Like Countable?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 2146

Cutting Federal Funding to Sanctuary Cities

Argument in favor

Sanctuary cities encourage illegal immigration and endanger public safety — they don't deserve federal funding. Plus, mandatory minimums will help deter more illegal immigration.

DonaldTrump's Opinion
···
10/21/2015
"We have to end this sanctuary cities crap.” [washington.cbslocal.com]
Like (113)
Follow
Share
BTSundra's Opinion
···
10/21/2015
As they do not comply with federal law, they should not receive federal funding. You can't have the best of both worlds.
Like (9)
Follow
Share
Ralph's Opinion
···
10/21/2015
Of course they should lose all federal funding. The people saying no need to have explained to them what the rule of law means. You don't get to follow whatever laws you agree with. And please stop using the word immigrant to describe these people without the illegal part attached. No one has a problem with legal immigrants. They followed the rules to get here, they pay taxes and for the most part follow the law. People have a problem with immigrants who start out their "journey to freedom " by committing a crime and then draining resources from tax paying citizens while most of them refuse to pay taxes. In addition when they realize that they have not come to the land of milk and honey where everything is just going to be wonderful for them they inevitably turn to drugs and crime. Not all of them of course but a significantly higher amount than the general public. Legal immigration is what helped make this country great and illegal immigration is helping to destroy it. We are circling the bowl here because we are giving away the store without any way to restock the shelves. Obama keeps claiming that he is cutting the deficit and liberal fools believe him. The facts are that when he took office the deficit was just about 9 trillion and it is now approaching 19 trillion. We simply can't afford to have this out of control spending. A good first step is to stop funding cities and states that continue to refuse to comply with the law.
Like (8)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

It's wrong to force immigration laws on communities that don't support them. This bill threatens to erode community trust in law enforcement as an overreactive response to an unfortunate event.

BernieSanders's Opinion
···
10/21/2015
"Time to bring our neighbors out of the shadows." [cnn.com]
Like (77)
Follow
Share
CPMonroe's Opinion
···
10/21/2015
Unless the city/county has seceded from the United States, they're eligible for federal funds & support. And, as the war on drugs has proved, mandatory minimums lead to a nation of freedom-loving prisoners.
Like (17)
Follow
Share
AndrewGVN's Opinion
···
10/21/2015
Not all immigrants are mafia gangster members that sell drugs, these cities/people aren't hurting anyone, and not giving them (the cities) funding would be stupid, as it would negatively effect the economy as a whole.
Like (14)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The house has not voted
  • The senate has not voted
    IntroducedOctober 6th, 2015

What is Senate Bill S. 2146?

This bill aims to hold sanctuary cities and jurisdictions accountable for defying federal immigration laws. It would increase penalties for those who illegally re-enter the U.S. after being deported.

Sanctuary jurisdictions are defined as states or localities that prohibit law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration officials — even if they wish to do so. Under this bill, the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) would create a list of jurisdictions that meet this definition and make it publicly available.

Federal grant funding for law enforcement would be withheld from sanctuary jurisdictions, and made available to other states and localities that allow their law enforcement officers to cooperate with federal immigration officials.

Local law enforcement would explicitly have the legal authority to cooperate with federal immigration officials if they so choose — even in sanctuary jurisdictions. 

Kate's Law would also be included in this legislation. It is named for Kate Steinle, a woman who was murdered in a sanctuary city by an unauthorized immigrant who had been deported five times and had seven felony convictions. Kate’s Law establishes a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for unauthorized immigrants who are convicted of re-entering the U.S. after being convicted of an aggravated felony. The mandatory minimum also applies for those who had been convicted of illegally entering the U.S. twice before.

Impact

People who live in sanctuary jurisdictions, law enforcement agencies currently receiving federal funds in those states and localities, the Dept. of Justice, and the Dept. of Homeland Security.

Cost of Senate Bill S. 2146

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) believes:

“There is absolutely no reason that any U.S. city should be allowed to ignore our nation’s immigration laws and provide a safe harbor for illegal immigrants. Our legislation will stop sending sanctuary cities federal taxpayer dollars, so hopefully they get a clue.”

The Obama administration has threatened to veto this legislation if it passes through Congress and arrives at his desk to be signed into law.

A Rasmussen poll released on July 10, 2015 found that 62 percent of Americans believe the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) should take legal action against sanctuary cities, while 58 percent believe federal funding should be cut off to those cities.

Currently this bill has 14 cosponsors in the Senate, all of whom are Republicans.


Of Note: Sanctuary cities in particular have long been controversial and grew in popularity during the 2000s — reaching a total of more than 200 cities or states with variations of the policy.

