A sanctuary city is a city that adopts local policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being an undocumented individual in the country in which they are currently living. In January 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that would withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities. In April 2017 a federal judge ruled that Trump’s order was unconstitutional.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No
@9FCLFVT2yrs2Y
Sanctuary cities such as New York, Chicago and Los Angeles have all admitted that they cannot afford to support the number of migrants currently seeking sanctuary. The number arriving to their cities has been overwhelming financially, and crime has increased. They are also running out of shelters. People are living in the streets.
This is why border control is necessary.
Across the world, border control has been a proven necessity for civilizations through out history.
@9CPKLDT2yrs2Y
Although I understand why certain cities would like to undergo humanitarian efforts, it is undeniable that border security, and all of the problems surrounding it, have become a massive issue for the US that many of the states have been divided over. It is unreasonable that sanctuary cities should receive federal funding, as the government should not use taxpayer money that comes from people who reside in states where they will be inherently against it. This violates the founding principles of America as a union of states where the input of all people is to be respected. Only those who states democratically voted to have sanctuary cities should fund sanctuary cities, and others who aren't in support of them should not be expected to pay for the lack of border security.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
Yes
@9G4B6F52yrs2Y
There are plenty of domestic issues in this country. Why spend money supporting people who come here illegally instead of all the problems at home.
@9FZ7G4K2yrs2Y
It costs too much in taxpayer money. Our citizens struggle every day to make a living. They shouldn’t have their money taken away for illegal immigrants.
@9FN73VL2yrs2Y
America first. States cannot afford to harbor these individuals. They need to get turned away and deported.
@9FSMRGW2yrs2Y
Why should illegal immigrants be funded by legal citizen's tax dollars, I think sanctuary cities should be abolished, and all illegal immigrants should be deported.
@ISIDEWITH8yrs8Y
No, and we should ban the use of sanctuary cities
@9F627RX2yrs2Y
That is absolutely nonsensical, if cities want to become a safe haven for immigrants it is absolutely in their right to do so, especially since the process to become a citizen is too lengthy.
@ISIDEWITH3yrs3Y
Yes but decrease the amount of sanctuary cities.
@9W3BNGK7mos7MO
Governments shouldn't be funding cities, and illegal immigrants from some countries have lower IQ’s and are more violent that Americans.
@9GN5KWP2yrs2Y
No, we should spend money on reforming our broken immigration system to ease the path to citizenship instead. Then illegal immigration won’t be an issue and sanctuary cities will be irrelevant
No, funding should be directed towards fixing our broken immigration system, not funding cities that perpetuate the existing crisis
Deleted3yrs3Y
No, federal funding is unconstitutional
@ISIDEWITH8mos8MO
How would you react if someone close to you shared that they were living in your city without documents—how would it influence your perspective?
@9Y9GH3G6mos6MO
It would depend if they have a job & are wanting to be here in the US to work & make their life better by contributing to society not by living off the government.
@9TSHB428mos8MO
i don't care as long as they don't bother me or is doing stupid things.
I wouldn't be affected but it doesn't matter to me
@9GZDTYYIndependent1yr1Y
Sanctuary cities should be subject to the same conditions on federal funding as all other cities, so that the federal government can deny funding to a sanctuary city but not because of the policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being undocumented.
@9BF64VQ2yrs2Y
No, but leave it at the state and local levels.
@B3GDS3V2mos2MO
We should allow states to decide wether or not they want sanctuary cities and eliminate federal funding and construction of sanctuary cities
@9ZLWXN2 6mos6MO
No, provide additional funding or resources to jurisdictions that enhance cooperation with ICE rather than punishing those that do not
No, funding should be devoted to fixing our broken immigration system and ending all reasons for the existence of illegal immigration, not subsidizing cities that help perpetuate the problem
@9L74FFC1yr1Y
No, we should address the root problem of illegal immigration and focus on reforming the broken system. Then sanctuary cities wouldn’t exist in the first place
@Sam-From-The-Pool 2yrs2Y
Sanctuary cities should not be necessary; we should adopt laws that federally protect undocumented immigrants
@9GN25PD2yrs2Y
This is a weird question. I don't think the federal government should be redistributing wealth. Illegal immigration sanctuary cities are a mistake; however, nullifying federal laws should be more common.
