NY Times Tells Cities To Violate Federal Law And Be Sanctuaries For Illegal Aliens,

Lawrence Downes is a long time member of the NY Times Editorial Board, whose focus is on immigration. One would think that he is aware of federal statues against sheltering people who are unlawfully present in the United States, and that federal immigration law takes precedence over state and local law. Yet, we get this bit of insanity, which tells other cities and states to follow the example of Santa Clara, Ca., and be sanctuary cities

A ‘Sanctuary City’ Seizes the Moment, and the Name

Cities of immigrants, it’s time. Time to declare yourselves sanctuaries. To wear the label proudly, defiantly, even if the White House and its allies threaten you and utter all kinds of falsehoods against you.

President Trump is in power; his nativist ideology is now fully armed and operational. He laid it out with alarming clarity in his “America first” address to Congress this week, painting unauthorized immigrants as vicious criminals, and refugees as dangerous undesirables, using both groups as scapegoats and targets. The homeland security secretary, John Kelly, has given his boss a battle plan. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol are carrying it out, combing the country, seizing and terrifying the innocent.

If they’re “unauthorized”, that means they’re in the country illegally. Which means they shouldn’t be here. Which means they should be fearful, because they aren’t innocent. And a high ranking member of the NYTEB just proclaimed, in print, that cities should violate federal immigration law.

Now comes the typical lies and distortions

The sweeps, arrests and intimidation share a brutal randomness. A young “Dreamer” gives a news conference after her father and brother are detained — and is arrested herself. ICE stakes out a courthouse to grab a survivor of domestic violence. Border agents ask a planeload of passengers — on a domestic flight — to show their papers.

We still aren’t 100% sure why the first, Daniela Vargas, was detained, other than she allowed her DACA to lapse back in November, and, after a raid which saw her brother and father detained, an illegal handgun was found in the house.

The survivor of domestic violence? Ervin Gonzalez is a criminal absconder, having been deported six times and coming back illegally. Those deportations were for crimes including possession of stolen mail, false imprisonment and assault.

Border Agents were looking for a known criminal who was unlawfully present, and doing their jobs.

Is it any wonder the citizens distrust the media, when a screed like the above is published without the requisite information?

Many people are confused by the term “sanctuary city,” which has no strict definition. Mr. Trump uses it as an epithet to mean immigrant-loving communities that allow alien criminals to roam free. Used that way, the label is false; no city can suspend the rule of law or keep out the feds. But rather than tolerating such slander, cities should seize back the term, defining sanctuaries as places that stand for reason in the face of overreaching, unjust and often lawless federal enforcement.

They should do what Santa Ana, Calif., has done. It is a city of 335,000, in the heart of Orange County, whose City Council has passed one of the boldest and most far-reaching sanctuary ordinances in the state. In a county that has long been known as a haven of white Republicans, Santa Ana is a mixed-race, mixed-income, All-American town. Its population is about 46 percent immigrant, and its mayor and its six City Council members are all Latino.

The rest continues in the same vein: essentially, Downes recommends violations of federal law.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

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

19 Responses to “NY Times Tells Cities To Violate Federal Law And Be Sanctuaries For Illegal Aliens,”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Here’s what cons don’t, and won’t, get. By nature cons are authoritarians, so resisting authority is anathema to them. Cons may pay lip service to Rosa Parks but a con would never have the courage or even the inclination to defy authority and sit in the front of the bus. It’s not part of authoritarian DNA, and is why when in power authoritarians rule with an iron fist. Right-wing authoritarians are different from normal folk that way.

    An authoritarian could not lead a national non-violent revolt as Mohandas Gandhi did. Or stand up to Bull Connor. RWA’s call abortion murder, yet do not fight to prevent it. RWA’s never fight for freedoms or equality, but only to preserve privilege and to rule.

    In absolute defiance to what is perceived to be unjust laws, sanctuary cities are telling the federal government to compel them to comply by force for the world to see.

    From an RWA perspective it would be easiest and best and indeed right if all Americans would agreed with them. So, yes, sanctuary cities, the NYTEB and many others are advocating disobeying federal laws. Either the laws will change or federal troops officers will be invading American cities to hunt down 11 million undocumented residents. This demonstrates the commitment of these Americans to their beliefs.

