By Craig Andresen – Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio
Last week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued what is, for the moment, a threat and only time will tell if it becomes a promise, that the DOJ will withhold anti-crime funding from the cities of Baltimore, Albuquerque, Stockton and San Bernardino should they fail to change their ways, and begin to cooperate with federal immigration policies.
All those cities mentioned, and so many more, are sanctuary cities, and all of them, and more, are fit to be tied over that threat.
Even Rahm Emmanuel, the uber liberal Mayor of Chicago, is spitting mad to the point that just yesterday, on behalf of his gun-free target rich sanctuary city, he filed a lawsuit against the DOJ over the demands that immigration policy be followed…or else.
Frankly, I fail to see the problem, and perhaps more to the point, I fail to see why the aforementioned cities have their panties in a wad over the possible loss of funding.
To begin with, one must understand the nature of the funding in question.
It’s called Byrne grants, so named after a police officer, Edward Byrne, who was murdered back in 1988. The grants which bear his name are intended to assist local police departments in the purchasing of equipment, vehicles and specialized training with which those law enforcement entities can better fight against crime in their cities.
That’s all well and fine, except the loss of those monies should have little, or absolutely no effect on any of the police departments named, or for that matter, on so many other sanctuary cities like Chicago.
Simply put…because they are sanctuary cities.
To grasp this concept, as put forth here, the next thing one must understand is exactly what a sanctuary city is.
To be perfectly blunt about it…a sanctuary city is a city where people who have broken our laws, can hide without fear of being arrested for the breaking of those laws…i.e. those who commit a crime by entering our country without proper documentation, or who overstay their visas…and yes…that is a crime, which makes those who do it criminals…can live in a sanctuary city free of the fear of being arrested and/or deported for their crimes.
To put a fine edge on the razor…why would a city which promotes itself as being a place where people can skirt the laws of our nation, want money from the federal government…taxpayer dollars…to fight crime?
Or, to put it another way, why should the government hand out taxpayer dollars to cities that refuse to arrest illegal aliens for the purpose of arresting U.S. citizens?
Here is a pointed question which must be asked in light of liberal panty wadding over the withholding of Byrne grants from sanctuary cities…why would anyone, liberal or otherwise even want to live in a city that protects criminals from other countries who are not even supposed to be afforded the rights of American citizens, while those cities hold American citizens to account for even the most simple of crimes?
Rahm Emmanuel is all bent out of shape because Chicago may at some point find itself on the list of cities from which Byrne grants are withheld, making it a safe haven for other nation’s criminals while at the same time, holding American citizens to standards that flaunt our Constitution.
Case in point…if you came from another country, sans documentation, or if you have over stayed your allotted time to be here, you would be safe from arrest in Chicago even though you are most decidedly not a U.S. citizen…while at the same time, absolute U.S. citizens who are protected by the 2nd Amendment would be arrested in Chicago should they exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.
Now then, we all know that liberals have no grasp of the Constitution, unless of course, it suits their immediate needs, and that they often parse the language of the Constitution to make it fit their particular agenda, so allow me to take this in a different direction that even liberals should be capable of understanding.
Suppose you’re a liberal elite of some ilk living in a sanctuary city, and suppose, that like many who desire the finer things life has to offer, you live in a part of your sanctuary city that is, let’s say, better than other parts of your sanctuary city. It’s a given that, as a liberal, you applaud your city’s sanctuary status, and you vote for those who intend to keep your city a sanctuary city so that those who break our nation’s immigration law, by being here even though they lack the proper permissions, can stay without apprehension of being ordered, or ushered out of our country.
So far, I believe this to be an apt scenario…so let me continue.
In your little corner of your sanctuary city, where you enjoy a certain lifestyle, like Oak Meadows on the west side of Chicago…your sanctuary within a sanctuary…you liberals who vote for the people who will do whatever they can to maintain your city’s sanctuary status would think absolutely nothing of having someone who violates your neighborhood association’s rules tossed out of your sanctuary neighborhood.
In other words…enter our country as a foreign national without following the law and you’re free to stay as long as you so desire, but paint your house a color not approved by some bunch of neighborhood Nazis, even though you enjoy full U.S. citizenship…and you have to pack up your crap and get out of the neighborhood.
