Share This Article with a Friend!


Why Not Make Sanctuary Cities Pay For The Border Wall?

President Trump suggested throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, and during post-inauguration conversations with the President of Mexico, that he will build a wall along our southern border and that Mexico will pay for it. 

This was always one of his biggest applause lines on the campaign trail, and a policy that we heartily endorse, but it may be easier said than done. 

Taxing Mexican imports, for example, would really mean that American consumers would pay for the wall. Sanctuary CitiesLikewise, attempting to tax remittances paid to Mexicans by people living in the United States faces a host of problems in getting such a tax through Congress and the identification, taxation and collection of the tax payments. 

However, we have another option; on January 25, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued an Executive Order denying federal funding to sanctuary cities who choose not to comply with federal laws regarding deportation of illegal entrants.  

According to reporting by Suzanne Ciechalski for nbcchicago.com there are 106 American cities that are considered sanctuary cities, but close to 300 total government jurisdictions, including states, counties, cities and other municipalities, that claim to be sanctuaries, according to the study, "Federal Funding of America’s Sanctuary Cities." The total population living in sanctuary cities totals is about 46 million people. 

New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, Austin, Newark, Denver, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Portland and Providence are some major sanctuary cities. One in five undocumented immigrants lives in these cities. And combined, these cities received $16 billion in federal funding in 2016, according to Ciechalski’s analysis of the study. 

While most politicians, pundits and journalists claimed that the total amount of federal funding going to so-called sanctuary cities was undetermined, our friends at OpenTheBooks.com, were able to identify that number: $26.74 billion flowed into America's 106 “sanctuary cities” in fiscal year 2016. 

So, we propose an alternative solution to making Mexico pay for the wall; making “sanctuary cities” pay for the wall. 

The proposed wall on the southern border is projected to cost around $10 billion. 

According to our friends at openthebooks.com “sanctuary cities” extort almost $27 billion from American taxpayers to pursue their unconstitutional scheme to nullify the immigration laws passed by Congress. 

And here’s how it would work: 

San Francisco would forfeit over $467,000,000  

Los Angeles would forfeit over $502,000,000 

New York City would forfeit some $7.6 billion 

Add in the over $5.2 billion that Chicago would forfeit and you’re well past your goal of $10 billion. 

After that the $11,000,000 forfeited by Lima, Ohio; the $231,115,651 from Nashville, Tennessee; the $271,696 from Jupiter, Florida; and the $35,555,757 from McAllen, Texas, plus the billions of dollars sent to other cities whose elected officials could grandstand for the Far-Left illegal alien crowd for free while Obama was president would just be gravy. 

And this is just a one year savings!  

After year one the wall would be paid for and every year a $26.74 billion savings would accrue to the taxpayers of jurisdictions whose elected officials actually follow the Constitution and the laws Congress passes.

Share this

The wall for the future

It is true that to build the wall would be extremely expensive but to those that have figured this out I ask you to consider another aspect: when another liberal president enters office it will not be quite so easy to undo our safe borders if there is a physical barrier. If you simply put man power and electronics at use a liberal president could easily with draw them and that would be the first thing they would do. I say build the biggest most expensive and extensive wall that is possible to build in this modern day world.

Too complicated

It would cost the taxpayers too much to deal with sanctuary cities lawsuits. Easier to tweak NAFTA and the wall (a combo of electric gadgets, actual brick and mortar, aviation and other stealth gear) would be paid for in no time, and not by the USA.

Alternatives for Soverignty

There are plans to recover that southern wall for border protection, this plan to let the sanctuary city's help pay is a fine thought but having mexico either share in the cost or lose US funding is just as good but why not let the two sources of misery in this matter of the "wall" be shared between these sources of irritation...Mexico can pay for the wall and the sanctuary with holding can continue to fund the repair and maintenance until such time the cites decide they will stop the sanctuary nonsense and obey the law.....make the perps pay for their penchant to create this security problem...

use funding going to sanctuary cities to pay for border wall

Excellent idea---make it happen President Trump

Sanctuary Citiy

You have my vote. Let the cities/states that want to harbor these illegals pay the price to support them by themselves.

Sounds like a PLAN ! . . .

Sounds like a PLAN ! . . .

Having sanctuary cities pay for "The Wall"

Brilliant idea. I'd add .... that even after the wall is built, if there are still any stubborn sanctuary cities, apply all grant funding they would have received to maintaining the wall or to border control enforcement until they capitulate. I sure hope Conservative HQ can get this idea to Trump!

California is nearly in

California is nearly in bankruptcy right now. If the federal government withholds federal funds because of their sanctuary city (or even state) status they will be bankrupt. There is little doubt about that. Chicago likewise. Of course there are several if not many other cities which are in the same boat. None can afford to lose federal funding for anything. Let alone law enforcement. Just imagine what would happen to Chicago if funding on law enforcement were pulled. Soon, very soon, there will be a showdown and only one winner and it will not be the cities. However, it must be made known any funds once lost can never be reinstated. That should get their attention. They will be bringing the problem upon themselves. However, there should also be further punishment for the political officers who refuse to cooperate with government on illegal immigration and insist on breaking the laws of the land. The problem will never be fixed if there is no cooperation from state governors and city mayors. Why is it those who hold political offices consider themselves above the law? Or making the law? They have no authority for either. In the final analysis the law is the law. Selective enforcement has led to lawlessness we have just witnessed such an example for the last eight years. The result crime is up and in some places like Chicago way up. Chicago is quickly becoming the crime capital of the United States of America and there is absolutely no reason for that other then selective law enforcement. Of course obama releasing sixty thousand plus convicted criminals out of prison also added to the disarray. And to think most progressive democrats still refuse to admit obama’s main objective was to destroy the constitution and the free enterprise system and transform us into a socialistic communistic (perhaps caliphate) state.