Posted on 06/11/2025 2:59:39 AM PDT by EBH
Sanctuary cities are not just misguided policies cloaked in compassion—they are a calculated strategy of power by the progressive left.
While the rhetoric centers on “inclusion” and “protecting the vulnerable,” the real agenda is structural and political. These cities defy federal law under the pretense of local governance, while quietly constructing an alternative legal order—one that benefits illegal immigrants, shields criminal networks, and chips away at national sovereignty.
This is not grassroots charity. This is top-down ideological control. Behind these cities stand powerful NGOs, many with deep ties to Democratic donors and globalist institutions. They operate as unelected shadow governments—lobbying, litigating, and implementing open-border policies with zero accountability to the American people.
Why? Because mass migration—legal or otherwise—reshapes the electoral map. It alters congressional apportionment, transforms urban demographics, and opens the door to expanding voting rights beyond citizenship. It is long-term political engineering disguised as moral activism.
The progressive left no longer plays by the rules of the Republic. They are building parallel systems of governance in defiance of Article VI of the Constitution, which declares federal law supreme. Sanctuary policies aren’t just nullification—they’re secession in slow motion.
This is a rebellion without bullets. A coup without tanks. A power grab wrapped in virtue.
The American people must recognize this for what it is: a Trojan horse rolled through the gates of our cities, funded by our own tax dollars, weaponized against the very idea of nationhood.
Enough is enough. If we want to preserve the Republic, we must confront not only the policies—but the ideology and machinery behind them.
It is scenes like this that are destroying the very fabric, the very social contract between sovereignty and anarchy.
We have worried about these “sanctuary cities” for far too long. We thought they would crumble under their own weight.
We were very, very wrong. Instead they have thousands of foot soldiers at every level of our government from the NGO to the very Halls of Congress.
These are the fruits of the poison tree known as the 17th Amendment..
The Trojan horse passed the gates in 1913.
🛑 SIDEBAR: Enemy Combatant or Mercenary? When Paid Protest Turns to Subversion
In recent months, reports have emerged that certain protestors—especially in high-profile anti-American or anti-Israel demonstrations—are being paid thousands of dollars to travel, organize, and disrupt. Some are trained activists tied to global NGOs or ideological movements. Others appear in coordinated, near-military fashion—masks, tactics, and all.
So what are they? Protestors? Mercenaries? Or something else?
Let’s define the terms:
🔹 Enemy Combatant:
An individual—armed or unarmed—who takes actions in support of hostile forces against the United States. This can include sabotage, subversion, or aiding foreign entities engaging in hybrid warfare.
🔹 Mercenary:
A person who engages in combat or destabilizing activity for financial compensation, not ideology or national duty. Typically unaffiliated with official military forces. Under international law, this is often considered illegal.
🧨 If a foreign-funded group pays individuals to disrupt national infrastructure, intimidate citizens, or oppose lawful government operations…
That starts looking less like “protest” and more like mercenary insurgency.
Key Questions for the Republic:
Who is funding these actors?
Are U.S. laws being applied equally to paid political agitators?
When does foreign-funded disruption cross the line into domestic insurgency?
The threat isn’t just ideological—it’s operational.
The Republic must not confuse protected speech with coordinated, compensated subversion. The Constitution doesn’t protect paid mercenaries masquerading as peaceful protestors.
Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 5 Enforcement
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/
🧨 Taxpayer-Funded Infiltration? The NGO–Mercenary Pipeline
What happens when your tax dollars are funneled through federal grants or “humanitarian aid” to NGOs who then bring in foreign nationals, house them, give them stipends, and mobilize them into political protest or resistance?
That’s no longer charity.
That’s state-funded insurgency.
Many so-called “non-profits” are receiving millions from government agencies (like HHS, DHS, or even the State Department), and using that money not just for refugee assistance—but for legal defense, political training, and “community organizing” of migrants who have no allegiance to the U.S. Constitution.
Ask yourself:
Why are these foreign nationals showing up at protests fully coordinated?
Who paid for their travel, housing, and protest materials?
Who trained them in tactics used to confront police and disrupt civic life?
If the answer is: “An NGO funded by the U.S. government”…
Then the American taxpayer is footing the bill for foreign ideological mercenaries operating within our own borders.
This is not humanitarian work.
This is weaponized migration—coordinated, funded, and protected by the very institutions meant to defend our sovereignty.
At that point, the NGO is no longer a nonprofit. It is functioning as a hostile actor embedded within our system—a fifth column cloaked in 501(c)(3) status.
It’s not just semantics—if the individuals in question are illegal immigrants being paid (especially with taxpayer-involved funds or through NGO coordination), the legal and constitutional implications are even more serious. Here’s the breakdown:
🔍 Key Distinctions and Implications
❗️1. Illegality of Employment
It is illegal under federal law (8 U.S. Code § 1324a) to employ unauthorized immigrants. If NGOs, subcontractors, or activist networks are:
Paying illegal immigrants (even as “volunteers” receiving stipends),
Providing material benefits in exchange for protest activity,
…they are violating employment law, immigration law, and potentially the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) if done systematically.
⚖️ 2. Violation of Federal Funding Restrictions
If the funding source involves federal grants (which many NGOs receive), then:
Taxpayer dollars are being used to aid and abet unlawful presence, and
NGOs may be committing grant fraud, especially if the funds are earmarked for humanitarian aid—not political activity.
🧨 3. National Security Threat
If illegal immigrants—many of whom may not be vetted, may be using fake identities, or may have criminal affiliations—are being mobilized for domestic political agitation, this constitutes a security vulnerability. It blurs the line between:
Civil protest, and
Foreign-influenced insurgency on U.S. soil.
