Here’s Why We Need a Ban on ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Despite This Judge’s Ruling

November 21, 2017

WRITER

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.

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.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

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.

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: Supreme Court case could redefine religious liberty

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep