Democrats in Favor of Sanctuary Cities

(Picture from MSNBC)

I didn't even know the Democrats had a debate last night, but it's worth covering because it looks like every single one of the candidates came out in support of sanctuary cities.  It's good that the Democrats are finally taking a stand on this issue.  In the flawed U.S. two-party system your now either pro-migrant (Democrats) or anti-migrant (Republicans except for John McCain), when Democrats initially seemed as if they wanted to skirt the issue. 

You can watch what each of the Democrats had to say on sanctuary cities in this New England Cable News segment.

I'm glad that Joe Biden mentioned the town in this New York Times article.  After Riverside, New Jersey, implemented a local anti-migrant ordinance, it wreaked havoc on the town.  Migrants left in droves and businesses suffered.  So, recently Riverside decided to repeal the ordinance, making it an example for all local towns that follow the same path.

I personally laid out my view on sanctuary cities in this post:
I won't dwell too much on sanctuary policies, but they are absolutely necessary for local and state police to protect local residents.  If migrants can't go to local law enforcement officials, they can't report on crimes committed against them, or by other people.  Fostering trust with migrant populations actually makes cities and towns safer and more lawful.  Even the Association of Major Cities Police Chiefs agrees that local officials should not enforce federal immigration law.  If you have a problem with it, take it up with them.
It's also important to state that sanctuary city policies do not violate federal law, they just clarify that local law enforcement should not be enforcing federal law.

iPol has a transcript of the debate.  Here's the sanctuary city section of it:
RUSSERT: Before we take a break, I want to go to Allison King of New England Cable News, who has been sifting through thousands of questions from across the country, in New England and here in New Hampshire.

Allison, a question, please.

KING: Thank you, Tim.

Dozens of cities around the country, including several here, right here in New England, have been designated as sanctuary cities. These are communities that provide a safe haven for illegal immigrants, where police are told not to involve themselves in immigration matters.

Would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law regarding the reporting of illegal immigrants and, in fact, provide sanctuary to these immigrants?

KING: Governor Richardson, let's start with you.

RICHARDSON: You asked me because I am the Hispanic here, but
I'll answer.

(LAUGHTER)

The answer is yes. The problem we have is the lack of a comprehensive immigration policy. This is a federal responsibility. But what we have, because of the dysfunctional relationship between the Congress and the president, there is no comprehensive immigration bill. We need to fix the immigration system that is broken.

We need to find ways, number one, to increase security at the border with more detection equipment, more border patrol -- not this silly wall.

Secondly, those that knowingly hire illegal workers need to be punished.

Third, a foreign policy relationship with Mexico where you say to Mexico, "Start giving jobs to your people; at the very least, don't give them maps on the easiest place to cross."

And, lastly, a legalization program -- earned legalization, not amnesty, not citizenship, but a process where they can earn their way into America.

RICHARDSON: They can do it by learning English, by paying back taxes, by passing a background check, by paying a fine for having come in here illegally. Then get behind those that are trying to get here legally. And then increase the legal immigration quota, the H1B
visas.

But what you don't do is basically deport everybody. That makes no sense. That's not America. That's not going to work.

Is the outline that I gave you messy? Yes. Is there going to be more bureaucracy? Yes. But the problem is cities and communities are being victimized by the failure of the Congress and the president...

KING: Time is up, Governor Richardson.

RICHARDSON: ... to reach a resolution.

KING: I'd like to hear from Senator Biden. Would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law?

BIDEN: The reason the cities ignore the federal law is the fact that there is no funding at the federal level to provide for the kind of enforcement at the federal level you need.

Pick up the New York Times today. There is a city not far across the river from my state that imposed similar sanctions.

BIDEN: And what they found out is, as a consequence of that, their city went in the dumps -- in the dumpsters. Stores started closing, everything started to happen and they changed the policy.

Part of the problem is: You have to have a federal government that can enforce laws. This administration has been fundamentally derelict in not funding any of the requirements of immunity -- even enforce the existing law.

And last point I'll make is, Rudy Giuliani doesn't know what the heck he's talking about. He's the most uninformed person in American foreign policy and now running for president, number one.

(APPLAUSE)

And, number two, these guys, the -- anyway...

(LAUGHTER)

KING: So, yes or no...

(LAUGHTER)

BIDEN: I wish I'd get to talk about something I know about like foreign policy. You ought to count me in on this debate a little bit.

KING: So, Senator Biden, yes or no, would you allow the cities to ignore the federal law?

BIDEN: No.

KING: OK. I'd like to hear from Senator Dodd -- New Haven, Connecticut, is on that list of sanctuary cities.

DODD: I think in circumstances -- you have to here.

DODD: And, again, New Haven, Connecticut, was a good example here, where there was a cooperative effort with the local police departments and others to deal with health issues, crime problems and the like.