They re-emerged in the news cycle in July 2015 in San Francisco after Kate Steinle's  murder. San Francisco has been a sanctuary city since 1989, when an ordinance preventing local authorities from assisting federal immigration enforcement was passed. Learn more about the incident, the politics of the situation, and how immigration cases have been handled in San Francisco here.

The federal government has also expressed frustration with the sanctuary cities, as ICE officials are put in greater danger by having to apprehend the undocumented immigrants at their home than if they had been able to pick them up at the jail. Recently the agency has begun tracking the number of “detainer” requests they have sent to local authorities about immigrants they’ve arrest which are subsequently refused, and the subject of the request allowed to go free.

However, the Director of ICE has expressed skepticism that forcing sanctuary cities or states to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement would be helpful, calling it a “highly counterproductive step” that would “lead to more resistance and less cooperation.”


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Flickr user gazeronly)

AKA

Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act

Official Title

A bill to hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable for defying Federal law, to increase penalties for individuals who illegally reenter the United States after being removed, and to provide liability protection for State and local law enforcement who cooperate with Federal law enforcement and for other purposes.

    "We have to end this sanctuary cities crap.” [washington.cbslocal.com]
    Like (113)
    Follow
    Share
    "Time to bring our neighbors out of the shadows." [cnn.com]
    Like (77)
    Follow
    Share
    Unless the city/county has seceded from the United States, they're eligible for federal funds & support. And, as the war on drugs has proved, mandatory minimums lead to a nation of freedom-loving prisoners.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    Not all immigrants are mafia gangster members that sell drugs, these cities/people aren't hurting anyone, and not giving them (the cities) funding would be stupid, as it would negatively effect the economy as a whole.
    Like (14)
    Follow
    Share
    As they do not comply with federal law, they should not receive federal funding. You can't have the best of both worlds.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Of course they should lose all federal funding. The people saying no need to have explained to them what the rule of law means. You don't get to follow whatever laws you agree with. And please stop using the word immigrant to describe these people without the illegal part attached. No one has a problem with legal immigrants. They followed the rules to get here, they pay taxes and for the most part follow the law. People have a problem with immigrants who start out their "journey to freedom " by committing a crime and then draining resources from tax paying citizens while most of them refuse to pay taxes. In addition when they realize that they have not come to the land of milk and honey where everything is just going to be wonderful for them they inevitably turn to drugs and crime. Not all of them of course but a significantly higher amount than the general public. Legal immigration is what helped make this country great and illegal immigration is helping to destroy it. We are circling the bowl here because we are giving away the store without any way to restock the shelves. Obama keeps claiming that he is cutting the deficit and liberal fools believe him. The facts are that when he took office the deficit was just about 9 trillion and it is now approaching 19 trillion. We simply can't afford to have this out of control spending. A good first step is to stop funding cities and states that continue to refuse to comply with the law.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    "My end goal is to get 11 million people out of the shadow economy and shadow society and in the light of full participation" [twitter.com]
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    A YEA vote is an endorsement of xenophobia. Sanctuary cities have not been shown to be more dangerous statistically! JUST STOP IT! Immigrants are not the enemy, all evidence points to the U.S. congress being the enemy.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Sanctuary cities are by definition in opposition to the rule of law and therefore the foundation of a civilized society: if you can't get the laws you want, ignore the laws and do what you want.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Just as the states legal marijuana laws, it's illegal under federal law. States do not have legal authority to impose laws or dismiss federal laws. They should be held accountable.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    If it's not vaginas or social security, it's immigration. Hey, let's do something about the 80K homeless kids first.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    A good bill. IF they do not follow the law then any Federal money should be withheld or even given to another local that abides by the law.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Since cities already subsidize the rural areas that have an issue with immigrants, and Blue States pay for the Red, this measure steals from Blue cities twice. Rural areas and the Red States have been leeching off the successful Blue for way too long. When areas that voted for Trump start paying their own way maybe cities will listen. Till then maybe stop being so scared of everything you have no contact with anyway.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    My local law enforcement SHOULD NOT be wasting their time enforcing immigration laws. This makes my community more dangerous by preventing entire communities from accessing law enforcement, and creates (more) distrust between the police and communities of color. ICE needs to do their own damn job; stop foisting it onto local police forces. IT IS LITERALLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY NOT THEIR JOB!
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Cities should comply with Federal Law. They cannot cherry pick which laws they choose to to enforce
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Sanctuary cities are a danger to America.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    If cities can pick and choose laws to obey based on how they feel than so can private citizens.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Yes yes yes. They are violating federal laws..
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    Breaking federal laws should not be rewarded.
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    They are breaking Federal Law should I break Federal Law if I don't agree with it?
    Like (3)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE