President Trump highly valued safety through law enforcement on the 2016 campaign trail. Enforcing laws also includes sentencing; some convicts deserve longer prison sentences while others receive too much time behind bars for minor offenses. The First Step Act, which has passed through the House of Representatives, is waiting on a vote from the Senate. However, critics from the National Sheriff’s Association say the bill is too lax and will do more harm than good.
The bill is intended to provide programs and opportunities to inmates who are scheduled for release from prison, and to assess their risk for recidivism. The proposal covers assessment, but it offers little to help the inmates get set up for success outside of incarceration. If the recidivism rate is going to decline, education needs to be available on how to avoid becoming a repeat offender.
Recidivism is a problem with inmates who are released from jail. However, prison programs cannot help those who do not want to change their ways. A study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that 83% of former inmates will be rearrested within nine years of their release.
The First Step bill relies heavily on assessment, but doesn’t provide a framework to help convicts avoid becoming repeat offenders. Prisoner evaluations can occur, but unless they have made a genuine change of heart this bill will be another failure. Many times, released inmates only know a lifestyle filled with crime, which causes them to fall back into their old ways.
It would be nice to have fewer people in prison. Avoiding the problem of repeat offenders is the ultimate goal. However, with little mentioned in the bill regarding education, counseling, or work placement, one wonders how the repeat offender rate will be reduced.
The bill requires assessment of 180,000 prisoners within 180 days of its enactment, which is entirely unrealistic. The steps of getting a program organized, determining who would qualify, implementing the program, finding teachers, and completing the plan within that timeframe are virtually impossible.
Police Recruitment Issues
The First Step Act may release approximately 4,000 violent offenders back into society immediately. Some of those will be MS-13 gang members as well as fentanyl and heroin dealers. These are the people who Trump campaigned on getting out of society by backing police officers and pushing stronger prison sentences. It appears a Republican Congress is set out to do the complete opposite of what the president promised.
America’s economy is soaring under Trump. While this is great for the private sector, job growth and overall fiscal opportunity for all, law enforcement recruiting tends to suffer during economic success. Police officers are not paid much for their work. As the job market opens up and grows, fewer people will be interested in donning the uniform, while current police officers leave law enforcement altogether, looking for more money. As this happens, society doesn’t need more criminals released and fewer officers on the road.
Some cities can afford to pay their officers well, but there are not many who can or do. Furthermore, some agencies are so mismanaged that they cannot retain employees; it does not matter how much money such an agency pays, there will be officers who leave. Not to mention that overall disrespect toward the police is rampant.
If there is a prison reform bill, it needs to have more provisions and plans. The writing in this proposed legislation is vague, offering little in the way of real solutions.
In the end, this bill will probably be another waste of tax payer’s money.
A government should not weigh in on morality issues. Trinity Western University is a private, religious college located in Langley, British Columbia, Canada. Due to their Christian beliefs, they have a longstanding policy that each student should sign a covenant that prohibits sexual activities outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. The law societies of Ontario and British Columbia filed lawsuits against the evangelical university, complaining that the school was discriminating against the LGBTQ community. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled in favor of the law societies, saying the required written agreement was biased.
Government Should Stay Out
This case is not about discrimination. It is about using the Supreme Court as a leveraging tool against a private religious organization that encourages moral decisions. Furthermore, the law societies do not care about the treatment of rational behavior. Their lawsuit is supposed to change the tradition of a Bible believing institution and suppress the God-given right to freedom of religion.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms disagreed with the ruling. The organization believes in protecting Canadians’ right to freedom of religion.
The law societies also stated the new proposed law school would not be able to obtain accreditation, which would give them clout. The university was founded in 1962. Now, the left has forced their way into a religious institution via the government. Instead of being genuinely accepting and tolerant of all people like they claim to be, they attack those who believe in fundamental Christian values of morality.
There are eighteen law schools in Canada. No one has the right to attend any school. Being accepted to a university that one would like to attend is a privilege. In other words, if one doesn’t like the covenant, there are other educational institutions. The law societies are seeking to destroy a faith-based law school. Their complaint is not about LGBTQ treatment itself. Their actions are militant steps to destroy anything that is biblically sound.
This is not the first time militant LGBTQ personnel has attacked Trinity Western. In 2001, a case went before the Supreme Court stating that the British Columbia College of Teachers, which licenses public school teachers, denied accreditation for a school program, claiming the traditional marriage covenant would create biased teachers. The left-wingers had no proof for their allegations and lost.
