Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
I get it. If I lived in a different country I would want to do whatever it takes to come to America, as well. However, I would follow the rules, follow the law, and patriotically assimilate into my new country. As my father-in-law responded at a store one time, when someone called him Mexican-American, "I came to America to be an American, not a Mexican. If I wanted to remain Mexican, I would have stayed in Mexico."
Mixed in the population of folks who are coming to America to be Americans like my wife's family did are also bad people. Gang members. Rapists. Terrorists. Criminals. And worse. As with the Muslim migrant problem, the difficulty is not with the people who are willing to assimilate, it is the fact that their numbers are mixed with those who won't assimilate, and are admittedly dangerous to our society.
As the Ben Carson quote goes, "If you had a bowl full of M&Ms, and you knew three of them were poison, would you eat any?"
Chicago Joins With Other Sanctuary Cities Vowing Defiance of Trump.
“I want to assure all of our families that Chicago is and will remain a sanctuary city,” promised Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, joining with several other mayors around the country who have said they will defy President-elect Trump’s promise to cut off their federal funds. A sanctuary city is one in which local law-enforcement officials refuse to inform federal immigration officials about their illegal alien residents, or turn them over for deportation.
He insisted, “Chicago has been a city of immigrants since it was founded. We have always welcomed people of all faiths and backgrounds, and while the administration will change, our values and our commitment to inclusion will not.”
Other officials in Illinois joined Emanuel in opposing the enforcement of federal immigration law in Chicago. Susana Mendoza, the daughter of Mexican immigrants, and the comptroller-elect in Illinois, demanded that Governor Bruce Rauner join in insisting Trump back off his intended policy of cutting off funding for sanctuary cities.
Mendoza said that Rauner, a Republican, “should be saying it’s wrong” for Trump to threaten to cut off funds to sanctuary cities. “I would expect that the governor would say, ‘that’s ridiculous.’ Besides moral bankruptcy, it’s bad fiscal policy for the city or any city.” Rauner has not yet responded to Mendoza’s comments.
Chicago Alderman Danny Solis did comment, however, lamenting, “Across the country and in Chicago and Illinois … young men and women [are] very distraught about this.” He added that he hoped Reince Priebus (chairman of the Republican National Committee, who is slated to become Trump’s chief of staff) and House Speaker Paul Ryan would dissuade Trump from carrying out his campaign promise. “Though I disagree [with Ryan and Priebus] … I have some respect for [them],” Solis said.
Democratic Party officeholders such as Mendoza and Solis state they have heard from illegal residents who are terrified of imminent deportation since Trump’s election. Mayor Emanuel has announced that any illegals who are in need of legal resources should call 311.
Other sanctuary cities have also announced that they will remain such — municipalities in which illegal aliens can continue to live in violation of federal immigration law. Other cities besides Chicago that have taken this stance include Los Angeles, Seattle, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, and dozens of others.
New York City’s extreme left-wing mayor Bill de Blasio has also vowed to protect the city’s illegal aliens from deportation. “We are not going to sacrifice a half million people who live among us," he declared, "who are part of our community. We are not going to tear families apart.”
Speaking for Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Connie Llanos said it was the mayor’s “hope that no president would violate those principles, the very foundation of our nation, by taking punitive action on cities that are simply protecting the well-being of residents.”
...What a President Trump will actually do about the defiance of sanctuary cities is unknown, but many Democrats supported President Obama’s threat to cut off federal education funds to public schools refusing to allow transgendered students to use bathrooms and showers they simply “identify” with.Democrats also threatened to end federal funding to States who refused to repeal their stand-your-ground laws following the shooting of 17-year old Trayvon Martin.
From a federal law point of view, these Mayors are acting illegally. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution gives the power to Congress "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." In Article I, Section 9 the Constitution grants to Congress the authority to prohibit migrants from entering the United States based on their own criteria. Any legislation established by Congress to deal with immigration is then required to be executed by the President, as per Article II where it says that he will "faithfully execute the laws of the United States." So, first of all, President Obama was defying the United States Constitution by refusing to execute immigration laws that were on the books.
Let us use the Democrat Party's own words and actions against them, her. The liberal left has always preached "Federal Supremacy," which means in their language that the cities and States cannot act contrary to any federal law or action. Remember, Obama's administration sued the State of Arizona for having an immigration law they felt was contrary to the government's actions. Obama had chosen to not enforce immigration law, so by their own reasoning, Arizona could not act contrary to that refusal. Yet, they are fine with the Sanctuary Cities defying the federal government, and federal law, regarding immigration?