Does that even resemble something that’s right?
Of course not, but liberals are hypocrites and they enjoy putting that aspect of their party on display every chance they get.
So why the big uproar over losing crime fighting money when liberals have set up their cities to protect criminals?
Simple…they believe they are entitled to the American taxpayer’s money. They think they should get their cut, no matter what, just because they exist.
News flash…Byrne grants are not free money and no city, sanctuary or otherwise, is entitled to said grants. To earn such a grant, you have to prove that you need said grant…and cities that take pride in ignoring the laws of the land have not only not earned them, they have in fact proven that they don’t need them.
Hey, sanctuary cities…you want a piece of the American taxpayer pie? Earn it by following federal laws…not by giving those laws the middle finger salute.
In announcing that he was filing a lawsuit against the DOJ, Rohm Emmanuel actually stated, “We are not going to be between picking our values of who we are as a welcoming city, and strengthening our police department.”
Actually, I hate to be the one to bust Rohm’s liberal bubble, but his statement could not possibly be further from the truth because choosing between the Chicago “values” of a city that welcomes (and protects) criminals and strengthening Chicago’s police department is exactly what he’s doing. Rahm Emmanuel, on behalf of Chicago, like so many other sanctuary cities, has already made that choice…to welcome and to give safe harbor to criminals rather than providing a greater element of safety to the American citizens who live in those cities.
Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times for breaking the law by being in our country illegally. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez found safe harbor in a sanctuary city…San Francisco…where his law breaking status made him a protected entity. In July 2015, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez murdered an American citizen, Kate Steinle, in the sanctuary city of San Francisco.
Isolated incident? Out of context? Not hardley.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Statistics in 2015…15 American citizens are murdered…every day…by illegal aliens. 82,125 American citizens have been murdered by illegal aliens since 9/11/2001, and since we’re talking about statistical facts…that is ten times the murder rate of American citizens murdered by other American citizens as adjusted per population size.
All illegal aliens are criminals by virtue of breaking federal immigration law the instant they set foot on U.S. soil, or by over staying their visas, but sanctuary cities, and sanctuary states take a bad situation and make it worse by becoming a magnate for criminal elements from other countries.
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, our Nation’s Capitol, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Vermont and Washington all issue driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. Why? Because, they claim, it encourages illegal aliens to get car insurance.
California, as of 2016, issued 806,000 driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. This year, 2017, a new motor voter law AB 1461 will go into effect. And what exactly does AB 1461 do? It automatically registers driver’s license holders to vote.
Sure, there is also AB 60, which the sanctuary city and sanctuary state supporters claim has safeguards to prevent illegal aliens from getting automatically registered to vote. Would you like to know what that safeguard is?
AB 60 requires the illegal alien to tell the state that he or she is not eligible to vote. That’s it, and there is no oversight provided. In short, it’s the honor system.
The honor system? California’s idea of a safeguard is expecting those who have broken our national immigration law to be…honorable…enough to tell someone they are not eligible to vote? If they were honorable, they wouldn’t be in our country illegally to begin with.
Late last week, Judicial Watch sent a letter to California Secretary of State Alex Padilla outlining some very interesting findings. It seems that several California counties have more registered voters than they have citizens of voting age.
“Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%). The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. Country may be as high as 144%.”
Sure, some of those numbers include dead voters, voters who should be ineligible due to felony convictions and some who have simply moved away…but the overages also include…illegal aliens who are registered to vote due to AB 1461 that the honor system failed to catch.
If you still think that giving a driver’s license to illegal aliens is about getting them to purchase auto insurance, you…are…delusional.
The bottom line in all of this is simple…
If cities want to operate above the law of the land, as sanctuary cities they should have no access to federal funding in any way, shape or form. As far as I’m concerned, that loss of funding should not be limited to Byrne grants, but should also mean a total loss of access to the tax dollars collected from American citizens including FEMA monies.
Our federal immigration policies are a matter of the law…not a mere suggestion…
And if a city refuses to accept federal law…they shouldn’t be one bit surprised when the federal government cuts off their allowance.
Copyright © 2017 Craig Andresen / thenationalpatriot.com