The left tolerates most religions, except Christianity. The entire movement of radical liberalism exists to tear down organized worship of God.
The ruling of the court is not about inclusion. It is about exclusion and driving extinction. Leftist ideology is about destroying everyone that disagrees with them. The left-wing pretends to be the party of inclusion and claims to fight for the minority. In reality, they are attempting to lessen the number of Christians who publically worship Jesus Christ.
Trinity Western will make signing the paper optional, which means nothing. The government is telling Trinity Western what type of “Christianity” values they can enforce.
Fortunately, the United States has a Constitution in which freedom of religion exists. The idea of the opportunity to worship who or what one decides doesn’t exist in Canada.
Thankfully, the Founding Fathers were heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian values, and this is why America reigns supreme over Canada today.
President Trump recently revoked former CIA Director John Brennan’s top secret clearance. Of course, that sent off a firestorm on the left with allegations that Trump is trying to hide something.
Let’s address the elephant in the room. John Brennan is not a respected government official. He is not a grand American, regardless of what the media says about him. Brennan is nothing more than a political hack who should never have served in the Central Intelligence Agency, but former President Obama wanted his picks to be hard left-wingers.
When the left starts to make claims that the right is creating a distraction or being covert, then it is time to believe that something politically dangerous, or maybe even criminal, is about to be exposed.
Since the election of Trump, Brennan has been on left-wing cable news channels giving monologues and on Twitter sending out cryptic messages about doomsday with a political twist. All the while, he has been privy to top-secret government information. Of course, everyone has a political leaning but those who are in high government positions should be mature enough and intellectually honest enough to ensure their ideology does not affect any decision making; Brennan is neither.
The September 11, 2012, terror attack on the American diplomatic compound at Benghazi, Libya, was tragic; four Americans lost their lives. However, the left seemed to care more about the political ramifications at the time, due to former President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign for November of the same year.
John Brennan was the CIA director at the time of the attack. He was given free rein to conduct operations in North Africa that were outside the scope of traditional CIA duties, after the takedown of Muammar Gaddafi.
Kris Paronto is an American contractor who was on the ground the night of the thirteen-hour attack on the American compound. He responded to Brennan and accused him of covering up the true Benghazi story in an attempt to hide political malfeasance by Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Paronto and the other security personnel that survived the attack were made to sign non-disclosure agreements about the incident; he signed three. Why would this be done when Susan Rice told Americans that a YouTube video was the cause of the attack? Simple. The video narrative was a political lie, and that was not difficult to see through. Brennan admitted he knew about the paperwork.
This is about lies, political cover-ups, and spreading false narratives, three areas in which Brennan seems particularly adept. He is a political fixer who has deceived the American public at the behest of his political masters. The question remains as to whether he has used his security clearance to continue in this manner.
Brennan’s justification for keeping his security clearance isn’t for national security. It is about politics. While having top-secret privilege, Brennan could still access inner government information legally, but now he can’t.
The left is not outraged because they care about national safety, their rabid attack stems from fear for the survival of the Democratic Party.
Brennan’s political worries caused him to lose control and become unhinged, and that plays in his opponents’ favor. More importantly, he has inadvertently started the debate around the question of why former officials still have top-secret security clearances after leaving their positions.
Nancy Pelosi is the Democratic Party’s gift to the Republicans that keeps on giving. House Minority Speaker Pelosi recently said at a press conference that voting for Democrats provides “leverage” to illegal immigrants.
Pelosi also said in the presser that every illegal immigrant mom “courageously brought her child across the desert to escape death, rape, gang violence and the rest.” Her comments were, perhaps, not the most sensible. Recently, Juan Ramon Vasquez, an illegal alien who’s been deported once already, raped a five-year-old child in Philadelphia. Bad hombres are sneaking into the country and destroying lives. By ignoring that fact, Pelosi is immoral and has no grounds to assign those who want to strengthen border security and keep legal citizens safe the labels uncaring, heartless, or shameless.
What Midterm Strategy?
Pelosi’s comments were probably not the wisest thing to say when unlawful immigration is the number one issue to voters in the upcoming midterm elections. She doesn’t seem concerned about the short term risks however, only gathering more future voting constituents.
Currently, the Republicans hold both chambers of Congress. There is a slight chance they could lose the House if the Democratic Party plays their cards right. However, Pelosi might ruin those opportunities and give leverage to the right by putting illegals ahead of citizens.
