February 1 Trump ending all federal funding to sanctuary states / cities

[T. A. Gardner]

Things are about to get real serious here. Blue states and localities that are declared sanctuary locations will lose all federal funding starting February 1. Yea, I can see these places suing and judge shopping to stop that, but with district court judges unable to hand down nationwide injunctions, it's not going to be very effective or fast. I also suspect these places won't have a strong case to make about why they should continue to receive funding.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/13/white-house-end-funding-sanctuary-cities-states-00726557?vct=74.167

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5688157-donald-trump-sanctuary-city-funding/

Trump to cut federal payments to sanctuary cities starting Feb 1 over immigration policies

President Donald Trump will suspend payments to sanctuary cities starting Feb. 1. He also criticized Minnesota officials over alleged widespread fraud.

www.foxnews.com

I think the Biden administration started an unnecessary shit storm of backlash on illegal immigration by effectively opening the borders and doubling (or more) the number of illegals in the US. I don't think the Leftists in Biden's administration--who were running the show--had the first clue that if Trump got reelected something like this would happen. They expected their mass influx of illegals to simply be accepted.

 

[Yakuda]

Things are about to get real serious here. Blue states and localities that are declared sanctuary locations will lose all federal funding starting February 1. Yea, I can see these places suing and judge shopping to stop that, but with district court judges unable to hand down nationwide injunctions, it's not going to be very effective or fast. I also suspect these places won't have a strong case to make about why they should continue to receive funding.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/13/white-house-end-funding-sanctuary-cities-states-00726557?vct=74.167

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5688157-donald-trump-sanctuary-city-funding/

Trump to cut federal payments to sanctuary cities starting Feb 1 over immigration policies

President Donald Trump will suspend payments to sanctuary cities starting Feb. 1. He also criticized Minnesota officials over alleged widespread fraud.

www.foxnews.com

I think the Biden administration started an unnecessary shit storm of backlash on illegal immigration by effectively opening the borders and doubling (or more) the number of illegals in the US. I don't think the Leftists in Biden's administration--who were running the show--had the first clue that if Trump got reelected something like this would happen. They expected their mass influx of illegals to simply be accepted.

Not only good but fucking good

They thought by overwhelming the system the illegals would be granted citizenship because it would be too difficult to deport them all. What they didn't count in was trump returning and Trump isn't the usual mealy mouthed repub that leftists have come to expect.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

 

[Sailor]

Things are about to get real serious here. Blue states and localities that are declared sanctuary locations will lose all federal funding starting February 1. Yea, I can see these places suing and judge shopping to stop that, but with district court judges unable to hand down nationwide injunctions, it's not going to be very effective or fast. I also suspect these places won't have a strong case to make about why they should continue to receive funding.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/13/white-house-end-funding-sanctuary-cities-states-00726557?vct=74.167

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5688157-donald-trump-sanctuary-city-funding/

Trump to cut federal payments to sanctuary cities starting Feb 1 over immigration policies

President Donald Trump will suspend payments to sanctuary cities starting Feb. 1. He also criticized Minnesota officials over alleged widespread fraud.

www.foxnews.com

I think the Biden administration started an unnecessary shit storm of backlash on illegal immigration by effectively opening the borders and doubling (or more) the number of illegals in the US. I don't think the Leftists in Biden's administration--who were running the show--had the first clue that if Trump got reelected something like this would happen. They expected their mass influx of illegals to simply be accepted.

This has the potential to make meaningful change. Blue state politicians are not going to cut back on spending. No federal funds, what will they have to do? Raise taxes. Democrats are great at spending everyone else's money. Until it actually has to come out of their pockets. If Trump can actually do this, I see a shit ton of useless democrat career politicians getting the boot. That can only be good.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

This has the potential to make meaningful change. Blue state politicians are not going to cut back on spending. No federal funds, what will they have to do? Raise taxes. Democrats are great at spending everyone else's money. Until it actually has to come out of their pockets. If Trump can actually do this, I see a shit ton of useless democrat career politicians getting the boot. That can only be good.

It's either that or they renounce sanctuary policies and start showing they mean it. But with the Left that probably won't happen. Instead, they'll sue to keep things the way they are.

 

[Sailor]

It's either that or they renounce sanctuary policies and start showing they mean it. But with the Left that probably won't happen. Instead, they'll sue to keep things the way they are.

You are right. I am sure they will sue. They do at the drop of a hat. Lawsuits take time though. In the meantime there are bills to pay.

 

[QP!]

