When 'sanctuary cities' go too far

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

When 'sanctuary cities' go too far: Our view

Many immigration supporters laud "sanctuary cities" as beacons of humanity where local police refuse to turn over undocumented immigrants to federal authorities.

But when such policies are carried to extremes — such as shielding immigrants who have a history of serious crimes or who repeatedly sneak back into the USA — immigration advocates undermine their credibility by defending the indefensible.

The Trump administration's crackdown on undocumented workers has turned “sanctuary" into a rallying cry for both sides in the immigration debate. But sanctuary covers a wide array of policies, making the issue more complex than the sound bites suggest.

For starters, no local or state government can offer absolute sanctuary to undocumented immigrants because federal authorities, under the law, can deport any immigrant simply for having entered the country illegally. Several hundred cities and counties refuse to detain immigrants for federal deportations. But even among these jurisdictions, there are wide variations, from sensible policies to irrational ones that endanger public safety.

A notorious example of irrationality occurred in 2015, when an undocumented immigrant with a lengthy felony drug record and repeated illegal entries into the USA after deportation was freed by the San Francisco county sheriff — despite being wanted by federal immigration authorities. Three months later, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez allegedly shot and killed Kathryn Steinle in a San Francisco tourist area, setting off a national debate over sanctuary cities.

Lopez-Sanchez, now awaiting trial, was freed not because of some loophole or foul-up, but because the sheriff's policy barred contact with federal immigration officials. A city ordinance also prohibited police from honoring federal detainers except in the rarest of circumstances. Lopez-Sanchez’s long criminal record did not qualify — a mindless extension of sanctuary that refuses to distinguish between productive, law-abiding immigrants and those who flout the laws of their adopted country.

Fortunately, not many localities go this far. A study of more than 2,500 counties by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, which favors sanctuary, found just 6% of counties would refuse to alert federal immigration authorities when an undocumented inmate is being released....

Time for this "sanctuary city" shit to end.

 

[william the wie]

Until the politicians in those jurisdictions are charged with depriving the victims of these policies of their civil rights this will continue. Don't make Martyrs out of them by sending them to jail seize their assets instead.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

They went too far when they started "sheltering" illegals

 

[BluesLegend]

If a protected illegal kills or rapes an American citizen, send the politicians to prison as accessories. Do that and there will never be another sanctuary city.

 

[emilynghiem]

When 'sanctuary cities' go too far: Our view

Many immigration supporters laud "sanctuary cities" as beacons of humanity where local police refuse to turn over undocumented immigrants to federal authorities.

But when such policies are carried to extremes — such as shielding immigrants who have a history of serious crimes or who repeatedly sneak back into the USA — immigration advocates undermine their credibility by defending the indefensible.

The Trump administration's crackdown on undocumented workers has turned “sanctuary" into a rallying cry for both sides in the immigration debate. But sanctuary covers a wide array of policies, making the issue more complex than the sound bites suggest.

For starters, no local or state government can offer absolute sanctuary to undocumented immigrants because federal authorities, under the law, can deport any immigrant simply for having entered the country illegally. Several hundred cities and counties refuse to detain immigrants for federal deportations. But even among these jurisdictions, there are wide variations, from sensible policies to irrational ones that endanger public safety.

A notorious example of irrationality occurred in 2015, when an undocumented immigrant with a lengthy felony drug record and repeated illegal entries into the USA after deportation was freed by the San Francisco county sheriff — despite being wanted by federal immigration authorities. Three months later, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez allegedly shot and killed Kathryn Steinle in a San Francisco tourist area, setting off a national debate over sanctuary cities.

Lopez-Sanchez, now awaiting trial, was freed not because of some loophole or foul-up, but because the sheriff's policy barred contact with federal immigration officials. A city ordinance also prohibited police from honoring federal detainers except in the rarest of circumstances. Lopez-Sanchez’s long criminal record did not qualify — a mindless extension of sanctuary that refuses to distinguish between productive, law-abiding immigrants and those who flout the laws of their adopted country.

Fortunately, not many localities go this far. A study of more than 2,500 counties by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, which favors sanctuary, found just 6% of counties would refuse to alert federal immigration authorities when an undocumented inmate is being released....