Sounds like the usual leftist double standard, to me.
The U.S. Constitution also brings into play Article IV, Section 4, which reads: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
That clause makes the wall not only constitutional, but necessary.
Before folks start screaming with my assertion that illegal aliens are invaders, let's take a look at the definition of invasion.
The American Heritage College Dictionary defines "invade" as: 1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage. 2. To encroach or intrude on; violate. 3. To overrun as if by invading; infest. 4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.
In the same dictionary the third definition of "invasion" reads: "An intrusion or encroachment."
By entering illegally, which means the potential immigrants broke American immigration laws, illegal aliens are entering by force, and are violating the laws to do so. In fact, illegal entry into this nation, especially by specific groups, falls clearly within the realm of invasion.
If Article IV, Section 4 tasks the federal government with protecting the States against invasion it is the duty of the federal government to protect the borders, and ensure only people who have properly navigated the immigration process enter this nation, and live among the American People.
Sanctuary cities, and States, by harboring illegal immigrants, which by definition have broken federal law, are demonstrating contempt for federal laws, which ultimately threatens to undermine the cohesion of the Republic. In fact, such actions by cities and States could be considered treasonous since, if illegal aliens are indeed an invading force, making them enemies of the United States, the sanctuary cities and States are giving the enemy "aid and comfort" (Article III, Section 3). Remember, not all illegal aliens are citizens of Mexico coming to America in search of a free ride, or work that will make them more money than anything they can find in Mexico. Among those that cross the American border illegally are sleeper terrorists, gang members, drug cartel members, and others whose purpose is to destroy the United States. And, since we are in a war against terrorism committed by the Islamic Jihad, it is obvious that people crossing the American border illegally who are associated with sleeper terrorist cells, or are connected to groups like al-Qaeda, are enemies of this nation.
U.S. cities and States that declare themselves to be sanctuaries for illegal aliens are not only "harboring the enemy," but are also acting outside of the U.S. Code, sections 1324 and 1325 which considers it a felony to be "concealing, harboring, or sheltering illegal aliens," as well as violating the Immigration and Naturalization Act sections 274 and 275 which reads similarly.
Illegal entry into the United States — entry without inspection — is a misdemeanor, according to INA section 275, (8 USC Section 1324). Repeated illegal entry is a felony.
I love immigration, and immigrants, but to protect the receiving population we must make sure they go through the protocols in place as a result of our immigration laws. It is the duty of the federal government to protect this nation against foreign invasion. "Amnesty" programs, as well as local government's complete disregard for the enforcement of immigration laws, run contrary to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. I understand that we are all descendants of immigrants, and I believe that the strength of this nation is largely derived from the fact that we are a melting pot. However, immigration with the purpose of following the law, and going through the process because the immigrant wishes to assimilate into the American culture is one thing; purposeful violation of the law by crossing the border illegally is a federal crime no matter how you slice it, and the offenders must be treated accordingly. After all, the United States prides itself in being a nation that follows the rule of law, and to pick and choose which laws to follow, or to ignore the Constitutional authority given to the federal government to protect this nation against invasion is, in a word, irresponsible.
Let us not forget when Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez killed Kate Steinle in San Francisco after he had been deported from the U.S. a total of five times. He was on probation in Texas during the time of the shooting. San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy was heavily criticized by several politicians, and also by Donald Trump, at the time. Lopez-Sanchez had stolen the gun from a Bureau of Land Management vehicle. He used it to fire three shots, with one bullet striking Steinle. Her father was with her at the time and administered CPR, but she later died at San Francisco General Hospital.
The tragic death of Kate Steinle led to an effort to pass “Kate’s Law," which would have established a 10-year maximum prison sentence for any illegal alien who reentered the country after being denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed on three or more prior occasions. It also would have provided for a five-year mandatory minimum prison term for any illegal alien who reentered after being convicted of an aggravated felony or following two or more prior convictions for illegal reentry.
The Senate version of Kate’s Law failed to pass because of a Democrat-led filibuster, as did another bill which would have punished sanctuary cities.
The blood of Kate Steinle is on the hands of the Democrats. If these cities continue their Sanctuary City policies, there will be even more blood on their hands, as they refuse to take the actions necessary to protect American citizens from the dangerous people Trump would like to remove from our society.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment