@ISIDEWITHQuestionsimmigrationStarted 8yrs agoActive 5 days ago

Should sanctuary cities receive federal funding?

A sanctuary city is a city that adopts local policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being an undocumented individual in the country in which they are currently living. In January 2017, President Trump issued an executive order that would withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities. In April 2017 a federal judge ruled that Trump’s order was unconstitutional.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  Connecticut

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 3k Connecticut voters.

44%
Yes
56%
No
44%
Yes
50%
No
0%
Yes, but fine companies that employ illegal immigrants
6%
No, and we should ban the use of sanctuary cities
0%
Yes but decrease the amount of sanctuary cities.
0%
No, and all federal funding is unconstitutional

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 3k Connecticut voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 3k Connecticut voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Connecticut voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9NLZLPX from North Carolina  answered…6mos6MO

No, funding should be directed towards fixing our broken immigration system, not funding cities that perpetuate the existing crisis

 @9GN5KWP from North Carolina  answered…1yr1Y

No, we should spend money on reforming our broken immigration system to ease the path to citizenship instead. Then illegal immigration won’t be an issue and sanctuary cities will be irrelevant

 @ISIDEWITHanswered…3yrs3Y

No, federal funding is unconstitutional

 @9GZDTYY from Maryland  answered…1yr1Y

Sanctuary cities should be subject to the same conditions on federal funding as all other cities, so that the federal government can deny funding to a sanctuary city but not because of the policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being undocumented.

 @9BF64VQ from California  answered…2yrs2Y

No, but leave it at the state and local levels.

 @9ZLWXN2  from Maine  answered…4wks4W

No, provide additional funding or resources to jurisdictions that enhance cooperation with ICE rather than punishing those that do not

 @9D9TN4F from North Carolina  answered…1yr1Y

No, We don't need Sanctuary Cities, we need to make legalization a little more accessible. Then sanctuary cities wouldn’t be necessary

 @9VJZYWB from Maryland  answered…2mos2MO

Yes, but only because every city already receives some degree of federal funding. This level should not be increased for sanctuary cities.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Sanctuary Cities” news articles, updated frequently.

  @Fox-News submitted…2mos2MO

‘WE NEED SOME HELP’: City overwhelmed by migrant surge

▲  53 replies

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Donald Trump nominates Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General

Former President and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General of the United States, should he reclaim the presidency in the upcoming election.Bondi, a prominent figure in Republican politics, served as Florida's Attorney General from 2011 to 2019. She gained national attention for her legal battles on issues such as health care reform, consumer protection, and opioid abuse litigation. Known for her steadfast support of Trump during his presidency, Bondi also served as a key adviser during his first impeachment trial, where she defended his administration against accusations of abuse of power.In a statement released by his campaign, Trump praised Bondi’s “unwavering commitment to justice” and her “track record of standing up for everyday Americans against the abuses of Washington’s elites.”“Pam Bondi has been a fearless advocate for the people, and she embodies the principles of fairness, accountability, and the rule of law that are sorely needed to restore trust in our justice system,” Trump said. “She is the right person to lead the Department of Justice into a new era of integrity and excellence.”While Bondi’s nomination has been met with applause from conservative circles, it has also reignited criticism from Democrats and ethics watchdogs. Her acceptance of a $25,000 donation from the Trump Foundation in 2013, which coincided with her decision not to pursue an investigation into Trump University, has drawn scrutiny in the past and resurfaced following the announcement.Democratic leaders have already voiced opposition, questioning Bondi’s ability to lead the Department of Justice independently. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) called the nomination “a political power play” and urged a focus on “restoring integrity, not entrenching partisanship.”