@9D9TN4F2yrs2Y
No, We don't need Sanctuary Cities, we need to make legalization a little more accessible. Then sanctuary cities wouldn’t be necessary
@9VJZYWB7mos7MO
Yes, but only because every city already receives some degree of federal funding. This level should not be increased for sanctuary cities.
@9L4Z23BIndependent 12mos12MO
No, any state with sanctuary cities should not be eligible to receive grants and loans through federal programs
@8ZDDG473yrs3Y
@8XBR8CK3yrs3Y
No, because no city should receive federal funding
Deleted3yrs3Y
Yes, but decrease the amount of sanctuary cities.
Yes, but to a limited extent.
@923R2SK3yrs3Y
Yes as much as other cities
@8RX8S6Y4yrs4Y
Yes, but not for being sanctuary cities.
@B58XFBM4 days4D
Yes, if these sanctuary cities make sure that all undocumented immigrants become documented and legal.
@B57ZRBT6 days6D
Yes they should receive the same federal funding as any other city. If the federal government doesn't like what the local governments are doing, they should not be allowed to just threaten them with funding cuts.
@B56LRSP1wk1W
If we have them, illegal immigrants that live in the sanctuary cities should have 'X' amount of time after moving in to file for legal status. If they fail to file for legal status within governed time, then they will be deported back to Mexico. However, if the immigrant can show evidence of his/her attempt to file for legal status through documentation/receipt evidence, then the time limit should be extended (so long as the immigrant is showing consistent progress, toward becoming legal). If the immigrant at any point fails to continually attempt to attain legal citizenship, they will be deported.
@B54Q5HD 1wk1W
We shouldn't ever take without giving, if we're going to make problems for people, give them solutions
@B4ZW4LTRepublican2wks2W
No. I take the Biblical approach on sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities should apply in cases of accidental death or involuntary manslaughter
@B4Y88FJ2wks2W
yes but only if that funding is actually used to support the people and not the rich and corporations there
@B4Q8H3X3wks3W
Yes, but if crime becomes a problem, then revoke funding, and deport illegal immigrants who are involved in criminal activity (like the guy who killed Laken Riley)
@B4N9QJY4wks4W
No, Abolish ICE and 287(g) and grant pathway to legalization and citizenship for non criminal offenders and then we would have no use for sanctuary cities.
Yes, but under the circumstance that a certain percent of the population has a job and is paying a certain amount tax.
@B4KJTJR4wks4W
Yes but amend the definition of sanctuary city to explicitly define what kinds of crimes are allowed to be prosecuted vs not. e.g. if an undocumented individual commits a felony or violent crime or a crime that harms others, they should be able to be prosecuted.
@B4FCJW4Republican1mo1MO
No, for the sake of capitalism, low taxes, low national debt, and weak government. Allow it to be more privatized.
@B4D6KHP1mo1MO
No, this is an anathema towards capitalism, weak government, checks and balances, and federalism. Also this is wasteful spending which inflates the national debt and raises taxes.
@B4BK8671mo1MO
I don't have enough information on this subject to form a good opinion, but we should direct more resources to fixing the current immigration system.
@B49V8X4 1mo1MO
Should the new leaders of opposition aware with cities and under grounds dog handler is decreasing funds
@B48ZGNN1mo1MO
Yes, but I support a mass transfer of tax dollars from the federal to state and local governments for, so I think that sanctuary city funding would be better off coming from the state governments.
@B47GCDQ1mo1MO
I understand the need and why sanctuary cities exist, but there is way too many currently. I would rather have sancuatary cities in places that can hold that type of population rather than places like in the Northeast where there isn't that much room. I would say that cities that are sancutary cities should get either less funding or same funding. They just should use there funds to help illegeal immigrants, only there citizens that are here lawfull and are paying taxes.
@B45TJFT2mos2MO
I believe in sanctuary cities because it's in the Bible however sanctuary cities are not for illegal aliens they are to be for people who kill someone by accident/involuntary manslaughter
@B44Z2GL2mos2MO
No, instead redirect the funding to reworking the immigration process to make it easier for immigrant to enter the country LEGALLY.
@B3ZYM5D2mos2MO
No! This will raise taxes, raise the national debt, spike the unemployment rate, and overpopulate the country. Also, this makes a mockery of freedom, law and order, national security,
@B3Z8CYW2mos2MO
No, instead leave it to the states to decide wether or not they want to fund these cities or not. This does not mean they will receive federal funding either.
@B3S2HKG2mos2MO
Should support undocumented people who have no criminal history and work to have them documented if not why would there be funding people who continue to be undocumented
@B3RSQGD2mos2MO
Yes, but to help those immigrants get background checks, take an oath to legality, and obtain tests for papers.
@B3R2FHX2mos2MO
All cities should receive federal funding. Federal government should not be able to determine a "sanctuary city" from a non sanctuary city.
@B3QM2V92mos2MO
No their government should be impeached, removed from office for breaking a federal law and given time for treason.
@PKhaos 2mos2MO
Yes, how to deal with migrants (work visas etc.) should be handled locally by the state and grant them the power to expel migrants not given protection federally. National citizenship and permanent residency is the only concern of federal government.
@B3NRNPC2mos2MO
Yes, but give immigrants a certain amount of time to get citizenship before they are deported back to their original country.
@B3NQJCM2mos2MO
Yes, but decrease the amount of scantyary cities, the illegals should get a work visa and legal work in the US, or the illegal should have a skill that benefits the country.
@B3NQ4PP2mos2MO
Sanctuary cities such as New York, Chicago and Los Angeles have all admitted that they cannot afford to support the number of migrants currently seeking sanctuary. The number arriving to their cities has been overwhelming financially, and crime has increased. They are also running out of shelters. People are living in the streets.
No, if immigrants are not yet a governmentally recognized citizen and/or not paying taxes, they shouldn’t receive benefits that they don’t contribute to or if they have not been properly background checked/deemed fit to be a citizen.
@B3N58Q32mos2MO
Yes, but implement strict policies allowing police to run background checks on suspected gang members, but also allowing noncriminal, undocumented immigrants greater protection from deportation
@B3MVW852mos2MO
yes but they can only be an undocumented individual of the country for up to two months before getting kicked out.
Why have a government funded place to hide from the government? Just get rid of the government problem.
@B3M5BXL2mos2MO
Money for medical treatment or house should be available, but randomly handling money such as stimulus checks should be optional.
@B3KRK43Independent2mos2MO
They should receive funding if said cities support everyone (not just immigrants). They should work towards creating an environment where everyone is respected.
@B3JZ28G2mos2MO
Yes, as they are still cities within the U.S., and shouldn't be discriminated against based on who lives there.
@B3JXCWL2mos2MO
if there are legal citizens there, they should have access to federal funding, but not the people or institutions that protect illegal citizens that are breaking our laws.
@B3JM2BL2mos2MO
No, unless sanctuary cities are reformed to serve the purpose that the cities of refuge served in ancient Israel as described in Numbers 35.
@B3JBV962mos2MO
Yes, but sanctuary cities should have to pay more in state tax; if the state doesn't require a tax, then raise the income tax on undocumented workers.
This is a difficult question, because it's asking should Illegal Immigrants from any countries be punished for living in a place that they feel is better for their lives automatically.