The Immigration Service came in an raided basically homes in that community, causing a great deal of disruption, disrupting the relationship that was being developed with community leaders, including the local police, and dealing with matters in that community.

We need to step back. What's been said by Bill Richardson and Joe Biden is correct here. This was a failure of leadership again at the national level. We had an opportunity to draft an immigration law here that would have put us on the right track.

I certainly endorse everything Bill said here in terms of the provision. I think all of us do here, the general provisions.

We're a nation of immigrants here. We have succeeded in no small measure because we have been a welcoming people here. We also understand we cannot tolerate 400,000 to 500,000 people coming to this country as undocumented workers each year.

We need to have a far better system in place that stops that flow coming in, to deal with the 12 million to 20 million who are here illegally.

If in the meantime here we're dealing with children, we're dealing with crime problems, we're dealing with health issues at the local community, then you need to allow these locals communities to do that.

DODD: If it means temporarily engaging in a sanctuary protection here, then so be it if that protects our country.

In the meantime, we need to have national leadership, a president who would be able to bring together the Congress and could pass the kind of immigration laws that we, frankly, don't have on the books today.

KING: Thank you, Senator.

Tim, back to you.

RUSSERT: I'll get all the candidates on record. Just -- anyone
here who would close down these sanctuary cities, not allow them to
exist?

KUCINICH: I...

RUSSERT: You would allow these sanctuary cities to exist?

KUCINICH: I would like to say that we're forgetting who we are as Americans, Tim. You have to remember the message of the Statue of Liberty. That is who America is -- "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." We're forgetting that. We should be talking about canceling NAFTA and WTO, giving workers' rights a premium in negotiations with Mexico. It's a new direction.

RUSSERT: The question is: Would you allow these sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?

KUCINICH: You know what? The federal law -- there's a moral law here.

RUSSERT: All right.

KUCINICH: And the moral law says that the immigrants are being used and mistreated.

RUSSERT: Senator Obama?

OBAMA: The federal law is not being enforced not because of failures of local communities, because the federal government has not done the job that it needs to do.

RUSSERT: But you would allow the sanctuary cities to exist?

OBAMA: What I would do as president is pass comprehensive immigration reform, and the federal government should be doing what it's supposed to be doing, which is controlling our borders, but also providing a rational immigration system, which we currently don't have.

RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, would you allow the sanctuary cities to exist?

CLINTON: Well, in addition to the general points that have been made that I agree with, why do they have sanctuary cities? In large measure because, if local law enforcement begins to act like immigration enforcement officers, what that means is that you will have people not reporting crimes, you will have people hiding from the police. And I think that is a real, direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens.

So this is a result of the failure of the federal government, and that's where it needs to be fixed.

RUSSERT: But you would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?

CLINTON: Well, I don't think there is any choice. The ICE groups come in and raid individuals, but if you are a local police chief and you're trying to solve a crime that you know people from the immigrant community have information about, they may not talk to you if they think you're also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.

CLINTON: Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement. The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.

RUSSERT: Real fast.

GRAVEL: Real fast. This whole nation should be a sanctuary for the war -- for the world, and bring the people in.

What's going on? Again, we're in fantasy land. We're talking about a problem -- we're scapegoating the Latinos of our society because we as a society are failing in education, we're failing in health care, we're failing in our crumbling infrastructure, and we're failing by invading countries and spending our treasure.

That's what's wrong. And so I'm ashamed as an American to be building a fence on our southern border. That's not the America that I fought for.

(APPLAUSE)

RUSSERT: Thank you, Senator Gravel.

Comments

  • Re: Democrats in Favor of Sanctuary Cities

    Cross-posted on Daily Kos and Blue Mass. Group.


    • Re: Democrats in Favor of Sanctuary Cities

      I cant believe some one from another country would have the right to tell us how to frame our immigration laws.  To bad mouth a country that YOU want to live in... what is the reason you are leaving your country?  If your country is so great, i would think you would not leave it.  When you want to live in another country, you can not expect that they are going to cater to you!  Not your culture, language, or your sense of bad government (that you are attempting to leave)  So if we have to be labeled as bad people for not wanting to have a wide open border that has no laws, so be it.  I can think of many laws that need to be changed down south, yet you feel better suited to try and address ours?  If you dream of becoming an American, become one, don't try to change our culture to how you perceive it to be from where you come from.  It is a law to immigrate legally, so i do not see any thing wrong with deporting someone that is here.. umm ILLEGALLY.  If i stole you T.V and had it for 6 months, it was then found, you would still want it.  Just because i had it for awhile means nothing.  Lets try and grow up, stop you sniveling, and realize that this is not poor immigrant, and bad mean government, this is our law, so conform to it.  You are not the victim, and you have no clue as to what you are saying.  Try talking to an American, not an immigrant as to what WE want for OUR country.  We don't care what YOU want.  Do the right thing, follow the law, and work hard to get where you want, that is America!!


