Posted on 01/12/2017 6:24:55 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Trump will have broad presidential powers in dealing with “sanctuary cities”.
I would like to propose he start with Los Angeles.
To begin with, the area is filled with smug, anti-Trump elites like Meryl Streep.
However, beyond that...the city is short millions ... and will have to borrow $70 million to meet expenses.
Trump should unleash the full force of federal fury on this city, which is clearly in no fiscal condition for the upcoming battle.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
Isn’t San Francisco, the headquarters of the Pelosi Gang, the prime target?
The point is that LA is closer to bankruptcy. Pick off the weakest first.
Send the Federal Marshalls in to arrest the mayors. Do it day one!
Any city that does not enforce immigration laws or does not assist the government efforts to enforce existing immigration laws should be denied government funding.
But- but- but...then the elite will all lose their gardeners, landscapers, pool cleaners, cooks and nannies! Unfair! Unfair!
Yes he should. It is long past time arrogant Liberals should be smashed in the mouth with the brick of reality, and Trump needs to fry these stupid bastards for first, deliberately violating Federal Law, and second because their bad ideas need to be shown to have very bad consequences for those politicians who advocate them.
You hunt where the ducks are. LA is where millions of illegal aliens voted for Hillary, an excellent place to start an investigation. Lots of politicians should be quaking in their huaraches about now.
Precisely.
Well said. And don’t forget: President George W. Bush REFUSED to enforce U.S. immigration laws in violation of his responsibility and oath of office to do so. It was the realization of this that turned me against the Bushes.
Federal funding to cities and states is largely pork (notice how nobody uses that word anymore?) Just identify wasteful pork to cities and states and start to reduce it. The roaches will scurry.
They need to pick on some smaller places that can’t afford to pay for big time lawyers. They also need to have a steady drum beat of large and small business’s closed down by immigration violations. Then some sanctuary churches need to be prosecuted for harbouring and loose their tax free status. In short. Enforce current laws.
First Presbyterian
Bisbee Arizona
I disagree. I would start with a little “Me too We’re liberals too” City - one with about 300k in their legal fund. Drain it and tell the mayor to show up two weeks from now (make him sweat) with his lawyer to discuss his/her pending indictment. When the little Me-Too cities cave it will set the stage to start going up the ladder to bigger cities and counties.
Fight “sanctuary cities”. This isn’t a personal battle it’s a fight against lawlessness.
Cut ALL federal money to every “sanctuary city”... Then start work out other ‘incentives’ to close down thug cities.
I strongly disagree.
You pick on one of the little cities and it immediately gets spun as “David v Goliath.” The narrative changes and risk some public sympathy for “David.”
To avoid that spin, and any possible public sympathy, you pick on a large city that is filled with the wealthy (and arrogant) elite but teetering on bankruptcy. That’s LA.
And CA itself isn’t that fiscally sound so if they go to the state for assistance you have the added bonus of taking the state itself down. It’s a win-win.
While I enjoy his war with the media and feel that any other “Republican” would have folded long ago and wimped out, I trust that Trump with carry on in his battles. However, he might want to get a few wins under his belt, before he goes after the sanctuary cities. After he starts the wall being built and gets the economy growing, people will be less likely to either question or cross him on the sanctuary cities.
It would be smarter tactically to start in a smaller venue, with much weaker popular support for illegal immigration, fewer immigrant-dependent politicians, less than a 50% lawyer to citizen ratio, no whiny celebrities/newshounds, and a judiciary that considers the US Constitution as more than a suggestion. LA would be a tar pit that would suck up far too much political energy. Achieve legal precedents and successful implementation where opposition is weakest, before getting into a death struggle with the big dogs.
All of which is a valid point, except for the fact that LA is, in fact, already weak. The city is already millions in the hole and a fight with the feds (especially after the aid is cut off and they have to sue to get it back) could be just the thing to wipe them out.
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.