@ISIDEWITHQuestionsimmigrationStarted 8yrs agoActive 18hrs 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  State Senate District 9 (Virginia)

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 475 State Senate District 9 voters.

59%
Yes
41%
No
55%
Yes
38%
No
3%
Yes but decrease the amount of sanctuary cities.
3%
No, and we should ban the use of sanctuary cities
1%
Yes, but fine companies that employ illegal immigrants
0%
No, and all federal funding is unconstitutional

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 475 State Senate District 9 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 475 State Senate District 9 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from State Senate District 9 voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @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

 @9NLZLPX from North Carolina  answered…9mos9MO

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

 @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…3mos3MO

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

 @9VJZYWB from Maryland  answered…5mos5MO

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

 @8XLR4JX  from North Carolina  answered…8mos8MO

No, funding should be devoted to fixing our broken immigration system and ending all reasons for the existence of illegal immigration, not subsidizing cities that help perpetuate the problem

Latest News

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

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  2017 replies4 agree1 disagree