Sanctuary Cities Protect The Guilty At The Expense of The Innocent

sanctuarycities

It’s past time to rethink the practice and name of sanctuary cities.

Sanctuary policies are laws, resolutions, and ordinances passed by local authorities that prohibit city employees from notifying federal authorities- or cooperating with federal immigration laws- regarding the presence of illegal immigrants living in and around their communities. The origin of these laws apparently originate from the so-called Sanctuary Movement of the 1980’s, an American social and religious agenda that sought to protect and provide “sanctuary” for immigrants seeking asylum from violence primarily in Central America. During this time, churches and other social organizations acted as safe havens for illegal immigrants and refugees who were refused asylum by the United States government.

Though the beginning of this movement may have been borne out of good intentions, the current policies associated with sanctuary cities are anything but. Now, sanctuary cities- and those who support them- openly defy and ignore federal immigration policies concerning illegal aliens. Sanctuary cities, by-and-large, no longer protect refugees seeking asylum. Rather, these cities are actively protecting illegal aliens who knowingly and intentionally thwarted the country’s immigration procedures to take advantage of the social and economic spoils that come with living in America- all coming at the expense of taxpaying citizens and immigrants who came here- or are in the process of coming here- legally. This law breaking and theft is aided and abetted by policies and supported by people whose moral and ideological worldview see no difference between illegal aliens, legal immigrants, and US citizens. For them, the so-called “rights” of illegal aliens are just as important as the rights of citizens. But when people deliberately come to the country illegally, or overstay their visas, they have no rights. They’re not immigrants; they’re lawbreakers who’re eligible for deportation. To purposefully equate citizens and legal immigrants with illegal aliens is immoral and it both undermines and trivializes US citizenship, and our immigration laws, respectively.

This kind of politicized and ideological defiance of federal immigration laws is an issue of public safety, as the recent murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco demonstrates. Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien and seven-time felon who had been deported five times, casually murdered Kate Steinle earlier this month.

The original Sanctuary Movement and its illegitimate offspring, sanctuary cities, centers its moral basis among several traditions of defending life which includes the sanctuary cities found in the Old Testament, the Underground Railroad that sought to help slaves escape the dehumanization of slavery in the American south; and the program of protecting Jews from persecution and death during World War II. Though these precedents were noble actions that attempted to protect and sustain the sanctity of life against revenge and the forces of evil, my concern is the biblical notion of sanctuary cities and how this idea has been morally and politically perverted in favor of an ideological agenda that refuses to distinguish right from wrong in its quest to weaken federal immigration laws under the banner of social “justice.”

Biblically speaking, sanctuary cities were “cities of refuge.” Examples and prescriptions that applied to these cities of refuge are found in several places in the Old Testament (including Numbers, Deuteronomy and Joshua), where God commanded the Israelites to establish specific places as safe havens for those who had accidentally and or unintentionally killed another person. Because a person killed accidentally- as opposed to having murdered someone intentionally (and there is a moral difference between killing and murdering), the designated city would provide refuge- a safeguard against the avenger of blood (generally a family member seeking retribution for the unintended death). The person seeking sanctuary was required to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest serving at the time of his arrival, after which the person was allowed to go back to his family without fear of reprisal.

However, if someone sought asylum in a city of refuge and was found guilty of intentional murder- proof of which came after a trial, he was not allowed to receive sanctuary; he was rightly put to death. He was shown no pity. The divine directive commanded the Israelites to purge the evil from their midst (Deut. 19:19). Plainly speaking, there was a very clear distinction between intentional and premeditated murder and unintentional killing; between the guilty and the innocent- all in the pursuit of maintaining the law and preserving the sanctity of human life.

Not so with the current manifestation of sanctuary cities. Unlike the recommendations regarding cities of refuge in the Bible, current sanctuary cities sanctimoniously and defiantly refuse to differentiate between the guilty and the innocent. In a moral inversion of the original, current sanctuary cities actually provide sanctuary for the guilty at the expense of the innocent. Sanctuary cities flout federal immigration laws, refusing to report the illegal aliens (and their extra-criminal activity) they knowingly harbor, consciously and unreservedly perverting justice in the process. Again, we must be clear: sanctuary city policies transparently and without shame, protect and defend the guilty, not the innocent.

