Sessions again threatens to defund sanctuary cities - Democrat Rep. says he's 'putting a gun to the head' of Americans

Sessions said the Justice Department would require cities seeking some of $4.1 billion available in grant money to verify that they are in compliance with a section of federal law that allows information sharing with immigration officials. His statements in the White House briefing room brought to mind tough talk from President Donald Trump's campaign and came just three days after the administration's crushing health care defeat. But Sessions also acknowledged he was reiterating a similar policy adopted by the Obama administration last year. "I urge the nation's states and cities to carefully consider the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws," Sessions said.

In other words, if your city is openly defying federal immigration law, it's risking the elimination of all the sweet, sweet, taxpayer cash that floods into its social program food trough. This, to most people, sounds perfectly sane. It was front and center during the 2016 campaign, and it enjoys widespread support outside of Hillary strongholds like New York and Los Angeles.

Unfortunately, sanity is not a hallmark of the Democrat party these days. The hyperbole was launched immediately and perhaps no one served as a better example than Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D, NY). He's outraged that someone might attempt to force Democrats to obey the law. He claims defunding sanctuary cities would be like "putting a gun to the head of Americans" and (because Russia all the things) playing Russian roulette.

"Well, This is a serious threat to the security of Americans throughout the country and particularly New York City, which is the largest, safest city in America. ...By yanking funding away and clawing back funding away from law enforcement, we're putting average Americans at risk. In fact, it's almost like putting a gun in the head of Americans and playing Russian roulette. This is egregious, and this is something that shouldn't happen."

The problem, obviously, is that by harboring and often even releasing dangerous illegals, sanctuary cities are themselves playing Russian roullette with the lives of law-abiding citizens. Why should taxpayers around the country be funding your city's law enforcement if it's not actually going to enforce the law? More importantly, states don't get to pick and choose which statutes to which the "feel like" adhereing. If you refuse to abide by federal law, you suffer the consequences. End of story. The fact that they're in meltdown mode indicates that they know they're on the wrong side of an effective pressure point. The problem, obviously, is that by harboring and often even releasing dangerous illegals, sanctuary cities are themselves playing Russian roullette with the lives of law-abiding citizens. Why should taxpayers around the country be funding your city's law enforcement if it's not actually going to enforce the law? More importantly, states don't get to pick and choose which statutes to which the "feel like" adhereing. If you refuse to abide by federal law, you suffer the consequences. End of story. The fact that they're in meltdown mode indicates that they know they're on the wrong side of an effective pressure point.