Seattle is proud to be a “Sanctuary City,” where lawbreakers can hide unmolested. Trump has promised to withhold funding from such places, which would save untold billions if he can follow through on it. Maybe he needs to get a Federal law that explicitly allows victims of crimes committed by illegal alien in sanctuary cities to sue said city for damages and legal fees, as they are explicitly “partners in crime” as enablers. Make it hurt enough and they will be properly incentivized to reconsider their position.


15 thoughts on “Sanctuary

  1. As soon as we start thinking of making laws to deal with unpunished, unaddressed, on-going violations of existing laws, we have a deeply imbedded problem. We’ve HAD a problem, and we’re still not addressing it.

    Our border and immigration laws, and many “pro gun” laws are of this type, as are many others.

    If you’re going to propose band-aid, or add-on laws to addresses the non-enforcement of existing law, at least be aware that you’re doing it, making it “illegal to break the law”.

    As Uncle says it, it would then be “more illegaler”. The sanctuary city’s next response of course is to make itself a sanctuary against the new, fresh law. Since we already have a lot or precidence for states flouting federal law in the form of “legalized” marijuana, well, no problemo, Senior Gringo.

    And if the feds were going to enforce your proposed, bright new anti-sanctuary law, they’d have enforced their own, seasonally added layers upon layers of immigration laws for the last thirty years, which they haven’t.

    At some point we’ll have to strip away all the layers of code and counter-code, and the overwhelming layers of bureaucracy set up to not enforce them, see if, maybe, we can find the original principles and purpose of this country.

    • Yes and no.
      I’m not proposing to make it ‘more illegal”, I’m just aiming at more expensive and immediately painful.

      Make it a really quick prima facie sort of case. IF (sanctuary city/state) AND (crime committed by illegal alien) THAN (city/state pays damages and costs incurred). They will change their minds very quickly. I’d not be surprised if some enterprising young men will even find a way to monetize their illegal status working in conjunction with some legal resident or business.

      Not an idea solution, but sometimes bay steps are needed before you run. If the nation goes full constitutional all at once, the dislocation would have too many people calling for a ConCon and rewrite the whole thing.

      Edit/update. Report of a man dying because his ambulance was delayed by protestors blocking the street. Quote “… I had a patient die during a transfer last night because our ambulance was stopped by protesters and had to drive an extra 45 minutes around the blocked roads…. They can give their f**king safety pins to my patient’s fatherless 4 year old daughter.”
      If it’s shown these are rent-a-mobs, they should be charged with accessory to manslaughter.

      • The only way your proposal would have any effect on these cities would be if the mayor and city council and their legal department were all required to pay each award out of pocket, before the city has to pay any part of it. Otherwise, those flaming leftards will be happy to pass the cost of their idiocy on to the taxpayers. The taxpayers won’t bother to run them out of town on a rail unless a huge amount comes out of their own pocket directly, and that would require award sizes that the courts would deem excessive.

        • Yes. Excellent point. Make whoever decided / voted for sanctuary city status personally responsible. I like it.

          • As I recall, in NH officials are personally liable for violating the rules on Must Issue.

        • “I’m not proposing to make it ‘more illegal”, I’m just aiming at more expensive and immediately painful.”

          We did that in Florida, making the actual law-breakers pay the penalties. You should have HEARD all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over our ‘betters’ having to pay the price for ignoring the law that they insisted us peons having to follow.
          It was glorious.

  2. Funny how “States’ Rights” is a dog whistle* for racism, but “Cities’ Rights” is somehow a form of noble resistance against The Man**.

    *Strangely, only liberals can hear these.

    **Until recently, The Man was their ally ideological ally. Weird, huh?

    • Where does “County’s Rights” fall in this spectrum?
      If Sanctuary Cities are good, why not Sanctuary Counties?

      Why can’t the County Clerk in Rowan County Kentucky declare that Rowan County is a “Sanctuary County” with respect to issuing marriage licenses for marriages that weren’t permitted under the Constitution until 2015?

    • Like the men who sold the emperor’s new clothes to the emperor, only Leftists are refined of mind enough to hear dog whistles. Sane humans are analyzing the words and implications of what was actually said.

      I declare that the words, “I am a Democrat and am concerned with the welfare of minorities and the less fortunate” is code for “I am a disgusting scum of a sub-human being and believe that bribery is a good way for MY PARTY to maintain power by ensuring that minorities and the less fortunate are addicted to government money.”

  3. Not just cities. It has to affect municipalities of any size/scale that choose to flout the law. AFAIK, there are no “sanctuary cities” in Oregon, but there are several counties who openly stated they will not cooperate with ICE (usually it’s either the county commissioners or the sheriff’s office, or both, who take this stance).

    However, this is a double-edged sword. Future federal administrations could decide that states that pass “Second Amendment Protection Acts” saying that federal gun laws will not be enforced — or better yet, enforcement will lead to state-level criminal charges — could face similar consequences, including withholding of federal funds and “accessory” charges if “gun violence” is traced back to someone barred by federal law (but not state/county/city law) from having a gun.

    I like the sentiment, but it’s a tool I wouldn’t want my enemies to use on me (and they will, if they can), so I question whether it should exist at all.

Comments are closed.