Poll: Voters Want Sanctuary Cities Punished For Not Upholding Immigration Laws

Kerry Picket Political Reporter
Font Size:

Voters want to see sanctuary cities punished, a new poll from Rasmussen Reports says.

Since 32-year old Kate Steinle was murdered in San Francisco last week allegedly by an illegal alien, a new poll shows that voters want to see sanctuary cities be held accountable for not upholding federal immigration laws.

According to Rasmussen’s national telephone survey, “Sixty-two percent (62%) of Likely U.S. Voters think the U.S. Justice Department should take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants.”

Only twenty-six percent of likely voters oppose such an action and twelve percent are undecided. In fact, fifty-eight percent think the federal government should cut off funds to cities that give safe haven to illegal aliens while thirty-two percent disagree.

Rasmussen also points out, “Eighty-four percent (84%) of those who want the Justice Department to take legal action against sanctuary cities also favor a cut-off of all federal aid. Among voters opposed to legal action, 80% also oppose a funding cut-off.”

Voters are wary of the Justice Department, however. Fifty-six percent (56%) think the Justice Department is more concerned with politics than with making sure justice is done when it decides to investigate a local crime independent of the local police.

This poll coincides another Rasmussen survey that shows that most voters agree with Republican presidential candidate and New York businessman Donald Trump—that illegal immigration increases crime. Prior Trump’s entry into the race in early May, Rasmussen found that seventy-seven percent of likely voters now consider illegal immigration a serious problem in the United States.

This particular survey showed that sixty-three percent of voters believe that regaining control of the border is more important than legalizing undocumented immigrants in the country.

Members of Congress and presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle have spoken out against sanctuary city policies. These include: House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter jr., Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Lou Barletta, Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, and Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton.

However, others, like the sheriff of San Francisco, remain adamant that sanctuary city policies must remain in place for safety reasons. Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin defended Chicago’s sanctuary city status telling The Daily Caller, “The dilemma we face is this. Fundamentally, Chicago is welcoming of immigrants and law enforcement must have the cooperation of the community in solving crimes. They don’t want to drive these wedges by arresting the people on immigration violations. They would rather work to try to bring piece to our community.”

On the issue of defying federal immigration authorities when it comes to not honoring detainer requests, similar to a recent situation in San Francisco, Durbin responded, “I don’t know if there’s any evidence of that, at least not in Chicago that I’ve heard of.

Democratic Presidential candidate Martin O’Malley also defended sanctuary cities releasing his argument in a statement in both in English and Spanish.