Quickly find verified, easy-to-understand facts on key national issues.

A reference tool for the rest of us.

Search By Keyword

Use our custom search bar to find exactly what you need.

Dive Into Topics

Learn the larger context behind a variety of key topics.

Browse Random Facts

Scan through our bullet-point-style headlines to find facts you might not already know.

Browse Facts By Topic

Anti-Semitism
Budget and Taxes
Conflicts Of Interest
Corruption and Fraud
Demographics
Economy
Education
Environment
Executive Orders
Fake News
Flip Flops
Government Regulations
Healthcare
Immigration
International Relations
LGBTQ
Mexico Wall
Muslims
National Security and Military Operations
North Korea
Obama
Philanthropy
Polls
Racism
Russia
Supreme Court
Transparency
Uncategorized
Women

Browse Random Facts

Array ( [post_type] => post [exclude_post_format] => [offset] => [posts] => [suppress_filters] => 1 [orderby] => rand [order] => ASC [author] => [count] => [cat] => )
Array ( [wp_query] => WP_Query Object ( [query] => Array ( [post_type] => post [posts_per_page] => 0 [suppress_filters] => 0 [orderby] => rand [order] => ASC [paged] => 1 ) [query_vars] => Array ( [post_type] => post [posts_per_page] => 10 [suppress_filters] => 0 [orderby] => rand [order] => [paged] => 1 [error] => [m] => [p] => 0 [post_parent] => [subpost] => [subpost_id] => [attachment] => [attachment_id] => 0 [name] => [static] => [pagename] => [page_id] => 0 [second] => [minute] => [hour] => [day] => 0 [monthnum] => 0 [year] => 0 [w] => 0 [category_name] => [tag] => [cat] => [tag_id] => [author] => [author_name] => [feed] => [tb] => [meta_key] => [meta_value] => [preview] => [s] => [sentence] => [title] => [fields] => [menu_order] => [embed] => [category__in] => Array ( ) [category__not_in] => Array ( ) [category__and] => Array ( ) [post__in] => Array ( ) [post__not_in] => Array ( ) [post_name__in] => Array ( ) [tag__in] => Array ( ) [tag__not_in] => Array ( ) [tag__and] => Array ( ) [tag_slug__in] => Array ( ) [tag_slug__and] => Array ( ) [post_parent__in] => Array ( ) [post_parent__not_in] => Array ( ) [author__in] => Array ( ) [author__not_in] => Array ( ) [ignore_sticky_posts] => [cache_results] => 1 [update_post_term_cache] => 1 [lazy_load_term_meta] => 1 [update_post_meta_cache] => 1 [nopaging] => [comments_per_page] => 50 [no_found_rows] => ) [tax_query] => WP_Tax_Query Object ( [queries] => Array ( ) [relation] => AND [table_aliases:protected] => Array ( ) [queried_terms] => Array ( ) [primary_table] => wp_posts [primary_id_column] => ID ) [meta_query] => WP_Meta_Query Object ( [queries] => Array ( ) [relation] => [meta_table] => [meta_id_column] => [primary_table] => [primary_id_column] => [table_aliases:protected] => Array ( ) [clauses:protected] => Array ( ) [has_or_relation:protected] => ) [date_query] => [request] => SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS wp_posts.ID FROM wp_posts WHERE 1=1 AND wp_posts.post_type = 'post' AND (wp_posts.post_status = 'publish' OR wp_posts.post_status = 'acf-disabled') ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 0, 10 [posts] => Array ( [0] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1905 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2017-04-30 20:34:04 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-04-30 20:34:04 [post_content] => Federal officials must rely on local police to help enforce federal immigration laws, but the law doesn't require local authorities to detain illegal immigrants just because their federal counterparts make a request. In fact, federal courts across the country have found complying with the requests is voluntary. Each person arrested by local law enforcement is fingerprinted, and information about the arrestee is shared with federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is the primary federal agency for managing immigration laws.  If ICE identifies an undocumented immigrant, it submits a request to detain that person for an additional period of time (at the expense of local law enforcement) until ICE can then take custody of that person.   Although there is no standard legal definition of sanctuary city, these types of policies typically make it clear they will not comply with these or other requests related to using local law enforcement to capture and detain immigrants of any status.   Many cities across the country have enacted some sort of sanctuary city policy. A new anti-sanctuary city law in Texas "threatens police chiefs and elected officials with jail time and removal from office if they don't comply with federal immigration requests to detain immigrants in the country illegally.  The four largest cities in Texas — San Antonio, Austin, Houston and Dallas— are suing to block the measure." Lansing, MI had a sanctuary city policy but “city council members voted 5-2 to rescind the policy because business owners worried the term “sanctuary” would draw unwelcome attention to the city.”    
