How much is pandering to illegal immigrants really worth to the state of California? We may be about to find out.
Fox News reports that the Trump Justice Department has given California and its Democrat Governor, Jerry Brown, an ultimatum: you can be a sanctuary state that flouts federal immigration law or you can keep the federal tax dollars flowing … but you can’t have both:
Department of Justice Officials tell Fox News this situation could result with future federal grants being withheld from California, that threat has been a common thread in this ongoing story. However DOJ officials also tell Fox they could “clawback” funds already awarded to the Golden State.
For instance California received more than $18 million in federal grants from the Department of Justice in 2016, funds DOJ officials say could be subject to a “clawback.”
“In early October, the State of California codified into law a requirement that local police release criminal aliens back onto our streets. This law undermines public safety and national security, was opposed by law enforcement, and potentially violates federal law,” said DOJ spokesman Devin O’Malley. “The abandonment of the rule of law evades all common sense, especially given the multiple high-profile incidents that have occurred in California as a result of similar policies. The Justice Department urges California to reconsider these so-called ‘sanctuary policies.’”
The “sanctuary state” law in question forbids all local law enforcement in the state from questioning people about their immigration status, as well as blocks state and local officials from cooperating with any requests from the federal government to detain illegals picked up on a separate crime so they can be transferred into federal custody.
Back in August, we took a look at all 261 sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States at risk for defunding. All told, over $30 million in Byrne Justice Assistance Grant money, which account for the lion’s share of federal aid to states and localities for criminal justice, is at stake.
As TFPP has previously covered, this is an indefensible policy that is going to mean more crime, more government insolvency, less assimilation, and fewer jobs for American citizens. Further, it’s absurd that we even have to keep having this discussion. How is the proposition that higher levels of government have a right to require that lower levels of government actually enforce the law (when the law in question is constitutional, as immigration enforcement obviously is) possibly controversial? In a sane political climate, it wouldn’t be.
In response to simple common sense, liberals like to claim that sanctuary cities are somehow good for law enforcement because illegals feel freer to report crimes if they know talking to police won’t get them deported. However, in July that talking point took a hit thanks to the release of statistics showing that crime actually decreased in Phoenix, Arizona after the city dropped its sanctuary status:
[A]ccording to Levi Bolton, the executive director to the Arizona Police Association, when Phoenix suspended its sanctuary city policies, instead of endangering the citizens, the opposite happened.
“We saw a decrease in crime,” said Bolton. “It had a deterrent effect on folks because the risk of discovery went up exponentially when we actually enforced the law.”
Under the new policies, law enforcement could ask suspects if they are in the U.S. legally, and they could inform immigration agencies about violations of federal laws.
Fox News reported that the murder rate in Phoenix fell by 27 percent, robberies fell by 23 percent, and assault fell by 13 percent. Even more minor crimes fell, with burglaries by 14 percent and theft by 19 percent.
So what’s it going to be, California?