      • Re: Democrats in Favor of Sanctuary Cities

        Anonymous hit the nail on the head. Any government elected official who is in favor of sanctuary cities deserves to have his/her life changed by the very people they are trying to protect (i.e., job taken by an illegal, it could happen - give it time, etc.). The fact of the matter is this, if a native born american breaks the law, they pay for it, in most cases. We work very, very hard for our money and I don't feel my tax dollars should help anyone who does not contribute into the same pot, namely illegals. If you want this financial help, work to become a citizen. Only then do you have the right to receive this help, just don't expect a country to help you with your decision to illegally enter into this country. It's just a matter of time before the majority of legitimate and native born Americans get fed up with illegal immigration and start doing something about this issue.


    • DGames



    • DGames



  • Re: Democrats in Favor of Sanctuary Cities

    Kyle, when you say all the candidates came out in support of sanctuary cities, was it because they didn't raise their hands when Russert asked if anyone would close down the sanctuary cities?  I haven't seen the debate, so I don't know--but it seemed from the transcript that all but Dodd, Clinton, and possibly Gravel waffled on the question without giving an answer.

    The question "Would you allow sanctuary cities to exist?" is a one-sided question.  You might as well say "Would you require local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration law and alienate local communities?"  It's no less objective than the question Russert asked.  "Would you allow sanctuary cities to disobey federal law?" is actually a misstatement of the issue.  These cities are not disobeying federal law and the federal government has not yet required them to change their policies. 

    I think all the candidates except maybe Clinton (who had the strongest answer) could have used you to explain to them, "It's also important to state that sanctuary city policies do not violate federal law, they just clarify that local law enforcement should not be enforcing federal law."

    --yave begnet
    http://yavebegnet.blogspot.com/


    • Re: Democrats in Favor of Sanctuary Cities

      In general the question was framed horribly almost everytime that it was raised.  First by King from NECN and then by Russert. 

      That being said, if you really analyze what a lot of the speakers were saying, I feel like it's accurate to say that they all came out in support of sanctuary cities.  Even Biden, who came out with a flat "no" was using the example of Riverside, New Jersey, to illustrate how harmful anti-migrant local ordinances are. 

      I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the question wasn't framed so horribly it would have been a lot clearer that all of them came out in support of sanctuary cities.


    • Re: Democrats in Favor of Sanctuary Cities

      It's really a sad day in American history when individual cities in this nation turn their backs on our federal goverment by not enforcing federal laws. These cities should be cut off from all federal funding until they decide to comply with the laws of the land. The police here in Houston are doing everything they can to have this sanctuary status removed so they can do the job they were trained to do and that is to arrest anyone who has broken the law, including those who have broken our federal immigration laws.  


      • Re: Democrats in Favor of Sanctuary Cities

        They are not being noncomplient they are just explicitly stating that they are not going to enforce the federal law.  That's the job of the federal government and that's what the Immigration and Custom's Enforcement Agency is supposed to do, even though they do it poorly and frequently violate people's rights.


        • Re: Democrats in Favor of Sanctuary Cities

          It is the job of the federal government to enforce our banking laws (embezzlement anyone?), counterfeiting, forging of federally issued identity documents, etc.  Should the states also fail to cooperate in the arrest and conviction of those guilty of these crimes?  Kyle, your  statement is irrational.


          • Re: Democrats in Favor of Sanctuary Cities

            Wrong! There are two types of charters: Federal and State. The Supreme Court has ruled that States cannot regulate or sue Federally chartered banks. Your point is null.


          • DGames



          • DGames



          • tiffanys



          • tiffanys



      • FGames



      • FGames



      • FGames



  • Emily



  • Emily



  • Erica



  • Erica



  • Nick



  • Nick



  • Nick



  • Re: Democrats in Favor of Sanctuary Cities

    CRIME VICTIMS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS

    There is an enormous number of Americans who have been harmed by the criminals who pass through the nation's open borders. For that reason, this section can only provide a symbolic tribute to the many unnamed victims who have been killed, raped, robbed, crippled and otherwise personally violated.

     

    http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html



  • Erica



  • Erica



  • http://shrinkurl.us/ZQl



  • Re: Democrats in Favor of Sanctuary Cities

    Funny how you're embarrassed about the fence between the U.S. and Mexico when Mexico has most of their "National Guard" stationed on their southern border to keep immigrants from Central America crossing their border and working in Mexico! The hypocrisy shown by Vincente Fox is just that - the only thing he is concerned about is keeping those U.S. dollars flowing back across the border into his country.

    Illegal immigrants are just what they are tagged, illegal! These people are not trying to assimilate into our country and become Americans - that is the problem.

