MAP REVEALS VAST NETWORK OF ‘SANCTUARIES’ FOR DANGEROUS ILLEGAL ALIENS
Days after Mexican illegal alien Francisco Sanchez confessed to murdering Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco, the Center for Immigration studies published a highly-detailed map revealing the counties, cities, and even entire states where officials defy U.S. immigration law.
Authors Bryan Griffith and Marguerite Telford write:
These ‘cities’ ignore federal law authorizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to administratively deport illegal aliens without seeking criminal warrants or convictions from federal, state, or local courts. Although federal law requires the cooperation, the Department of Justice has never sued or taken any measure, including denying federal funds, against a jurisdiction. On the contrary, the present administration has made it difficult for the states and localities which choose to aid in enforcing immigration laws.
Different jurisdictions use different means to protect illegal aliens from lawful deportation. North Dakota is perhaps the most extreme: State penitentiary policy forbids the state from honoring any ICE detainer, meaning that should local officers detain a suspected immigrant murderer or rapist, they will not cooperate with immigration officials, making deportation well nigh impossible. Yet North Dakota suffers from a rash of immigrant crime. African refugees fight each other tooth and nail for no clear reason, smashing each other’s cars with crowbars while attacking each other in alcohol-fueled brawls involving 70 or more refugees. Police arrested no one during June’s explosion of violence. No matter how violent the immigrants act, there is virtually no chance they will be expelled back to their home countries.
Rhode Island practices a somewhat more sensible policy: While the governor’s office issued a diktat creating a sanctuary state, ICE can still get a judge to issue a warrant so they may begin enforcement procedures. Yet that policy granted Liberian immigrant McCarthy Larngar the freedom to commit a home invasion, kidnappings, and robberies after he was released from prison, and Liberia (surprise!) refused to take him back, a refusal enabled by the Supreme Court decision Zadvydas v. Davis (2001). As of 2012, Larngar remains in a Rhode Island jail while taxpayers pay to feed, house, and clothe him.
Perhaps symbolically, Washington, D.C. is also a “safe space” for most illegal aliens. So is Baltimore, the city torn apart by fire hose cutting, elderly home-burning rioters who destroyed what little economic opportunity their city had after opening its arms to illegal immigrants who seek work at the expense of the nation’s poorest citizens. The map’s full scope implicitly poses an unsettling question: How many more illegal immigrants should the U.S. absorb at the cost of spilled American blood and ruined economic fortunes?
It also poses important questions for Republicans, as immigration takes center stage for the 2016 presidential election. Will Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) double down on his commitment to protect and reward sanctuary cities harboring dangerous illegals? What do Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and former Gov. Mike Huckabee propose to do about the sanctuary city status they vow to destroy if elected president? For perhaps the first time, Americans can see an honest discussion take place about the immigration policies the elite of both parties designed without their consent.