Even as ICE has refocused its enforcement efforts on “the worst of the worst” since President Trump sent “Border Czar” Tom Homan to Minneapolis in late January, congressional Democrats and “sanctuary” jurisdictions have become even more intransigent in their efforts to protect criminal aliens, including and especially some serious bad actors. Whether they realize it or not, they’ve created their own conundrum with policies premised on principles that harken back to the Spanish Civil War.
Sanctuary Jurisdictions
The Center defines “sanctuary jurisdictions” as:
cities, counties, and states have laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other practices that obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from ICE — either by refusing to or prohibiting agencies from complying with ICE detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainer acceptance, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding communication or information exchanges between their personnel and federal immigration officers.
Since the Center first defined the term, sanctuaries have expanded their sanctuary policies to include “anti-masking” proposals that (explicitly or implicitly) target ICE officers, “ICE-free zones” on local-government property, and (allegedly) barring local cops from providing aid to immigration officers, even to restore public order.
Like free ice cream for a five-year-old or a keg party for a fraternity boy, even “too much” opposition to immigration enforcement is never enough for some sanctuary politicos, as they race each other for new and inventive ways to demonstrate that in their burgs, “no human being is illegal”.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member