Now, I believe in a system that is EFFECTIVE at allowing people in legally, and those who come here legally and have waited years are disadvantaged versus Illegal Immigrants purely on the basis of let's say Time for example.
The funding requirements that a sanctuary city would require are probably not overly exorbitant, but I believe that as this country is overall led by our Government at the Administ… Read more
@B3HGHTZ2mos2MO
Regardless, immigrants of all documentation statuses are too vital to our existing economic system that mass deportations of nonviolent undocumented persons does more harm than good and the government should not persecute our neighbors with these racist policies
@B3HC95Q2mos2MO
I believe that sanctuary cities should receive funding because they provide essential services to everyone, including education and health. But I also understand that some people think that if they don't follow immigration laws, they shouldn't receive federal money. Perhaps the solution would be for the funds to depend on what they are used for, rather than just whether the city is a sanctuary or not.
@B3H6DSC2mos2MO
Yes, only if the people in that city actually try to become citizens and learn the culture and the language
@B3G6RH62mos2MO
Federal funding should be given if anything is left after helping and supporting our own citizens, even our retired veterans instead of giving it away.
@B3FY5M42mos2MO
I think if your home country is so bad you have to flea then you should be able to seek sanctuary in the US as long as they abide by laws and aren't trafficking and killing i don't feel its unconstitutional.
@B3FN6XD2mos2MO
yes becuase most city have one illegal immigrants so it mean cut funding for most cities will lose there funding.
@B3FLF97Republican2mos2MO
No because they chose to be in a sanctuary city however if they didnt choose to be in the sanctuary city then yes I think they should receive funding.
@B3FGMP42mos2MO
Yes I believe so because to get doca takes time you have to be a certain age, and if fled, at a young age, to the US and are trying to become a citizen it takes time but that shouldn't stop you from getting health and medical assistance
@B3DS6LF2mos2MO
They should, but simultaneously, should find more effective ways for immigrants to eventually follow the path of naturalization and becoming a legal citizen instead of simply leaving the problem to stay as bad as it is
@B3DPRMP2mos2MO
Yes, and increase the amount of sanctuary cities. A lot of these people are refugees who had to flee violence and/or warfare without adequate time to prepare documents, let alone pack much of anything.
@B3DM8P62mos2MO
They should still receive federal funding, but not any for the illegal immigrants that may be residing within the city.
@B3DJGCL2mos2MO
I think that the cities should be given more funding to provide illegal immigrants with the chance and opportunity to become citizens and get a good job.
@B3CHMZ92mos2MO
they should be able to receive federal funding, but it is only when necessary and they would have to abide by federal law to get it
@B3BWFHH2mos2MO
Some but not all federal funding should be pulled. Funding towards things like infrastructure should still be maintained.
@B3BG7KR2mos2MO
No, No, we should spend money on reforming our broken immigration system to ease the path to citizenship instead. Then illegal immigration won’t be an issue.
@B3B6BRH2mos2MO
Sanctuary Cities should only exist if you are fleeing your country from a threat, or you can not get the care you need that can support you living from where you originally are from.
@B3B37QSProgressive2mos2MO
Yes, but let us get to a point that we no longer need them in the first place. Every city should be one in the first place.
@B394PQR2mos2MO
Yes, but penalise local authorities and companies if they knowingly employ illegal immigrants and exploit them.
Of course but the money shouldn’t be spent on anything related to managing the effects of their sanctuary policies.
Sanctuary cities should only receive a certain amount of funding based on how many immigrants are in the city on average, if the city exceeds the limit they should deport those who have been there the longest if it causes problems. The federal funding can also be used for keeping more police to watch over the cities if there is an increase in crime.
@B37QNC63mos3MO
I think sanctuary cities should still receive federal funding, but not as much as what people are trying to push for.
@B37MXWT3mos3MO
Well, if they are here illegally, there is no reason that we should reward them in any kind of way for breaking the law. The government wouldn't fund a city that hides people who evade taxes, would it?
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
