The very concept of Sanctuary Cities is a contradiction of US Federal Law. How can you have some cities operating under one law and others unilaterally deciding to operate under another law? Federal Law in the USA applies to all of the USA, not just some of it and not just to those areas that have decided that they are liberal and don’t like a rightist Republican Administration such as that of Pres. Trump. Suppose a city decided that murder was no longer a capital offense, or a Muslim majority decided that they wanted Sharia Law, would that be acceptable. Of course not!
The No-Sanctuary for Criminals Act and Kate’s Law were passed by a majority in the House of Representatives because an illegal Mexican immigrant who had been expelled five times from the US and had previously been convicted seven times, murdered a young American woman Kate Steinle in front of her father. Every American should fear for his/her children given the current situation of revolving door entry, where illegal immigrants are deported even if convicted of a violent crime and then return almost immediately. In order to stop this Kate’s Law mandates severe penalties of jail time.
But, what would be the point of the House passing this Bill if a city such as Chicago or San Francisco can decide they are Sanctuary Cities and they will allow illegal immigrants who have committed crimes to enter and stay there. It would negate Federal Law, and the Administration is in order to remove Federal funding from those cities in order to enforce their cooperation, ensure the application of Federal Law and the reversal of the Sanctuary City concept. There must be one law for all, and that law should ensure that illegal immigrants who commit crimes in the USA are suitably punished and not allowed to go free to repeat their crimes.