Not surprisingly, most mass immigration advocates like to cloak their advocacy for the dissolution of this country’s borders in gradiloquent rhetoric and misleading euphemisms. One tactic they’ve taken to employing recently is demonizing opposition to their campaign by claiming that all attacks against Hispanic immigrants or illegal aliens living in this country are led by ignorant, xenophobic racists. But this couldn’t be further removed from reality. Almost all of the crime directed at illegal aliens-or those who are perceived to be in this country illegally by criminals-is undertaken by those with purely financial motives. They attack and rob these people because they realize they’ll be carrying around large amounts of cash. Amnesty advocates would like to use this as a justification for sanctuary city laws, when just the opposite should be the case.
The idea that you should grant immunity to someone who is a serial violator of the law, a view now being promulgated by the Obama administration and enforced on many different levels, is not only flouting existing immigration law, it makes no inherent, logical sense. If the rationale behind sanctuary city laws is to get illegal aliens to cooperate with police, who they might otherwise fear, then what stops other illegal aliens-the “bad” kind-from also exploiting the law? In fact, the primary function of these sanctuary city laws seems to be to impose a blanket immunity for drug-runners, gangmembers and other criminals who use them to prey upon defenseless people, including other illegal aliens.
Perhaps no sanctuary city illustrates this fact more than San Francisco, where criminals-even murderers-seem to be given a free pass if they belong to this specially protected group. Yet we still have bureaucrats and political apparatchiks like the police commissioner quoted in Mr. Kane’s op-ed, who will defend these sorts of policies. Apparently, they have forgotten who pays their salaries.