Tag Archives: sanctuary cities

Sanctuary City Mayors Cry ‘Uncle,’ No More Migrants! By Joe Guzzardi

Posted on August 23, 2022 | 2 comments

Liberal virtue runs, once again, into reality. From Joe Guzzardi at progressivesforimmigrationreform.org:

Sanctuary cities are once again in the headlines. But this time, sanctuary cities, the bane of immigration law enforcement advocates, have a different spin. Since five-time deported illegal immigrant Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate murdered Kate Steinle in July 2015 on Pier 14 in San Francisco, state and city governments have persisted in welcoming illegal aliens and protecting them from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. San Francisco is a sanctuary city in the sanctuary state of California.

Despite a federal immigration detention request to hold Garcia-Zarate so immigration officials could take him into custody, San Francisco authorities freed the seven-time convicted felon just three months before he killed Steinle. Eventually, Garcia-Zarate was acquitted and sentenced to time served on an illegal firearms possession charge.

Between January 2014 and September 2015, the Center for Immigration Studies reported that sanctuary jurisdictions rejected 17,000 ICE detainer requests – 17,000 individuals who should have been deported but remained to potentially pose criminal risk to U.S. citizens. Claiming that migrants are fleeing poverty and persecution, local leaders have been willing to spend their constituents’ taxpayer dollars on affirmative benefits for the newly arrived illegal immigrants.

Continue reading→

2 Comments

Posted in Crime, Immigration

Tagged

Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities For The Win, by Kurt Schlichter

Posted on December 26, 2019 | Leave a comment

Good luck to Virginia’a governor and legislature enforcing those new gun laws. From Kurt Schlichter at theburningplatform.com:

Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities For The Win

It’s glorious how the normal people of Virginia are rising up to reject Governor Blackface … or is it Governor KKK-klothes? He can’t seem to remember which one he was in the photo, meaning he had probably donned both creepy get-ups at some point. Yay, our Democrat betters! In any case, the people are telling him, “No, we’re not letting you goose-stepping Bloomberg bots take our guns,” and it is especially glorious that the means to make this righteous commitment is a new, and not garbage, sanctuary movement.

I’ve always been an advocate of playing by the left’s new rules, and this is a great opportunity to new rules the libs good and hard. We got your sanctuary right here, pinkos.

See, the left decided that Virginia, whose northern reaches are now full of government workers and other garbage people, needed to turn blue. With tons of lib donor money and the aid of a typically inept state GOP (I know those feel here in California), they managed to just barely grab control of both houses of the legislature. With Governor Byrd-Jolson in charge, they immediately promised to do away with the Second Amendment. They announced that they were going to confiscate the citizens’ scary guns and do all sorts of other things to show those disobedient, probably Jesus-loving rubes who was boss.

Continue reading→

 

Leave a comment

Posted in Civil Liberties, Government, Law, Politics

Tagged , , ,

The Washington Post’s Double Standard on Immigration and Guns, by Ryan McMaken

Posted on December 6, 2019 | Leave a comment

What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to do unsupportable, self-contradictory intellectual backflips. From Ryan McMaken at mises.org:

Last week, the Washington Post‘s editorial board came out against sanctuary cities. No, not the kind of sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration law. The Post‘s editors have no problem with that. Instead, the Post came out against the efforts by some local governments to oppose state- and federal-level enforcement of restrictions on gun ownership.

The Post didn’t go easy on these efforts either. The editorial likened the gun-owner sanctuary efforts to “vigilantism” and “frontier justice,” with the obvious implication being these people are one step away from organizing lynch mobs. Moreover, we’re told the movement is “nonsense fanned by mischief-makers with an agenda,” and will lead to “chaos.”

Recognizing the obvious double standard the Post is proposing for immigrant sanctuaries and gun-owner sanctuaries, the authors try to explain it all away:

The distinction between the two sanctuaries is basic. Localities that have passed resolutions declaring themselves Second Amendment sanctuary jurisdictions are threatening to ignore laws enacted by duly elected state legislatures and signed by governors. Immigration-focused sanctuary localities are breaking no law; rather, they are refusing purely voluntary cooperation in service to federal law enforcement.

Continue reading →

Leave a comment

Posted in Civil Liberties, Governments, Horseshit, Immigration, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged , ,

Another Mighty Conundrum, by James Howard Kunstler

Posted on April 6, 2018 | 1 comment

How do you insist that states enforce immigration laws, without insisting that they enforce marijuana laws? From James Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:

The sanctuary city movement, and all its baggage, terminates in one troublesome idea: that the USA should have open borders and that anyone from a foreign land who manages to get here by whatever means is home-free-all. The most recent Democratic nominee for president said just the other day that she dreamed of open borders. The much-abused word dream has been at the center of our discourse about immigration, a purposefully sentimental manipulation of language for a culture struggling to ascertain the boundaries of reality in an era of universal wishful thinking.

