What to do about “Sanctuary Cities”

I have been seeing a lot of stories on the web about punishing “sanctuary cities”.  Stories like this one.

“We intend to use all the lawful authorities we have to make sure our state and local officials … are in sync with the federal government,” Sessions said.

Really?  Is that what this is all about?  Making states and city government not just comply with federal law, but be in sync with them too?  When did that become a conservative value?  That isn’t what I want.  The right answer is to comply with the law, not to comply with ideological bias.

“Moreover, the Department of Justice will require that jurisdictions seeking or applying for Department of Justice grants to certify compliance with [relevant laws] as a condition of receiving those awards,” he added.

In the current fiscal year, Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs is slated to award $4.1 billion in grants.

That’s not what I want at all.  I want the government to stop all of those grants to every city, all the time.  Cities should pay their own expenses.  I don’t want the government using MY money to bribe some cities and punish others based on the performance of city managers.

This is just one example for why it was a bad idea to give that money to the cities in the first place.  Federal strings attached.  Nothing good comes from that.  And frankly, I’m tired of paying that bill.

Here’s what the government should do about “sanctuary cities”:

  1.  Nothing at all.  A city is not violating the law by being a “sanctuary city”.
  2.  Enforce the law.  If people, who have names, commit crimes, you get a warrant, arrest them, give them a trial with a jury and, if found guilty, they suffer a penalty, under the law.   A whole city can’t break a law.  Laws only apply to people.
  3. Uphold the law. When a Mayor or city manager declares his city a “sanctuary city”, he has not broken the law, nor has he conspired to break the law.  His declaration has no effect.   Federal law enforcement agencies can still enter the city and enforce the laws, makes arrests of illegal persons and remove them from the cities.  Thus, the declaration has no effect other than making the mayor signal his virtue and feel good about himself while the ICE rounds up his cook, gardener and baby sitter.
  4. Obey the law.  Where the law grants money to cities for a purpose, the government should obey it’s own law to spend that money on that purpose.   My preference is to change the law and stop spending the money, but until the law changes, giving that money to that city for that authorized purpose is the right answer.
  5. Enforce the law.  Where illegal aliens can be found, they should be arrested and deported.  The Federal government does not need the cities or states to assist in accomplishing this function.  They have all the resources they need to do this.
  6. Enforce the law. In those rare situations when a mayor or city manager does violate a federal law, ARREST that person and prosecute them.   Not the city.  The person who actually violates the law.

See a pattern?

 

 

 

Advertisements

About No One

I am totally non-threatening
This entry was posted in Current Events, Immigration. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to What to do about “Sanctuary Cities”

  1. patrick kelly says:

    Wow, I find myself agreeing with you. Gotta check and make sure someone is not diluting my whiskey or something.

    I wonder if the same people who want the Feds to push around cities about immigration want them to do the same re: Fed gun laws.

    Like

  2. A.B. Prosper says:

    Political consistency has been the hallmark of the loser Republicans ,”muh principles” “muh liberty” “muh Constitution” It conserves nothing. What matters is results above all else and if it requires boots on Leftist necks ? So be it.

    Stopping spending on cities is not going to happen, if somehow the Republicans went along the instant the Democrats go a scintilla of power, they be back at it.

    You’d have to have a Constitutional Convention that forbid it going forward . This is possible, we almost have enough votes for one now but there are far too many moderates and people from states that get Federal aid to disallow it. Its also far too risky to call one since political capital is nil and our political class, especially on the Left lacks the impulse control and foresight to avoid something stupid

    In any case a cut off it wouldn’t cause them to shift to sane policies, only to double down on stupid, create more problems and more capital flight. This is bad for national security which is a Federal job At least the money gives a modicum of control

    Also The sanctuary city movement is a conspiracy to evade immigration laws and charging the politicians with conspiracy to commit human trafficking and/or conspiracy to aid terrorism is a perfectly acceptable approach if a nuclear option. You could though I highly recommend against it even use the NDAA .

    In the end a lot of people need to go back, either the easy way or the hard way. What’s going on now is the easy way, the hard way is going to be much worse.

    Like

    • No One says:

      Conspiracy would be too hard of a case to prove under the law. It is far too hard to tie what amounts of a humanitarian statement of beliefs to causing real harm. If that were the case, every communist could be sent to the gas chamber.

      Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s