▲  2317 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3 days3D

US Jewish Groups Oppose Resettling Gaza

JTA — A number of major centrist and liberal American Jewish groups say they oppose the re-establishment of Israeli settlements in Gaza.The statements by some of the largest Jewish organizations in the country, made in response to press inquiries, come amid accusations that Israel has cleared out portions of northern Gaza, which Jerusalem has denied, and as far-right government ministers have called for resettling the Palestinian enclave. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir have also repeatedly called for Israel to encourage Palestinians to leave Gaza, drawing condemnation from the Biden administration.For several American Jewish groups — including some that have vocally defended Israel’s prosecution of its war in Gaza against Hamas — the idea of Israeli settlements in Gaza is a non-starter. Groups opposed to the idea include the Jewish Federations of North America, the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League. Also opposed are bodies representing the Reform and Conservative movements, which together can claim to represent the majority of American Jews.“The land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, indigenous to both Jews and Arabs, cannot be the exclusive domain of one people, but must be shared,” Jason Isaacson, AJC’s chief policy and political affairs officer, said. “Like the vast majority of Israelis, AJC believes that the re-establishment of Israeli settlements in Gaza, or a program of displacing Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank, would be contrary to Israel’s interests.”Israel evacuated its Gaza settlements in 2005, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly ruled out the idea of re-establishing them after the war. But while most Israelis oppose the idea, more than a third — including 42% of Israeli Jews — support it, according to a recent poll by the Israel Democracy Institute. That includes nearly 60% of Israeli Jewish right-wingers, the current government’s voter base.“Ideas like settlement in Gaza are welcome, we need to remember that, in the end, that’s the biggest punishment for what they did to us on October 7,” Ben-Gvir said in an interview on Israeli radio this month, referencing the Hamas terror onslaught in southern Israel, in which some 1,200 people were slaughtered and 251 were seized as hostages, sparking the war in the enclave.

▲  158 replies

Active 2 days ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Kamala Harris is considering running for president again in 2028

Kamala Harris has been lying low since her defeat in the presidential race, unwinding with family and senior aides in Hawaii before heading back to the nation’s capital.But privately, the vice president has been instructing advisers and allies to keep her options open — whether for a possible 2028 presidential run, or even to run for governor in her home state of California in two years. As Harris has repeated in phone calls, “I am staying in the fight.”She is expected to explore those and other possible paths forward with family members over the winter holiday season, according to five people in the Harris inner circle, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. Her deliberations follow an extraordinary four months in which Harris went from President Joe Biden’s running mate to the top of the ticket, reenergizing Democrats before ultimately crashing on election night.“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”Harris concedes: 'We must accept the results of this election'SharePlay VideoMost immediately, Harris and her advisers are working to define how and when she will speak out against Donald Trump and reassert her own role in the Democratic Party. Closing out her term as vice president, she’s set to preside over certifying the November election she lost to Trump, and then appear at the once-and-future president’s inauguration on Jan. 20.“There will be a desire to hear her voice, and there won’t be a vacuum for long,” a person close to Harris said.At the same time, Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, will have a long checklist to plow through before they leave the Naval Observatory for good.They have to decide whether they’ll take up permanent residence at their home in Los Angeles, or establish a base elsewhere. No matter where Harris and her family live, some around her have expressed concerns about safety, as her Secret Service protection expires six months after stepping away.

▲  1023 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2 days2D

Elizabeth Warren Walks Back Murder Comments

Congressional Democrats broadly denounced the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Friday morning, after Republicans started accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of excusing violence.“No one's condoning this,” said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.). “Violence never is the right answer for anything. And it was a horrible murder, a tragic loss for his family.” Warren this week condemned the shooting, but added that people “can be pushed only so far.”"We'll say it over and over," Warren said on MSNBC’S “The ReidOut.” " Violence is never the answer. This guy [Luigi Mangione] gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth, but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."In a statement to POLITICO, Warren said, “Violence is never the answer. Period. I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.” Top Republicans denounced Warren's comments and the walked-back rhetoric, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) calling it “inappropriate and dangerous.”Some House Democrats asked about the incident on Thursday pivoted the conversation to discuss policy options on health care or gun safety.“I don't really know that this is really a space that Congress normally weighs in on,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). “But at the end of the day, I think it’s an opportunity, because now people are talking about health care and to talk about the fact that this industry has honestly not been as helpful as it could be.”“Violence is never the answer,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.). “We know that there are people suffering, there’s great challenges in healthcare. There's great challenges, and people have, in fact, been wronged, but a process of governance is the way to address that, not violence.”And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) who denounced the murder, said the killer should be prosecuted and that “I do know that allegedly a ghost gun was used, and we should also ban ghost guns. There's no reason for them beyond the streets.”

▲  1614 replies