HOW BEST TO DEAL WITH SANCTUARY CITIES…

Please excuse me if I don’t appear as enlightened as those of you who reside there in the outer regions of leftwing kookdom, but no matter how hard I try I simply do not understand the entire concept of “sanctuary cities’.  I mean, am I to understand that the residents of these fair cities, right down the last person, are in complete and total agreement with their city’s leaders when it comes to harboring these known criminals and for no other reason than because those criminals are in this country illegally?  And that those same leaders refuse to hand them over to federal immigration officials when apprehended?  And can I also assume that since I rarely, if ever, see any protests ‘against’ this unlawful practice, that the residents of these cities have no problem with this practice?  Because I’ll tell ya, if I were to live in any one of these cities I would most definitely make my concerns known and if ignored I would move by family because of my concern for their safety.

So anyway, imagine my surprise when I heard the news that the number sanctuary cities has now increased to nearly 500 and apparently all thanks to a recent push in counties and jurisdictions avowed to shield illegal aliens against President Trump’s immigration policies.  Now what do you suppose it is that would motivate these places to put so many of their own citizens at such great personal risk?  And yet, it’s according to The Washington Times that the ‘Ohio Jobs & Justice Political Action Committee’ (OJJ) keeps a running list and has added over three dozen new cities just this year.  And, apparently, it’s the founder of this little group, someone by the name of Steve Salvi, who has promised, “More will be coming. A lot of communities now, there’s resolutions in the works and citizens groups encouraging city councils to pass them.”  So again I would ask you, are those who live in these cities, and counties, agreeable to all of this?

Now that said, there are cities on OJJ’s list which dispute their inclusion and some will soon be removed because their sanctuary status is about to change.  The Times states two cities in Alaska, Dayton, Ohio, and Miami, Florida, most surprisingly, will soon be removed after confirmation with Homeland Security.  It only took one day after Trump’s threat to withhold federal funding from cities who choose to harbor immigrants for Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez to announce his city’s compliance with assisting federal agents with deportations.  According to the report, “U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that handled deportations, says 279 municipalities refused to cooperate on at least one case in fiscal 2016.”  And it goes on to add, “All told, those sanctuaries released more than 2,000 illegal immigrants back onto the streets that ICE agents had been trying to deport.”

Since they represent absolutely nothing of value to America, why are so many of our cities rushing to protect illegals who are not only criminals but thieves who steal the social services paid for by citizen taxpayers.  Might it, perhaps, have something to do with politics?  I’m just guessing, of course.  And I suppose the only hope is that voters in these locales will come to vote their traitorous leaders out of office at the first opportunity as well as publicize the obvious increase in crime and other associated problems from the keeping of illegals in their midst.  But then, as I was pondering earlier, can there be that many voters who go along with this madness?  Personally, from my point of view, being a fiscal realist, the more cities that select themselves to be excluded from federal funds, the closer we get to balancing our budget.  And they must also be committed to allowing an increase in crime rates, since they will shield even criminal illegals.

Now I do, however, find it rather interesting that according to Mexico’s immigration laws, every article of law controls illegal immigration into Mexican territory. If you immigrate to Mexico, Article 32 states you must speak Spanish and must be a professional who is useful to the Mexican society.  There are no bilingual programs in the school and no pressing 2 for English. All business must be conducted in Spanish. Investors are welcome; but must pay higher than minimum wage and your land purchases are restricted. And it’s Article 34 that states foreigners must have the necessary funds to support themselves and their dependents. There are no welfare programs, food stamps, government housing or entitlements.  And Article 87 states foreigners must be “physically and mentally healthy.”  Articles 73, 85, 86, 87 state foreigners must be on a national population registry, cooperating with federal local, and municipal police.

