By declaring their resistance to federal law regarding the prosecution of those here illegally, so called "sanctuary cities" are, in effect, trying to secede from the Union. They are taking a stand against the rule of law and for the unlawful protection of those who have willfully broken the law in order to come to the United States.
By declaring their independence from the Union they are setting themselves up as entities that are either outside the reach of federal law or somehow above the law. While, in some cases, their motives may be humanitarian in nature, most of the time these city, county and state governments are acting with their own selfish motives in mind. Those residing in the United States illegally represent a large potential voting block as well as a cheap source of labor. There are an estimated eleven million people living in our nation -- with some sources pegging the total at closer to thirty million -- who are here illegally. They are in almost every instance being protected by Democrat politicians who favor legalizing their status in order to get their votes. It is in Democrat strongholds that we see the sanctuary city movement in its most unlawful forms. This is where you find practices that not only allow for the harboring of those here illegally from arrest and prosecution, but where actual felons and dangerous criminals are sheltered from Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
It is Democrat politicians, for the most part, who are advocating the most for the legalization of those who entered our country without following the legal immigration process. They believe that, if given the vote, the majority of those living here now illegally would vote overwhelmingly for Democrat Party candidates. In fact, I would not have been surprised, if Hillary Clinton had won the recent election, this country may not have seen another Republican president elected during our lifetimes.
The stakes are very high, and not only because of how a potential bloc of voters may affect the future of this great nation. We need to address the problem of people living in America illegally. They do need to be brought out of the shadows and into a law-abiding relationship with our government. And we need to secure our borders.
But what is truly alarming is to see how so many on the Left view the law itself. The way they see it, if a law doesn't suit them or their needs, then they don't have to obey that law. So, if they don't approve of the law that makes many who entered this country lawbreakers, they simply ignore that law or place roadblocks in the way of enforcement of that law -- like refusing to notify ICE when a known felon is in local custody before releasing him or her back into the community. Folks, why would anyone want to protect a known felon who may be a danger to society? How can such a person possibly have the public's best interest at heart?
What I am really curious about is what the Left would say if honest, law-abiding citizens started acting like that. What would the response be if a city or county or a state declared itself a sanctuary for the unborn? That abortions would no longer be performed within its borders. Would there not be a "hue and cry" to shut down such a system before it ever got started? Would there not be numerous editorials in the New York Times and the Washington Post against such a movement? Would not CNN and MSNBC and others of their ilk begin lamenting the lost rights of women everywhere? Would not such a sanctuary for the unborn be quickly compared to life under ISIS or to life in North Korea?
But, especially, would there not be a constant drumbeat in the media that a woman's right to choose is established law? That the Supreme Court has ruled and thus the law of the land must be obeyed? Folks, do you see the hypocrisy of the Left? They pick and choose, but you and I better not even think about it.
Illegal immigration is but one of several issues where the Left is rebelling against the laws of the land. There are free speech issues on our college campuses raised mostly to keep conservatives from practicing their right to free speech. While tolerance is passionately preached to those considered to be bigots by progressives, violence is often tolerated -- even advocated -- when it is used against conservatives. I have come to believe that no one is more intolerant than an "enlightened" Leftist. If given control, it would most likely be, "one man, one vote, one time." After that, it's off to the concentration camp for you.
Another example is on the issue of marijuana. Several states have legalized the sale of marijuana for recreational use even though it is against federal law to do so. But if a state would pass a law against abortion, the first argument against it would be that federal law gives a woman that right.
A nation divided against itself cannot stand.
Sam Byrnes is a Gentry-area resident and weekly contributor to the Eagle Observer. He may be contacted by email at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Editorial on 04/26/2017