Time for this "sanctuary city" shit to end.

Thanks ATS
In Houston the stance they are taking is that city officials and police want the victims of crimes to feel safe coming forward. Trafficking is a billion dollar industry coming through Houston as a hub. The key to breaking these rings is being able to rescue the trafficked victims from it, otherwise if they have no safe avenue they will stay stuck depending on their captors to survive, even under wretched conditions such as being raped for money and pumped up on drugs, threatened with loss of their kids, etc.

It's a vicious cycle, because the weaker the law enforcement, the more these traffickers get away with this, so it never ends.

I would say allow victims a safe avenue for earned amnesty, where the restitution penalties or time owed is proportional to the violations committed.
With trafficking victims, it's tricky. How much was their fault for going along with coyote type operations they knew were illegal. How many of these victims were kidnapped, thought they were going through legal job offers that turned out to be fraud, and it wasn't their fault they were forced into illegal trade.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

When 'sanctuary cities' go too far: Our view

Many immigration supporters laud "sanctuary cities" as beacons of humanity where local police refuse to turn over undocumented immigrants to federal authorities.

But when such policies are carried to extremes — such as shielding immigrants who have a history of serious crimes or who repeatedly sneak back into the USA — immigration advocates undermine their credibility by defending the indefensible.

The Trump administration's crackdown on undocumented workers has turned “sanctuary" into a rallying cry for both sides in the immigration debate. But sanctuary covers a wide array of policies, making the issue more complex than the sound bites suggest.

For starters, no local or state government can offer absolute sanctuary to undocumented immigrants because federal authorities, under the law, can deport any immigrant simply for having entered the country illegally. Several hundred cities and counties refuse to detain immigrants for federal deportations. But even among these jurisdictions, there are wide variations, from sensible policies to irrational ones that endanger public safety.

A notorious example of irrationality occurred in 2015, when an undocumented immigrant with a lengthy felony drug record and repeated illegal entries into the USA after deportation was freed by the San Francisco county sheriff — despite being wanted by federal immigration authorities. Three months later, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez allegedly shot and killed Kathryn Steinle in a San Francisco tourist area, setting off a national debate over sanctuary cities.

Lopez-Sanchez, now awaiting trial, was freed not because of some loophole or foul-up, but because the sheriff's policy barred contact with federal immigration officials. A city ordinance also prohibited police from honoring federal detainers except in the rarest of circumstances. Lopez-Sanchez’s long criminal record did not qualify — a mindless extension of sanctuary that refuses to distinguish between productive, law-abiding immigrants and those who flout the laws of their adopted country.

Fortunately, not many localities go this far. A study of more than 2,500 counties by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, which favors sanctuary, found just 6% of counties would refuse to alert federal immigration authorities when an undocumented inmate is being released....

Time for this "sanctuary city" shit to end.

Thanks ATS
In Houston the stance they are taking is that city officials and police want the victims of crimes to feel safe coming forward. Trafficking is a billion dollar industry coming through Houston as a hub. The key to breaking these rings is being able to rescue the trafficked victims from it, otherwise if they have no safe avenue they will stay stuck depending on their captors to survive, even under wretched conditions such as being raped for money and pumped up on drugs, threatened with loss of their kids, etc.

It's a vicious cycle, because the weaker the law enforcement, the more these traffickers get away with this, so it never ends.

I would say allow victims a safe avenue for earned amnesty, where the restitution penalties or time owed is proportional to the violations committed.
With trafficking victims, it's tricky. How much was their fault for going along with coyote type operations they knew were illegal. How many of these victims were kidnapped, thought they were going through legal job offers that turned out to be fraud, and it wasn't their fault they were forced into illegal trade.

I have no problem with allowing victims a safe avenue for earned amnesty so long as any such amnesty would place them on a conditional path (so long as they are in good moral standing with the law) to citizenship at the back of the line of everyone in line for legal visas and green cards.

I would also want some measures in place to protect against possible abuse of such a system (i.e., people making false rape/sexual trafficking allegations just to get amnesty).

 

[emilynghiem]

When 'sanctuary cities' go too far: Our view

Many immigration supporters laud "sanctuary cities" as beacons of humanity where local police refuse to turn over undocumented immigrants to federal authorities.