Illegal aliens, whether they are “good” or “bad” people, have caused problems for Americans. The left argues that illegals work in jobs that Americans refuse. That statement is wrong. Obama’s economy caused ruinous situations for businesses that hire entry level employees. There were massive taxes on companies, along with faux healthcare penalties that caused financial hardships. The former president created a situation where business owners needed to pay their workers either under the table or minimum wage to keep the business doors open.
There are regular news articles that report on illegals that have either driven intoxicated and killed someone in a wreck or who have murdered a citizen. Pelosi’s acceptance of unlawful alien criminals pushes American citizens away from the Democratic Party. Families have been devastated by these criminals that shouldn’t be in the country in the first place. Their loved ones would still be with them today, but Pelosi is advocating for more to break the law and come in to the country illegally. Her words spit in the faces of grieving fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and grandparents.
Republicans must campaign on the issue of illegal immigration, but they cannot ignore what Pelosi has said.
The Risks of Unlimited Immigration
Pelosi tries to justify unauthorized entry by saying that immigrants are fleeing death, rape and gang violence, while she ignores the violence that gangs such as MS-13 bring to American soil.
Just this week the leftist publications Vox and ProPublica made a video trying to downplay the harm done by the evil Salvadoran street gang that is responsible for murdering and maiming thousands of people.
The left doesn’t get it. No matter how they spin the issue, illegal aliens hurt Americans whether it is financially, physically, or emotionally.
The more Pelosi and other Democrats push for amnesty and downplay the dangers of illegal immigration, the less chance they will have to win back the House or the Senate.
Will there be enough American citizens who get fired up and make their views heard at the polls in November? Only time will tell. Until then, Botox Betty may be handing over seats to Republicans on a silver platter.
Alicia Baker, an opinion contributor at USA Today, wrote a piece about the recent Supreme Court nomination. She said that Judge Kavanaugh would make it difficult for women to obtain items that prevent pregnancy. Alicia mentioned in the article that her particular choice was surprisingly financially straining. Somehow, she has tied Judge Kavanaugh to the price of her choice of pregnancy prevention and the ability to access different methods.
However, her arguments are emotional and pointless. It’s not the taxpayer’s responsibility to pay for anyone’s birth control, and Brett Kavanaugh has nothing to do with what pregnancy prevention methods one may use.
Welcome to Real Life
Alicia researched the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, and saw that birth control would be free. However, her insurance was through her employer, a church. The church itself saw nothing wrong with pregnancy prevention, but her health insurer did not cover the IUD that Baker sought. She failed to check with her insurance company and ended up with a $1200 bill for the procedure.
The bill shocked her and her fiancé. Instead of blaming herself for not checking with her insurance company, she pointed the finger elsewhere: Republicans. Baker and her fiancé were able to pay for the unexpected bill but struggled. Welcome to the real world, Alicia.
other options besides the Government
Alicia said that “health insurance coverage” will be denied if Kavanaugh is confirmed, making a typical straw man argument. Alicia had healthcare and wasn’t denied anything. In truth, she is upset that the IUD wasn’t free. Alicia has access to many different types of birth control, but she had to pay for it due to her lack of research.
She went on to say,” It’s already too hard to get birth control in this country, and we don’t need to make matters worse by adding a hardliner like Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.” She is wrong. There is nothing hard about going to a local drug store, or Walmart, to purchase condoms. Sadly, teenagers play the game of risk by buying them and being sexually active. It’s incredible that adults claim to have a hard time getting access to pregnancy prevention, but high school kids can easily purchase a box of 12 contraceptives for around $5.35.
Using Faith is Disingenuous.
Alicia says that she is a Christian. She goes on to quote a verse from the Bible, Proverbs 31: 8-9, which says to speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves. Somehow, according to Alicia, this verse means the government should provide birth control. It would, perhaps, be a tad more accurate to say this verse instructs a government to judge righteously for all people, which would not mean forcing taxpayers to pay for contraceptives.
She goes on to “call on” leaders to face inequity. There is no inequality because the government isn’t paying for pregnancy prevention. The left’s biggest argument for gay marriage was that the government should “stay out of our bedroom.” Why doesn’t the same rule apply to birth control?
Individuals should pay for their conception prevention methods. There is no right for them. Alicia’s complaint is a case of someone who is ignorant of the faith exemptions in Obamacare, and fell for the lie that government will fix something. Alicia and her fiancé had to pay in full, and she is upset about it. Instead of griping about a mistake, she should learn from this.
