Republican Senators Sound Off on Sanctuary Cities: “Enough is Enough”
The debate over sanctuary cities has once again heated up in Washington, with several Republican senators openly expressing frustration over places like Los Angeles pushing back against federal immigration enforcement. Speaking candidly to Fox News Digital in the Senate halls, GOP leaders made it clear they’re fed up with what they see as sanctuary cities undermining federal law — and some even called for cutting federal funding to these jurisdictions.
“If You Don’t Follow Federal Law, You Don’t Get Federal Money”
Senator Katie Britt from Alabama put it bluntly: “We have to say, ‘Enough is enough.’ I don’t understand why we would continue to give federal dollars to someone who doesn’t abide by federal law. I mean, think about that. That is very simple.”
Britt emphasized how immigration has dominated political discussions for years. “There’s been no more-litigated issue over the last four years than the millions and millions of illegal migrants coming across our border,” she said. For her, sanctuary cities symbolize a refusal to enforce the law and an invitation to chaos. “What a sanctuary city says is, ‘You can commit a crime, we will allow for lawlessness, and we will not turn you over to the federal authorities.’ That’s absolute insanity, and we’re not going to stand for it anymore.”
The “Lawlessness” Debate: Safety vs. Sanctuary
Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio echoed similar concerns about law and order. “Look, the reality is, to use the term for my colleagues, ‘Nobody is above the law.’ So, if you have a mayor or county executive or a governor, whoever you want to say, that’s not following federal law, that’s completely unacceptable.” For Moreno, the federal government holds a critical tool: the purse strings. “The tool that we have here is federal funding,” he said. “I’ve called for that in my campaign, and I think all Republicans, we should stick firm on that.”
On the same note, Senator Rick Scott from Florida took a no-nonsense stance. “Sanctuary cities blocking immigration shouldn’t receive federal funding.” Scott added, “If you’re a sanctuary city, you’re not doing the right thing for your citizens. You’re not keeping them safe.”
Scott also voiced frustration with the broader immigration system. “We don’t have an immigration system that works. There are people who want to come here legally, work hard, and go home — that’s what we should focus on. But if you’re not vetted, you shouldn’t be able to come into this country.”
Consequences for Defying Federal Law?
Senator Bill Cassidy from Louisiana took a straightforward approach: “I think everybody should follow the law or accept the consequences.” However, when pressed about what those consequences might legally be, Cassidy admitted, “I can’t tell you that I know legally what the consequences are for a community deliberately disobeying something from the federal government. But whatever those consequences are, if a community makes that decision, it has to bear the consequences.”
Senator Roger Marshall of Tennessee went further by connecting sanctuary policies to broader public safety issues. “These sanctuary policies led in many ways to the LA riots, where the LA police weren’t willing to help when our ICE agents were in trouble,” Marshall said.
He stressed that local officials must not block ICE officers from doing their jobs. “What we cannot tolerate is local officials impeding ICE officers — and that’s exactly what’s happening in some of these sanctuary cities.” Marshall also mentioned the possibility of using “the power of the purse” — federal funding restrictions — as a lever. “President Trump took an oath, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and to make all of us safe.”
The Other Side: Democrats Respond
On the other side of the aisle, the conversation sounded quite different. Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia told Fox News Digital, “Sanctuary city officials not cooperating with ICE and federal authorities is not an issue in Virginia, because I’m not aware of a sanctuary city in Virginia.”
Meanwhile, Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine, chose to sidestep the topic entirely, telling Fox News Digital, “I don’t have any comment on that, I’m focused right now on what’s going on in the Middle East.”
Why Sanctuary Cities Remain a Flashpoint
Sanctuary cities have long been a thorny issue in American politics. They represent a local government’s decision to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, often refusing to detain or hand over undocumented immigrants to ICE unless they’ve committed serious crimes. Proponents argue this approach protects immigrant communities from over-policing and fosters trust between residents and local police. Critics see it as a direct affront to federal law, enabling illegal activity and undermining public safety.
What’s Next?
The recent chorus of GOP voices calling for consequences — including slashing federal funding — signals a potential legislative push. But it’s unclear how far Congress will go. While cutting money to cities like Los Angeles would send a strong message, it could also impact essential services residents depend on.
Key Points to Keep in Mind:
-
Republican senators argue sanctuary cities encourage lawlessness by protecting undocumented immigrants from federal authorities.
-
Many GOP leaders want to use federal funding as leverage to force compliance with immigration laws.
-
Democrats push back, pointing to states and cities that don’t identify as sanctuary jurisdictions.
-
Some senators acknowledge legal ambiguity about consequences for defiant local governments.
-
The debate reflects broader frustrations over the current immigration system and border security.
Login