Democrats’ Sanctuary Cities Mistake

From Commentary via H/T at Instapundit:

Senate Democrats crap all over Kate's Law

Their decision could come back to haunt them in November.

One hopes so.

Justice Department Cuts Off Federal Law Enforcement Grants To Sanctuary Cities

From The Daily Caller:

In a surprise move on Thursday, the Obama Justice Department adopted new policies that will deny federal law enforcement grants to some “sanctuary cities.”

According to guidance issued by the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs, cities that refuse to honor Section 1373 of the United States Code will no longer be eligible for the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) grants.

Section 1373 prohibits “government entities and officials from taking action to prohibit or in any way restrict the maintenance or intergovernmental exchange of [immigration status] information, including through written or unwritten policies or practices.”

One can truly say this was unexpected!

Next head of Border Patrol may be sanctuary city advocate

From HotAir:

Here’s a piece of cheerful news to brighten your day. We’re going to be needing a new boss at the Border Patrol shortly and while there is nothing written in stone yet, word on the street is that one of the names near the top of the list is that of Heather Fong. While unfamiliar to most of you I’m sure, Heather may ring a bell when you’re reminded that she’s a San Francisco law enforcement figure who was very big on the whole sanctuary city thing. Feel better yet?

She was a disaster int Frisco. And now Obama wants to take her national? Great!

Senate Democrats block bill to strip sanctuary cities of federal funds

From Hot Air:

If you think about Sanctuary Cities, they essentially flout the law by giving sanctuary to those already breaking the law, namely illegal (note the word) immigrants. Republicans introduced and tried to pass a bill that would strip these cities of federal funding until they enforced existing law. One of the results of this willful ignoring of the law was the murder of 32-year-old Kate Steinle, who was shot to death while walking on a San Francisco Pier with her father. Her killer, an illegal alien, had been deported 5 times on multiple felonies and been recently released from the custody of the San Francisco County Jail without being turned over to federal immigration authorities.

The bill offered was a means to force compliance with the law from these cities or have them suffer some consequences:

The bill offered by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., would have cut off law enforcement grants — including money to hire police officers — to more than 300 cities, counties and states with sanctuary policies. The legislation also would have stripped them of community development block grants, which are used to provide housing to low-income and moderate-income families and to help communities recover from natural disasters.

The Democrats, of course, voted to protect the non-citizens here illegally:

Senate Democrats blocked a bill Tuesday that would have punished “sanctuary cities” that protect undocumented immigrants from being turned over to federal agents to face deportation.

Senators voted 54-45 to advance the legislation, falling six votes short of the 60 needed.

So party loyalty is more important than protecting the citizenry. Sen. Ted Cruz's has a response to the vote.

Sen. Ted Cruz, however, set the record straight by correctly identifying the problem:

If Democratic senators choose to value partisan loyalty to the Obama administration over protecting the lives of the children who will be murdered by violent criminal illegal aliens in sanctuary cities…that will provide a moment of clarity.

Oh, and remember this the next time Democrats, any Democrats, start lecturing you on the “rule of law”.

What about the law of the land?

Rep. Goodlatte Blasts DHS Sec.'s 'Hypocritical" Criticisms of Sanctuary Cities

From Breitbart's Big Government:

Department of Homeland Security Sec. Jeh Johnson’s recent criticisms of sanctuary city policies ring hollow given the Obama administration’s actions enabling such policies, according to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).

“While I agree that sanctuary city policies are unacceptable, it’s hypocritical for Secretary Johnson to criticize sanctuary cities while at the same time refusing to take the steps necessary to end these reckless policies,” Goodlatte said Wednesday in reaction to comments Johnson made a day earlier.

Why is Rep Goodlatte surprised. It not as if this Regime has a history of lying to Congress. This Regime has told the truth about Fast & Furious, The IRS (Lois Lerner), the EPA (CO2, Animus River, Greenhouse gases), Benghazi, Dreamers, etc.

