Sanctuary Cities Could See Their Transportation Projects Caught In The Crossfire

There are penalties for violating federal law on a subject that the federal government is tasked with per the Constitution

(Politico) A tunnel under New York’s Hudson River may be imperiled. In Los Angeles, millions of dollars could be at stake for port improvements. And other communities’ hopes for major transportation projects could be caught in the crossfire as President Donald Trump threatens to strip federal funding from “sanctuary cities” that defy his immigration policies.

Considering that Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., have all declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants, Trump’s reprisals could end up canceling or delaying major infrastructure projects in some of the nation’s most congested areas — even as the administration touts a $1 trillion proposal to rebuild the United States’ roads, railroads, bridges and airports.

Trump issued an executive order last month that declares a “policy” of blocking federal funds for cities, states and other jurisdictions that refuse to provide information and assistance to federal immigration authorities. That puts potentially hundreds of millions of dollars on the chopping block, and transportation advocates say the damage could extend far beyond Trump’s intended targets.

“Wouldn’t punishing a city with a loss of transit funding have deleterious effects on an entire region?” asked Steve Davis, communications director for the advocacy group Transportation for America. “D.C. for example — if the District lost transportation funding, wouldn’t Prince William or other outlying counties pay part of the price too in congestion, lost productivity and economic turmoil?”

There’s an easy solution to this: stop being sanctuary cities. Stop sheltering those who are unlawfully present in the country. Cooperate with federal authorities when it comes to illegal aliens. Leftists claim to love the federal government, yet, when federal law goes against their predilection for illegal aliens, even those who are stone cold felons such as child molestation, they want to defy the federal government. The Constitution gives the Congress the power duty to protect our borders.

Many liberal cities and counties have recently changed their tune, such as Miami. Whether they’ve only rescinded their policies in name only and will continue the actual practices remains to be seen. Yet, this is the right path. The rest should think long on whether they should continue protecting illegal aliens who usually end up in police stations because they’ve broken the law.

Nor is it out of bounds for a president and/or Congress to threaten to withhold funding. They do it all the time. They’ve done it on highway funding, especially regarding things like lowering the speed limit to 55, legal drinking age, and the use of seat belts.

Interestingly, Team Obama threatened to withhold funding to schools and even North Carolina if they didn’t allow men who felt they were women to use girls bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms. Where was the media outrage over this strong-arm tactic which would violate the privacy and sanctity of women and girls? Those threats were outside the norm, and not in line with the Constitution. Withholding funding for cities and counties that refuse to obey Constitutional federal law is well within the purview of the federal government.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Sanctuary Cities Could See Their Transportation Projects Caught In The Crossfire”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Maybe our accidental president can use the infrastructure monies intended for our largest cities to hurry up and build his stupid wall!

    Millions more Mexicans will be moving north because non-existent global warming climate change is harming Mexico City.

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/17/world/americas/mexico-city-sinking.html?_r=0

    • Mark E says:

      What happened to the trillions of dollars for ‘shovel ready infrastructure projects’ that you messiah obama spent Jeffy?

  2. Jeffery says:

    So trump wants to harm millions of citizens in our cities to force them to help him hunt down Jews Mexicans. he would have turned in Anne Frank.

    This is not America.

    • Rev.Hoagie® says:

      So trump wants to harm millions of citizens in our cities to force them to help him hunt down Jews Mexicans. he would have turned in Anne Frank.

      This is not America.

      The mayors and city councils are the ones bringing “harm to millions” of their citizens by DISOBEYING the law. Trump is ENFORCING the law.

      An America without laws is not my America.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      …he would have turned in Anne Frank.

      Nah, that was George Soros…

  3. Dana says:

    I noted this back in December: Chicago receives more than $1 billion from the federal government, over 10% of its municipal budget, while New York receives a whopping $7 billion, about 9% of its total municipal budget.

    The Supreme Court let stand a Federal Court of Appeals ruling in Lozano v Hazleton, in which it was held that Hazleton’s efforts to regulate illegal immigration at the local level unduly interfered with a fundamental function of the federal government. Naturally, the left cheered that result, because Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta got an ordinance passed which would have required employers and landlords to check the immigration status of anyone working or leasing from them, in an attempt to keep illegal immigrants out.

    But, what goes around, comes around, and now President Trump wishes to exercise that fundamental function of the federal government; how, I wonder, do states and cities have anyauthority to impede that federal function? Do you think that Rahm Emanuel and Bill de Blasio will cite Lozano v Hazleton to buttress their cases?

  4. Jl says:

    “More heat and drought from climate change….” says the article with absolutely no proof. First time of heat and drought in Mexico City? No. I’d ask, is it the same drought that was supposed to be perpetual in California until……it wasn’t? What a joke.

  5. […] Sanctuary cities could see their transportation projects caught in the crossfire (Pirate’s Cove) […]

Bad Behavior has blocked 5609 access attempts in the last 7 days.