    • By nature cons are authoritarians

      Yeah, because all that stuff we discuss, like limited government, states rights, personal responsibility, getting government out of our lives as much as possible, reducing the size and scope of government, liberty, freedom, etc, are all smokescreens for our need to install an anuthoritarian government which does exactly the opposite of what we say.


  2. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    I assume after that ridiculous analogy of what you misname “cons” and “RWA” or whatever your attempted slur of the day is you have finally taken in an immigrant family.

    This demonstrates the commitment of these Americans to their beliefs.

    Demonstrate your commitment you hypocrite. I don’t think any people in American history have demonstrated more powerfully their commitment to their beliefs than the Republican Party in our fight to free the slaves you democrats refused to liberate. In case you haven’t noticed we Republicans have been fighting against abortion since 1973 it is you immoral, genocidal democrats who insist on murdering babies.


  3. Jeffery says:


    The most obvious mistake you make is conflating liberalism with civil war era Democrats, who were conservatives. But you know that and like most RWA’s continue the conceited lie. If you had been and adult in 1860 you would have been a Democrat fighting for Southern sovereignty. And I would have been an abolitionist.

    “Fighting against” the murder of babies. Fucking pathetic, old man. Pathetic. Any real man who actually believed that abortion was the murder of babies would arm himself and block the doors. A real man would oppose a federal law that allowed the murder of babies by standing up for the babies. In fact, you “say” that abortion is murder, but you don’t believe it yourself… or you’re not a man of substance. Demonstrate your commitment, you hypocrite.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Any real man… blah, blah

      Like little guy would know what a real man does…

      Thanks for the early morning chuckle, little fake soldier.

    • Rev.Hoagie® says:

      I know you’re a liar. I know you’re a hypocrite. You know the Democrats are the party of slavery then and infanticide now and the Republicans were against both. You can parse your conservative/liberal bull crap all you want but they are the facts. Not being able to admit it makes you a liar.

      If you want moslem immigrants here then take a family into your home. Feed, clothe, shelter the. Pay for their education and healthcare and do their time when they do a crime. Until you’re willing to do that you’re a liar AND a hypocrite.

      And what’s “Fucking pathetic” is you and your slithering immoral hateful Nazi party calling yourselves democrats. You murder babies and you like it. You hate America. You hate God. But most of all you hate yourself for the vile filth you are and project that onto others. You and your party are out of your collective minds with hate and revenge. If you could you’d imprison or execute every single conservative and Christian you could. We can’t even talk with you animals any more because you don’t want to talk only protest and hate everybody who disagrees.


    • Dana says:

      Jeffrey tells us:

      If you had been and (sic) adult in 1860 you would have been a Democrat fighting for Southern sovereignty. And I would have been an abolitionist.

      Given that the Rt Rev Hoagie® lives outside of foul, fetid, fuming, foggy, filthy Philadelphia, and you live in where, Missouri?, the odds are that you’d not have been an abolitionist, but a Confederate, whilst the Reverend would have been a Chaplain for the 2nd California regiment. (The Philadelphia brigade initially had its regiments called California.)

      Philadelphia during the American Civil War was an important source of troops, money, weapons, medical care, and supplies for the Union.

      Before the Civil War, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania’s economic connections with the South made much of the city sympathetic to South’s grievances with the North. Once the war began, many Philadelphians’ opinion shifted in support for the Union and the war against the Confederate States of America. More than 50 infantry and cavalry regiments were recruited fully or in part in Philadelphia. The city, was the main source for uniforms for the Union Army, also manufactured weapons and built warships. Philadelphia was also the location of the two largest military hospitals in the United States: Satterlee Hospital and Mower Hospital.

      In 1863, Philadelphia was threatened by Confederate invasion during the Gettysburg Campaign. Entrenchments were built to defend the city but the Confederate Army was turned back at Wrightsville, Pennsylvania, and at the Battle of Gettysburg. The Civil War’s main legacy in Philadelphia was the rise of the Republican Party. Despised before the war because of its anti-slavery position, the party created a political machine that would dominate Philadelphia politics for almost a century.