America's Descent Into Lawlessness

From Victor Davis Hanson at National Review:

In the eight-plus years since the Libby trial, the Obama administration has blown up the law as we have known it for centuries.

Barack Obama once warned Latino activists that he had no legal authority to suspend enforcement of federal immigration law, stop deportations, and offer de facto amnesties.

But that caution was only a campaigning talking point. After his re-election in 2012 and the midterm elections in 2014, Obama made a mockery of immigration law.

Hundreds of liberal sanctuary cities have announced that federal immigration law does not apply to them. That scary, neo-Confederate idea of legal nullification was sanctioned by the Obama administration — in a way it never would have been if a city had suspended the Endangered Species Act, emissions standards, or gun-control legislation.

As a result, once-detained and later-released immigrants with criminal records have murdered innocent American citizens.

America is becoming analogous to the mess in lawless contemporary Venezuela. When the law is suspended or unevenly applied for politically protected individuals and groups, then there is no law.

So we are now seeing the logical descent into the abyss of chaos.

Read the whole article. It may take decades to repair the damage to the system by the Dear Leader.

Hold Sanctuary Cities Liable For Crimes

From Breitbart California:

What would be your reaction to an announcement by your local elected leaders that they would no longer be cooperating with federal law enforcement officials regarding bank robbery laws?

Or what if they declared that your city or county would cease prosecution of federal human trafficking laws, or that they believed it was no longer necessary to ensure prosecution of federal kidnapping laws?

Yet when city after city and county after county in our nation announce they have chosen selectively to ignore federal immigration laws that they believe are harsh or unfair by implementing sanctuary city policies, their citizens are silent—or, worse applaud their actions. Well, the time has come to put a stop to this insanity.

Ki Davis, the County Clerk in Kentucky, was sent to jail, for contempt of court, for not issuing gay marriage licenses, in violation of Federal Mandate.

While I support Kate’s Law, I’d like to suggest a much harsher solution, one that would more sharply focus the attention of elected officials who believe compassion for an illegal alien felon is more important than the public safety of residents. It’s well known that corporations and businesses face significant civil and even criminal liabilities if their actions expose customers or even the general public to danger or harm.
............................

Unfortunately for Kate’s family, like the family of Anthony Bologna and his sons—murdered by an illegal alien felon and MS-13 gang member—elected officials like the Sheriff of San Francisco or the members of the Board of Supervisors can’t be subjected to legal actions filed by the victims of their recklessness because of a legal doctrine broadly known as “sovereign immunity” or Rex Non Potest Peccare, roughly meaning “the King can do no wrong.”
............................

When governmental actions result in harm or death, cities, officials in counties and even states like California that carry out policies that seek to avoid or stop enforcing certain laws should be forced to face the consequences of their actions by having their immunity stripped.

As I noted at the beginning of this article, we’d be astounded if our elected officials announced that they would begin selectively enforcing other laws in our society.

That astonishment would be based on our collective understanding that selective enforcement of law is essentially the equivalent of having no law.

It's called chaos. These politicians, who vote for sanctuary city policies know they can't be held liable for their actions. They do it for the applause (and campaign dollars) from the media and vocal special interest groups.

Huge majority of Californians oppose sanctuary cities

From Thomas Lifson at The American Thinker Blog:

A conducted by the Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS) at the University of California, Berkeley contains bad news for the lefties who run so-called sanctuary cities, where federal law is openly flouted, but nobody is being sent to jail like an evangelical county clerk in Kentucky.

So will someone sue these cities and will a Federal Judge hold any city council members in civil contempt until they repeal the sanctuary city law?

No holding my breath.......

Sanctuary Cities for Conservatives

From the American Thinker Blog:

Late last week, the House of Representatives voted to strip federal funds from sanctuary cities, which refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts. And in early July, an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times and convicted of seven felonies shot and killed a young woman while she was walking with her father and a friend along a pier in San Francisco, a city famous for its sanctuary policies.

Sanctuary cities have existed for decades – the first one was established in Los Angeles in 1979 – as places of asylum for refugees and others in the country illegally.
.................