But when such policies are carried to extremes — such as shielding immigrants who have a history of serious crimes or who repeatedly sneak back into the USA — immigration advocates undermine their credibility by defending the indefensible.

The Trump administration's crackdown on undocumented workers has turned “sanctuary" into a rallying cry for both sides in the immigration debate. But sanctuary covers a wide array of policies, making the issue more complex than the sound bites suggest.

For starters, no local or state government can offer absolute sanctuary to undocumented immigrants because federal authorities, under the law, can deport any immigrant simply for having entered the country illegally. Several hundred cities and counties refuse to detain immigrants for federal deportations. But even among these jurisdictions, there are wide variations, from sensible policies to irrational ones that endanger public safety.

A notorious example of irrationality occurred in 2015, when an undocumented immigrant with a lengthy felony drug record and repeated illegal entries into the USA after deportation was freed by the San Francisco county sheriff — despite being wanted by federal immigration authorities. Three months later, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez allegedly shot and killed Kathryn Steinle in a San Francisco tourist area, setting off a national debate over sanctuary cities.

Lopez-Sanchez, now awaiting trial, was freed not because of some loophole or foul-up, but because the sheriff's policy barred contact with federal immigration officials. A city ordinance also prohibited police from honoring federal detainers except in the rarest of circumstances. Lopez-Sanchez’s long criminal record did not qualify — a mindless extension of sanctuary that refuses to distinguish between productive, law-abiding immigrants and those who flout the laws of their adopted country.

Fortunately, not many localities go this far. A study of more than 2,500 counties by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, which favors sanctuary, found just 6% of counties would refuse to alert federal immigration authorities when an undocumented inmate is being released....

Time for this "sanctuary city" shit to end.

Thanks ATS
In Houston the stance they are taking is that city officials and police want the victims of crimes to feel safe coming forward. Trafficking is a billion dollar industry coming through Houston as a hub. The key to breaking these rings is being able to rescue the trafficked victims from it, otherwise if they have no safe avenue they will stay stuck depending on their captors to survive, even under wretched conditions such as being raped for money and pumped up on drugs, threatened with loss of their kids, etc.

It's a vicious cycle, because the weaker the law enforcement, the more these traffickers get away with this, so it never ends.

I would say allow victims a safe avenue for earned amnesty, where the restitution penalties or time owed is proportional to the violations committed.
With trafficking victims, it's tricky. How much was their fault for going along with coyote type operations they knew were illegal. How many of these victims were kidnapped, thought they were going through legal job offers that turned out to be fraud, and it wasn't their fault they were forced into illegal trade.

I have no problem with allowing victims a safe avenue for earned amnesty so long as any such amnesty would place them on a conditional path (so long as they are in good moral standing with the law) to citizenship at the back of the line of everyone in line for legal visas and green cards.

I would also want some measures in place to protect against possible abuse of such a system (i.e., people making false rape/sexual trafficking allegations just to get amnesty).

Yes, agreed. Some of the best programs I know are run by women volunteers with years of experience,
where they know the difference between "who's abusing who" -- people in denial about their crimes and addictions, vs. real victims, etc. So if the people in charge
are really committed and accountable (and the women will NOT trust or work with them if they are in
any way sellouts who are part of the crap going on, so they know the difference too!), then we won't
have the garbage deals that go down in Houston (such as the deal the city cut with men's clubs
where the bigger clubs donated a million dollars to the city to pay for "police investigations into trafficking"
while the smaller clubs were left out, and the money went to paying people who don't do a darn thing
to end trafficking but just make money off the problem continuing.)

In contrast, the REAL groups that help REAL women out of REAL crisis are all nonprofit
or volunteers working independently or they can't do the work that needs to get done.
Dottie Laster who consults with communities and law enforcement on anti-trafficking
teamed up with the Heidi Search Center in San Antonio, and do real rescues of missing
youth that are too often case of kidnapping for trafficking. That's where the resources ought to go,
in training communities to combat the issues head on. They are very effective. So why isn't the money going there?

 

[whitehall]

Sanctuary Cities go too far the moment they become sanctuary cities. Change the freaking law if you don't like it. Are we at the point in history when cities can pick and choose which federal laws they will abide by?