If you plan to make the adult decision to get married, then get ready for an adulthood full of surprises, ups, down, sorrow, and heartbreak to punch you in the mouth, Alicia. It’s going to be a blast.
The left wants and needs open borders in order to continue their dismantling of the country and the way our Founding Fathers intended it to be. One law enforcement agency stands in the way, and leftists want it abolished. The men and women of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, which began after September 11, 2001, is responsible for tracking down illegal immigrants and having them deported. Democratic Party members have manipulated and brainwashed left-wing voters into a frenzy. Now, one is calling for $500 bounties on ICE agents.
A Massachusetts man, Brandon Ziobrowski, was recently arrested after he tweeted that he would “literally give $500 to anyone who kills an ICE agent.” He went on to ask for anyone interested to contact him on the social media site.
The Left Has Abandoned Politics
A Bernie Sanders campaign worker shot Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) in 2017. No doubt the psycho was whipped up into a state of delirium, driving him to attempted murder then suicide.
The Democratic Party is creating a dangerous culture. Instead of running an effective campaign and rallying their voters, Democrats use their platform to lead their voters into violence and threats of murder. Given the stance on abortion, this should not be a surprise, but it looks like the left has moved from killing unborn babies to attempted murder on people who do not agree with their political ideology.
Ten to fifteen years ago, when a political party lost the General Election, they would reevaluate their campaign and attempt to find out where it went wrong.
Nowadays, Antifa threatens right-wing voters and physically assaults them. The left is creating mass hysteria because they lost an election. Now they champion violence and attempt to keep the other side quiet through force. The First Amendment cannot be undervalued at times like this.
Democratic Foot Soldiers
Democrats view their constituents as foot soldiers. These weak-minded sheep get pushed over the edge during a Maxine Waters or Elizabeth Warren speech. Leftist politicians have become experts on mind manipulation and narrative direction with help from the media.
Antifa members are modern day Democratic Party brown shirts, and the left won’t condemn their actions. Democrat politicians are silent, and it’s telling. The most significant threat to the Democratic Party’s goals is speech. Right-wing voters who dare to speak out must be stopped or punished. In the past, radical leftists have successfully blocked conservative commentators Ann Coulter, Dennis Prager, and Ben Shapiro from speaking on college campuses.
If there is no open dialogue, America as we know it will die. The left will relish in her death.
Leftists have created a violent culture within the Democratic Party. That violence is intended to keep right-wingers from going to the voting polls, to suffocate new ideas, keep people on the left from moving to the right, and to destroy the United States as founded.
As long as the Democratic Party continues its divisive rhetoric, there will be more people like Ziobrowski, and Scalise’s shooter. However, politicians on the left don’t care. People who are easily manipulated with words are the perfect tool for left-wing politicians and their goals of open borders and a changed America.
A Washington D.C. district judge recently ordered the Trump Administration to restart the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. He stated that the legal reason for the Department of Homeland Security ending the program wasn’t “sound.”
U.S. District Court Judge John Bates was nominated to the bench under President George W. Bush. Bush was soft on immigration issues, so it only makes sense that the judges he chose would be as well. Bates is allowing until August 23 to give the Justice Department an argument for rebuttal. However, his mind already appears to be made up.
It is becoming more common for a judge to take the stance of a community organizer, instead of an interpreter of the law. Perhaps it is time for judges to rule on the law, instead of being judicial activists.
Judges or Activists?
This is not the first time a judge has declared a fiat from the bench based on his or her own personal or political beliefs.
The highest profile example is the case Roe v. Wade. Texas criminalized abortions, which eventually took the case before the Supreme Court. The majority ruled that the right to privacy is a greater priority than the right to unchosen conception by the unborn child, despite that our founding document, the Declaration of Independence enshrines, “the right to life.” Roe v. Wade should have gone back to the states.
The president’s so-called “Muslim ban” faced its own judicial challenges. When Trump took office, he immediately went after countries where radical Islamic terrorism was prevalent. The left began with their typical outrage and chose a judge in the most liberal circuit to put a block on the order. This happened on three different occasions, even though the Constitution is very clear about presidential power as it pertains to immigration policies. The president’s immigration executive order was eventually heard in front of SCOTUS and confirmed to be lawful.
