Liberal Lingo: 'Sanctuary Cities'

A sanctuary is a place where people can go to be safe. Generally speaking we think of good people going to sanctuaries to escape evil; some Jews found sanctuary from the Holocaust in England and the United States, for example.

Liberals like to repurpose words with positive connotations, like sanctuary, in order to add a false impression of sanity to liberal positions which are otherwise indefensible.

In the case of the now ubiquitous “Sanctuary Cities” phrase, liberals hope to evoke Americans desire for fairness and our propensity to stick up for the little guy.

After all, even if you’re some coldhearted racist conservative, liberals reason, your heartstrings will be plucked by the idea of cruel ICE agents swooping in on a hard working “undocumented” family who pay their taxes, never take government aid, and work hard at jobs where they are underpaid because “gringo” bosses threaten to call ICE on them; jobs which no citizen would do.

Ignoring for a moment the prevalence, or lack thereof, of such illegals, and also ignoring the blacks who can’t find a job because “honest” illegals will work for less, the reality is that “Sanctuary Cities” have nothing to do with “honest” illegals.

The only people who get sanctuary in “Sanctuary Cities” are criminals. Cities and states can’t stop ICE from enforcing the law; laws supported by generations of Democrat politicians, by the way. They can’t provide safe haven for “honest” illegals; not that they need to since “honest” illegals are not that frequently targeted even by the “racist” Trump administration.

But what local governments can do is shield illegals who commit additional crimes in the US from being deported. “Sanctuary Cities” do so by preventing the police from notifying ICE when an illegal has been arrested for a crime. Historically the police would notify ICE, ICE would go to the police station and conduct a safe -- for the illegal and the community -- transfer to ICE so that the criminal could be deported.

In “Sanctuary Cities” illegals who drive drunk, for example, are simply allowed back into society without ICE having a chance to deport them.

That’s right; “Sanctuary Cities” exist to ensure that illegals who drive drunk or commit a wide range of other crimes don’t risk deportation. While the specific laws that illegals can break and be protected from deportation vary between different “Sanctuary Cities” they are not restricted to jaywalking, having a taillight out on their car, and littering. In fact, only if the offense is serious enough that the illegal is put in jail, at least temporarily, does the “Sanctuary City” policy have any role; if the illegal doesn’t go to jail the jail can’t notify ICE when he’s going to be released so that ICE can pick him up.

The net effect of “Sanctuary Cities” is to ensure that illegals who continue to commit other crimes are shielded from deportation; that’s right liberal politicians are working hard to increase the criminal population in “Sanctuary Cities.”

Haven’t you ever wished we could just throw drunk drivers out of your city so that they can’t kill people you may know the next time they slip up? Well, we can’t do that for citizens, including legal immigrants, but we can for those who sneak into our country. Yet the whole purpose of “Sanctuary Cities” is to ensure that criminals are allowed to stay in the country enabling them to commit more crimes.

Why would any sane person support such a thing?

Maybe it’s because liberals know that criminals are both likely to not be concerned about illegally voting and likely to vote for liberal candidates who work to make life easy for criminals -- so long as they don’t prey on the rich people the politicians schmooze with.

Or maybe it’s the liberals all or nothing approach to issues; either we let all illegals stay or we’re going to force all of them out. After all liberals staunchly defend the right of a woman to abort her viable, pain feeling, unborn daughter because she, or her spouse, wants a boy so extremism in the protection of violence is nothing new to liberals.

Or maybe it’s because illegals provide cheap labor for rich white liberals, and even criminal illegals rarely prey directly on the ruling elites whose safety and prosperity is the main concern of modern liberals.

In any case, “Sanctuary Cities” do nothing to help illegals whose only crime was breaking into our country. In fact, it wouldn’t be surprising if “Sanctuary Cites” were causing more suffering for the “honest” illegals.

The man who killed Kate Steinle, for example, doesn’t speak English. Given that it’s not absurd to think that illegals like him, with criminal records and minimal English skills, would tend to prey on “honest” illegals more than on American citizens. If that is the case, then by protecting illegals who continue to commit crimes “Sanctuary Cities” are hurting the “honest” illegals they claim to be trying to help, not to mention the legal Hispanic immigrants.

But words have power, so whenever and wherever you see, hear, or read the phrase “Sanctuary City” make sure you explain to anyone you can, in a polite way, that the real term should be “Sanctuary for Criminals Cities.”

It wouldn’t be shocking if most of the people who support “Sanctuary Cities” think that those cities protect “honest” illegals given the way the media covers the issue. Hence by shining a light into the swamp you might be able to get people who would normally vote for a liberal to realize that there’s a huge difference between mass deportation and deporting illegals who drive drunk.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/12/liberal_lingo_sanctuary_cities.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/12/the_zarate_verdict_is_an_indictment_of_a_failed_leftist_culture.html