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.
No comments:
Post a Comment