The mayor of Miami-Dade ended the county’s sanctuary city policy Thursday, just a day after President Trump threatened to pull federal funds from jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with immigration agents.
Mr. Trump was quick to praise the county, saying on Twitter that it was the “right decision.”
The media neglects the fact that Sanctuary Cities have been allowing special snowflakes to break the laws for years. It meets the definition of bigoted treatment.
Try claiming to police that you are walking out of your Sanctuary Restaurant without paying for your meal, you are simply smoking your Sanctuary Pot in a public space, or you are driving over the Sanctuary Speed Limit, claim that you are a special snowflake and see how far that gets you!! Good Luck!!
I’m not familiar with the Sanctuary City issue, and I am not offering an opinion as to the ethics of ‘Sanctuary Cities’. However I think ManOnFire’s analogy is inaccurate.
If I understand correctly the ‘Sanctuary Cities’ have voluntarily chosen to not enforce certain laws or to not pursue those who were accused of breaking those laws.
That is not remotely the same thing as a private citizen just choosing to break a law and then claiming to have the right because on his own authority he declares something to be a ‘Sanctuary’.
A closer analogy, I think, would be the management of a restaurant deciding that certain people would be allowed, by the management and staff, to eat at that restaurant without paying.
Someone who knows they have this policy and that it applies to him would not be stealing from the restaurant by taking advantage of their choice; and would not be in the same position as someone who just decides to run out on his bill.
Or perhaps a city decides on a policy that they would not arrest or prosecute people who smoked pot in a specific city park even though they would arrest people who did so in other public places.
Someone who knows about this policy and lights up in the ‘sanctuary park’ is not in the same position as someone who smokes pot on a city street and then claims it’s all right because he declares it a ‘sanctuary street’.
The Sanctuary City practice might be right or wrong, wise or foolish, lawful or unlawful.
I don’t know. But it’s something the city governments did. Not something private citizens decided to do on their own initiative.
I didn’t even realize that certain cities declared themselves sanctuaries until a year ago.
When did this even begin? These cities received federal funding for declaring themselves sanctuary cities?
The Miami-Dade mayor is showing courage to be the first to end the policy.
In the report, Tom K. Wong, an associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, analyzed a sample of 2,492 counties from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) dataset. In this sample, 602 were identified by ICE as “sanctuary” counties, where local law enforcement didn’t accept “detainers”—requests from ICE to hold suspected undocumented individuals in custody for extra time. Wong compared the crime rates and economic conditions in these counties with the ones that did comply with ICE, controlling for population and demographic characteristics.
He found 35.5 fewer violent and property crimes per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties versus non-sanctuary ones—“a result that is highly statistically significant.” Counties in large metros reported an even more dramatically difference, with 65.4 fewer crimes per 10,000 people.
Sanctuary counties also registered better economic conditions. On average, they had higher median incomes (by about $4,353), lower poverty (by 2.3 percent), and slightly lower unemployment rates (1.1 percent). These positive effects were exaggerated in the small counties, where the contributions of each individual immigrant were likely to have a larger impact.
Sanctuary Cities is really a misnomer. Illegal immigrants living in so-called Sanctury Cities are no any less subject to arrest and deportation than anywhere else. The only difference is the extent to which the cities themselves, through their local police force, are willing to put their efforts toward enforcing federal immigration law by questioning people about their citizenship. If the Feds want to come into a city like that and do their job, their is nothing stopping them. So let’s call it "refusal to perform and unfounded mandate ".
You equate undocumented with someone who doesn’t pay restaurant bills, pot smokers and speeders?
The immigration system is broken and as bad as things might seem here in the US, it is far worse for children and families in central america and Mexico. How do we balance compassion for the vulnerable while trying to protect ourselves?
Every day my brother bishops and I witness the harmful effects of immigrant detention in our ministries. We experience the pain of severed families that struggle to maintain a semblance of normal family life. We see traumatized children in our schools and in our churches. The policies announced today will only further upend immigrant families."
“We will continue to support and stand in solidarity with immigrant families. We remind our communities and our nation that these families have intrinsic value as children of God. And to all those impacted by today’s decision, we are here to walk with you and accompany you on this journey,” Bishop Vasquez said.
In August of 1981, Ronald Reagan threatened to fire all air traffic controllers who were on strike because, as government employees, there weren’t allowed to. When prompted why he didn’t take a lesser action, Reagan incredulously answered, “What lesser action can there be? The law is very explicit. They are violating the law.” I echo the last two sentences to anybody who has any objections to what is happening here.
You are invoking Iran-contra president as a moral authority?
“Handwritten notes taken by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger on December 7, 1985, indicate that Reagan was aware of potential hostage transfers with Iran, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles to “moderate elements” within that country.”
And you’re purposely deflecting the issue with a logical fallacy? Your response does absolutely nothing to address what I said. Furthermore, you have failed to demonstrate why on earth there should be no action taken against a city that openly and defiantly refuses to enforce laws. You merely tried to draw attention away from it because I quoted a former present who made a disputed foreign policy decision more than 30 years ago that has absolutely no bearing on the issue.