And then it’s Article 116 which states that foreigners using fake documents face a fine and imprisonment. Immigrants must show birth certificate to show citizenship. Articles 117-121 state foreigners who fail to obey laws will be fined, deported, and felons imprisoned. No one is allowed to enter the country with a criminal record. There is no due process of deportation. There is no 14th Amendment. Law enforcement officers are required to enforce Mexico’s immigration laws at all times. Articles 123-126 make illegal immigration a felony. Articles 127 state any Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner is subject to five years in prison.  So here’s a suggestion, how about we simply pattern our immigration laws here in the U.S. after those of Mexico?  After all, if it’s good enough for them, it should be good enough for us, right?  Hell, you’d think even old Jorge Ramos would go along with that, right?

To think that illegals, who in many cases are illiterate in their own language and have very limited skills to earn a living, could actually contribute to America in any meaningful way, as the way the Left continues to assert, you would think that they would be assets back in the country where they came from.  But the fact is they are departing in mass numbers that are essentially being ignored, if not welcomed by their own society, which means that their potential contributions were negligible where their spoken language was understood.  Let’s face it, it takes some level of talent and/or skill to be an asset on foreign soil, but the Left appears to only care about the number of dependents who might also become dependable votes for the Democrat Party.  Hence the rationale for placing our citizens, and those who have come here legally, at risk.  And all under the guise of diversity.  

And so why is it that this is such a Republican versus Democrat issue?  For one reason and only one reason.  All you gotta do is follow the votes. Democrats only care about the votes.  Republicans, while alarmed by the votes, are more concerned about the social costs, both in dollar costs as well as public safety and quality of life costs.  Both sides know that at some point, illegals will get amnesty on some basis.  Both sides know that in the meantime, illegals are already voting in greater and greater numbers.  Motor voter was designed to bring in minority and illegal voters.  DACA makes it easier for dreamers to register and to vote.  No literate individual, on either side of the issue, can deny this with a straight face.  The difference is, Conservatives have the law and the interests of our country on their side. Democrat either don't care or ignore the costs associated with the invasion while hiding behind their false compassion.

Some will claim that the cutting of federal funding is virtually a useless endeavor, that all it will do is to infuriate the Democrat base voters that live in these cities and lead to violence and destruction of private commercial property as is typical of the liberal Democrat protest ‘rally’.  Others purpose a more ‘drastic’ sort of response.  They say we should, instead, select 1 major California city, say San Francisco.  Use U.S. Military troops to first surround the city and then arrest the Mayor, Chief of Police, City Council, and impound their accounts and holdings.  Then charge them with treason for failing to protect the people from threats that are both foreign and domestic.  Then proceed to cut all federal funding, deny State access, broadcast to the city that any illegal or undocumented alien will be treated accordingly if they surrender peacefully, those that do not will be incarcerated in a Federal Prison.  Too severe?  I wonder.

And it would be those same folks who advocate such extreme measures who also make the argument that the entire expense for such an operation should then be charged against the both the offending state and local governments.  Now I’m thinking that something like this would likely only need to occur once, or possibly twice, before the message was received loud and clear by other states and municipalities that insistent upon breaking federal immigration laws.  And I think we would begin to see more and more cities abandoning the practice.  And frankly, if cutting funds were to lead to rioting and destruction, so what. I’m quite sure that the voters in those cities would soon grow tired of it and either choose to get rid of their socialists leaders, or to relocate to somewhere that was less accommodating to those in this country illegally.  And by the way, cutting funding to such cities would also be a great way to fund construction of the wall. 

And while I suppose it’s important to at least consider the potential for collateral damage when it comes to any potential riots, in both the cost in both property as well as in lives lost, we should not let that cloud our judgment nor prevent us from looking at the bigger picture.  And as much as I might be in favor of letting these bastions of leftwing lunacy burn, there would be unintended consequences generated that would affect those communities then made to deal with the influx of those fleeing the cities and everything that they tend to bring with them.  How often do you hear other communities complain about liberals fleeing California bringing their trash with them?  So in order to spare those outlying communities, we would need to very swiftly make examples of those cities who continue to refuse to see the error of their ways.  If there were severe consequences for those cities who choose to ignore federal law I think we would soon see their number drop rather precipitously.