It also raises constitutional concerns about:
Equal protection under the law (why are citizens being arrested for trespass or riot, but not foreign nationals?),
Article IV guarantees of Republican government (which sanctuary policies and protected agitator groups undermine).
🚨 Conclusion: Not Semantics—It’s Subversion
If paid illegal immigrants are being used in political actions—even indirectly through NGO stipends or activist training—then what we are witnessing is not a protest movement. It’s an illegal paramilitary campaign embedded within a pseudo-legal infrastructure, funded in part by your own government.
That is not protected speech.
That is an imported rebellion—disguised, distributed, and dangerously underestimated.
Our Census counts "all persons present" in the USA - not just citizens.
By concentrating illegal immigrants in certain areas, the Democratic Party gains 10-15 seats in the House of Representatives, based just on population - even if NONE of the illegal immigrants actually vote.
We are at an incredible crisis point. Few, even here on FR, quite grasp the gravity of the situation.
This the the point of no return, this is why the Democrats were so furious with DOGE digging through USAID.
The is the Constitutional Crisis.
As a reminder, what Article VI actually states is:
...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land...
We live in a federal republic - the central government has been delegated certain responsibilities and powers by the States and their people, while the States and their people have retained other responsibilities and powers. In fact, the federal government is a creature of the States, and could even be abolished if 3/4 of the States chose to do so. The author apparently prefers to ignore any realities that might conflict with his concept of simple 'national sovereignty' ...
There is no such thing as a Sanctuary City. We are a Nation of Laws. And they are breaking the war.
While it’s true that the United States is a federal republic with a balance of powers between the federal government and the States, this balance does not grant local or state officials the right to openly defy federal law—especially on critical issues like immigration enforcement and public safety.
Article VI’s Supremacy Clause is clear: federal law is the “supreme Law of the Land.” When sanctuary cities and activist city councils refuse cooperation with federal immigration authorities, they are effectively choosing to ignore federal mandates, undermining the rule of law and national sovereignty.
This defiance is not a harmless assertion of local autonomy—it has real consequences. It creates lawless zones where federal enforcement is obstructed, allowing criminal cartels, human traffickers, and extremist elements to operate with impunity. It also contributes to the civil unrest we’re seeing, as these sanctuary jurisdictions become staging grounds for protests and riots that challenge law and order.
Federalism allows States to govern within their scope, but it does not permit them to nullify federal laws or hinder their enforcement. The current crisis is not a theoretical constitutional debate—it is a tangible breakdown of cooperation that threatens the security and unity of the Republic.
When governors, mayors, and city councils put political ideology above constitutional duty and public safety, they cross a line. It’s no longer a question of shared governance—it becomes a challenge to the supremacy of the Constitution itself.
We are a Nation of Laws. And they are breaking the war.
should be....and they are breaking the LAW...(I just got up...sorry)
Does anyone think before they speak, is anyone educated enough to actually give an argument of merit?
No one has mentioned this isnt the first time sanctuary cities have started a war.
Before 1861, entire states were sanctuary states and the U.S. federal government violated the constitution using the military to force entire states into becoming sanctuary states.
And i have to say this country is worse off because of the federal government's involvement with states rights.
I will add, states should not get a dime of government money or a single congressman based on non citizens counted during a census. Or a single electoral vote based in illegals.
is it possible states will once again petition to leave the U.S.? It may happen, DJT may be put in the same situation Lincoln was put it, but it won't be entire states, it will be cities and the surrounding blue areas. IDK ?
You’re raising a historically weighty point, but it deserves clarity—not conflation.
Yes, there is a long-standing tension between federal authority and state sovereignty. But to equate sanctuary cities protecting illegal immigrants in defiance of federal law today with states resisting federal overreach before the Civil War is an oversimplification—and a dangerous one.
In the 1850s, “sanctuary” laws in Northern states were rooted in nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act—a moral stand against the enslavement of human beings, not against national security or immigration enforcement. Even then, the Constitution and the courts wrestled with whether states had the right to refuse participation in enforcing federal mandates they deemed unjust. It was messy—but grounded in a deeper fight about human liberty.
Fast forward to today, and sanctuary cities are not refusing to enforce unjust laws—they’re refusing to cooperate with laws that protect our national borders. This is not about state resistance to tyranny; it’s about local defiance of core federal responsibilities, like immigration enforcement, which are clearly enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
As for the census and representation—you’re absolutely right to question how non-citizens are counted for congressional seats and electoral votes. That’s a legitimate policy debate. It underscores the problem: if states or cities gain political power from illegal immigration while also harboring those breaking federal law, we are incentivizing defiance of the law for political gain. That’s not federalism—that’s subversion.
Finally, on the question of secession or reordering of political boundaries: yes, we’re entering a turbulent chapter where deep ideological divides may force a reckoning. But we shouldn’t confuse local insubordination with sovereign state action. Cities don’t get to nullify federal law or threaten secession because they dislike the outcome of elections or immigration policy.
If Trump does face a “Lincoln moment,” let’s hope it’s one grounded in restoring constitutional order—not a second civil war over lawlessness disguised as justice.
I’ve always felt, just by observing it, that the “progressive left” is not progressive, but regressive. I don’t see this mentioned much. A city decides to make up it’s own rules & regulations that are not necessarily within the Constitution (and most likely NOT). Then another city does the same, but maybe with a little different set of rules. Next thing you know, you don’t have a country & the “citizens are subject to any crap that comes along for theis local “group”. At some point, a nation is effectively dissolved. Then this once good & lawful nation is taken over by something much worse, because we don’t have the national strength to stand against it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.