Cameron, Darla. "How Sanctuary Cities Work, and How Trump's Executive Order Might Affect Them." The Washington Post. WP Company, 25 Jan. 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
Kopan, Tal. "What Are Sanctuary Cities, and Can They Be Defunded?" CNN. Cable News Network, 25 Jan. 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
Griffith, Bryan, and Jessica Vaughan. "Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States." Center for Immigration Studies. N.p., 07 July 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
Weber, Paul. "No Immediate Ruling on Fate of Texas' 'sanctuary Cities' Law." ABC News. ABC News Network, 26 June 2017. Web. 09 July 2017. Gonzales, Sara. "One Michigan City Is Rescinding Its ‘sanctuary City’ Policy – Here’s Why."TheBlaze. TheBlaze, 13 Apr. 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
[post_title] => Sanctuary Cities Prohibit Federal Government From Forcing States And Cities To Use Local Resources To Capture And Detain Immigrants [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => sanctuary-cities-prohibit-federal-government-forcing-states-cities-use-local-resources-capture-detain-immigrants [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-08-02 02:36:14 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-08-02 02:36:14 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://factualuprising.com/?p=1905 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [1] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1444 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2017-02-05 22:25:21 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-02-05 22:25:21 [post_content] => As one of his first acts as President, Trump issued an executive order temporarily banning immigration from 7 Middle Eastern countries and halting refugee admissions. While not explicitly targeting Muslims, during his campaign Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on".          
Trump, Donald. "DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION." Donald J Trump for President. N.p., 7 Dec. 2015. Web. 05 Feb. 2017.
    [post_title] => While Immigrant And Refugee Ban Executive Order Doesn't Explicitly Target Muslims, Trump Originally Called For A "Complete Shutdown Of Muslims Entering The United States" [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => immigrant-refugee-ban-doesnt-explicitly-target-muslims-trump-originally-called-complete-shutdown-muslims-entering-united-states [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-06-22 03:17:35 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-06-22 03:17:35 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://factualuprisin.wpengine.com/?p=1444 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [2] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 2390 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2017-10-09 14:44:28 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-10-09 14:44:28 [post_content] => On average, more than one mass shooting occurs every day in the United States. [caption id="attachment_2392" align="aligncenter" width="506"] SOURCE: Washington Post (See Below Citations)[/caption]     States with higher rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun deaths. [caption id="attachment_2391" align="aligncenter" width="781"] SOURCE: Mother Jones (See Below Citations)[/caption] [post_title] => Mass Shootings Occur More Than Once Per Day In The United States; States With Higher Rates Of Gun Ownership Have Higher Rates Of Gun Deaths [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => mass-shootings-occur-per-day-united-states-states-higher-rates-gun-ownership-higher-rates-gun-deaths [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-10-09 14:44:28 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-10-09 14:44:28 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://factualuprising.com/?p=2390 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [3] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1948 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2017-06-03 13:24:39 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-06-03 13:24:39 [post_content] => In an interview on Sirius XM Radio on May 24 2017, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Ben Carson stated poverty is a mindset:

"I think poverty to a large extent is also a state of mind," Carson said in a SiriusXM radio interview with Armstrong Williams, a top adviser to Carson's 2016 presidential campaign. "You take somebody that has the right mindset, you can take everything from them and put them on the street, and I guarantee in a little while they'll be right back up there." 

