Should "Sanctuary Cities" be denied Federal Funds for transit & other projects?

[CaliNative]

I say no! While many (maybe the majority) might have problems with cities making immigration policy (leave that to the Feds), I really don't think the federal government should deny funds for transit and other projects like some have suggested. L.A., S.F., S.D., Chicago, Boston & N.Y.C. are all "sanctuary cities". Residents of these cities pay HUGE taxes to the U.S. & should get the money for transit and other projects. The federal government can challenge the "sanctuary" policies in the courts without withholding money. If they do withhold funds, expect massive court battles between the cities, the states, and the Feds. Nobody wins except the lawyers.

[the urban politician]

I don't get this thread. Why the hell would any of us here say "yes"?

[1Boston]

It's interesting because the city of Somerville MA is a sanctuary city and the mayor has confirmed that it will remain that way. Despite this, Trump has included the Greenline extension into Somerville and Medford in his list of infrastructure projects list.

[passed]

Sure, and then they can stop sending in any sort of taxes, and will come out positive.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by 1Boston

It's interesting because the city of Somerville MA is a sanctuary city and the mayor has confirmed that it will remain that way. Despite this, Trump has included the Greenline extension into Somerville and Medford in his list of infrastructure projects list.

That list has already been proven not to be from any official source.

As for the question, of course they should not receive federal transportation funding, but the issues goes far deeper than that. Allowing them to exist at all is an insult to Federal power. Denying them money would be step 1, arresting their politicians for violating the law would be the more appropriate action though.

[eleven=11]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

That list has already been proven not to be from any official source.

As for the question, of course they should not receive federal transportation funding, but the issues goes far deeper than that. Allowing them to exist at all is an insult to Federal power. Denying them money would be step 1, arresting their politicians for violating the law would be the more appropriate action though.

arresting the politicians for violating the law - start with trump!
liar,thief,tax evader,pervert,racist,bankrupt fool

[Delthayre]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Allowing them to exist at all is an insult to Federal power. Denying them money would be step 1, arresting their politicians for violating the law would be the more appropriate action though.

I suspect that is, at least legally, an inaccurate characterization. Rulings by the Supreme Court have held that state governments cannot constitutionally be, "commandeered," to assist in the enforcement of federal law. The removal of funding as retaliation for being a sanctuary city might also be unconstitutional under NFIB v. Sebelius, which held that states could not be coerced into expanding Medicaid coverage by the threat of having all Medicaid funding revoked. (The foregoing is drawn from an analysis by Professor Illya Somin of The Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy, originally published on November 26th, 2016)

State governments could, presumably, compel the discontinuation of Sanctuary City policies as well take the aggressively punitive measures against the elected Mayors and City Councils of such cities. There would, however, naturally be variation in how feasible this is or how quickly and effectively any of it could be done.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Delthayre

I suspect that is, at least legally, an inaccurate characterization. Rulings by the Supreme Court have held that state governments cannot constitutionally be, "commandeered," to assist in the enforcement of federal law. The removal of funding as retaliation for being a sanctuary city might also be unconstitutional under NFIB v. Sebelius, which held that states could not be coerced into expanding Medicaid coverage by the threat of having all Medicaid funding revoked. (The foregoing is drawn from an analysis by Professor Illya Somin of The Washington Post's Volokh Conspiracy, originally published on November 26th, 2016)

State governments could, presumably, compel the discontinuation of Sanctuary City policies as well take the aggressively punitive measures against the elected Mayors and City Councils of such cities. There would, however, naturally be variation in how feasible this is or how quickly and effectively any of it could be done.

Interesting. I am torn about this issue. I have great compassion for immigrants, legal or not, who may want to come to the U.S., but I also have compassion for unemployed Americans who need jobs and housing. At this moment, there are probably 3 billion people (or more) who would like to come to the U.S. if we opened the borders and they could get here. Do we want a population in the U.S. greater than China or India? That is what might happen in a few decades if the laws are not enforced for the good of the citizens of the U.S. Nations have a right to control their borders and regulate immigration. I think most liberals and conservatives would agree on that point (I myself am liberal and a Democrat). You think our freeways are crowded now? Imagine if the U.S. population doubled or tripled! The U.S. and other rich nations should try to improve the economies and living standards of poor countries so the people don't have to migrate in the first place.

But I am also opposed to the federal government withholding funds for transit projects and other projects to cities and states that have "sanctuary" policies for undocumented migrants. Some in the new administration have suggested this embargo on funds. I think this is wrong. Challenge the sanctuary policies in court, but let the funds flow. It is OUR money--OUR taxes.

[ChargerCarl]

I agree that we should have a serious discussion about immigration and that we should control our borders, but I don't see that overcrowding should be a considering factor. From a technical standpoint the US could quite easily accomadate 2-3x more people. The only reason housing and infrastructure are scare goods here is that we've made a political choice, through NIMBYism and an unwillingness to tackle our infrastructure cost control problems, that has made them this way.

[initiald]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

I agree that we should have a serious discussion about immigration and that we should control our borders, but I don't see that overcrowding should be a considering factor. From a technical standpoint the US could quite easily accomadate 2-3x more people. The only reason housing and infrastructure are scare goods here is that we've made a political choice, through NIMBYism and an unwillingness to tackle our infrastructure cost control problems, that has made them this way.

Indeed. The idea of "overcrowding" is a myth. If the entire world lived in one city as dense as New York City everyone could fit in an area the size of Texas,

[mrsmartman]

Sanctuary cities are wrong.

• Video Link

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by initiald

Indeed. The idea of "overcrowding" is a myth. If the entire world lived in one city as dense as New York City everyone could fit in an area the size of Texas,

"The idea of overcrowding (and overpopulation) is a myth"

I do believe elephants, lions, tigers and mountain gorillas, and all the endangered species, would take issue with that. We are smack in the middle of a great extinction of animal and plant species caused primarily by human overpopulation. Entire ecosystems are breaking down. The only species that do well are those that live on the refuse of humans--rats, mice, cockroaches etc. The world population has more than DOUBLED in my lifetime. This rate of growth is cancer-like, and is a disaster for animals and humans too. Have you ever been to poor countries? The poverty is crushing. Some nations are already well past their carrying capacity, and depend on handouts. People will leave these countries, and try to get into the rich countries in Europe and the U.S. & Canada.

[ChargerCarl]

Ok, but If more people move to the USA the # of people on the planet doesn't change. In fact, the long run effect of that would likely lower the global population growth rate since people living in rich countries choose to have less children on average.

[mrsmartman]

The so-called most democratic way is to dismantle the federal government and let each state decide on its own affairs.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by initiald

Indeed. The idea of "overcrowding" is a myth. If the entire world lived in one city as dense as New York City everyone could fit in an area the size of Texas,

Does New York City feed and water itself, from within its own city limits?

While it is true Texas is large enough to hold the entire world's population, it can't feed and water everyone.