Sanctuary cities refer to municipal jurisdictions that limit cooperation with the federal government’s efforts to enforce immigration law.
The question is, should sanctuary cities exist and if so, what is there long-term impact? Those sanctioning the harboring of illegals are quick to defend their position, saying as human beings, undocumented immigrants have a God-given right to be here. They are protecting families fleeing wretched conditions in their homeland. Last year, California Governor, Jerry Brown, signed Bill 54, requiring state law enforcement to disregard certain federal laws while protecting illegal aliens. In Oakland, California, the Mayor warned illegal aliens in February of planned arrests by ICE, endangering the public and Federal officers.
Those against the sanctuary concept argue states cannot pick and choose which laws to obey, helping people who are breaking the law. Further, those jurisdictions are defying immigration laws by not cooperating with federal agents while protecting undocumented criminals from deportation, leading to more crime and expense to our citizens. In March, Orange County, California Supervisors approved a resolution against bill 54 for those very reasons.
Quite a sensitive dilemma for our country, yet our gridlocked congress seems unable to resolve this dangerous national disagreement.
As parents, when our children disobeyed our rules they were denied their allowance. Likewise, Congress must consider denying States their “allowance”, meaning federal funds and grants when they disobey the law. Protecting our citizens' freedom and safety while upholding the Rule of Law is fundamental to the very tenets of our country’s constitution.
Earle Everett, Moss Creek