"And you take somebody with the wrong mindset, you can give them everything in the world, they'll work their way right back down to the bottom," the neurosurgeon continued.

Carson later defended and clarified his statements, noting during an interview with NPR "It is a factor. A part of poverty can be the state of mind - poor in spirit...One of the things that I think government can do very well is to help create the right kinds of mindset, the frame of mind by providing ladders of opportunity."
   
Watson, Kathryn. "HUD Secretary Ben Carson Says Poverty Is about a "state of Mind"." CBS News. CBS Interactive, 24 May 2017. Web. 03 June 2017.
Fessler, Pam. "HUD Secretary Ben Carson Clarifies Remarks About Poverty." NPR. NPR, 01 June 2017. Web. 03 June 2017.
[post_title] => New Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development (HUD) Ben Carson Says Poverty Is A "State Of Mind" [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => new-secretary-housing-urban-development-hud-says-poverty-state-mind [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-07-30 21:10:36 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-07-30 21:10:36 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://factualuprising.com/?p=1948 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [4] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 2446 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2017-12-10 15:24:11 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-12-10 15:24:11 [post_content] => "President Trump's former National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. about conversations with the Russian ambassador" Sergey Kislyak in December of 2016. According to court documents, Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador on the day sanctions were announced against Russia in response to hacking the 2016 Presidential election.  "Mr. Flynn asked Mr. Kislyak that Moscow refrain from escalating the situation, and Mr. Kislyak said Russia 'had chosen to moderate its response'" according to documents.  According to a lawyer briefed on the matter, Flynn contacted Kislyak under direction from Jared Kushner. Flynn resigned on February 13, 2017 after just 22 days in his position amid this same controversy surrounding his improper interactions with Russian officials. Trump later sent a tweet suggesting he was aware that Flynn lied to the F.B.I.: “I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI.  He has pled guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful. There was nothing to hide!” [post_title] => Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn Pleads Guilty To Lying To FBI About Conversations With Russian Ambassador [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => former-national-security-advisor-michael-flynn-pleads-guilty-lying-fbi-conversations-russian-ambassador [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-12-10 15:24:11 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-12-10 15:24:11 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://factualuprising.com/?p=2446 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [5] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 891 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2017-01-24 04:15:38 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-01-24 04:15:38 [post_content] => Trump’s foundation has admitted to “self-dealing”, which occurs when the funds of a non-profit or foundation are "improperly used by an insider, their friends or family members” for reasons not directly related to the operation of the charity. For example, to settle a lawsuit filed by the town of Palm Beach, FL over a flagpole at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club, the town of Palm Beach “agreed to waive $120,000 in unpaid fines if Trump’s club donated $100,000 to Fisher House, a charity helping wounded veterans and military personnel. The Trump Foundation paid that donation instead — effectively saving his business $100,000.”      
Fahrenthold, David A. “Trump Foundation Admits to Violating Ban on ‘self-dealing,’ New Filing to IRS Shows.The Washington Post. WP Company, 22 Nov. 2016. Web. 07 Jan. 2017.
Lea, Brittany De. "Where Are Trump Foundation Funds Actually Going?" Fox Business. Fox Business, 22 Nov. 2016. Web. 16 June 2017.
[post_title] => Trump's Foundation Admits To Illegal Practice Of "Self-Dealing" (Using Donations For Personal Gain) [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => self-dealing [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-09-22 13:53:29 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-09-22 13:53:29 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://factualuprisin.wpengine.com/?p=891 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [6] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 2633 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2018-07-28 00:16:54 [post_date_gmt] => 2018-07-28 00:16:54 [post_content] => "Satellite imagery shows North Korea has begun taking down its main satellite launch facility" used for rocket launching since 2012. According to North Korea monitoring website "38 North":