      No one can know how he would have felt or believed or behaved had he grown up under the very different circumstances of place and time during the antebellum United States. For you to claim that you’d have been an abolitionist is nonsensical, because it is something you cannot know.

  4. Dana says:

    From the editors of The New York Times, July 28, 2007:

    Humanity v. Hazleton

    A federal judge has dealt what we can only hope is a decisive blow against a dangerous trend of freelance immigration policies by local governments. Judge James M. Munley of the central Pennsylvania district, struck down ordinances in the town of Hazleton that sought to harshly punish undocumented immigrants for trying to live and work there, and employers and landlords for providing them with homes and jobs.

    The ruling was a well-earned embarrassment for Mayor Louis J. Barletta and his proclaimed goal of making Hazleton “one of the toughest places in the United States” for illegal immigrants. In doing so, Judge Munley laid down basic truths that every American should remember.

    First, immigration is a federal responsibility. State and local governments have no right to usurp or upend a vast, “carefully drawn federal statutory scheme” that governs who enters the country and the conditions under which immigrants stay, study, work and naturalize. Congress may be botching the job, but it has not delegated it.

    Second, the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection applies to all persons, not just citizens. The presumption that the 14th Amendment can be set aside while immigrants are hunted down and punished is widespread but false. The judge wrote: “We cannot say clearly enough that persons who enter this country without legal authorization are not stripped immediately of all their rights because of this single illegal act.”

    It is not yet clear when or whether Hazleton’s vigilantism will finally be stifled. Mr. Barletta says he will appeal. He and others across the country can be expected to keep concocting ever-more-inventive strategies to deliver pain to immigrants.

    But that is a legal and moral dead end. As long as people like Mr. Barletta persist in misusing the law to serve their prejudices, they will make the immigration system an ever more incoherent muddle. They will thwart reasonable efforts to grapple with the opportunities and problems borne in with the influx of newcomers. And they will continue to dehumanize not only their victims, but themselves.

    Mayor Barletta says he is angry at the federal failure to control immigration. Good for him; he should join the club. But he should realize that it was his side — his restrictionist soul mates in the United States Senate — that last month took the most ambitious attempt in a generation to restore lawfulness and order to immigration, loaded it with unworkable cruelties, then pushed it into a ditch. They celebrated their victory, but their shortsighted insistence on border enforcement above all else will leave places like Hazleton to grapple with a failed immigration policy for years to come.

    A version of this editorial appears in print on , on Page A14 of the New York edition with the headline: Humanity v. Hazleton.

    It would seem that the Editors were all for exclusive federal control of immigration . . . when exclusive federal control went their way. Today? Not so much.

    • Hank_M says:

      Good catch Dana.
      The Times, as with the left today, change their minds in a heartbeat depending on who’s in power.

      • Dana says:

        Well, I knew it was there; I just had to search for it, is all. I live about thirty miles away from Hazleton. Lou Barletta rode his anti-illegal immigration ideas into the House of Representatives, unseating (on his second try) a long-term Democrat.

    • Remember when the people at the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, etc, were denouncing Arizona’s SB107 for usurping federal law, claiming that only Los Federales had the right to establish immigration law? Interesting how they’ve now flipped.

  5. […] NY Times Tells Cities To Violate Federal Law And Be Sanctuaries For Illegal Aliens […]

  6. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    Just so you know Jeffery, I had six ancestors who fought in the Civil War, two were brothers. I even have an old photo of the brothers standing, smoking what appears to be clay pipes and wearing Bowler hats, on the step of their home at 12th and Spruce Sts. in Philly. The house is still there and still in the family. They all fought for the North. They were all Republicans and I have “Abe” campaign pins from them in a family album. My family were and are Northern Yankees so don’t presume to tell me which side I would be on when all available evidence points North. Missouri having been a slave state doesn’t bode well for you as a democrat. Since I have never, ever seen you disagree with whatever the democrat narrative du jour is regardless of how preposterous, I doubt you would have not been pro democrat and pro slavery then just as you are today regarding blacks on the leftist plantation in ghettos.

    Furthermore, unlike you every single male in my family has served in uniform since our arrival in America in 1752, (then in British uniform to kill French) and since the founding of the United States of America has served our nation in every single war from the Revolution to the Middle East today. In short, my family has killed more of America’s enemies then you are currently housing at your own expense. So yeah, dickhead. We DID build that. Hypocrite!

