$$$ is always a huge incentive... will it change sanctuary policy?
Recently Department of Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff toyed with the idea of cutting off federal security funding to cities that have declared themselves "sanctuary cities" for illegal immigrants.
From the Washington Times:
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff [on Sept 5th] told a House panel that his agency will not tolerate interference by so-called "sanctuary cities" when it comes to hiring illegal aliens.
Mr. Chertoff said his agency will enforce the Basic Pilot Program that requires businesses to check the legal status of new employees by matching Social Security numbers and information in Homeland Security Department databases.
Mr. Chertoff told the House Homeland Security Committee: "I certainly wouldn't tolerate interference" by cities who attempt to block the program. "We're exploring our legal options," Mr. Chertoff said. "I intend to take as vigorous legal action as the law allows to prevent that from happening, prevent that kind of interference."
Mr. Chertoff stopped short of threatening "sanctuary cities" by withholding government funding. "I don't know that I have the authority to cut off all Homeland Security funds if I disagree with the city's policy on immigration," Mr. Chertoff said. "And of course, I have to say the consequence of that might be to put the citizens at risk, you know, in the event of a natural disaster.
"I don't want to put people's lives at risk, but I do think where the law gives me the power to prevent anybody from interfering with our activities, we will use the law to prevent that interference," Mr. Chertoff said.
Cities such as Dallas, Minneapolis, San Francisco, New Haven CT -- and most importantly, Washington DC and New York City -- have declared themseleves sanctuaries for illegals fleeing federal immigration enforcement. They would be on the list for federal penalties under Chertoff's idea.
This is a great way to force compliance with the law. This worked before: in the 1980s in Arizona, the state refused to make Martin Luther King Day a paid state holiday. Instead they established "Civil Rights Day" as the 3rd Sunday in January rather than the Monday, thus adding to the numerous state holidays the state already felt was too burdensome. The government cut highway funding to the state. Thanks to massive media outrage and a week's worth of scathing Doonesbury cartoons, the state suffered further financial hardship as 45 conventions were cancelled and $25 million in revenue was lost. The NFL announced that Phoenix would not host a Super Bowl until the MLK Day was established on Monday. Eventually the state capitulated and all was well, if not forgiven.
Financial sanction is a powerful motivator. But to cut off Homeland Security funding to the sites of 9/11-- foolhardy ideas or effective motivator for policy change?
"