The Judiciary and DACA
Obama was pressed to make changes to the immigration laws personally so that illegal aliens received amnesty. Several times, he pushed back and admitted that he could not unilaterally make laws and that Congress would need to be involved in the process. That is, until Obama decided to make a law via executive order, which became known as DACA.
Now, leftists are moving back to the issue of DACA. If Democrats don’t watch it, they will be embarrassed again like they were when the government was shut down for a whole nine hours over DACA earlier in the year.
Democrats and Judge Bates know this will get overturned. DACA can’t stand on its own legally because it wasn’t ordered underneath a preexisting law, which is a requirement for an executive order to hold.
The entire DACA issue needs to go to SCOTUS so that it will be ruled unlawful, and the whole question put to rest.
Activist judges are fueling the fire of division in the country. Their actions give unwarranted credence to the hysterical leftists that can’t get over the fact that Hillary lost the election. Those who are on court benches have an enormous responsibility, and that is to interpret the law.
It doesn’t matter what Judge Bates’ political affiliation is. Left or right, judges should adhere to the Constitution and whether or not a law or executive order is legal. Period.
Judges should not be involved in social justice activism.
The last couple of years have been tough for law enforcement. The left has pitted the men and women in blue as racists who are out to shoot someone innocent on a daily basis. The media has perpetuated this lie by jumping to conclusions and pushing out narratives that were eventually proven false. After the truth was learned, news programs would mention a quick blurb at best and move onto the next hot item. The media’s behavior has made life difficult for police officers. Now, a waitress has decided to do the same thing.
A waitress in Texas framed a Freestone County sheriff’s deputy after he ate at a Japanese restaurant. The waitress claimed that the deputy wrote a racially charged comment on his meal receipt, saying “f*** Mexicans.” The only problem was that he did not write the message. The waitress did, then posted it on social media. Of course, it went viral, and the sheriff received a complaint.
A Bad Day?
The sheriff’s department underwent an internal investigation. During the course of questioning the waitress, she admitted that she lied and wrote the message herself because she was having a “bad day.”
She caused the deputy an enormous amount of grief. He was subjected to stress from his superiors, even though he was innocent. The sheriff’s office was tarnished, and its integrity threatened at least for a short time. The deputy’s family received threats as well.
Social media is vicious and unforgiving. The people who threatened the deputy’s wife and children, felt justified because they saw a photo of the receipt on the internet. That is all they needed to know.
There is no excuse for this behavior, sorry or not. The wayward employee caused the officer’s family to live in fear because things weren’t going her way that day. This excuse wouldn’t fly with an officer.
The police have bad days every day in one way or another. They see the worst side of people and some of the most gruesome scenes. They work long hours and night shift rotations. Rough days are nothing new to law enforcement. However, they can’t make up charges against a citizen.
When confronted, the waitress refused to take down the post, which means she wasn’t having a bad day. Her actions were intentionally malicious.
There was no choice for the restaurant, but to fire the waitress. A second employee perpetuated the falsehood by placing the receipt on social media as well, and she was also fired.
Sadly, the left has succeeded in manipulating people into this type of conduct. Actions are learned behavior and the media has condoned this type of attitude. Even when riots were prevalent in 2016, the mainstream media wouldn’t condemn destroying private property, assault on police, and looting. Instead, they made excuses for the offenders. Leftists will lie about anything as long as they feel justified.
The left has no regard for the damage they cause to others. They look to damage whomever they deem an easy target for the mob.
Teen pregnancy is a problem in the United States. The culture has become hypersexual in nature, with no due regard to the damage that it creates. Children who are bombarded by adult themed music, billboards, commercials, and magazine covers become desensitized to sex. The culture has started to slip when commercials have a sexual theme to them.
To lower the risk of teen pregnancy, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has a program that focuses on not just reducing youth pregnancy but using abstinence as a form of birth control. However, Planned Parenthood affiliates are not happy and have filed two lawsuits against the government.
Within HHS, there is a division called the Office of Adolescent Health. The OAH has an evidence-based program called the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program (TPPP), which began in 2010. The program focuses on many different methods to prevent teenage pregnancy. One of the techniques taught is abstinence.
Abstaining from sexual relations only has one flaw: self-control. Other than that, it is the most surefire form of birth control. Since the inception of the program, there has been a 41% decline in teen pregnancy. The decrease in numbers is striking when we consider that there were approximately 200,000 teen abortions in 2009.