Commercial satellite imagery of the launch pad from July 20 shows that the rail-mounted processing/transfer structure has been moved to the middle of the pad, exposing the underground rail transfer point—one of the few times it has been seen in this location. The roof and supporting structure have been partially removed and numerous vehicles are present—including a large construction crane. An image from two days later shows the continued presence of the crane and vehicles. Considerable progress has been made in dismantling the rail-mounted processing/transfer structure. One corner has been completely dismantled and the parts can be seen lying on the ground. In both images the two fuel/oxidizer bunkers, main processing building and gantry tower remain untouched.

  On June 12, 2018 President Trump met with North Korean (DPRK) Chairman Kim Jong Un in Singapore, the first meeting between a sitting U.S. President and North Korean leader.  The two leaders discussed denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. [post_title] => North Korea Begins To Dismantle Main Satellite Launch Facility After Summit Between Trump And Kim Jong Un [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => north-korea-begins-dismantle-main-satellite-launch-facility-summit-trump-kim-jong-un [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2018-07-28 00:19:13 [post_modified_gmt] => 2018-07-28 00:19:13 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://factualuprising.com/?p=2633 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [7] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1533 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2017-02-13 17:20:20 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-02-13 17:20:20 [post_content] => The Ninth Circuit of the United States Court Of Appeals unanimously upheld a Federal District Court decision to block Trump's Immigration Ban executive order.  The ruling included three judges and all voted to uphold this ban block. The court noted the Federal Government has not demonstrated an immediate need for this ban by providing specific threats or other evidence that justifies the ban:

[The Government has not] shown that failure to enter a stay would cause irreparable injury...the government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States 

The court notes that the "States have alleged harms to their proprietary interests traceable to the Executive Order", for example in the case of state universities:

The necessary connection can be drawn in at most two logical steps: (1) the Executive Order prevents nationals of seven countries from entering Washington and Minnesota; (2) as a result, some of these people will not enter state universities, some will not join those universities as faculty, some will be prevented from performing research, and some will not be permitted to return if they leave.

The court noted that this executive order does not seem to comply with due process, which applies to all persons (including non-citizens in the United States):

The Government may not deprive a person of one of these protected interests without providing “notice and an opportunity to respond,” or, in other words, the opportunity to present reasons not to proceed with the deprivation and have them considered...The Government has not shown that the Executive Order provides what due process requires, such as notice and a hearing prior to restricting an individual’s ability to travel

The court also notes how the Government argued that Executive Orders are not subject to any sort of review or checks and balances:

The Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections...There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy

