Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

AWESOME: Trump Slashing $210 Million in Federal Funds to “Sanctuary Cities”

President Trump released his budget proposal on Thursday which included in it a call to cut $210 million in federal funding to sanctuary cities according to the Los Angeles Times.

The Los Angeles Times reported

Trump wants to slash $210 million in federal reimbursements to state and local jails that hold immigrants convicted of crimes while in the country illegally. The Trump administration called the program “poorly targeted,” adding that two-thirds of the money goes to only a handful of states, including California and Illinois, “for the cost of incarcerating certain illegal criminal aliens.”

The money, awarded by the Department of Justice, can make up a sizable portion of budgets for state and local police and sheriff’s departments.

Trump, who promised weeks before he was elected to “cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities,” appears to be using it as a cudgel to force those local governments to comply with his administration’s efforts to deport people who are in the U.S. illegally.

You have to hand it to President Trump, he sure does know how to get things done with or without the cooperation of outside parties.

It’s time for the illegals to go.

  1. Do you agree?9 votes
    1. Yes
    2. No


  • Great action by Trump on this.
  • ale5ale5 129 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    I disagree.  This article is a clickbait editorial.  The policy of reallocation of funds towards controlling illegal immigration is just not financially prudent
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • VaulkVaulk 201 Pts
    I think the issue here is that the funds never should have been given to departments or organizations to house or hold illegal immigrants.  I personally worked for the DOJ as a correctional officer in a privatized Prison that housed illegal immigrants by the hundreds.  These immigrants were WELL fed, clothed, given healthcare and housed for MONTHS at a time before the could be deported.  This is a prime example of the millions of taxpayer dollars that were wrongfully invested into the issue.  These guys were fed better than our Soldiers were fed overseas in the War on Terrorism and now that Trump is withdrawing the funds...people are confused...why? 
  • randalrandal 59 Pts
    This is great, he cut expenses with this and is encouraging deportations and sanctuary cities to not accept or hide illegal immigrants. This was a fantastic move my President Trump. Those funds could go to different programs or just be saved.
  • ale5ale5 129 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Vaulk, thank you for sharing your experience on this issue.  That clearly gives you much more insight than most people.
    that said, I disagree that we should do any mass deportation, arrests, and etc. we need to deal with reality of preexisting condition and have a path to citizenship, instead of throwing people in jail.
    i am not saying I support illegal immigration, and I am not saying it is an overall burden to the Country.  
    I am saying that we need human pe thought-though options.  We are not Nazi Germany.
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • VaulkVaulk 201 Pts
    @ale5 I'm not sure I think Mass Deportation is the answer, I concede that there might be better options out there.  But I ask myself this: "When a homeless man breaks into my home, a poor and unfortunate soul who's had a rough life who's plagued with the answer to progressively integrate him into my home or to throw him out?  In order to answer the question I need only to answer another: "Do his needs supercede my lawfully established boundaries"?  The answer is no.  His needs (No matter how great) do not outweigh my legally protected rights.  Likewise, someone who breaks the law to enter the United States...well...their needs don't outweigh the legally protected rights of our current citizens.  We have the right to refuse to financially support those those who illegally enter the country and become criminals in the process.  No one in the United States has the right to infringe upon the rights of the citizens...and breaking the law to enter the U.S., drawing upon subsidized programs and not paying taxes undeniably infringes on my right to a secure Nation and my right to refuse to support those who illegally benefit from our systems.  Then there's the issue of business owners being able to use illegal immigrants to put their competition out of business.  Think about this for a moment: If HEB follows and respects the law thereby only hiring legal residents of the United States then HEB pays legal wages to their employees and experiences normal cost to profit margins.  Then Albertsons comes along and hires illegal immigrants, thereby undermining the system by finding a way to pay their employees WELL under the legal wage requirements and saves hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in employee costs.  No Healthcare benefits, no 401k, no investment opportunities, and no minimum wage.  So then Albertsons puts HEB out of business because they're able to spend on average 80% less on their employees than HEB and THEN Albertsons can sell food for 40% under what HEB sells their food at because they don't experience normal cost to profit margins.

    Granted HEB and Albertsons are entirely too big to get away with what I'm describing but you get the point.
  • That's a great point @Vaulk . That made me really think about my stance on this situation. I completely agree with @vaulk ,who I disagree with in the past.
  • agsragsr 493 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Vaulk, excellent argument.  
    I mostly agree with your comparison.  
    The only difference is that it's not a homeless man breaking into your house, but a few generations ago a homeless man broke into your grandfather's home.  Your grandfather took him in, your father took care of him and his kids.  Now they had grandkids and you want to throw all of them out.
    I agree that we should take aggressive action, while maintaining our humanitarian standards.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • VaulkVaulk 201 Pts
    @agsr ; Agreeable point.  The problem we're facing is that our Grandfathers should never have allowed that they've let the problem persist for as long as it has, do we ignore the issue or go back to the way things should've been in the first place.  Name another law that if you ignore it long enough, don't enforce it for long enough...that it somehow becomes acceptable to not enforce it.  There's not one.  If you don't pay your taxes for 50 years...the IRS doesn't just let you off the hook...regardless of how bad your situation is or how much the penalty will affect your life...they will still crush you and justifiably so.  Just because you avoid legal repercussions for 3 generations that doesn't somehow justify your crime regardless of what it is.
  • agsragsr 493 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Vaulk, I agree that we should deal with the issue.  All I am saying that it cannot just be full mass deportation of 11 million people.  We need to offer a path to green cards, take into comsideration impact on children left behind, etc.  That said, I support defining an aggressive process to start and would be happy with an outcome of 50% deported within next couple of years.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • VaulkVaulk 201 Pts
    @agsr ; I agree that a mass deportation of 11 million people might not be the best way.  The problem with offering a path to green cards for illegal immigrants is the 2nd and 3rd order effects.  We'd be sending the message to all the other foreigners who are going through the legal method for gaining citizenship that the U.S. is extending special consideration to criminals who skipped the line for citizenship.  No matter how you spin that it's wrong.  I would contest that anyone who committed the crime of entering the U.S. illegally and then made the conscientious decision to reproduce, should be held solely responsible and accountable for their actions. 
  • I disagree with Trump's cut to the sanctuary cities. These cities are crucial to America, there should not have been a budget.
  • VaulkVaulk 201 Pts
    I agree that these cities shouldn't be funded in any way, shape or form.  The issues arising in these cities don't make up the majority of problems in the U.S. but it becomes difficult to pay attention to big problems in the U.S. when people with multiple Felonies are continuously coming back to the U.S., flying under the radar and then committing murder.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch