Monday, August 03, 2015

Democrats Defending Sanctuary Cities To The Death

by JASmius



Not that they haven't always been willing to do so.  It just so happens that now, in the wake of Kate Steinle's high-profile murder, it's a lot more difficult to do in public relations terms.  Which means Dems need to train their illegals, like Francisco Sanchez, to murder their white women more discretely.

But they're defending sanctuary cities nonetheless.  It's not as if they have much of a choice in the matter.  They're years, decades into the process of demographically transforming America.  It's not as if they can bail on their little project now.

Still, like all leftwing extremist projects, once exposed to the light of public scrutiny, watching libs defend sanctuary cities is like watching a painfully modest person take a shower in a phone booth:

Locally, the Johnson County Sheriff’s Office policy of refusing to hold suspects requested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials would put it at risk of losing certain federal grants under bills proposed by Grassley and Republican colleagues in the House.

While “sanctuary city” is a loose term, it has been used to apply to [leftwingnut] cities such as New York City and San Francisco, which have specific laws aimed at [illegal alien]s, and more broadly to other jurisdictions that [illegally] refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities…

For which one would think there ought to be some consequences more severe than "losing certain federal grants".

Johnson County Sheriff Lieutenant John Good....

They're making that name up.

....defended his department’s policy from criticism rooted in the San Francisco case. He said complying with federal immigration officials would mean potentially violating the civil liberties of a suspect.

Who, in the absence of citizenship and legal status, should not actually be entitled to any civil liberties.

“We don’t want to house them any longer than we need to,” he said.

Why not?  They're illegals.  Criminals by definition.  Surely it shouldn't take too awfully long for somebody to show up with a van, bind, gag, and bag them, take them to the nearest border, and throw 'em across.  Even from Iowa.  And if those being "housed" are here legally, that shouldn't be too awfully difficult to verify via such modern technological marvels as ID CARDS.

Say, THAT's an idea - deport all Latin American illegals to Canada.  They've got a lot more empty space than we do, and the swim home would be a LOT longer.

Keeping people suspected of being [illegal], Good said, would put the department at risk of violating a suspect’s civil liberties, which could, in turn, put the county at risk of a lawsuit. Those concerns led the department to change its policy in May 2014.

Which, in a sane world, would be impossible, because without legal standing, ILLEGALS COULDN'T SUE ANYBODY.

But we don't live in a sane world, we're just allowed to live in this insane one by the lunatics that run this national asylum.  No doubt for the sole purpose of rubbing our noses in it in the hopes that we will finally lose our minds as well.

Here's some more redundant proof:

At our law offices we don’t have many cases of people coming from Ann Arbor or Detroit, being pulled over and then asked about their immigration status. According to our clients from Waterford and Rochester, however, this kind of profiling is a problem.

Because who would ever want to profile criminals?

Can these patterns be attributed to a city’s status as a “sanctuary” jurisdiction? Or is it simply because Ann Arbor and Detroit are more ethnically and racially diverse than other Michigan cities?

And legally diverse, I'm guessing.

The current debate criminalizes [alien]s unfairly....

Yes, that's right folks, "the current debate" unfairly criminalizes criminals.

and local law enforcement will suffer in Detroit and Ann Arbor, among other “sanctuary cities.” The proposed bills are inconsistent with trust-building initiatives between police and [illegal alien] communities....

Because there should always be "trust" that law enforcement will never enforce the law against those who serially break it.  Hell, look at the Obama Regime.

....which have been shown to support overall public safety.

Sure.  You know, like in San Francisco a few weeks ago.

If officers begin alerting immigration agents when [illegal aliens] are arrested, frightened [illegal alien] communities will stop reporting crimes. [above emphases added]

I think I just felt my capillaries burst.  Any more of this, and a cerebral hemorrhage will be next.

I think the noted philosopher Ron White said it best:



Although in this case, it's not so much that the leftwingnuts are stupid, but that their rancid, irrational, insane, extremist ideology makes them SOUND stupid when they're forced to defend it honestly.  Tater Salad could just as easily have said, "You can't fix liberalism" and it would have been saying essentially the same thing.

But then they keep blindly (and bitterly) clinging to this malevolent nonsense, so perhaps that's a distinction without a difference.

Exit question: How long before Christians, constitutionalists, conservatives, and Republicans have to flee to sanctuary cities?  And will there even be such destinations for us?

No comments: