Sec. 9.  Sanctuary Jurisdictions.  It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373.

(a)  In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary.  The Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction.  The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law.

(b)  To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.

(c)  The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is directed to obtain and provide relevant and responsive information on all Federal grant money that currently is received by any sanctuary jurisdiction.

So, he is dropping the funding hammer right away.  The extent of executive authority to impose the funding cut-off sanction is not entirely clear, and the order says "to the extent consistent with law."  Also, the two department heads are given discretion, so there may be room for some accommodation.

At one end of the spectrum, it is entirely understandable for a city to have a policy of not turning in to ICE a person who comes to the attention of the police department as a victim or a witness.  Doing so would make people reluctant to come forward, to the detriment of effective policing and therefore to the detriment of public safety.  At the other end is a policy so extreme that people with extensive or violent criminal records are not turned over.  The blood of the victims who are subsequently victimized when such people are released is on the hands of those who establish such extreme policies.

Subsection 9(b) of the order is clearly an effort to bring public pressure to bear against such policies.  Hopefully some agreement can be reached before actually cutting off funds, which could have a serious impact on public safety of its own.  Long-term, of course, we need a comprehensive package of immigration reform.

Back in the Reagan Administration, a deal was struck to legalize those already in the country in return for tough enforcement measures.  If the bargain had been kept, there would not be a new, large cohort of illegal aliens.  The present dilemma is the result of the breach of the previous bargain.

Update:  Scott Calvert, Alejandro Lazo and Jon Kamp have this story in the WSJ.