Sanctuary Cities: The Hypocrisy of Liberal Law and Order

Posted: Mar 28, 2017 8:15 PM
Sanctuary Cities: The Hypocrisy of Liberal Law and Order

If you had a friend that committed a violent crime, and you helped that friend avoid law enforcement, you are guilty of harboring, or aiding and abetting a fugitive. Charged with either a felony or misdemeanor, you could be facing fines and/or imprisonment for your crime. The best solution for you and your friend, possibly, would be to relocate to a sanctuary city - a place like New York, San Francisco, or any other city deemed a safe haven.

But here’s a revelation: there are no sanctuary cities for natural-born U.S. citizens. They don’t exist; and honestly, the thought of such a concept is completely preposterous.

So, why does the United States offer safe havens to violent criminal offenders that are illegally living in the United States? 

Every law-abiding American should be alarmed by the problems sanctuary cities create, not to mention, the long-term impact these cities could have on our societal, governmental, cultural, and constitutional fabric.

The people most wanted for investigation are violent criminals, murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. There is no question that these individuals need to be reviewed and face mandatory consequences for their actions; and those who are aiding and abetting by ignoring or skirting the law are just as responsible for their crimes as those who physically committed the crime.

Why is this so hard for some local authorities and government officials to understand? And why is it that anyone who speaks out against sanctuary cities is branded a racist, xenophobe, or nazi? That is speculative, judgmental, fallacious, and in almost all cases, slanderous. It is highly offensive that those who appeal for the safety and security of their fellow Americans are ridiculed. 

According to liberals:

Sanctuary cities are safer than other cities.

We need not venture any further than uttering the word “Chicago”, the most violent city in America. Can we blame all of Chicago’s crime and violence on the fact that it is a sanctuary city? No, absolutely not, but let's take a look at some stats from across the country (via Fox News):

Experts say for every case that makes national news, there are hundreds more crimes committed by illegal immigrants. And their deportation was blocked by local authorities' due to their unwillingness to cooperate with federal authorities.

Currently there are approximately 2.1 million legal or illegal immigrants with criminal convictions living free or behind bars in the U.S., according to ICE's Secure Communities office. Each year, about 900,000 legal and illegal immigrants are arrested, and 700,000 are released from jail, prison, or probation. ICE estimates that there are more than 1.2 million criminal aliens at large in the U.S.

According to the most recent figures available, a Government Accountability Office report titled, "Criminal Alien Statistics," found 55,000 illegal immigrants in federal prison, and 296,000 in state and local lockups during 2011. Experts agree those figures have almost certainly risen. Executive orders from the Obama administration may have however, changed the status of thousands who previously would have been counted as illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants do not pose a threat to the safety and security of Americans.

Please argue that point to the families of Kate SteinleGrant RonnebeckBrandon Mendoza, and the thousands of others who were murdered allegedly at the hands of illegal immigrants. Or maybe, someone would like to explain to the unnamed 14-year-old girl from Rockville, Maryland, who was viciously raped in the bathroom of her own high school, why her vile, repugnant attackers were not only in this country illegally, but were allowed to roam free around younger adolescents, despite being older. 

Sanctuary cities deserve and require federal funds, because it helps provide assistance for all of our citizens.

Although taking away some aspects of federal funding could hurt programs that impact a variety of citizens, sanctuary cities should be more focused on providing more assistance to the homeless, ex-military, and American citizens suffering from drug addictions, instead of using those funds to protect, in part, illegal perpetrators of crime.

Is a solution on the horizon?

Yesterday, it was announced that sanctuary cities could finally be dealt a financial blow that appears to be a plausible solution, if it isn’t a bluff. During a White House Press Conference, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions pleaded for the compliance of federal laws, specifically 8 U.S.C. Section 1373 as it relates to sanctuary cities and their refusal to comply with federal law relating to violent offenders, saying:

Today, I'm urging states and local jurisdictions to comply with these federal laws, including 8 U.S.C. Section 1373.  Moreover, the Department of Justice will require that jurisdictions seeking or applying for Department of Justice grants to certify compliance with 1373 as a condition of receiving those awards.

This policy is entirely consistent with the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Program's guidance that was issued just last summer under the previous administration.  This guidance requires state and local jurisdictions to comply and certify compliance with Section 1373 in order to be eligible for OJP grants. 

It also made clear that failure to remedy violations could result in withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants. 

The Department of Justice will also take all lawful steps to claw back any funds awarded to a jurisdiction that willfully violates 1373.  In the current fiscal year, the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Program and Community Oriented Policing services anticipates awarding more than $4.1 billion in grants. 

I strongly urge our nation's states and cities and counties to consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws, and to rethink these policies.  Such policies make their cities and states less safe -- public safety, as well as national security, are at stake -- and put them at risk of losing federal dollars.

The American people want and deserve a lawful system of immigration that keeps us safe, and one that serves the national interest.  This expectation is reasonable, just, and our government has the duty to meet it, and we will meet it.

Could the financial directives called out by Jeff Sessions, if implemented, be the way to reducing violent crime committed by illegal immigrants? Will the economic distress felt by these cities produce enough of a hardship to motivate state and local governments to finally comply with federal laws? Perhaps. If not, maybe the next step is to charge government officials who refuse to comply with federal laws.