Should sanctuary cities receive federal funding?

No, only state funding if approved.

No, it is not the federal government's job to fund sanctuary cities. However, the federal government cannot ban sanctuary cities since this is within the jurisdiction of the states and cities involved. Let states/local governments decide if they want to do so, or not, to fund sanctuary cities within their state.

we would have to look into all the pros and cons

Not federal funding

Only state funding.

Yes, but a small amount.

State funding only.

Yes, but mainly for rolls who need dire sanctuary

State funded if voted upon

No, only state funding if voted upon.

yes sanctuary cities should receive federal funding to help support the refugees and the city

Only state funding

No, sanctuary cities should be sanctioned and lose all state and federal representation.

Yes, and we should allow for the creation of more sanctuary cities

No, it is not the federal government's job to fund sanctuary cities since this is within the jurisdiction of the states and cities involved. Let states/local governments decide if they want to do so or fund sanctuary cities within their state.

This should be up to the state and the local government.

Not federal funding but states should be allowed to vote on the issue.

No, the federal government should not fund sanctuary cities. However, the federal government cannot ban sanctuary cities since this is within the jurisdiction of the states and cities involved. Let each states/local governments decide or fund sanctuary cities within their state.

State funding not federal

No city should recieve federal funding.

No, it is not the federal government's job to fund sanctuary cities. Let states/local governments decide if they want to do so or fund sanctuary cities within their state.

No, it's not the federal government's job to fund sanctuary cities but don't ban it since this is within the jurisdiction of the states and cities involved. Let states/local governments decide if they want to do so or fund sanctuary cities within their state.

No, it's not the federal government's job to fund sanctuary cities since this is within the jurisdiction of the states and cities involved. Let states/local governments decide if they want to do so or fund sanctuary cities within their state.

No, the federal government should not fund sanctuary cities. However, the federal government cannot ban sanctuary cities since this is within the jurisdiction of the states and cities involved. Let states/local governments decide if they want to make their city a "Sanctuary City" or fund sanctuary cities within their state.

No, it is not the federal government's job to fund sanctuary cities since this is within the jurisdiction of the states and cities involved. Let states/local governments decide if they want to do so, or not, to fund sanctuary cities within their state.

No, it is not the federal government's job to fund sanctuary cities but they shouldn't ban sanctuary cities since this is within the jurisdiction of the states and cities involved. Let state's/local governments decide if they want to make their city a "Sanctuary City" or fund sanctuary cities within their state.

No, it is not the federal government's job to fund sanctuary cities but they shouldn't ban them since this is within the jurisdiction of the states and cities involved. Let state's/local governments decide if they want to make their city a "Sanctuary City" or fund sanctuary cities within their state.

No, it is not the federal government's job to fund sanctuary cities but they shouldn't ban them since this is within the jurisdiction of the states and cities involved. Let state's/local governments decide if they want to do so, or fund sanctuary cities within their state.

No, it is not the federal government's job to fund sanctuary cities since this is within the jurisdiction of the states and cities involved. Let states/local governments decide if they want to do so, or fund sanctuary cities within their state.

No, it is not the federal government's job to fund sanctuary cities since this is within the jurisdiction of the states and cities involved. Let states/local governments decide.

It just depends on what the funding would be targeted for

Yes, though no cities should receive federal funding

Yes, but only if the illegal immigrants in the Sanctuary Cities are going through the citizenship process

No, funding should instead be used towards helping people become legitimate citizens

Yes, but make a limit on the amount of sanctuary cities and use them only for special scenarios.

How do you think having a diverse mix of people, regardless of their legal status, impacts the culture of a city?

Do you feel local communities should have the power to make their own rules about immigration, or should it be decided at a national level?

What does the word 'sanctuary' mean to you, and how can cities embody that concept?

How should cities balance being welcoming to all individuals while also upholding laws?

What are the benefits or risks you see in allowing cities to decide how they treat undocumented individuals?

Can you think of a time when protecting someone made you feel conflicted? How does that relate to how cities handle people without legal status?

Should feeling 'safe' prioritize legal status or the contributions a person brings to the community? Why?

How would your view of your own city change if it adopted policies that directly challenged national immigration laws?

What do you think are the moral responsibilities of a city towards individuals who may not have legal status yet still live and work there?

