Cities that have passed policies deeming themselves “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants may be finding themselves staring at a loss of federal infrastructure funding if a House Republican’s bill becomes law.
Missouri Rep. Jason Smith wants to block any sanctuary city from receiving money from the Federal Highway Trust Fund, one of the biggest sources of funding for improvements to roadways across the country. The bill, the No Transportation Funds For Sanctuary Cities Act, would be the legislative culmination of Republican threats to end sanctuary city policies across the country.
“Because states, counties and cities have failed to comply with federal law, we have to use congressional power of the purse to require these cities to abide by federal immigration laws,” he said in a statement.
More than 300 cities across the country employ some form of sanctuary city policy, and the degree to which the policy protects illegal immigrants can vary. In some cities, the policies can mean a refusal to turn over illegal immigrants to federal officials if they end up in police custody. In other cities, the policies can allow the immigrants the same access to city services as other residents.
The federal government has ruled that it cannot legally require the cities to comply with its requests to detain illegal immigrants on federal charges. Instead, they have the choice of whether to do so.
Sanctuary cities have been a bugaboo for Republican immigration hawks, and President Trump has promised to end sanctuary city practices.
The Highway Trust Fund takes money from the federal fuel tax — 18.4 cents per gallon on gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon on diesel — and uses it to pay for improvements to federal roads and other infrastructure.
Smith would specifically target Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery, or TIGER, grants from the Department of Transportation. About $500 million in those grants were given to 40 cities across the country last year.
The TIGER program is used to fund “innovative projects,” not typical road, bridge and other infrastructure projects. In 2016, the Department of Transportation was looking for projects that focused on bringing economic development to cities and rural areas.
To get at other highway funding, the bill also prevents any funding going to cities under Chapter 1, Title 23 of the U.S. Code. That portion of code law specifically deals with federal aid for highway work.
Last month, shortly before Smith introduced his bill, Trump issued an executive order telling federal immigration officials to widen the scope of immigrants they consider for deportation. The order tells federal immigration officials to deport people who have been charged with a criminal offense; previously, a conviction was necessary to deport someone.
Smith believes his bill could have a chance of becoming law since Trump has made ending sanctuary cities a top policy issue.
“The American people spoke in November and support President Trump’s no-nonsense plan to enforce existing laws to protect our citizens,” he said.
It would be a unique way to threaten municipalities to comply with a federal request. Withholding transportation funding to comply with federal statutes has happened before, but only to state governments and usually for driving-related laws.
In the 1970s, the federal government threatened to withhold money from states that allowed motorcyclists to not wear a helmet and also tied federal highway funding to requiring speed limits to be dropped to 55 miles per hour during the gasoline crisis. In the 1980s, the federal government tied federal highway funding to states’ compliance in raising their drinking age to 21.
The threat of losing the funding hasn’t slowed some cities from pursuing sanctuary city policies.
Cincinnati became a sanctuary city a few days before Smith introduced his bill. The city’s mayor, John Cranley, told local reporters he wasn’t worried about threats to withhold infrastructure grants from cities that passed sanctuary policies.
“I don’t believe it,” Cranley told the Cincinnati Enquirer. “I just don’t believe it.”
Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser also openly defied anti-sanctuary city policies in early January when she announced the District will give $500,000 to organizations and law firms in Washington that do legal work for illegal immigrants.
Bowser has been a strong advocate for sanctuary city policies and said the threats from Republicans aren’t going to stop her from pursuing those policies.
“In Washington, D.C., we embrace our diversity and strive to be more inclusive. In November, I reaffirmed Washington, D.C.’s status as a sanctuary city, and now we are doubling down,” she said. “We must ensure that all District residents can take advantage of their federal and constitutional rights.”
Should Smith’s bill pass, mayors such as Bowser and Cranley shouldn’t come running to the federal government asking for help when things need fixing, said Dan Cadman, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration think tank.
Cadman, a retired Immigration and Customs Enforcement official, wrote that the money spent by cities on helping illegal immigrants through sanctuary policies could be better spent elsewhere. He pointed to Chicago, where Mayor Rahm Emanuel wants to spend $1 million on a legal fund to help illegal immigrants avoid federal officials.
If cities are willing to spend money on such programs instead of their own government, they should be willing to pay for their own infrastructure fixes, he said.
“Put your money where your mouth is. Want local control to defy the federal government? Then use all that local control to raise the money you need to run your local government and don’t go asking for handouts from Uncle Sam even as you thumb your nose,” he wrote.
