It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sanctuary Cities Protecting Criminals Receive $342 Million From Taxpayers

page: 1

log in

+4 more 
posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 10:40 PM

President Obama's Justice Department has coughed up hundreds of millions of dollars to so-called "sanctuary cities" that refuse federal demands for criminal illegal immigrants sought for deportation, according to a new inspector general memo.

Source: 1/2

It seems like the government is paying large sums of our money to keep a problem it can’t fix from becoming completely unmanageable. The sad part is, this money will only benefit about 63% of the immigrants living illegally in similar situations, not that they deserve it.

In just 10 of 155 jurisdictions reviewed, taxpayers handed over $342.1 million in Justice grants to the law-breaking cities and states that have policies barring jails and police from cooperating with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The IG said that is 63 percent of the funds available to all American cities.

Not only are these “sanctuaries” preventing us from enforcing federal immigration laws, the Department of Justice is literally funding them with hundreds of millions of tax dollars to do so! Put that in your pipe and smoke it Hillary supporters!

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton has voiced support for the sanctuary effort in which state and local officials in mostly urban areas choose to harbor illegals with criminal records rather than comply with ICE requests to turn them over or even identify their immigration status. Donald Trump has called for an end to the practice.

The article states the issue was “painfully” brought up after an illegal immigrant with a criminal record living in and protected by the city of San Francisco, killed a vacationing tourist.

That slaying prompted Congress to write "Kate's Law" barring Justice funds to sanctuary cities, but Senate Democrats blocked it. Nonetheless, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, under pressure from Texas Rep. John Culberson, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that oversees Justice funding, recently moved to stop funding to the jurisdictions.

The Center for Immigration Studies has released a map of over 300 sanctuary jurisdictions. It’s estimated that over 140 of the these may be receiving illegal grant money.

For a complete listing of areas: Link

Justice Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz's memo said that "over 140 state and local jurisdictions" may be receiving Office of Justice Program and Office of Violence Against Women grants, despite a law that demands grant-recipients cooperate with ICE.

Not only is the government using our money to fund these criminals, it also takes away from our ability to fund local law enforcement. Too much money is allocated to those that deserve it the least, instead of those trying to keep Americans safe.

Jessica Vaughan, the CIS policy director who compiled the map, told Secrets, "It's very concerning that the Department of Justice is allowing at least 10 jurisdictions that are clearly in violation of federal law to suck up nearly two-thirds of all the federal money available to help local law enforcement. The Justice Department should be prosecuting these jurisdictions, not writing them checks."

ICE will typically learn the whereabouts of an illegal criminal they are interested in. They then ask local law enforcement to detain the criminal until ICE officers can pick them up. In the “sanctuaries” mentioned above, these requests are ignored.

Some cities go as far as barring the officers from even asking about the immigration status of those arrested, making it difficult for them to find criminals evading deportation. Any local law preventing ICE from doing their job violates Section 1373 of the federal code.

This can’t be the solution to our immigration problem, can it? What does ATS think, do we continue to fund these “sanctuaries” or do we get serious about removing these folks? Is there enough reason to justify they be removed?

edit on 1-8-2016 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 11:01 PM
a reply to: eisegesis

I almost wonder, whats the point of having police departments in these cities. Philadelphia for example. Would this not make a police department, well...... illegal?

Does Kates law also bar funds to the local PD/Leos?
edit on 31-7-2016 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-7-2016 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)

Ok got the understanding better...... i say No More Funding. Stop paying these cities to not do their jobs!
Tax payers deserve protection too. ( Idiocracy )
edit on 31-7-2016 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 11:04 PM
Mistake post..
edit on 31-7-2016 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 11:17 PM

originally posted by: Bigburgh
a reply to: eisegesis

I almost wonder, whats the point of having police departments in these cities. Philadelphia for example. Would this not make a police department, well...... illegal?

The governors and mayors have to be working with federal officials or else this wouldn't be allowed to take place. The democrats basically put their stamp on it by blocking a measure that would cut funding to the areas. The police probably have a tough time following orders while the law is being selectively enforced.

So yeah, politicians.

posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 11:25 PM
Bill O'Reilly came up with the Kate's Law and Harry Reid blocked it by wrapping it in some other BS.

They are fighting for it to be brought up as a stand alone. Which I believe it has.

Hell yes, funding should be cut and the asswipes that are in charge, the city councils, should be prosecuted.

And someone should dot Harry's other eye for good measure.

posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 11:34 PM
And no mention of Kate Stinely at the DNC. Whom the law is named after.

Killed by an illegal felon that was deported 5 times.

posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 11:50 PM
a reply to: burgerbuddy

I don't understand how people who enter the country illegally and decide to break the law, can remain protected while receiving our tax money. Why are much lesser "criminals" sitting in jail or having trouble getting ahead due to a petty marijuana charge?

Someone bad enough to get ICE's attention and worthy of deportation should be brought to justice immediately, especially when good people still have trouble getting the help they deserve. For example, victims of natural disasters have also been the victims of government lies.

edit on 1-8-2016 by eisegesis because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 11:52 PM
Some of these people have been here over 20 years illegally. Sanctuaries are for birds and distressed animals, not for people that just don't give a s***.

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:37 AM
I used to stand side by side fighting the Neocons with the liberals, everyday, for years. I just never realized how they are just plain sabotage in practice, when in power.

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:40 AM
a reply to: eisegesis

I checked the map on the website, Washington DC is a sanctuary city, WTF??? The clowns that make the rules can't even follow the rules. Has the time come when 10 or 20 million people or more need to march on Washington DC to tell these kleptocratic sociopaths to start doing their jobs, or leave?

Cheers - Dave

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:02 AM
This is among the more egregious things reported on this far.

