Sanctuary cities, a blessing in disguise?

One of the first order of battle for the Trump administration might be “sanctuary cities”. The list of sanctuary cities is a long one and includes several major cities.


Mayors of several cities have already indicated that they will not cooperate with the federal government. Just the other day Rahm stated the following.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Obama’s former chief of staff, said Monday at a news conference that city officials have been fielding calls from residents worried that it may change its status because of the threat from Trump.

“Since the presidential election, there has been a sense of uncertainty among many immigrant communities in Chicago and across the nation,” Emanuel said. “I want to assure all of our families that Chicago is and will remain a sanctuary city.”

The sanctuary city designation broadly means that local police will not coordinate with federal law enforcement in efforts to deport undocumented immigrants.

One option Trump has stated is to cut off funding for these cities. Another viable option is to proceed in a manner similar to what Eisenhower did in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Woodrow Wilson Mann, the mayor of Little Rock, asked President Eisenhower to send federal troops to enforce integration and protect the nine students. On September 24, the President ordered the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army—without its black soldiers, who rejoined the division a month later—to Little Rock and federalized the entire 10,000-member Arkansas National Guard, taking it out of the hands of Faubus.

A better option might be to consider devolution of power to States, i.e. strengthen the Tenth Amendment, thus reversing the recent trend which has seen power gradually erode at the State level. The law of unintended consequences, will ensure that the Democrats will come to severely regret the choice of making their cities a sanctuary for illegal immigrants, contrary to the wishes of the federal government. Who could foresee the adverse and unintended consequences of the Seventeenth Amendment when it was originally enacted?

Bookmark and Share
old white guy

old white guy says…………..the cutting of all federal funding to said cities and states, forcing them to pay the welfare costs them selves, would reverse their thinking very quickly.

Bill Elder

I tend to agree – this is a wonderful way to let this globalist unsustainable welfare driven voter demographic replacement program to an abrupt halt, without appearing like Stalin.

All these refugee cities are in bankrupt Dem rustbelt and welfare constituencies – remove the freebees and watch the local Dem regimes collapse financially trying to keep up with entitlement demands – also once the free candy is gone so are the “Dreamers(tm)”

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *