One of the largest platforms of President Trump's campaign was to get Sanctuary Cities following immigration law or risk losing funding. He issued an Executive Order that was halted by US Appeal Court Judge William Orrick in April. In response, the government fought back, but now the Judge has just enjoined this move PERMANENTLY!
The idea that a decision as uniquely unpopular as Sanctuary Cities can be held up as a bastion of moral virtue is a joke. People are fleeing these places in droves because not only are they dangerous, they are also highly taxed to pay for the welfare of illegal aliens who have committed crimes in the US against US citizens.
Judge Orrick called the Executive Order unconstitutional:
“The defendants are permanently enjoined from enforcing Section 9(a) of the Executive Order against jurisdictions they deem as sanctuary jurisdictions. Because Section 9(a) is unconstitutional on its face, and not simply in its application to the plaintiffs here, a nationwide injunction against the defendants other than President Trump is appropriate.”
But all it really asks is that the cities comply with Federal Immigration law. Why don't the Democrats actually ask the citizens (the legal ones) if they want their home to be a Sanctuary area? I'll tell you why: Because it would be a resounding NO. And that IS unconstitutional!
The agenda at play here does not benefit citizens (migrant or otherwise); it benefits corporations and the weakening of sovereignty. Don't vote for the people who would deny you your own sanctuary.