Rather than bringing the deviants to justice, sanctuary cities redefine justice to appease and cater to illegal aliens, which is an injustice to legal immigrants and American citizens.

Illegal aliens receiving sanctuary (and those who grant it) are, by definition, guilty of intentional law breaking. As increasing examples demonstrate, many are guilty of much, much worse. In harboring illegal aliens, these cities don’t just simply blur the lines between life and death; they actually invite death itself. Again, as the preventable death of Kate Steinle demonstrates, Francisco Lopez-Sanchez (a fitting name, indeed)- the illegal alien and convicted felon– said he knew San Francisco was a sanctuary city so he knew he wouldn’t be deported.

kate-steinle-francisco-sanchez-300x180

Politicians and others who create and defend sanctuary city policies and who willfully participate in blurring the lines between legal and illegal, right and wrong, justice and injustice, are guilty of perpetuating a caricature of moral authority that invites and nurtures the kind of criminality that violates public safety. Embracing a sympathetic ideology that lacks common sense to justify the continued harboring of illegal alien criminals is socially destructive and a moral shame.

And if sanctuary cities shelter the guilty and the criminal at the expense of the innocent, who or what protects the innocent victims of such policies?

Christian or not, politicians and those who support the postmodern notion of sanctuary city policies violate the law, common sense, and Leviticus 19:15 which says, “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.”

Sanctuary-Cities

Advertisements

Obama Scripture Reference Undermines De Facto Amnesty Plan

ObamaSpeechThumbnail

Last night, President Obama addressed the nation in an attempt to justify his decision to act unilaterally in deferring deportation for up to five million illegal immigrants.

Obama’s de facto amnesty speech omitted a number of things- such as how he “evolved” and can now act through executive order when he previously, several times over, argued that he couldn’t; why he refused to wait until the new Congress was sworn in so they could pass an immigration-reform bill; and how his imminent action of undermining current immigration laws were constitutional.

But Obama did find the opportunity to cite the Bible to religiously defend his imperial activity. The intention of the biblical reference was to persuade (deceive) the country into believing that he has the moral authority to act alone in this particular capacity toward illegal immigrants. What sanctimony.

Toward the end of his speech, Obama said,

Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger — we were strangers once, too. My fellow Americans, we are and always will be a nation of immigrants. We were strangers once, too.”

Of course Obama neutralizes the reference by saying ‘scripture’ rather than the ‘Bible’. I’m picky, but still. He also doesn’t give the ‘scripture’s’ exact reference, which is curious.

The reference could be Exodus 22:21 (New American Standard Bible) which reads,

You shall not wrong a stranger or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Or it could be Exodus 23:9 (again, NASB) which reads,

You shall not oppress a stranger, since you yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.

There are many other verses in the Bible that say similar things- among them Leviticus 19:34 (English Standard Version), “You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” and Deuteronomy 10:19 (English Standard Version), which reads, “Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”

Sounds moral and decent, right?  Sure does.

The problem is the verse that Obama appeals to religiously defend himself actually undermines his reason executive order and his open-border stance.

The Hebrew word (ger, gwr) translated “stranger” or “sojourner,” in Exodus 22:21- along with Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 10:19- denotes an immigrant who entered Israel, followed the process of law, had legal sponsorship of the government (or a family), and upon recognition of citizenship status (legal, resident immigrant), fully embraced– and was subjected to– the laws of those among whom they dwelled.

Whoops!

In other words, during the process of- and in gaining legal status, these ‘strangers’ assimilated and followed the laws of those whom they sought cultural and material benefit. They also received the same legal protections as the native born and were considered permanent residents. These ‘strangers’ didn’t game the system or take advantage of those whom they requested refuge. Their new leader (or government) wasn’t a proud and arrogant conduit of further law breaking.

