What happened?

A U.S. district court judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order to cut funding from “sanctuary cities,” or cities that don’t comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to find and deport illegal immigrants.

Judge William Orrick issued the ruling on Monday, saying that Trump is overstepping his authority by changing policy on spending that was approved by Congress. Trump signed the executive order in January.

Is this related to “Kate’s law”?

Yes. Sanctuary cities became a national issue following outcry over 32-year-old Kate Steinle’s death in San Francisco. She was allegedly killed by an illegal immigrant firing a handgun after local authorities let him go; he had reportedly been deported five times before the incident.


RELATED: Bill O’Reilly: Kate’s Law Signals to the People the ‘Government Will Protect Us’

Despite being controlled by Republicans, Congress hasn’t managed to take action on legislation known as “Kate’s law” that would increase criminal penalties on illegal immigrants who commit crimes, are deported and then return to the U.S.

Where did we land on this?

The bill passed in the House over the summer but has been stalled in the Senate.

Standing in for Glenn on today’s show, Doc talked about Kate Steinle’s tragic death and the importance of protecting Americans from people who feel free to cross the border and break our laws over and over.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors.

DOC: Jim was walking with a family friend and his daughter on a sunny day along a pier in San Francisco. If you — if you’ve ever been to the piers in San Francisco, man, that is — it’s a really nice experience. And that’s where Jim was. Walking with his daughter and a family friend. Just a great day at the pier.

All of a sudden, there was a loud bang. Suddenly, something was wrong with his daughter. She threw her arms around him. And she whispered, “Help me, Dad.” She then collapsed in front of him.

He couldn’t figure out what was wrong. She didn’t have any health problems. She was a healthy girl. As she fell to the ground and he struggled to find out what was going on with his daughter, a passerby stopped to help.

Suggested they turn her over, on to her back. So they did. And as they rolled her onto her side and then to her back, they could — they could see blood. Then they noticed a hole in her back. That hole turned out to be a bullet hole. The loud bang was a gun being fired.

Paramedics arrived. They rushed her to the hospital. And she was declared dead.

In just minutes, this father was walking with his daughter. Minutes later, she was dead.

That is the story of how Kate Steinle died, after being shot by José Zarate, two years ago. Yesterday, attorneys began their final arguments in the murder case against José. Also yesterday, a federal judge permanently blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities. Judge William Orrick said President Trump cannot set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.

Ironic, that while final arguments are unfolding for her killer, a federal judge blocked President Trump’s attempt to somehow stop sanctuary cities.

Now, we can debate back and forth. In fact, we could get great legal minds on. Constitutional experts. To say whether or not it was within the power of the president to withhold funds from somebody who is violating federal law, even though Congress has allocated those funds.

In fact, I’ll even, right now, say he doesn’t have the authority to do that. I’ll just give that to you.

Federal Judge Orrick, if that is the case, so be it.

But at least President Trump tried to do something, which is more than I can say for most people in Washington, DC, now or in the past. At least he attempted to do something. At least he tried to do something that he made a significant campaign issue, while he was running for president. Kate Steinle and others have been killed, murdered, at the hands of illegals.

This is a national security threat, as well as a domestic security threat, once they’re around. Once they’re in America. And while people will cite statistics and tell you, well, there’s a bunch of studies that show you that illegals commit less crimes than others, then American citizens — does that matter? If only one illegal commits one murder, you’re okay with that? How about if it’s your daughter you’re walking with on a sunny day, that gets murdered?

Then I’ll bet, you’re not as okay with it. The truth is, it is absolutely within the power of the United States to decide who enters our country. It is absolutely within our power. It is moral. It is reasonable. And it is logical to know who is coming into America.

It is also reasonable and logical and certainly not hateful, to limit who comes in America. We should have an open and active, yet monitored border.

A border that allows people to go back and forth, coming and going, for the purpose of commerce and travel, vacations. Absolutely.

But we got to know who it is. We live in an increasingly dangerous world. And it’s ironic that so many people that support the idea of sanctuary cities and tell me that, you know, they commit less crimes than American citizens, are the same people who tell me that guns are a problem.

They’re the ones going after specifically just guns. They’re willing to go after one, one way you can kill people. One way you can be violent. Because of their agenda. But a typical lack of consistency, aren’t willing to go after sanctuary cities that help protect and promote illegals, who quite often perpetrate violence on American citizens.

José had been deported five times. He was awaiting his sixth deportation. He was homeless in San Francisco at the time of the shooting. He had just finished a prison sentence for illegal reentry, when he was transferred not out of the country. But to the San Francisco county jail, to face a 20-year pot charge.

That’s when they decide to let him go. why do the sheriff let him go? Because of his sanctuary city status. Because of that policy, it limits cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

So if he was held on some immigration issue, he was in the country illegally, they were not going to keep him. They were not going to turn him over to the federal government. They were not going to cooperate.

So you don’t support sanctuary cities, fine. How do you propose we protect the Kate Steinle’s of the world? And what’s it going to take for you to get it? Do you have to be walking with your daughter or son on a sunny day and see them get murdered in front of you? Is that what it’s going to take?

I’ll bet for some people, it wouldn’t even take that. That even if that happened, they still wouldn’t get it. So while we’re debating what should happen to José, Congress is floating the idea of amnesty. In the middle of all of this.

Her killer has still not been brought to justice. And, by the way, her story is not unique. I mean, you could go to the remembrance project. They calculate — or, excuse me — record. They record and promote the stories of people who were skilled or had violence perpetrated against them by illegals, fighting against this narrative that, oh, they’re just here illegally. Nothing else bad happens.

Trying to keep those people’s memories alive and telling the world that, hey, this is a problem. It’s not unique. It’s not rare. Whether it’s a hit-and-run and somebody is killed. Which, I remember when I was still working at WRVA in Virginia. A couple of nuns were killed. Another guy in the community was killed, and I had interviewed his brother about it. By drunk drivers.

There has to be a way we monitor these people and make sure they’re not here doing bad things. That’s not immoral. That’s not hateful.

But Congress — and it’s also Republicans — aren’t even considering that. You’ve got the courts that are fighting against President Trump and his actions against sanctuary cities. And members of Congress are not saying, hey, let’s come up with some sort of sanctuary city bill, because we’re the ones that appropriate money and say, if you do this, you will not have money appropriated to you.

Where is Congress on this? Their silence is deafening. Instead, they’re working on amnesty. Being floated right now around Capitol Hill is another round of amnesty.

Now, we know they’ve been fighting for amnesty for the so-called Dreamers, seeing if they can make them legal, giving them a pathway to citizenship. But there’s a bunch of Democrats and even some Republicans, that are quietly trying to come up with the proper way to craft a new amnesty message.

Look for this. Expect this in the next couple of months. They may try to tie it to some other big bill, you know, a debt ceiling raise or something like that. But they are working on it.

Now, I am willing to move a great distance off of my beliefs and what I know is right, the belief that we should not reward bad. And I will reluctantly, begrudgingly, give up the idea of legal — of children — the so-called Dreamers that were brought here by others being deported. I will begrudgingly come up with some way we can give them a pathway, because after all, they didn’t commit the crime. Somebody else did.

But that has to be part of the deal, where we kick out everybody else, that is here illegally. I’m not willing to give an inch on that. Somebody has to be held accountable for coming here illegally. And for those Dreamers who brought them here illegally. Congress is working on amnesty. Be prepared to fight that fight in the coming couple of months. Your calls coming up next on the Glenn Beck Program.