Banner ad

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Ignoring sanctuary cities while challenging Arizona

Kris W. Kobach has a column up about the irony of how the Holder Justice Department looks at two different approaches to illegal immigration.
Last week, the Justice Department made an astonishing statement about its unprecedented lawsuit to stop the Arizona illegal-immigration law. Attorney General Eric Holder's spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, claimed that it was appropriate to go after Arizona, but inappropriate to stop "sanctuary cities."

Schmaler said: "There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law. . . That's what Arizona has done in this case."

There's a big difference, all right. Sanctuary cities are expressly forbidden by federal law, while Arizona's statute is in perfect compliance with federal law.
Hmmm, I guess that is just a federal law which Holder feels comfortable in ignoring. But it was a law signed by Bill Clinton, the man that the Obamanians are sending out on the road to campaign for Democrats.
n 1996, Congress prohibited sanctuary cities in no uncertain terms: A "local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual" (8 USC Sec. 1373(a)).

In direct contravention of that statute, New York, San Francisco, Chicago and dozens of other cities have adopted "sanctuary" policies that prevent their police from reporting illegal aliens.
As Kobach reports, the tolerance of sanctuary cities make those cities targets of illegal-alien gangs. He represents the family of victims of such criminals whose presence in a sanctuary city led to deaths of victims rather than deportment of illegal aliens.
The consequences can be deadly. The story of the Bologna family in San Francisco is a case in point. On June 22, 2008, illegal alien Edwin Ramos shot Anthony Bologna, and his two sons, Michael and Matthew, as they sat in their car coming home from a picnic after church. Ramos, a member of Mara Salvatrucha 13, had been arrested by the San Francisco Police three times before the murder.

Those "priors" were for crimes of violence, including mugging a pregnant woman and beating up a juvenile who wasn't a member of his gang. Each time, San Francisco sheltered Ramos from ICE and eventually released him back onto the streets. On the third occasion, Ramos went on to murder the Bolognas.

Had the police simply phoned ICE, Ramos would've been deported, and the Bolognas would be alive today. But San Francisco's sanctuary policy prohibited the officers from making that call.

In sanctuary cities, residents face a much higher risk of being victimized by illegal-alien criminals. Local lawmakers ignore this fact (and federal law) to satisfy their political agendas. Unbelievably, after the Bologna murders, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors nevertheless voted to retain the city's sanctuary policy.

That's just fine with the Holder Justice Department -- which is too busy suing a state that actually wants to see federal law enforced.


tfhr said...

"Sanctuary cities" provide cover and opportunity for human trafficking rings, violent gangs like MS 13, and an enticement for people willing to break our laws regarding immigration, work visas, and naturalization, among many others. The failure of the Government to address this violation of federal laws is inexcusable.

Solution: Cut all federal funding to "sanctuary cities" until full compliance is achieved. Governors need to step up and enforce state laws and work with federal authorities on this issue. Failure to do so should result in withdrawal of all federal funding to the non-compliant state(s) until corrected.

Bachbone said...

I would guess that sanctuary cities likely vote primarily for leftist candidates, so Obama & Co. have more than one reason not to anger them by sicking the DOJ on them.

I'd like to see, tfhr, some of the gangs' victims' families take legal action, perhaps a class action suit, against the city councils, or individual council members, who voted for the "sanctuary city" status that is clearly against federal law. When just one of the cases was won and damages awarded, we'd see a quick reversal of the "sanctuary city" asininity. Taxpayers would tire of their money being wasted on feel good politics.

tfhr said...


Sentence of the Year Award Nominee:

"Taxpayers would tire of their money being wasted on feel good politics."

I'm still waiting for that to happen with regard to so many things but I get your point visa vis "sanctuary cities".

Danielle Bologna, widow and bereaved mother, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against San FranFreakshow claiming that the city protected the El Salvadoran MS 13 gang member that murdered her husband and two sons. She LOST in what may be considered the "first round" of her legal ordeal when the judge offered up some weak cheese ruling on procedures. There's more here, but be forewarned regarding language:

I really think that the only way to impress upon these liberal politicians that they are obligated to protect American citizens from violent illegal aliens is to hit them where it hurts. Imagine if all programs, services, and projects operating in San Francisco with federal funding were frozen. How about San Francisco's airport? Stand down the TSA and FAA components until San Francisco complied. Got a federally funded grant or school loan? Not if you live or go to school in San Francisco! Does your business have any contracts with the federal government? Oops! Those will be suspended until they can be reviewed for compliance with federal laws starting with E-Verify compliance. I wonder which would get more phone calls, the governor's or the mayor's office? I'd give the mayor one phone call - an outgoing call - right after I had him arrested.