It’s painfully obvious that Obama doesn’t read the Bible that often, but the very least he could do with accessibility of his so-called spiritual advisors is to find a verse that doesn’t directly undermine the point(s) he’s trying to make or the unlawful action(s) he’s trying to defend.

Immigration, Capitulation and the Death of the GOP

The Republicans in Congress are eagerly intent in participating in their own demise.  Since November, when the Republicans lost an election that was theirs for the taking, the so-called Grand Old Party has been listening to- and taking advice from- their political adversaries on how to make themselves more appealing to Hispanics.

I’ve said and written elsewhere before that the Republican party needs to employ a new generation of messengers to deliver their message if they’re to be successful in expanding the political influence of their party.  These messengers are preferably admitted conservatives and under the age of 50; they don’t wear check pants or wingtips, they’re not members of country clubs and aren’t pasty white fellows who reek condescension.

And though the Republican party has a number of people who fit that exact description, they purposely neglect to use them.

Instead, they’ve chosen- beyond comprehension- to listen to Democrats to formulate their strategy in expanding their appeal and influence to minorities (specifically Hispanics) and young people. What sense does it make to listen to one’s political opposition when creating and implementing a plan to expand political influence?  Only a party that lacks common sense, credible leadership, and who would rather play ‘not to lose’ than to actually win does something as noticeably and embarrassingly stupid as this.

How stupid?

Motivated by a combination of Democrat deception and the lack of testicular fortitude to practically engage this serious issue, Republicans in both houses are intent on passing a so-called comprehensive immigration bill that would have the effect of normalizing more than eleven million illegal immigrants. Though the devil lay in the details- in tandem with Democrat party credibility- the bill amounts to what many consider to be nothing short of amnesty prior to closing the borders, which would thwart more would-be illegals from taking advantage of congressional stupidity.

And increasing the numbers of Democrat voters.

In other words, Republicans- led by the Gang of Eight- foolishly believe that offering a relaxed path toward legality or citizenship to a group of people who willingly and knowingly broke the law will endear them to Hispanics, increasing Hispanic support come midterm elections in ’14 and in the presidential election in 2016.

Morons.

How breathtakingly naive is the GOP in their foolish attempt at courting Hispanics?  According to Census Bureau data, Hispanics only accounted for 8.4 percent of the electorate in the 2012 election.  8.4 percent.

As a parenthetical, blacks accounted for 13.4 percent of the electorate. The fact that Republicans are willing to fall on their political swords for Hispanic amor when blacks represent a greater percentage of the electorate is indicative of the lack of political capital blacks have as a result of their unquestioning loyalty to Democrats (even at the expense of  their own self-interest).  It’s a major reason why Republicans won’t take the time to create a credible strategy to improve their messaging among black Americans.  They’ll simply continue their half-assed attempts in appealing to blacks, which many will argue is a justified course of action, considering.

Returning to the incompetency of congressional Republicans. They are willing to commit political suicide for 8.4 percent of the electorate.

One of the captains of the sinking ship Republicans refuse to abandon is Marco Rubio.  At one point, Rubio was seen by many as the potential (conservative) savior of the Republican party.  He’s bright, articulate, he’s an effective communicator and seemed to possess the necessary qualities of leadership.

Not anymore.

Rubio, either through political naivete’ or an inflated sense of importance from reading his own press, has allowed himself to be irrevocably attached to- and politically cornered by- this sham of an immigration bill.  As information began to leak regarding how bad this bill was becoming, Rubio chose to double down on his support for the bill rather than take a stand against the detrimental changes.

When more information became known regarding the infinitely flawed bill, rather than admitting the error of his ways and dropping his support for the bill- potentially salvaging his political future, he’s confusingly maintained his support for the bill further souring his name in the mouths of many of his previous supporters.

Whatever the case, Republicans are engaging in their party’s self-destruction by attempting to legitimize this bill.  I’m not sure if they’re bright enough or care enough to know that this bill isn’t meant to pass.  It’s simply a political tactic used by Democrats to expose their vulnerability (toward Hispanics) and politically neutralize them in the upcoming elections.

Since Republicans are complicit in their own self-destruction, I created a video to celebrate their achievement.