I would appear that we now have another gung-ho supporter of that insane policy which allows an increasing number of our cities, over 200 at last count, to declare themselves ‘sanctuary cities’. These being locales which Barry allows to leave unenforced federal immigration laws, while at the same time feeling justified in exposing their citizens to what has become an increasing level of violence posed by those who have absolutely no business being able to walk our city streets.
And it is on his campaign website that the most recent of those to come out in support of this questionable policy, Democrat presidential candidate Marty O’Malley, declared on Tuesday that, if elected, he would unilaterally grant amnesty to millions more illegal immigrations, push for unlimited immigration, and permanently disenfranchise American voters who seek to curb our current extreme immigration policies. I’m not quite sure I should make of this.
And also part of Marty’s official presidential platform is a promise to completely dismantle interior immigration enforcement and to actually encourage state and local governments to defy federal immigration law. Am I the only one who thinks that is a rather odd pledge to hear coming from a man running to be the office that is, according to our Constitution, responsible for ensuring that ALL of the nation’s laws, not just the ones that he agrees with, are “faithfully executed.”
States, so it would seem, are only autonomous insofar as they refuse to obey laws liberals don’t like. Such as, many states and localities have set policies that limit their cooperation with immigration authorities. The intention of these policies is, or so we are being repeatedly told, to protect residents’ rights and build trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities. But as far as protecting residents, I’m thinking there isn’t much we can point to as being an actual success story.
We’re told that many sheriffs and law enforcement officers strongly support these idiotic policies because they allow local enforcement to more effectively promote public safety. Now perhaps if you’re sheriff like the one they have in San Francisco who has his own criminal record, you might actually support such insanity. But if you’re one who genuinely cares more about keeping law abiding people safe and less about politics, I doubt you’re someone who supports this cockamamie policy.
Marty said that as president he will also strongly oppose Congressional efforts that disrespect the autonomy of states and localities by coercing them, through the withholding of federal funding or other mechanisms, to rescind these policies. Now to my way of thinking there’s a word for that sort of thing, it called blackmail, or am I misinterpreting what’s being said here. And is that really the sort of behavior that we should expect, or that we deserve, from our president?
It’s on this point that Marty agrees with RINO presidential candidate Marco Rubio, which should tell you all you need to know about Rubio. Rubio, by the way, still advocates for his failed Gang of Eight bill which also would have given sanctuary cities ironclad funding guarantees, allowing them to harbor dangerous illegal aliens who go on to shed more American blood and commit more crimes. Which may be one reason that Marco seems to be slipping rather badly in most of the recent polls I’ve seen.
Last Friday, Marty defended sanctuary cities, in Spanish. Nothing should be done about the shooting death of a young white woman at the hands of a five-times deported Mexican illegal alien who told police he chose to live in San Francisco because it was a sanctuary city. He wrote in a statement. “It’s lamentable that the senseless and tragic act of violence that occurred in San Francisco is prompting a rush to judgment and finger pointing: we can and should do better.” In others words, shut up and bury Kathryn Steinle without protest.
Marty’s commitment to preserving sanctuary cities while opening the floodgates of Third World immigration and shutting down detention centers all but ensure that that Americans will continue to face an increasing level of risk of being murdered, raped, and robbed by illegal immigrants who are allowed into the country. Personally, I’m just not seeing how advocating such an insane policy can be, or should be, seen as being any sort of a resume enhancer for president, but then I’m not a liberal.
And please excuse me if I sound a bit too much like a liberal here, in other words cold, callous and uncaring, but I truly do hope that the next innocent victim who falls prey to one these illegal scumbags also just so happens to be the son or daughter of one of those imbecilic liberals like Marty who remain quite vocale in their support of these so-called sanctuaries for those in this country illegally. And is it only me who sees this sort of policy as being rather selective?
Why is it that if some cities are free to ignore immigration laws, other cities, or even states for that matter, can’t ignore federal gun laws? Why can’t they simply declare themselves as being ‘sanctuary cities’ when it comes to whether or not they wish to enforce current federal gun laws? As it is, there are many gun laws already on the books, like so many of our immigration laws, that go unenforced, while at the same time we hear from so many on the left that what we need are even more laws.