Today's New York Post posted a story about the Justice Department's legal battle against Arizona's immigration law.
The article opens with this thought:
"Last week, the Justice Department made an astonishing statement about its unprecedented lawsuit to stop the Arizona illegal-immigration law. Attorney General Eric Holder's spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, claimed that it was appropriate to go after Arizona, but inappropriate to stop "sanctuary cities."
"Schmaler said: "There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law. . . That's what Arizona has done in this case.""
There are a few major problems with this statement--the first being that it is not true! Federal law forbids sanctuary cities; Arizona's law is in compliance with federal immigration law.
According to the article:
"In 1996, Congress prohibited sanctuary cities in no uncertain terms: A "local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual" (8 USC Sec. 1373(a))."
One of the problems with sanctuary cities is that illegal alien gangs operate quite freely in them. Logically, illegal-alien gangs like Mara Salvatrucha 13 prefer to operate in cities where the police can't report them to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Why risk being deported when you don't have to?
The ability of the Obama Administration to ignore the wishes (and safety) of the American people is breathtaking. Hopefully, as support for secure borders grows, they will see the error of their ways.
Leave a comment