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

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.

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.

In light of the national conversation surrounding the rights of free speech, religion and self-defense, Mercury One is thrilled to announce a brand new initiative launching this Father's Day weekend: a three-day museum exhibition in Dallas, Texas focused on the rights and responsibilities of American citizens.

This event seeks to answer three fundamental questions:

  1. As Americans, what responsibility do we shoulder when it comes to defending our rights?
  2. Do we as a nation still agree on the core principles and values laid out by our founding fathers?
  3. How can we move forward amidst uncertainty surrounding the intent of our founding ideals?

Attendees will be able to view historical artifacts and documents that reveal what has made America unique and the most innovative nation on earth. Here's a hint: it all goes back to the core principles and values this nation was founded on as laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Exhibits will show what the world was like before mankind had rights and how Americans realized there was a better way to govern. Throughout the weekend, Glenn Beck, David Barton, Stu Burguiere, Doc Thompson, Jeffy Fisher and Brad Staggs will lead private tours through the museum, each providing their own unique perspectives on our rights and responsibilities.

Schedule a private tour or purchase general admission ticket below:

Dates:
June 15-17

Location:

Mercury Studios

6301 Riverside Drive, Irving, TX 75039

Learn more about the event here.

About Mercury One: Mercury One is a 501(c)(3) charity founded in 2011 by Glenn Beck. Mercury One was built to inspire the world in the same way the United States space program shaped America's national destiny and the world. The organization seeks to restore the human spirit by helping individuals and communities help themselves through honor, faith, courage, hope and love. In the words of Glenn Beck:

We don't stand between government aid and people in need. We stand with people in need so they no longer need the government

Some of Mercury One's core initiatives include assisting our nation's veterans, providing aid to those in crisis and restoring the lives of Christians and other persecuted religious minorities. When evil prevails, the best way to overcome it is for regular people to do good. Mercury One is committed to helping sustain the good actions of regular people who want to make a difference through humanitarian aid and education initiatives. Mercury One will stand, speak and act when no one else will.

Support Mercury One's mission to restore the human spirit by making an online donation or calling 972-499-4747. Together, we can make a difference.

What happened?

A New York judge ruled Tuesday that a 30-year-old still living in his parents' home must move out, CNN reported.

Failure to launch …

Michael Rotondo, who had been living in a room in his parents' house for eight years, claims that he is owed a six-month notice even though they gave him five notices about moving out and offered to help him find a place and to help pay for repairs on his car.

RELATED: It's sad 'free-range parenting' has to be legislated, it used to be common sense

“I think the notice is sufficient," New York State Supreme Court Judge Donald Greenwood said.

What did the son say?

Rotondo “has never been expected to contribute to household expenses, or assisted with chores and the maintenance of the premises, and claims that this is simply a component of his living agreement," he claimed in court filings.

He told reporters that he plans to appeal the “ridiculous" ruling.

Reform Conservatism and Reaganomics: A middle road?

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Senator Marco Rubio broke Republican ranks recently when he criticized the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act by stating that “there's no evidence whatsoever that the money's been massively poured back into the American worker." Rubio is wrong on this point, as millions of workers have received major raises, while the corporate tax cuts have led to a spike in capital expenditure (investment on new projects) of 39 percent. However, the Florida senator is revisiting an idea that was front and center in the conservative movement before Donald Trump rode down an escalator in June of 2015: reform conservatism.

RELATED: The problem with asking what has conservatism conserved

The "reformicons," like Rubio, supported moving away from conservative or supply-side orthodoxy and toward policies such as the expansion of the child and earned income tax credits. On the other hand, longstanding conservative economic theory indicates that corporate tax cuts, by lowering disincentives on investment, will lead to long-run economic growth that will end up being much more beneficial to the middle class than tax credits.

But asking people to choose between free market economic orthodoxy and policies guided towards addressing inequality and the concerns of the middle class is a false dichotomy.

Instead of advocating policies that many conservatives might dismiss as redistributionist, reformicons should look at the ways government action hinders economic opportunity and exacerbates income inequality. Changing policies that worsen inequality satisfies limited government conservatives' desire for free markets and reformicons' quest for a more egalitarian America. Furthermore, pushing for market policies that reduce the unequal distribution of wealth would help attract left-leaning people and millennials to small government principles.

Criminal justice reform is an area that reformicons and free marketers should come together around. The drug war has been a disaster, and the burden of this misguided government approach have fallen on impoverished minority communities disproportionately, in the form of mass incarceration and lower social mobility. Not only has the drug war been terrible for these communities, it's proved costly to the taxpayer––well over a trillion dollars has gone into the drug war since its inception, and $80 billion dollars a year goes into mass incarceration.

Prioritizing retraining and rehabilitation instead of overcriminalization would help address inequality, fitting reformicons' goals, and promote a better-trained workforce and lower government spending, appealing to basic conservative preferences.

Government regulations tend to disproportionately hurt small businesses and new or would-be entrepreneurs. In no area is this more egregious than occupational licensing––the practice of requiring a government-issued license to perform a job. The percentage of jobs that require licenses has risen from five percent to 30 percent since 1950. Ostensibly justified by public health concerns, occupational licensing laws have, broadly, been shown to neither promote public health nor improve the quality of service. Instead, they serve to provide a 15 percent wage boost to licensed barbers and florists, while, thanks to the hundreds of hours and expensive fees required to attain the licenses, suppressing low-income entrepreneurship, and costing the economy $200 billion dollars annually.

Those economic losses tend to primarily hurt low-income people who both can't start businesses and have to pay more for essential services. Rolling back occupational licenses will satisfy the business wing's desire for deregulation and a more free market and the reformicons' support for addressing income inequality and increasing opportunity.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality.

Tax expenditures form another opportunity for common ground between the Rubio types and the mainstream. Tax deductions and exclusions, both on the individual and corporate sides of the tax code, remain in place after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Itemized deductions on the individual side disproportionately benefit the wealthy, while corporate tax expenditures help well-connected corporations and sectors, such as the fossil fuel industry.

The favoritism at play in the complex tax code perpetuates inequality. Additionally, a more complicated tax code is less conducive to economic growth than one with lower tax rates and fewer exemptions. Therefore, a simpler tax code with fewer deductions and exclusions would not only create a more level playing field, as the reformicons desire, but also additional economic growth.

A forward-thinking economic program for the Republican Party should marry the best ideas put forward by both supply-siders and reform conservatives. It's possible to take the issues of income inequality and lack of social mobility seriously, while also keeping mainstay conservative economic ideas about the importance of less cumbersome regulations and lower taxes.

Alex Muresianu is a Young Voices Advocate studying economics at Tufts University. He is a contributor for Lone Conservative, and his writing has appeared in Townhall and The Daily Caller. He can be found on Twitter @ahardtospell.

Is this what inclusivity and tolerance look like? Fox News host Tomi Lahren was at a weekend brunch with her mom in Minnesota when other patrons started yelling obscenities and harassing her. After a confrontation, someone threw a drink at her, the moment captured on video for social media.

RELATED: Glenn Addresses Tomi Lahren's Pro-Choice Stance on 'The View'

On today's show, Pat and Jeffy talked about this uncomfortable moment and why it shows that supposedly “tolerant" liberals have to resort to physical violence in response to ideas they don't like.