Yes, but also incentivize path to citizenship for individuals within those cities

Yes, but we should discourage the practice and move to phase out the use of sanctuary cities

Yes, and sanctuary cities should be a federal model

depends on how much they are used

I dont understand what this question means

Yes, the executive branch should not be allowed to pick and choose who to fund

Yes, Allow the states and U.S. territories to choose to officially become sanctuary states and territories, but the local and state law enforcement agencies should be authorized to arrest and/or deport illegal immigrants who are the following:
1. a member or associate member of the Freemasons and/or any other secret societies and organizations
2. a member or associate member of a criminal or terrorist organization
3. a member or associate member of a foreign leftist political party, all its formations, manifestations, associations, successors, paramilitary organizations, youth organizati…  Read moreons, women's organization, front organizations, labor organizations, pioneer movements, newspapers, etc) (including fellow travelers, sympathizers, empathizers and collaborators).4. non-monogamists5. Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs who support (in any way) Hindutva of Hindu nationalism, ghar wapsi and/or anti-conversion (from Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism or Sikhism) laws6. a member of a foreign anti-Semitic and/or anti-Zionist, white or black supremacist group

No, Sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants should be illegal

How would you react if someone close to you shared that they were living in your city without documents—how would it influence your perspective?

No. Sanctuary cities are helpful for undocumented immigrants, but illegal immigration is not something that should be federally supported.

No, the government should not be involved as long as they do not pose as a threat.

we can aid them a little much not a lot

Yes, but decrease the funding

No, and we should ban the use of sanctuary cities but also allow people to make up for coming here illegally and let them become citizens through completing a class.

Yes, but they should be run by the US Border Patrol, and should be held along the borders. However, it should NOT be inhumane.

Yes, as long as they have competency with US Border Patrol, but should be held outside of US states, along the border and within territories.

No, make America a sanctuary

No, our whole country should be a sanctuary

No, the whole country should be a sanctuary

No, but states can.

Yes, for services not related to immigration enforcement.

No, cities should be able to sustain themselves.

No, sanctuary cities should instead receive funding from the state/county they are located in. However, sanctuary cities must always promote legal paths to citizenship. Citizens of the state/county should also be able to vote on the city's status.

No, cities should never receive federal funding

No educated enough on the matter.

Yes, so they can function with necessities like any other city, and reform immigration policies to expedite the process for legal citizenship status

Yes, so they can function effectively and the federal government needs to revise immigration laws to eliminate the need for sanctuary cities

Yes, they should receive federal funding for necessities so they can function like any other city, and immigration laws should be revised so that sanctuary cities are no longer necessary

Yes, but the federal government should revise immigration laws so that sanctuary cities are no longer necessary

Yes, so they can function effectively but the federal government should revise immigration laws so that sanctuary cities are no longer necessary.

Yes, so they can function effectively and the federal government should revise immigration laws to eliminate the need for sanctuary cities.

Yes, so they can function effectively and the federal government should revise immigration laws to eliminate the need for sanctuary cities

Yes, so they can function effectively but the federal government should revise immigration laws to eliminate the need for sanctuary cities.

Yes, so these cities can function like any other and also reform immigration policies to expedite the process for legal citizenship status among immigrants without a criminal record

Yes, in order to function effectively, and the federal government needs to revise immigration laws to eliminate the need for sanctuary cities.

Yes, in order to function effectively and the federal government needs to revise immigration laws to eliminate the need for sanctuary cities

Yes, so these cities can function like any other and also reform legal immigration policies to expedite the process for legal citizenship status among immigrants without a criminal record

Yes, so these cities can function with necessities, and reform immigration policies to expedite the process for legal citizenship status and remove any need for sanctuary cities

Yes, so they are able to function with necessities like any other city, and reform immigration policies to expedite the process for legal citizenship status

Yes but not additonal federal funding. If they use their current allocated funding on undocumented individuals that's fine

Yes, but make easier paths to citizenship.

Yes, but they should receive less federal funding.

not enough information to conduct a stance.

This should be decided at the state level

Yes, although Canada does not have any sanctuary cities.

no because that's the city's choice

It depends on what funding that the city needs

Regardless, we need to make the process of becoming a citizen easier.

Sanctuary status should not impact funding either way.

Yes, if there is a time-limit to each immigrant residing in the city to work towards citizenship.

It depends on what the funds are used for. Some of these questions are overly board and there is not real way to answer them. I do not believe that someone should be prosecuted because they are from another country; however, I am remain uninterested in having someone tell me that I need to be taxed more so that I can pay for funding around people illegally entering the country. Create a path for people to come and become citizens. Stop the short term, with no path to stay Visas!!

Neutral, no stance.

They should not receive any more or less funding than any other city would receive.

Only if they fight against illegal immigration

We wouldn't have or need sanctuary cities if we have a better government system for 'foreign aliens' to become 'naturalized citizens'