Things are about to get real serious here. Blue states and localities that are declared sanctuary locations will lose all federal funding starting February 1. Yea, I can see these places suing and judge shopping to stop that, but with district court judges unable to hand down nationwide injunctions, it's not going to be very effective or fast. I also suspect these places won't have a strong case to make about why they should continue to receive funding.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/13/white-house-end-funding-sanctuary-cities-states-00726557?vct=74.167

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5688157-donald-trump-sanctuary-city-funding/

Trump to cut federal payments to sanctuary cities starting Feb 1 over immigration policies

President Donald Trump will suspend payments to sanctuary cities starting Feb. 1. He also criticized Minnesota officials over alleged widespread fraud.

www.foxnews.com

I think the Biden administration started an unnecessary shit storm of backlash on illegal immigration by effectively opening the borders and doubling (or more) the number of illegals in the US. I don't think the Leftists in Biden's administration--who were running the show--had the first clue that if Trump got reelected something like this would happen. They expected their mass influx of illegals to simply be accepted.

Why do you think it would take judge shopping to stop that?

What, in the law do you think gives a POTUS power to unilaterally do that and defy Congress?

 

[Sailor]

Why do you think it would take judge shopping to stop that?

What, in the law do you think gives a POTUS power to unilaterally do that and defy Congress?

Can you show that he can't?

 

[QP!]

It's either that or they renounce sanctuary policies and start showing they mean it. But with the Left that probably won't happen. Instead, they'll sue to keep things the way they are.

What in American history informs your view that another party can not hold views you do not? Even ones you might hate?

You keep pushing a view that only uniparty views are allowed.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Why do you think it would take judge shopping to stop that?

Yes. You need one that is willing to issue an nationwide injunction regardless of the Supreme Court. Otherwise, each ruling will be in a local jurisdiction and the results will be tied up for months trying to get everything covered.

What, in the law do you think gives a POTUS power to unilaterally do that and defy Congress?

What in the law do you think gives states and local governments the power to unilaterally defy the federal government and Congress? That's what sanctuary laws, in essence, do.

Think of it this way: What if a state declared that because bank robbery is a federal crime, they weren't going to respond to one or allow law enforcement to do so? How would the federal government react to that? What would be the likely outcome in that state with regards to bank robberies?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What in American history informs your view that another party can not hold views you do not? Even ones you might hate?

You keep pushing a view that only uniparty views are allowed.

Nothing, until those views spill over into defying the law.

 

[QP!]

Yes. You need one that is willing to issue an nationwide injunction regardless of the Supreme Court. Otherwise, each ruling will be in a local jurisdiction and the results will be tied up for months trying to get everything covered.


What in the law do you think gives states and local governments the power to unilaterally defy the federal government and Congress? That's what sanctuary laws, in essence, do.

Explain how being a declared sanctuary city breaks the law and defies Congress?

And then explain where a POTUS is given the power of the purse to unilaterally take that action?

And explain how the POTUS is not breaking the law by not delivering the money appropriated by Congress and allocated to the State?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Explain how being a declared sanctuary city breaks the law and defies Congress?

It allows harboring, and shielding, federally wanted criminals from law enforcement. Start with that.

And then explain where a POTUS is given the power of the purse to unilaterally take that action?

The POTUS and executive branch are responsible for carrying out federal law. If a state is actively trying to evade and aiding and abetting those that are breaking federal law doesn't the federal government have a responsibility to do something about that?

Carter imposed a 55 mph speed limit on the US and then used the threat of withholding federal highway funds from any state that wouldn't impose such a limit. Same thing as sanctuary states now.

And explain how the POTUS is not breaking the law by not delivering the money appropriated by Congress and allocated to the State?

Withholding federal funds until a state complies with federal laws has long been a means of the federal government getting compliance. What's different this time? Why should a state or city get federal funds if it is flaunting the law and won't help enforce it?

 

[QP!]

It allows harboring, and shielding, federally wanted criminals from law enforcement. Start with that.

How are the Feds prevented from enforcing their laws?

The POTUS and executive branch are responsible for carrying out federal law. If a state is actively trying to evade and aiding and abetting those that are breaking federal law doesn't the federal government have a responsibility to do something about that?

No.

First off no State has to act as enforcement arm for any Federal law when the Feds can enforce it themselves and are not obstructed from doing so .

You seem confused and assume an 'obligation to enforce by the State' which does not exist. You also seem to be trying to label that as 'aiding and abetting' and it's not.

Carter imposed a 55 mph speed limit on the US and then used the threat of withholding federal highway funds from any state that wouldn't impose such a limit. Same thing as sanctuary states now.

Well then Carter was wrong.

When Congress gives money to a State that is a LAW and a POTUS is breaking that law if he withholds it.

Withholding federal funds until a state complies with federal laws has long been a means of the federal government getting compliance. What's different this time? Why should a state or city get federal funds if it is flaunting the law and won't help enforce it?

It is against the law, full stop. Saying 'but Carter threatened it' does not make it legal.

Do you acknowledge that. And cite examples of it being done prior?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

How are the Feds prevented from enforcing their laws?

Complete lack of cooperation amounts to obstruction. For example, when a jail or prison system is prevented from notifying ICE they are holding or releasing an illegal alien, or unwilling to process detainers, or demanding a warrant for any action with ICE.

