{"id":22888,"date":"2020-04-30T15:25:45","date_gmt":"2020-04-30T19:25:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=22888"},"modified":"2020-04-30T16:54:10","modified_gmt":"2020-04-30T20:54:10","slug":"sanctuary-policy-covid-relief-bill-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2020\/04\/30\/sanctuary-policy-covid-relief-bill-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"Sanctuary Policy Must Be Part of Debate over COVD-19 Aid to States"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Despite their previous attempts to include politically-advantageous provisions, including raising the federal cap on tax deductions<\/a> for state and local taxes and increasing funding for mail-in voting<\/a>, Democrats are screaming at President Trump\u2019s suggestion that sanctuary policy should be a part of the discussion over bailing out states and cities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Asked about a request from the National Governors Association<\/a> for $500 billion in federal bailout funds, Trump expressed<\/a> reservations about the basic idea of using a pandemic as a reason for bailing out states.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe problem with the states is we\u2019re not looking to recover 25 years of bad management and give them the money they lost. That\u2019s unfair to other states,\u201d Trump said. Congress did include in the CARES Act a $150 billion stabilization fund<\/a> for states and, in early April, the Federal Reserve took the unusual step of creating a $500 billion loan program<\/a> to help defray coronavirus-related costs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI think sanctuary cities is something that has to be\nbrought up where people who are criminals are protected, they are protected\nfrom prosecution.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump indicated at an afternoon White House event<\/a> on the Payroll Protection Program that he might favor giving funds to states if they are Covid-19 related, but \u201cwe\u2019d want certain things also, including sanctuary city adjustments,\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Wednesday, he again raised the possibility<\/a> of conditioning funds on whether or not a state or city embraces sanctuary policies. \u201cIf you\u2019re going to give millions of dollars of aid then you shouldn\u2019t have sanctuary cities,\u201d stated Trump, who noted he does not \u201csee helping cities and states if they\u2019re sanctuaries.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ACLU lashed out on Twitter<\/a> saying, \u201cWe cannot allow the Trump administration to exploit a public health crisis to further their anti-immigrant agenda,\u201d while Boston Mayor Marty Walsh called the suggestion a \u201cfear tactic.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPresident Trump\u2019s threat to hold coronavirus funding\nhostage to cities and states across the country are the latest in his efforts\nto push a sinister political agenda that only aims to punish us all \u2014 citizens\nand non-citizens alike,\u201d declared New York Attorney General Letitia James, who\ncampaigned on a pro-sanctuary platform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Congressional Democrats are demanding<\/a> the federal government not only bail out states but do so without putting any restrictions on how the funds can be used or doled out. Their position is not only fiscally questionable but also incredibly hypocritical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, Democrats are criticizing President Trump for using the exact same tactics they employed when negotiating the $2 trillion CARES Act.  The Democrats succeeded in inserting a provision<\/a> in the legislation that specifically prohibited the administration from restricting or placing conditions on the $850 million in Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, which are the leading source of federal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The provision was an attempt by Democrats to undermine the Justice Department\u2019s authority to withhold<\/a> those funds from sanctuary jurisdictions, a right that was confirmed in a February ruling by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals<\/a> in New York.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A week after the ruling, Trump tweeted<\/a>, \u201cAs per recent Federal Court ruling, the Federal Government will be withholding funds from Sanctuary Cities. They should change their status and go non-Sanctuary. Do not protect criminals!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whether or not Trump will\nsucceed in placing conditions on funding to states in the next COVID-19\nstimulus bill is unclear, but eliminating sanctuary cities must be part of the\ndiscussion about bailing out states that were pursuing failed policies well\nbefore the arrival of the coronavirus.  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Despite their previous attempts to include politically-advantageous provisions, including raising the federal cap on tax deductions for state and local taxes and increasing funding for mail-in voting, Democrats are screaming at President Trump\u2019s suggestion that sanctuary policy should be a part of the discussion over bailing out states and cities. Asked about a request from<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":12588,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[74],"tags":[1498,8012,1524,1349],"yst_prominent_words":[8534,8172,2772,8531,3274,1943,1976,3824,2516,8530,5438,2331,8532,1942,1944,2063,3575,2329,1945,1946],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22888"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/66"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22888"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22888\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22891,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22888\/revisions\/22891"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12588"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22888"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22888"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22888"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=22888"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}