Letter to the Editor

Sanctuary cities

Sunday, July 9, 2017

The July 6 Colin You Out opinion piece, "Feds should continue funding to 'sanctuary cities,' serves as the latest installment on my list of "Just Because You Can Doesn't Mean You Should" items. I'm sure there are many out there who line up on either side of the pro/con argument. Space doesn't permit a complete examination of the concept, but suffice it to say that sanctuary cities have been a phenomenon since biblical times. They served a practical purpose in that they apparently kept safe certain people who accidentally killed someone, until all the facts could be uncovered, and a true rendering of justice could occur. Flash forward several thousand years to present times, and we find ourselves in the midst of many undocumented migratory folks seeking entry into the United States. Not all do so the established, legal way. Certainly not all have our best interests in mind.

Interestingly enough, the same day as Colin's column appeared, the Department of Justice (press release number 17-736) had something to say about sanctuary cities. I think it goes to the heart of the matter, and delineates why our president and his administration, want these cities to get in compliance with federal law: "Sanctuary cities put the lives and well-being of their residents at risk by shielding criminal illegal aliens from federal immigration authorities." Attorney General Jeff Sessions goes on to say, "These policies (put forth by sanctuary cities) give sanctuary to criminals, not to law-abiding Americans. The Trump administration is determined to keep every American neighborhood safe and that is why we have asked these cities to comply with federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. 1373". He closes the release by stating "Residents have a right to expect basic compliance with federal law from their local and state governments."

Sorry, Colin, I can't buy your argument or your line of thinking. The rule of law needs to apply. Withholding federal funds seems like a logical consequence for cities that obstruct justice. I support the efforts of Rep. Steve King who was the subject of a Daily Reporter story on Page 12A, the July 3 edition ("King helps launch victims of illegals group"). Advocates for Victims of Illegal Alien Crime was founded by families who have been victimized by illegal aliens. Cases include adult children killed by illegals driving drunk or repeat offenders who get deported, return to this country, and reoffend, resulting in additional deaths. Of course the old saying applies, as King well knows: "No good deed shall go unpunished." For trying to lift up those deprived of the lives of their children, he is vilified as a bigot. Thank goodness he has not let the naysayers get the better of him all these years he's served us.

About the best I can say, Colin, is that maybe in the end, the mayors of these sanctuary cities could sit down with the Department of Justice and try to actually find a way to be law abiding and keep law abiders safe. If they insist on protecting the "rights" of those who break our laws (scofflaws), then consequences will be forthcoming. Money talks, and the rest of it walks. I'm just sayin'.

Bill Kersting, Spencer