Immigration reform in general needs to take shape. Primarily, the US must have an efficient border security policy that actually secures our borders and waterways. None of this Constitution Free Zone crap, none of this sanctuary city garbage.

The wait for well vetted immigrants is entirely too long.

I know an Afghan interpreter that served, not just Afghanistan, but the US against the Taliban. Potentially exposing himself and family to very real and very deadly threats. Took him 3 years, and several discussions with intelligence agencies and State Department officials before he and his family were allowed to come to the US as legitimate immigrants.

There are many like him. 3 years is a short wait while your life is in danger compared to the typical 5 or 6 years. So people who legitimately help us, people who put everything they have on the line for a common goal have to wait while this government has a policy of letting anyone in.

This is outrageous to me. Unbelievable that this is what we are doing to ourselves.

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 01:10 AM
It's very difficult to not resent this as an American taxpayer for several reasons. When average, non-violent people are being "extorted" at every turn to fund police departments and courts through fines and enforcement of BS laws, it's a pretty tough pill to swallow that people in this Country illegally can be exempt from those same "laws".

It would be like having your parents ( yes, I know the State is not our parents, but in this example we are being forced to accept the "house rules" ) comes to their minor children and says " We have decided to adopt another child from a foreign Country to join our Family " The parents explain to their kids that this new child has had a hard life and that they will need special treatment in order to overcome the hardships they have endured, but because your Family is good and kind ,your expected to welcome and accommodate the new family member. The kids say " well ok, that seems the right thing to do" .... they trust their parents.

The new kid joins the family and turns out to be a total brat ! They throw tantrums, disrespect your parents, break your toys, hits your little sister, yet your parents don't punish them as they would you ? WTH ? Next thing you know your beloved Family customs and Holidays are no longer because it might offend your new family member. The end result being the kids no longer trust their parents judgement , feel resentful and the once close family erodes.

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 04:19 AM
$342 million? That's not enough to support all of them. That means it's a payoff to the people who are covering it up locally. In that case $342M is a Lot of cashola.

I heard they just moved 10,000 illegals into Clearwater, FL. That's an increase to the city's population of about 10% ... and Clearwater ain't no cheap place to live. The wife and I wrote the place off as a potential retirement spot.

Somebody's gonna have to back behind the current administration and clean this s# up. I wonder who bore the cost of shipping in all these immigrants. That had to cost a fortune as well. The airlines had to be in on it too. Good gosh ... it costs $35K to move a civilian family into a job overseas. The cost to invade Clearwater alone must have been staggering.

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 06:55 AM
a reply to: eisegesis

This is yet another shining example of Obama and his 'Justice' Department being the worst in history. Enforcement is their one real job and they fail miserably.

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 07:54 AM
How you destroy a nation of laws like the US, very simple you invade the nation and them destroy the nation from within

That's the biggest legacy that we are going to get from the anti America president we have right now.

The police and the federal government have not problem going after citizens in this nation with the full force of the law, but is protecting safe havens? what that tells you all.

Perhaps citizens should help the police to get rid of this safe haven that in a nation like the US should never exist.

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 08:32 AM
It's starting to look like Trump could win the popular vote. Even if all the illegals somehow were allowed to vote or got motivated to actually participate Trump likely still takes the popular vote but by much less. The Electoral college can call it if those numbers are close, people will be upset but it has happened before.

If that number however is way out of scope it's going to be much more difficult. If it was 50-49% Trump or 51-49% that is within scope. If it becomes 55-45% Trump though that is a major political problem. I hope that does not happen but with these liberal judges throwing out voter ID laws that is what the tea leaves are saying. They are shaping circumstances to create what they want instead of what the majority of people want within reason. 53-55% Trump is not within reason.

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 08:40 AM
You don't even have to necessarily pull an Eisenhower style Operation Wetback since it's certain you won't have Mexico's cooperation this time. Mexico doesn't want many of these back and those they might take back are sending way too much money home and helping prop up Mexico's economy, which means they don't want them back, either.

But, if you can channel your efforts into enforcement by cutting off funding to sanctuary districts and cracking down on businesses that hire illegals under the table, undercutting American workers both in their own businesses and other ones who do follow the law, and those establishments that cater to illegals ... you may find many of them starting to self-deport which would serve the same purpose on one end.

On the other, instead of incarcerating all but the very worst illegal offenders, you simply dump them back in Mexico or whatever their country of origin happens to be. It's cheaper to pay for that one-way trip than to incarcerate them long-term.

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:53 AM
a reply to: ketsuko

Maybe Mexico is doing what the Saudis and Emirates are doing, to avoid getting immigrants back into their nations, paying millions of dollars of "donations" to the "necessary agencies" to keep the "undesirable away".

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 10:39 AM
a reply to: eisegesis

This can’t be the solution to our immigration problem, can it? What does ATS think, do we continue to fund these “sanctuaries” or do we get serious about removing these folks?

All of these cities are Democrat controlled and this is typical Democrat thinking......sacrifice the born-here population to protect the immigrants. Face it, they don't care how much we are bilked for this debacle and they don't care how many of us are killed in the implementation of their policies.

But wait...........its going to get MUCH WORSE! If I'm right and Hilary gets POTUS, what we're really seeing is the death of the GOP as a national party and the creation of a One Party State! When that happens, its game over.

posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 02:17 PM
a reply to: TonyS

At that point, revolution will almost be inevitable. I think the only thing that has prevented it so far is that there is a safety valve. People have so far been able to move away from places like California where on party rule has already been enacted and to places that better suit their preferences. But if one party rule becomes the only option and too many are unhappy with it, there won't be that safety valve bleeding off steam.

top topics


log in