    They want to come over here and live life just like they were in Mexico, but earning the higher salaries that are offered on this side of the border. This is America, not Mexico. To first become American, means you have to obey our laws - the first one being, get here legally! Integrate into society, learn the language. Salute our flag - remember, you left your country to come to this one - if Mexico was so great - you're more than welcome to stay there.

    As Teddy Roosevelt said - we have but one flag, one language, one country - there is no room for others - become a part of the whole or leave.

    These sanctuary cities are a load of crap - the taxpayers of these areas become the victims of higher crime, higher taxation to pay for the unearned benefits these people come to expect and do not deserve. For you to sit there and support this like this is the greatest thing since sliced bread, shows how really little you care about this country and the Americans who legally are living here and have immigrated here. Such a shame........

     

     



  • Re: Democrats in Favor of Sanctuary Cities

    A WIN!

    BREAKING NEWS UPDATE: Judge Denies Preliminary Injunction Motion

    AP/KOTV - 10/31/2007 10:33 AM - Updated 10/31/2007 7:12 PM

    TULSA, Okla. (AP) _ A federal judge denied late Wednesday a request by Latino groups to block the implementation of a new state law targeting illegal immigrants, paving the way for the bill to take effect in a matter of hours. In a two-page ruling, U.S. District Judge James H. Payne wrote that the plaintiffs failed to introduce evidence in support of their motion.

    The Latino groups sought the preliminary injunction to stop the new law, which would bar illegal immigrants from obtaining jobs or state assistance and make it a felony to harbor or transport illegal aliens.

    Payne threw out an earlier attempt by the group to stop the measure, saying the plaintiffs could not show they were harmed by a law that hadn't taken effect yet.

    In its second filing, the group added several unidentified illegal immigrants who have been told they must move from their rent homes because of the new law.

    Both sides assembled outside the federal courthouse for an often tense news conference following Wednesday's hearing. The Hispanic leaders were interrupted at least twice by residents who supported the new law, and a driver in one car yelled an ethnic slur at the group.

    The Rev. Miguel Rivera, president of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, said that a decision to prevent the law from taking effect would help bring calm to the Latino community. Rivera also pledged to fight the law to the U.S. Supreme Court if he had to.

    ``I know 25,000 or more of my Latino people have been afraid and they have left this state,'' Rivera said.

    He said the eyes of the nation are watching to see what action the state takes regarding the new law, which is billed by its backers as one of the toughest anti-illegal immigration laws in the country.

    Hispanic activist Victor Orta said, ``Our families have been receiving eviction notices that, beginning tonight, if they cannot prove their status here, they will be evicted.''

    Orta also said he was astonished at the silence of other Anglo churches on the matter.

    Supporters of the new law said state legislation was needed because federal authorities had failed to act.

    ``They want to move Mexico here. They do not want to assimilate. I have a problem with that,'' said Tulsa resident Dan Howard, a former Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper.

    Howard began his news conference by saying he would address the crowd in English, because ``I'm standing in the USA.'' Hispanic leaders earlier spoke to the audience in English, then Spanish.

    Carol Helm, director of Immigration Reform for Oklahoma Now, said the bill restates the importance of following labor and tax laws.

    ``It just seems that every month, the rate of illegals just continues to grow, and that's a stated fact by the Hispanic organizations,'' Helm said. ``Common sense says how many, how much, what is the break-even point which the state can absorb?''

    Immigrant rights groups have long decried the legislation, saying it unnecessarily repeats federal law, dehumanizes people and panders to people with racial biases. They say tens of thousands of Hispanics have already fled Oklahoma ahead of the law taking effect.

    Some churches have also come out against the law. On Tuesday, a representative of Catholic Charities delivered more than 1,000 signed pledges of resistance to H.B. 1804 to Gov. Brad Henry's office.

    Nina Perales, Southwest regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said there was more puffery to the law than substance.

    Even so, she said many at the community level are concerned it will unleash immigration raids, increase racial profiling and split up families.

    ``It is a ridiculously redundant piece of legislation,'' Perales said. ``These are all federal laws that are already on the books.''

    The Rev. Luis-Carlos Sanchez, vice president of the Coalition of Hispanic Organizations, said the bill has already ``opened the doors for every kind of prejudice and every kind of racial profiling.''

    ``If we call them criminals, we can abuse them and take advantage,'' he said. ``We have done this with the Native Americans, calling them savages, and African-Americans, calling them less than whites, and we are doing this again.''

    The bill's author, Republican state lawmaker Randy Terrill, has said the people of Oklahoma support meaningful immigration reform and repeatedly stated he was confident it would hold up if challenged in the courts.



  • Re: Democrats in Favor of Sanctuary Cities

    It's good that the Democrats are finally taking a stand on this issue.
    Thank you


  • FGames



  • FGames



  • EGames



  • EGames



  • Nick



  • Erica



  • amateur kontakte



  • trump taj mahal







search this blog