A second Federal judge upheld the travel ban block on October 18, 2017, noting that "plaintiffs challenging the policy were likely to succeed in proving that it violated the non-discrimination law 'to the extent that it bars entry by immigrants on the basis of nationality.'"  
"STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF MINNESOTA V. DONALD J TRUMP; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; REX TILLERSON; JOHN KELLY." (2017): 1-29. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Web.
Savage, Charlie. "6 Highlights From the Ruling on Trump’s Immigration Order." The New York Times. The New York Times, 09 Feb. 2017. Web. 13 Feb. 2017.
[post_title] => Federal Court Of Appeals Upholds Block To Immigration Ban, Citing No Immediate Need Or Imminent Threats, No Due Process, And Causing Harm To States; Second Judge Notes Violation Of Non-Discrimination Law [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => federal-court-appeals-upholds-block-immigration-ban [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-11-23 21:09:07 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-11-23 21:09:07 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://factualuprisin.wpengine.com/?p=1533 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [8] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1957 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2017-06-04 22:27:05 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-06-04 22:27:05 [post_content] => On May 23 2017 President Trump released his proposed 2018 budget for the Federal Government.  This budget totals $4.1 trillion, which is less than 1% higher than the 2017 budget.  The Trump proposal adds $440 billion to the deficit in 2018 (compared to a $603 billion addition in 2017).  The Trump administration has highlighted several key elements of this budget, including:
  • $3.6 trillion in spending reductions (over 10 years)
  • $250 billion in deficit savings (over 10 years) associated with health care reform
  • Deficit neutral tax reform (tax rates yet to be finalized)
  • $54 billion more in defense spending, (offset by a $54 billion reduction in non-defense spending)
  • $2.6 billion investment in a border wall with Mexico
  Non-defense services and agencies experience significant budget reductions under Trump's budget proposal.  The Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs are the only ones to see increases.   More details on individual department budget changes are available here. [caption id="attachment_1958" align="aligncenter" width="658"] SOURCE: Washington Post (See below citations)[/caption] Congress must approve the budget before it takes effect.  This process can be lengthy because it typically includes several revisions and amendments to the initial proposal (including proposals from the House of Representatives and the Senate, all of which must be reconciled and approved by both chambers and the President).        
"Budget of the U.S. Government." Whitehouse.gov. Office Of Management And Budget, 23 May 2017. Web. 4 June 2017.
Soffen, Kim, and Denise Lu. "What Trump Cut in His Agency Budgets." The Washington Post. WP Company, 23 May 2017. Web. 04 June 2017.
"Policy Basics: Introduction to the Federal Budget Process." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. N.p., 19 Feb. 2016. Web. 04 June 2017.
[post_title] => President Trump's Proposes $4.1 Trillion 2018 Budget, <1% Higher Than 2017 Budget, Significant Increases In Defense Spending With Cuts To Nearly All Other Agencies [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => president-trumps-proposes-4-1-trillion-2018-budget-slightly-higher-2017-budget-significant-increases-defense-spending-cuts-nearly-agencies [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-07-30 20:54:55 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-07-30 20:54:55 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://factualuprising.com/?p=1957 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [9] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1018 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2017-01-25 05:07:30 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-01-25 05:07:30 [post_content] => At his first official press conference as President Trump's Press Secretary, Sean Spicer first noted that the National Park Service does not create official crowd size estimates, but then went on to state that the D.C. Metro saw more riders during Trumps Inauguration compared to Obama's 2009 and 2013 Inaugurations (which was debunked by D.C. Metro). Spicer also noted that "this was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe" and that the entire area from the Capitol Building from the Washington Monument was full. Arial photographs show these statements are likely false.      
Taylor, Jessica. "Trump Administration Goes To War With The Media Over Inauguration Crowd Size." NPR. NPR, 21 Jan. 2017. Web. 22 Jan. 2017.
Frostenson, Sarah. "Photos: The Crowd at Donald Trump's Inauguration vs. Barack Obama's." Vox. Vox, 20 Jan. 2017. Web. 22 Jan. 2017.