No.

First off no State has to act as enforcement arm for any Federal law when the Feds can enforce it themselves and are not obstructed from doing so .

You seem confused and assume an 'obligation to enforce by the State' which does not exist. You also seem to be trying to label that as 'aiding and abetting' and it's not.

Yes. The executive branch is the operational part of the federal government. They carry out the day-to-day operation of the federal government.

The feds aren't asking states to enforce federal law, they are asking for cooperation in enforcement of those laws. That means when local law enforcement arrests an illegal for something, and they know that person is illegally in the country, they report it. They honor federal requests for detainers on such persons.

To not do so is obstruction.

Well then Carter was wrong.

Carter, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, both Bushes, etc.

When Congress gives money to a State that is a LAW and a POTUS is breaking that law if he withholds it.

When Congress gives money to a program or state, there are conditions attached to that money. If the program or state isn't using that money in the specified manner, then it can be withdrawn or withheld by the POTUS until that state or program is in compliance.

It is against the law, full stop. Saying 'but Carter threatened it' does not make it legal.

No, it's not. The receiving body has to meet the conditions specified by Congress for the use of that money and if they won't or can't, they don't get it.

Do you acknowledge that. And cite examples of it being done prior?

No, I don't acknowledge that and I have cited examples.

 

[LurchAddams]

Things are about to get real serious here. Blue states and localities that are declared sanctuary locations will lose all federal funding starting February 1. Yea, I can see these places suing and judge shopping to stop that, but with district court judges unable to hand down nationwide injunctions, it's not going to be very effective or fast. I also suspect these places won't have a strong case to make about why they should continue to receive funding.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/13/white-house-end-funding-sanctuary-cities-states-00726557?vct=74.167

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5688157-donald-trump-sanctuary-city-funding/

Trump to cut federal payments to sanctuary cities starting Feb 1 over immigration policies

President Donald Trump will suspend payments to sanctuary cities starting Feb. 1. He also criticized Minnesota officials over alleged widespread fraud.

www.foxnews.com

I think the Biden administration started an unnecessary shit storm of backlash on illegal immigration by effectively opening the borders and doubling (or more) the number of illegals in the US. I don't think the Leftists in Biden's administration--who were running the show--had the first clue that if Trump got reelected something like this would happen. They expected their mass influx of illegals to simply be accepted.

Congress is in charge of the countries purse strings. Trump has overstepped again. Republicans only want to serve Americans who voted for them.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Congress is in charge of the countries purse strings. Trump has overstepped again. Republicans only want to serve Americans who voted for them.

Congress authorizes funding and sets the conditions for its use. If states aren't using the funding properly, it can be withheld by the POTUS who oversees the actual use of those funds.

 

[LurchAddams]

Congress authorizes funding and sets the conditions for its use. If states aren't using the funding properly, it can be withheld by the POTUS who oversees the actual use of those funds.

Nope. As usual you're talking out you white supremacist ass. Trump can't make that determination. He's not a king.

 

[QP!]

Complete lack of cooperation amounts to obstruction. For example, when a jail or prison system is prevented from notifying ICE they are holding or releasing an illegal alien, or unwilling to process detainers, or demanding a warrant for any action with ICE.


Yes. The executive branch is the operational part of the federal government. They carry out the day-to-day operation of the federal government.

The feds aren't asking states to enforce federal law, they are asking for cooperation in enforcement of those laws. That means when local law enforcement arrests an illegal for something, and they know that person is illegally in the country, they report it. They honor federal requests for detainers on such persons.

To not do so is obstruction.


Carter, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Obama, both Bushes, etc.


When Congress gives money to a program or state, there are conditions attached to that money. If the program or state isn't using that money in the specified manner, then it can be withdrawn or withheld by the POTUS until that state or program is in compliance.


No, it's not. The receiving body has to meet the conditions specified by Congress for the use of that money and if they won't or can't, they don't get it.


No, I don't acknowledge that and I have cited examples.

You are saying words that have no meaning.

There is no concept in law that obligated cooperation and says that is obstructing if you do not.

The Executive is the enforcement arm for Congress over appropriations ONLY if Congress requests it.

No POTUS gets to decide unilaterally to withhold funds Congress has allocated because they think a State is doing something wrong.

You are just a deeply stupid person who does not understand the law or Constitution and yet has strong ignorant opinions that are always wrong

 

[LurchAddams]

You are saying words that have no meaning.

There is no concept in law that obligated cooperation and says that is obstructing if you do not.

The Executive is the enforcement arm for Congress over appropriations ONLY if Congress requests it.

No POTUS gets to decide unilaterally to withhold funds Congress has allocated because they think a State is doing something wrong.

You are just a deeply stupid person who does not understand the law or Constitution and yet has strong ignorant opinions that are always wrong

When TA's losing an argument he starts making shit up.