Sanctuary Cities

From The Washington Times comes news that might be upsetting to supporters of SB 1070, but which will shock no one who’s been attentively following this public debate for the past few weeks.

The double standards exhibited by Mr. Holder and President Obama are hardly surprising. Neither is the logically incoherent rationale for pursuing this two-tiered policy, which-like almost every other Obama administration immigration stance-is designed, first and foremost, with political considerations in mind.

The ostensible rationale for sanctuary city laws is that local police departments need the cooperation of communities where many members are illegal aliens in order to prosecute crimes that they consider more serious in nature, e.g. rape, robbery and assault, home invasion, grand larceny, etc…

An illustration of this principle in practice can be found in my own backyard, New York City.

Until Order 34, every mayor since Ed Koch had followed a “don’t tell” policy and didn’t cooperate with the federal immigration agency. In 1996, Congress passed a law that said the city cannot forbid city workers from voluntarily reporting illegal aliens. Mayor Rudy Giuliani resisted but lost when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the federal law and ruled in 1999 that Koch’s policy was illegal.

Though similar to Koch’s order, city officials said, Order 41 does not violate federal law since it follows guidelines from the 1999 ruling by making confidential a larger class of information — for example income tax records, sexual orientation, status as a victim of domestic violence — not just immigration status.

What occurred is this: an executive order that immunized illegal aliens from possible referral to the INS was replaced with one that brought New York City into compliance with a federal immigration law that allowed municipal workers to voluntarily disclose to the federal government the immigration status of aliens living here illegally. The predictable uproar from “immigrants rights” groups, the City Council and the ACLU ensued, and the new law was swiftly replaced with a weaker executive order that essentially reaffirmed the Koch era status quo ante.

The problem with this, other than the fact that it cleverly flouts the intentions of both a standing court order and the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act, is that it is not even successful in achieving its desired ends. As described earlier in this post, the purported motivation behind these edicts was to entice members of largely immigrant communities-but especially those people who are in this country illegally-to cooperate with police and social services departments that they might otherwise be reluctant to interact with under exigent circumstances. However, what actually occurs is that these laws act as insulation for criminals who are illegal aliens-and prey on the general public-and ones who attack other illegal aliens whom are theoretically the intended beneficiaries of those very laws.

Think about this logically for a moment. Why would the “bad” illegal aliens living here, e.g. those that are Salva Maratruchas, or potential terrorists, feel any less safe because of these sanctuary city laws than the “good” illegal aliens who are merely victims of chance misfortune or recidivist criminals? Why would these laws not similarly protect individuals who pose a threat to public safety, who would presumably enjoy the same freedom of movement and contact as their less threatening, yet undocumented, brethren?

Unfortunately, these are longer merely hypothetical questions.

Anthony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, were returning from a picnic when they were gunned down on June 16, allegedly by Salvadoran national Edwin Ramos, 22.

The case prompted public outcry after it emerged that Ramos was convicted of two gang-related felonies when he was 17, but local officials did not contact federal agencies to determine his immigration status.

The Bologna family filed a lawsuit Tuesday alleging that the city’s sanctuary policy shielding illegal immigrants from questions about their citizenship status — even those charged with a crime — was to blame, KCBS San Francisco reported.

“The city adopted and enforced a policy that was actually inconsistent with and prohibited by federal law,” Bologna family attorney Michael Kelly was quoted as saying…

This entry was posted in BICE, Crime, New York City, San Francisco, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s