    Democrats fought to expand slavery while Republicans fought to end it.
    Democrats passed those discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws.
    Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery.
    Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery.
    Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision.
    Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers.
    Democrats fought against anti-lynching laws.
    Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, is well-known for having been a “Kleagle” in the Ku Klux Klan.
    Democrat Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage.
    Democrats passed the Repeal Act of 1894 that overturned civil right laws enacted by Republicans.
    Democrats declared that they would rather vote for a “yellow dog” than vote for a Republican, because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks.
    Democrat President Woodrow Wilson, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913.
    Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s first appointment to the Supreme Court was a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama.
    Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s choice for vice president in 1944 was Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922.
    Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching.
    Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed integration of the armed forces.
    Democrat Senators Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr. and Robert Byrd were the chief opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
    Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson.
    Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
    Democrat public safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor, in Birmingham, Ala., unleashed vicious dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators.
    Democrats were who Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the other protesters were fighting.
    Democrat Georgia Governor Lester Maddox “brandished an ax hammer to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant.
    Democrat Governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963, declaring there would be segregation forever.
    Democrat Arkansas Governor Faubus tried to prevent desegregation of Little Rock public schools.
    Democrat Senator John F. Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act.
    Democrat President John F. Kennedy opposed the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King.
    Democrat President John F. Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI.
    Democrat President Bill Clinton’s mentor was U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, an Arkansas Democrat and a supporter of racial segregation.
    Democrat President Bill Clinton interned for J. William Fulbright in 1966-67.
    Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright signed the Southern Manifesto opposing the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.
    Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright joined with the Dixiecrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964.
    Democrat Senator J. William Fulbright voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
    Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration.

    Democrats opposed:

    The Emancipation Proclamation
    The 13th Amendment
    The 14th Amendment
    The 15th Amendment
    The Reconstruction Act of 1867
    The Civil Rights of 1866
    The Enforcement Act of 1870
    The Forced Act of 1871
    The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
    The Civil Rights Act of 1875
    The Freeman Bureau
    The Civil Rights Act of 1957
    The Civil Rights Act of 1960
    The United State Civil Rights Commission

  7. david7134 says:

    Actually, Jeff would have been a Jayhawk. One of the terrorist who supported the north and raped and killed women and children.

  8. Jeffery says:

    You lads would have all been slaveholders and you know it. Owning and abusing other humans is a conservative trait.

    Hoggie, Seems as if we touched a nerve with you. In fact you should feel guilty if you truly think that abortion is murder yet you hypocritically do nothing about it. And no, we didn’t read more than a few lines of your unhinged harangue.

    Actually dave, jayhawkers were anti-slavery Kansans, not Missourians.

    Dana makes a good point, that none of us know how we would have acted in different social order. But it seems likely that people today who dislike non-whites with all their being would have been conservative Democrats a century ago.

  9. david7134 says:

    I am well aware of who Jayhawkers were. As to owning slaves, yes, some of my family did and I am proud of it. I also want my reparations for the government taking them.

  10. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    The only “nerve” you touch is the stupidity nerve. When faced with the facts that democrats were slavers you close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and go lalalalal. Of course you didn’t read my “unhinged harangue” as you call it because that would force you to face the truth and you can’t handle the truth. That’s why you’re a despicable lying leftist.

    Considering how easily you hate whites you display all the characteristics of a hater, a bigot and a racist.

    II am amused that you even insist democrats were the conservatives. Explain to me how the Republicans who fought to conserve the Union were liberals and the democrats who fought to overthrow and destroy it were in some convoluted way conserving it.


  11. Dana says:

    Jeffrey wrote:

    Dana makes a good point, that none of us know how we would have acted in different social order. But it seems likely that people today who dislike non-whites with all their being would have been conservative Democrats a century ago.

    Even President Lincoln didn’t see blacks as equal to whites, and hoped that the freed slaves would emigrate. Had any of us grown up in the antebellum United States, or any European country, we’d have grown up in a culture which did not see blacks as being equal to whites.

    How many of us would have overcome that cultural conditioning? Not many, I’d bet.

Pirate's Cove