Saturday, July 9, 2016

Justice Department Shuts Off Funding for Sanctuary Cities

In a week where lawlessness has run amok, even a glimmer of the return of the rule of law is refreshing.
"Today, the DOJ notified local and state law enforcement agencies across America that they will no longer be eligible for federal law enforcement grants unless they certify under oath that their local or state laws do not interfere 'in any way' with requests for immigration information from federal authorities," according to Texas Rep. John Culberson who demanded action earlier this year.
I'm not sure how many federal policing grants exist; (this link gives information about the 2015 Justice Assistance Grant program. On page 4, it shows $17 million allocated to the state of California and $11 million allocated to California local governments. Just for curiosity's sake (and because it's where the killing of Kate Steinle took place which became the impetus for this policy), according to San Francisco policing budget numbers for 2015-2016 (page 321), they anticipated receiving $1.8 million from the Feds (in a $548 million budget).

 I am curious to see how much of an effect it truly has on those 300 sanctuary cities since it appears to make up such a small budgetary proportion; in some ways it feels more like a symbolic gesture. But according to this nine year old Heritage Foundation article, it could also have the effect of prying federal fingers off more local issues and rolling back the federal presence.

 If you're really bored interested in a glimpse of how grants work for policing, here's a 26 page pdf of a survey done in 1997 in Florida; I can only imaging how much the federal side of things has increased since 2001.
The overwhelming majority of agencies are deeply involved in managing grants and learning what grants can do for their agencies. Benefits reported include the hiring of personnel, implementation of new programs, crime prevention, and equipment purchases.


  1. Certify under oath. As if that means anything to our government anymore.

  2. Yeah... There is that. And what penalties are there if they certify - and then are still uncooperative?

    1. A shout out from the pestilence of Pennsylvania Avenue?

    2. I would hope not, since he got his hand smacked by a judge recently, but...

  3. Great post Lyana; very well researched! I haven't read all the links yet, but I will.

    It would surprise me if the DOJ cracked down on sanctuary cities in the current political climate. This could just be posturing; as you said, symbolic. Who knows why. It's a mystery.