Other risks go along with teenagers having intercourse. They are often aloof to the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases. Studies suggest that testosterone and other hormones drive males to have sex, but they aren’t as emotional about the experience. Girls are feelings-driven by nature and tend to have a different experience.
The Bottom Line
The left claims to be worried about females. However, Planned Parenthood is more concerned about their bottom line. The lawsuits weren’t filed because the abortion industry is upset they can’t help teenagers in a time of distress. They see there are fewer customers, as sick as it is to say. When four out of ten fewer teen girls are pregnant, the chance of another sought abortion is gone, and that means less money for the abortion provider.
Approximately 51% of services rendered at Planned Parenthood are abortions. Moreover, 40% of abortions are performed by the organization, making it the largest abortion provider in the United States.
In May of this year, the Trump Administration created a rule banning federally funded clinics from referring pregnant women to abortion providers. Instead, they must offer an alternative service, such as counseling and adoption. This potentially takes money away from Planned Parenthood.
A Political Move
These two lawsuits aren’t about services for women. They are about getting back at the Trump Administration for causing them to lose funds. Only a morally bankrupt organization like Planned Parenthood would sue to stop a program that has been succeeding in lowering teenage pregnancy rates.
Who knew there was anything the government could do and see a positive result? If saving the lives of unborn innocent children is it, then the right should be ecstatic.
The program that Planned Parenthood is attempting to stop is actually winning. The fact that our culture has come to this is sad, though. Children should have parents at home to teach them about the dangers of sexual relationships during their teen years. However, if parents neglect their duty to teach the same principles at home, at least these kids have a place to turn.
The battle of the Federal Government versus sanctuary cities may not be at the forefront of the news, but it is still ongoing. Federal judge, Harry Leinenweber, ruled that the government’s opposition to sanctuary cities was unconstitutional. While the ruling currently applies in Chicago only, it has set up a potential State versus Federal government showdown in court.
President Trump’s sanctuary city executive order, which refers to Section 1373 or title 8 of the United States Code, was written to prohibit any government entity from withholding a person’s immigration status from the feds. The penalty for violating the provision is the withholding of federal funds. This law is the cornerstone of recent immigration enforcement by the Trump Department of Justice, but Judge Leinenweber ruled that this practice is not legal.
Leinenweber used a recent Supreme Court ruling that states can legalize gambling, despite contradictory federal regulation. The judge claims that sanctuary cities cannot have the federal government tell them what laws they can and cannot make.
Richard Henry Lee was an influential proponent of the Articles of Confederation, where states’ rights held the majority of power over a national government. A statesman and a planter by trade, Lee is given credit for drafting the Declaration of Independence and the Confederation Articles. Eventually, he drafted the 10th Amendment, guaranteeing states’ rights, which is vital to freedom.
The late Justice Antonin Scalia decided to allow burning the American flag. He stated that while he abhorred the treatment of the most significant symbol of liberty, he ruled that it was legal to burn the flag as it fell under free speech and the right to speak against the government without retribution. This ruling was not met with great applause by those on the right, but it was the correct decision.
President Trump’s intentions are noble. He doesn’t want illegal aliens in this country. They should not be able to come in and take jobs from natural born and legalized immigrants. All people should come legally. However, signing an executive order that dictates to states which laws they can and cannot make is a threat to states’ rights.
Local Action not Federal Interference
Sanctuary cities are a problem. The municipalities harbor individuals who break the law by coming across the border illegally. The left paints a picture of people with good intentions, saying that such people are looking for a better life, but instead end up being terrorized by ICE. However, their portrayal is inaccurate. If the individuals don’t want to be approached by the authorities, they could at least have entered through a port of entry. They choose to cross the border unlawfully and then live looking over their shoulder.
If a citizen does not like the law their local government passed, such as creating a sanctuary city, they should take legal action by suing, and moving the issue through the court system as high as it will go. A judge should not unilaterally make a decision; the case should come to him or her.
Sanctuary cities are placing their legal citizens below the status of illegal immigrants. No, not all illegals are evil people. However, the heart of man is not naturally good. When people illegally pass through our borders, they may have a sense of anonymity, which emboldens them to commit crime ranging from identification theft to deadly driving under the influence to sexual assault and murder. These offenses occur all over the country. The jurisdictions in which citizens live have a moral obligation to do what they can to ensure the safety of their people within the law, and should voluntarily give the federal government information on immigrants’ legal statuses.
Liberty is not always agreeable, but it is always American.