any different. Sorry it hurts the local citizens, but they need to stand up to their elected officials and tell them to stop it if they don’t like it. There are consequences to choices.
    Like (94)
    Follow
    Share
    This has been asked and answered so many times now. No. If you remove federal funding from Sanctuary Cities and States because they are doing what they feel is morally and ethically correct, than you must remove funding from other states presenting laws on what they feel is morally and ethically correct. It would also open up the whole taxation without representation issue as well and would they need to pay taxes to the Feds. Gosh it just sucks not to be equally bigoted doesn’t it? Jason, you mean like Washington DC? I agree Lance. Then the Feds whose responsibly it is to enforce immigration without the military or local police should lose these sanctuaries taxes. Wonder what the red states will do without the blue states taxes?
    Like (173)
    Follow
    Share
    Instead of hurting people why don’t you all try helping people
    Like (76)
    Follow
    Share
    Mean spirited and vindictive I have no use for this kind of democracy
    Like (72)
    Follow
    Share
    Aiding and abetting a Felon is a crime. If Democrats want to prosecute everyone to prove “No one is above the law”, then that can’t mean: “No one is above the laws WE CHOOSE TO Enforce.” We are either a country that enforces our laws or we are not.
    Like (66)
    Follow
    Share
    By declaring as a sanctuary city they have decided that the laws of the federal government do not apply to them. Thee is nothing wrong with doing that but with that decision there should be consequences including a loss if funds from the entity whose laws they have decided to snub.
    Like (51)
    Follow
    Share
    👍🏻H.R.1885 AKA “No Federal Funding to Benefit Sanctuary Cities Act”👍🏻 I strongly recommend and support passage of House Bill H.R. 1885 AKA the “No Federal Funding to Benefit Sanctuary Cities Act” which would prohibit a sanctuary jurisdiction from receiving federal financial assistance. It’d also protect state or political subdivisions that comply with a detainer by deeming them to be agents of the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) authorized to take actions to comply with the detainer. Sanctuary cities are actively subverting the federal government’s efforts to enforce immigration law. As such, they shouldn’t be eligible for federal funding. As long as sanctuary cities refuse to help enforce federal immigration law, they shouldn’t be allowed to continue receiving federal funding. SneakyPete..... 👍🏻👍🏻HR-1885👍🏻👍🏻. 6.14.19.....
    Like (48)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely! You can’t choose which laws to enforce. If you can’t enforce immigration laws, you shouldn’t get funding to police these people. This additional funding needs to come from the state. This isn’t about being mean or selfish. This is about keeping our own people safe and enforcing laws that are in the books. Hold your representatives accountable!
    Like (43)
    Follow
    Share
    Again. This is an individual States Rights question. States rights often don’t match those of the fed gov. Example: Marijuana. Besides. Immigration under Trump is Nazis reborn. THAT IN ITSELF IS A REASON TO RESIST IT
    Like (40)
    Follow
    Share
    Being a humanitarian should not be penalized.
    Like (37)
    Follow
    Share
    Per the president, we can pick and chose what laws we want to obey. What laws we want to bend into a pretzel and who to listen to, so yes, sanctuary cities should not lose any funding for being decent and humane.
    Like (33)
    Follow
    Share
    You don’t punish the poor and middle class over politics. It’s un-Republican to erode state rights.
    Like (32)
    Follow
    Share
    Immigration is a federal responsibility. Cities, Counties, and States can’t issue papers or visas. Don’t blame other because the feds can’t get their shit together to do their job. Cities and states don’t have the funds to do the job for the feds. Do your own damn work.
    Like (30)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes they need to lose all Federal funding if they refuse to follow Federal law they need to lose all fund funds
    Like (29)
    Follow
    Share
    Break federal law, get federal money (taxpayer [like me] money) I think not. These cities and states need to redo their priorities hard working citizens or illegals. They shouldn’t have it both ways. It’s like telling law abiding people we can break laws but you can’t
    Like (25)
    Follow
    Share
    Punish a City or State because they have humanitarian values? There is such a thing as a State's right to disagree with Federal directives- particularly since these efforts are long term and will surely outlast the current administration. Are they supposed to suddenly stop what they are doing because a numb nuts administration finagled themselves into office? It has been an accepted practice and that shouldn't have to change every time there is an election. What is next? Withdraw federal funding from any district that did not vote Republican?
    Like (23)
    Follow
    Share
    Sanctuary cities should not lose federal funding for not enforcing immigration laws. Rather they should have INCREASED FUNDING for caring for immigrants in humane facilities with empathy and support rather than in cages and crowded inhumane conditions where they may die.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    They’re literally breaking federal laws, we shouldn’t be encouraging that.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    Of course! The legality of sanctuary cities is questionable in the first place, despite being a state’s separate “right”. Unless these sanctuary cities are committed to upholding current immigration laws and providing assistance to state and federal agencies, federal funding should be held. If their mantra, “no one is above the law” is what they truly believe and must be applicable to POTUS, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS that take sanctuary in these cities surely must be held to that same belief. Get a grip legislators!! I will not vote for flip floppers that politicize specific issues for their personal agendas. Period. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are here ILLEGALLY. They aren’t undocumented, they aren’t here accidentally, they are here because they did not go through proper channels no matter how cumbersome the laws are. Fix what is broken first. Humanitarian relief should be centered on correcting the laws that prevent immigration to our country legally. Instead of making it appear that those who support a wall and immigration reform out to be monsters, why not stand behind the “humanitarian” cause and get this fixed? Come on people! Use your heads!!!
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    Absolutely - I don’t want my federal tax dollars going to places where they blatantly disregard the law.
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE