Washington Post Totally Wants Trump To Negotiate On Sanctuary Cities

The Editorial Board sees no reason to punish millions of Americans by withholding financial aid to those cities who are sanctuaries for illegal aliens. I’m still waiting for the editorial arguing that Mr. Obama shouldn’t have threatened to do the same when it comes to school systems refusing to implement policies that allow gender confused boys to enter the bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms of underage girls.

Trump pledged to ‘end’ sanctuary cities. Common sense, not threats, should guide him.

PRESIDENT-ELECT Donald Trump’s threat to deport 2 million to 3 million illegal immigrants with criminal records — a flimsy number thatcrumbles upon scrutiny — has caused tremors in some of the nation’s biggest metropolitan areas, especially those considered “sanctuary cities.” In fact, while some localities impose limits on working with federal immigration authorities, a large majority — including most regarded as sanctuary cities — do cooperate when it comes to helping to transfer and deport dangerous and violent felons scheduled to be released from jail or prison.

Usually they are forced to do so, because the Feds already have detainers on the illegals, and the jails are typically run by the county sheriff’s department or the state, not the cities. And, yes, the majority of cities do work with Los Federales on this. That’s a strawman argument, because it’s the ones who don’t that are the problem.

The question is, what happens if Mr. Trump wants to go further by enlisting local law enforcement agencies to hand over or help sweep up undocumented immigrants convicted for small-time shoplifting, driving without a license and other minor offenses? The issue — part of a “negotiation,” in the words of Reince Priebus, Mr. Trump’s pick for White House chief of staff — is which crimes are sufficiently serious that they should trigger deportation, and reasonably require cooperation in that regard from local officials.

This is prognostication without evidence that it might happen. Regardless, local law enforcement is, by law, supposed to inform ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) when they have detained an illegal alien.

What crimes are sufficiently serious? Well, being in the country illegally would be a start.

A common-sense test should apply to federal policies and local ones. A fair-minded federal standard would not require local law enforcement agencies to be pressed into service as deportation agencies chasing or handing over undocumented immigrants who have committed minor offenses. To do so would subvert relations between law enforcement and local immigrant communities, in which trust and cooperation are critical.

The only ones suggesting that local law enforcement might be pressed into being La Migra are the members of the WP Editorial Board, and then they set the conditions where they shouldn’t.

A fair-minded local standard would ensure that police, sheriffs and corrections officials see to it that dangerous criminals — violent felons and those convicted of multiple serious offenses, drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers — do not slip through the cracks.

The WPEB goes on to note the situation in which Kate Steinle (the article doesn’t even have the courtesy of printing her name) was murdered by an illegal alien, who was back in the country yet again illegally, who had a long rapsheet of felonies, who “slipped through the cracks” in San Francisco. In other words, the SF law enforcement ignored the federal detainer. This is rather the point in cracking down on sanctuary cities, places illegals, especially those with criminal records/wanted for criminal offenses, can stream to, know that law enforcement will mostly ignore them, and, if they are picked up, the elected officials will force them to be let go.

The tricky part is that there is no single accepted definition of a sanctuary city. Some, including New York, cooperate in handing over some felons, but not others, to federal authorities at their release date, depending on the severity of the crime. Others, such as Cook County in Illinois, which includes Chicago, refuse to turn over undocumented immigrants unless federal agents obtain a court warrant.

Perhaps they should have read the Ohio Jobs and Justice PAC page on sanctuary cities, which defines them and lists them, essentially the first to ever do so, and cities and counties are continuously added, ones which are primarily run by Democrats.

The Trump administration is entitled to seek fair and consistent standards that protect communities from dangerous criminals without poisoning relations between local law enforcement and immigrant communities. Better to negotiate terms than punish millions of Americans by suspending billions in federal funding to localities.

You mean like how Arizona was threatened by the Obama administration over their illegal aliens bill, SB1070? Or states were threatened by Team Obama over their gay marriage restrictions, typically passed by the citizens voting on new state constitution amendments? Or how NC was threatened over HB2, which stops state, county, and local governments from forcing private businesses to accomodate the gender confused, as well as not allowing them to use government property as such (even though there were no penalties)?

As far as fair and consistent standards, they are already on the books! There are federal laws about this. The Democratic Party run sanctuary cities are not in legal compliance.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “Washington Post Totally Wants Trump To Negotiate On Sanctuary Cities”

  1. Trish McNamara says:

    No. Here is your deal, just enforce the laws, or lose your federal funding. Plain and simple As is the fact that if you are here illegally AND commit a crime on top of that one, you don’t get to stay here. Not even in our prisons, which are over-run with illegals costing the tax payer more funding.
    It really isn’t difficult.

  2. gitarcarver says:

    I am not sure I like the idea of “do this or lose federal funding” in any specific case or incident.

    Don’t follow the “Dear Colleague” letter from the Department of Education? Well, you can lose your federal funding.

    Don’t follow the nutritional guidelines as outlined by the Feds for schools? (Even though the guidelines produce bad food and not enough food for athletes) lose your federal funding.

    The State of New York is looking at losing Federal funding for highways because they have signs for rest areas / food / lodging that have “I LOVE NEW YORK” on them which the Feds say is “driver informational overload.” Change them or lose funding.

    The problem is that the government reaches so far into the pockets of people that they believe that the money is theirs. In many cases, unelected bureaucrats are the ones making the decisions on the rules which result in the “do this or lose funding” threat.

    Congress needs to roll back the rule-making ability of agencies and let elected officials be held accountable for the threats and what is essentially extortion from the Federal government.

  3. gitarcarver says:

    Plain and simple As is the fact that if you are here illegally AND commit a crime on top of that one, you don’t get to stay here.

    In a minority of cases, the original country won’t accept the criminal back into their country as they don’t want violent criminals anymore than the US does.

    What is the solution for that? What do you do with those people when the original country won’t accept the person deported individual?

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    What do you do with those people when the original country won’t accept the person deported individual?

    Exile in St. Louis.
    There’s a little guy there who seems to not have a problem with them.

  5. Stosh says:

    {In a minority of cases, the original country won’t accept the criminal back into their country as they don’t want violent criminals anymore than the US does.

    What is the solution for that? What do you do with those people when the original country won’t accept the person deported individual?}

    Fairly simple, if a country will not accept a deportee, they evidently don’t need any foreign aid of any kind, or favored trade status. Effective immediately….

  6. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    So you find it logical to give a rats ass whether or not an illegal criminals country of origin wants him back but you think we are some how obligated to take him? They have to take him, he’s their citizen. They can shoot him if they want but they have to take him.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    Fairly simple, if a country will not accept a deportee, they evidently don’t need any foreign aid of any kind, or favored trade status. Effective immediately….

    With all due respect, I am not sure that I am willing to do those things based on the illegal actions of a few individuals. That doesn’t seem that the punishment to the foreign nations is inline with the severity of the deportation.

    Maybe locking the criminals up and charging the foreign governments (via a reduction in aid) could be the answer.

    Alternatively, there is always a quick venture into the airspace of the country where the criminal is parachuted out of the plane. That might work.

  8. gitarcarver says:

    They have to take him, he’s their citizen. They can shoot him if they want but they have to take him.

    Deportation between countries is governed by treaties. If the agreement says they don’t have to take him, they don’t.

    I am not saying whether the situation is logical or not. \

    I am saying it exists.

  9. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    You are correct of course, gitarcarver. It was my frustration with the very idea that got the better of me.

  10. gitarcarver says:

    Rev Hoagie,

    Please don’t get me wrong. Those cases are few and far between. They should not be a road black to deportation of criminals, but rather a pebble in the road to deal with.

  11. Jeffery says:

    Exile in St. Louis.
    There’s a little guy there who seems to not have a problem with them.

    St. Louis has welcomed 10s of thousands of Muslim immigrants over the past few decades. They have made St. Louis a richer community. We have a Muslim family 3 houses down, in fact, just across the street from my friend and neighbor, Joe, who still has a trump sign in his front yard.

    http://fusion.net/story/238682/the-miracle-of-little-bosnia/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialshare&utm_content=theme_top_desktop

    Currently, there are 29 Syrian refugees already living in St. Louis, said Anna Crosslin, President and CEO of the International Institute of St. Louis, the city’s largest refugee resettlement nonprofit. Her group has sponsored each of the 29. “They were all doing very well, but the rhetoric we’ve been hearing in the news has hit them hard,” she said.

    “We were planning to bring 500 more” this year, she said, “but that depends on the federal government now.”

    By nature, conservatives are fearful and distrustful of strangers and anyone outside their immediate “tribe”.

  12. drowningpuppies says:

    So little guy has no problem with violent criminal aliens who should be deported… or he can’t read.

  13. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    By nature, conservatives are fearful and distrustful of strangers and anyone outside their immediate “tribe”.

    And yet it’s you radical insane leftists who need safe spaces and trigger warnings and who are scared to death of words. You yourself has more than once hinted at a fear of Christians. We’re the deplorables, remember? So WHO is fearful of those outside their immediate “tribe”? Seems more like you are. BTW, do you guys still have “tribes” in St. Louis (named for a Christian saint, Hahahahaha).

Bad Behavior has blocked 6120 access attempts in the last 7 days.