[post_title] => Press Secretary Sean Spicer Provides Incorrect Information About Presidential Inauguration Crowd Size At His First Official Press Confernce [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => first-ever-press-conference-press-secretary-sean-spicer-lies-inauguration-crowd-size [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-06-17 15:36:02 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-06-17 15:36:02 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://factualuprisin.wpengine.com/?p=1018 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) ) [post_count] => 10 [current_post] => -1 [in_the_loop] => [post] => WP_Post Object ( [ID] => 1905 [post_author] => 1 [post_date] => 2017-04-30 20:34:04 [post_date_gmt] => 2017-04-30 20:34:04 [post_content] => Federal officials must rely on local police to help enforce federal immigration laws, but the law doesn't require local authorities to detain illegal immigrants just because their federal counterparts make a request. In fact, federal courts across the country have found complying with the requests is voluntary. Each person arrested by local law enforcement is fingerprinted, and information about the arrestee is shared with federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is the primary federal agency for managing immigration laws.  If ICE identifies an undocumented immigrant, it submits a request to detain that person for an additional period of time (at the expense of local law enforcement) until ICE can then take custody of that person.   Although there is no standard legal definition of sanctuary city, these types of policies typically make it clear they will not comply with these or other requests related to using local law enforcement to capture and detain immigrants of any status.   Many cities across the country have enacted some sort of sanctuary city policy. A new anti-sanctuary city law in Texas "threatens police chiefs and elected officials with jail time and removal from office if they don't comply with federal immigration requests to detain immigrants in the country illegally.  The four largest cities in Texas — San Antonio, Austin, Houston and Dallas— are suing to block the measure." Lansing, MI had a sanctuary city policy but “city council members voted 5-2 to rescind the policy because business owners worried the term “sanctuary” would draw unwelcome attention to the city.”    
Cameron, Darla. "How Sanctuary Cities Work, and How Trump's Executive Order Might Affect Them." The Washington Post. WP Company, 25 Jan. 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
Kopan, Tal. "What Are Sanctuary Cities, and Can They Be Defunded?" CNN. Cable News Network, 25 Jan. 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
Griffith, Bryan, and Jessica Vaughan. "Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States." Center for Immigration Studies. N.p., 07 July 2015. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
Weber, Paul. "No Immediate Ruling on Fate of Texas' 'sanctuary Cities' Law." ABC News. ABC News Network, 26 June 2017. Web. 09 July 2017. Gonzales, Sara. "One Michigan City Is Rescinding Its ‘sanctuary City’ Policy – Here’s Why."TheBlaze. TheBlaze, 13 Apr. 2017. Web. 13 Apr. 2017.
[post_title] => Sanctuary Cities Prohibit Federal Government From Forcing States And Cities To Use Local Resources To Capture And Detain Immigrants [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => closed [post_password] => [post_name] => sanctuary-cities-prohibit-federal-government-forcing-states-cities-use-local-resources-capture-detain-immigrants [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2017-08-02 02:36:14 [post_modified_gmt] => 2017-08-02 02:36:14 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://factualuprising.com/?p=1905 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) [comment_count] => 0 [current_comment] => -1 [found_posts] => 399 [max_num_pages] => 40 [max_num_comment_pages] => 0 [is_single] => [is_preview] => [is_page] => [is_archive] => [is_date] => [is_year] => [is_month] => [is_day] => [is_time] => [is_author] => [is_category] => [is_tag] => [is_tax] => [is_search] => [is_feed] => [is_comment_feed] => [is_trackback] => [is_home] => 1 [is_404] => [is_embed] => [is_paged] => [is_admin] => [is_attachment] => [is_singular] => [is_robots] => [is_posts_page] => [is_post_type_archive] => [query_vars_hash:WP_Query:private] => 5cd101cc3ae72f87a74483e744716f29 [query_vars_changed:WP_Query:private] => [thumbnails_cached] => [stopwords:WP_Query:private] => [compat_fields:WP_Query:private] => Array ( [0] => query_vars_hash [1] => query_vars_changed ) [compat_methods:WP_Query:private] => Array ( [0] => init_query_flags [1] => parse_tax_query ) ) [paged] => 1 )

While Immigrant And Refugee Ban Executive Order Doesn’t Explicitly Target Muslims, Trump Originally Called For A “Complete Shutdown Of Muslims Entering The United States”

As one of his first acts as President, Trump issued an executive order temporarily banning immigration from 7 Middle Eastern countries and halting refugee admissions. While not explicitly targeting Muslims, during his campaign Trump [...]

Federal Court Of Appeals Upholds Block To Immigration Ban, Citing No Immediate Need Or Imminent Threats, No Due Process, And Causing Harm To States; Second Judge Notes Violation Of Non-Discrimination Law

The Ninth Circuit of the United States Court Of Appeals unanimously upheld a Federal District Court decision to block Trump’s Immigration Ban executive order.  The ruling included three judges and all voted to uphold this ban [...]

Start typing and press Enter to search