The Sanctuary City ‘movement’ is a subject that draws a lot of comment, both pro, and con. This seems to me to be among those defining ideas that separate conservatives from liberals. No matter whether a village or city or county or state, the unit of government declaring itself a sanctuary for those who for reasons of law are not permitted in the United States of America.
The idea that a smaller unit of government can simply decide for itself that it will refuse to follow those laws made by our nation’s lawmakers flies in the face of what made this country a viable country in the first place. When people come together there is a need for rules, regulations and formal laws in order to maintain the peace and orderliness we all expect.
For any governmental body under such law to make its own decision as to enforcement or intentional ignorance of a particular law is simply unacceptable. And yet, we reportedly have hundreds of sanctuary thises and thats in the country and that number likely grows steadily. Estimates today indicate 500 or more such declarations have been issued by lower governments in violation of the law of the land.
We find ourselves in the familiar world of liberal judges deciding what they think and probably patting themselves on their own backs because they’ve found something else about which they can disagree with elected governing officials in higher levels of government.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has said, according to a Washington Post story, that Sanctuary cities are those that violate a federal law requiring local and state governments to share information with Federal officials about immigrants’ citizenship or legal status. He has indicated that any city or town that violates the Federal statute could lose some Justice funding this year as long as Congress has spelled out those conditions before government awarded the grants. He has already taken steps to revoke Federal funding from nine jurisdictions, each of which insists that it has complied with the law.
We recognize there will be, likely, years of court cases before this is resolved. And this will ultimately rise to the U.S. Supreme Court since there are sufficient liberal-minded judges in the system to keep this alive until appeals reach that level.
We have such laws since we, as a country, need to be able to control whom we permit and whom we deny more or less permanent access.
This brings me around to the U.S. Supreme Court and its ultimate responsibility to make the final decision on any number of disputed things that work their way through our systems of courts. We appear destined to have a conservative U.S. Supreme Court based upon the choices it appears President Trump will make as he appoints Justices to fill empty seats on the Court. There are rumored to be two such openings in the very near future.
Elections have consequences that affect even the seemingly untouchable liberal judges we find throughout the system in America. This is among the very most important things President Trump will do while in office. We, of course, need to assure that Congress is decidedly conservative, as well. These are decisions that will guide our country for decades. It is impossible to be too bold in such statements.
Sanctuary cities are only part of the larger problem, of course, but they are emblematic of how these things work their ways through the liberal cities and liberal states. There are Federal judges who are very much opposed to the defunding of so-called Sanctuary cities. If that were to be permitted to exist, how long would it be before there was a Sanctuary state?
Hundreds of U.S. cities are reportedly now involved in the business of offering sanctuary, as mentioned above, to non-citizens in direct opposition to our laws. Some are releasing such non-citizens from jails, when arrested, as soon as is possible so they’re back on the street. Are all non-citizens bad people? Certainly not, but there are some, just how many are currently unknown, who would not pass ‘muster’ if they were to be confronted in a court of law. Simply disobeying laws with which we disagree is not the way things are done in this country, not for you or me at least, but there are some who seem to think that is precisely what they can do. After all, they must reason, who is going to stop me?
Our immediate past President and his appointees seemed to not see much wrong with the Sanctuary city approach, but there is, fortunately, a new group in town. We face an uphill battle, but we will persist and we will get on top of this growing problem. Does this make conservatives hard-hearted stubborn people who hate others? No. It does show that conservatives believe in the rule of law, and follow those laws, even if flawed from our perspectives until they can be legally changed. If the proper laws are not yet enacted, we will see to getting that job done in short order or at least short order from a national governance perspective.