Anyone who listens to National Public Radio, for instance, may notice the care they take to keep the boundary as fuzzy as possible vis-à-vis the status of people here from other lands. “Undocumented” has been the favorite trope, a dodge that implies that the people in question are victims of a clerical error — someone over in the Document Division forgot to hand them the right paperwork. Or else, all they are simply labeled “immigrants,” leaving out the question of whether they are in the country legally or not. Do not suppose it is mere sloppiness.

Lately, there is the matter of census-takers asking the people they interview — theoretically everybody who resides in the US — whether they are citizens or not. It would seem to be within the legitimate interests of demographic statisticians to ask that question, but it has ignited a firestorm of opposition. All manner of casuistry has been applied by that opposition to rationalize why we wouldn’t want to know whether people here are citizens or not. It all seems to come down to a cynical political calculation that the voter rolls can be eventually padded in favor of the Democratic Party (of which I remain an unhappy registered member, in order to vote in the New York state primary election).

The sanctuary city movement seems to me the most mendacious element of the story, a nakedly emotional appeal against the rule of law. The attorney general of California, Xavier Becerra, lately threatened to fine corporations there that share employee information with federal agents. There has not been such arrant flouting of federal law by state officials since Governor George Wallace stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama crying “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” in June, 1963 — and we all know how that ended.

To continue reading: Another Mighty Conundrum

1 Comment

Posted in Government, Immigration, Law

Tagged ,

Sanctuary Cities and the Rule of Law, by Andrew P. Napolitano

Posted on August 10, 2017 | 3 comments

Andrew Napolitano does not, the best that SLL can tell, allow his political predilections influence his legal analyses, which is certainly refreshing. From Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

Earlier this week, the Trump Department of Justice told the mayor of Chicago that it would cease funding grants to the Chicago Police Department that had been approved in the Obama administration because Chicago city officials were not cooperating with federal immigration officials.

The DOJ contended that Chicago officials were contributing to lawlessness by refusing to inform the feds of the whereabouts of undocumented foreign-born people, thereby creating what the feds derisively call a “sanctuary city,” and Chicago officials have argued that their police officers and clerical folks are not obligated to work for the feds.

Who is correct?

The concept of a sanctuary city does not mean it is a place where federal law is unenforced by the feds. Rather, it is a place where local authorities have elected not to spend their tax dollars helping the feds to enforce federal law. The term “sanctuary city” is not a legal term but a political one. The Trump administration has used the term to characterize the governments of towns and cities that have created safe havens for those who have overstayed their visas by refusing to tell the feds who these folks are and where they can be found.

Can local authorities refuse to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word, yes. There is no legal obligation on the part of local authorities to help the feds with manpower or resources or data to enforce federal law within the jurisdiction of those local authorities.

During the Clinton administration, when Congress passed legislation that directed local law enforcement to enforce a federal gun registration scheme, the Supreme Court invalidated the statute. It ruled that the feds cannot commandeer local and state officials and compel them to enforce federal laws; the feds can enforce their own laws.

To continue reading: Sanctuary Cities and the Rule of Law

3 Comments

Posted in Governments, Immigration, Law

Tagged

Are Sanctuary Cities Legal? by Andrew P. Napolitano

Posted on December 8, 2016 | Leave a comment

With sanctuary cities making a stand against Trump’s immigration law enforcement, liberals may suddenly discover a love for the federalism that they have worked so hard to drum out of the Constitution. From Andrew P. Napolitano at antwar.com:

Last week, President-elect Donald Trump re-emphasized the approach he will take in enforcing the nation’s immigration laws, which is much different from the manner of enforcement utilized by President Barack Obama. The latter pointedly declined to deport the 5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States who are the parents of children born here – children who, by virtue of birth, are American citizens. Trump has made known his intention to deport all undocumented people, irrespective of family relationships, starting with those who have committed crimes.

In response to Trump’s stated intentions, many cities – including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco – have offered sanctuary to those whose presence has been jeopardized by the president-elect’s plan. Can they do this?

Here is the back story.

Under the Constitution, the president is the chief federal law enforcement officer in the land. Though the president’s job is to enforce all federal laws, as a practical matter, the federal government lacks the resources to do that. As well, the president is vested with what is known as prosecutorial discretion. That enables him to place priority on the enforcement of certain federal laws and put the enforcement of others on the back burner.

Over time – and with more than 4,000 criminal laws in the United States Code – Congress and the courts have simply deferred to the president and permitted him to enforce what he wants and not enforce what he doesn’t want. Until now.

To continue reading: Are Sanctuary Cities Legal?

Leave a comment

Posted in Civil Liberties, Government, Immigration, Law

Tagged ,