Imagine if some city in red-state America – perhaps Little Rock, Arkansas; Dallas, Texas; or Bowling Green, Kentucky – decided to be a refuge for unborn children and refused to grant business licenses to abortion clinics.

What if a city decided that it was going to be a sanctuary city for the Ten Commandments and displayed them in schools, libraries, and the county courthouse?

What if a city decided that it was important for children to have mothers and fathers, declared itself a sanctuary city for traditional marriage, and refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples?

I’m kidding, but only slightly. A glance at the news headlines underscores the growing need for a place of refuge for conservatives.

It needs to be done to expose the hypocrisy of the Regime's policies!

USA Today editors call for an end to “sanctuary cities”

From Hot Air:

The case of Kate Steinle, the young woman shot and killed by an illegal immigrant, has prompted a heated debate over immigration policy and so-called “sanctuary cities.” San Francisco set Steinle’s killer free before the murder because of its adoption of “sanctuary city” status. This movement began a few decades ago as a symbolic protest against enforcement of immigration law, but now the real-world consequence of setting repeat offenders loose has finally caught up with one of those cities — not to mention the Steinle family, who had nothing to do with it.

USA Today’s editorial board calls for an end to this dangerous posturing today, at least in San Francisco.
.....................

The Steinle case provides the worst-case example of how “sanctuary city” policies and their like can end up backfiring on communities, which makes it an attractive case to use for political battles.

Sorry,USA Today, too little too late.

You and your ilk in the Drive-By Media have supported sanctuary policies for years. It's only now, after a Presidential Candidate made a big deal about it and the subsequent murder highlighting the folly of such policies, do you suddenly or "unexpectedly" realize the effects.

Since you and your kind live in the ivory towers, behind your gated communities, within expensive bastions, where the grit and grim of such policies do not effect your everyday life, you only suddenly realize the problem. There are many people, who lives have been destroyed daily by these issues. I can only hope your life and families are victimized. Maybe then, will you do you job and hold the feet to the fire, those in political position to solve the problem, instead of demagogue.

S.F. Sheriff Defends Releasing Killer, Calls Trump ‘Opportunist’

From Breitbart California:

San Francisco’s Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi is defending the intentional April release of five-times-deported Mexican national Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who has since confessed to the Wednesday shooting death of a young woman at Pier 14.

Sheriff Mirkarimi appeared agitated as he spoke to San Francisco-based KRON 4 News, casting blame on U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for not filing a formal court application to detain Lopez-Sanchez. In a separate CNN interview, Mirkarimi defended his refusal of ICE detainers. He called ICE policy the “imperfect deportation and transferring of people.”

It is San Francisco Sheriff’s department policy to deny all ICE detainer requests. He indicated that he only honors court orders.

So, it's policy to ignore Federal law? This clown needs to be arrested and tried for obstruction of justice, federally.

Dying on the Sidewalk of Nancy Pelosi's Sanctuary City

From the American Thinker Blog:

An illegal immigrant barred from having a gun shoots at sea lions and accidentally kills a young woman minding her own business and Obama, who lives in a constant state of indignation about the Second Amendment, has nothing to say?

Equally silent is San Francisco’s very own Nancy Pelosi. Nancy conjured up a fantasy scenario about imaginary women dying on the floor and vowed to protect a woman’s right to murder children, and did it while bestowing symbolic citizenship on and asylum to illegals whose major contribution to America thus far has been ever-mounting death and destruction.

Hence, without further ado, Americans have a moral duty to demand that liberal Democrat apologists who support illegal immigration finally account for the gross recklessness that has resulted in yet another senseless, untimely death.

Why isn't ABC, NBC, CBS, MS-NBC, CNN, et. al rushing to ask US Senator Diane Feinstein, who was the first to sign a law declaring San Fransisco a sanctuary city? How about US Senator Barbara Boxer? Gavin Newsome? and of course Barack Obama?

Would any of these progressive tolerate a Texan town declaring they are a sanctuary city from federal taxes and regulation?