Senate Democrats just blocked a proposed bill that would deny so-called “sanctuary cities” federal funding to the extent such cities openly undermine federal laws regarding our nation’s borders (emphasis added below).
The legislation blocked in the Senate stems from the July 1 shooting of Kate Steinle in San Francisco. The man accused of killing her, Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, was in the country illegally despite a long criminal record and five prior deportations.
Because San Francisco is a sanctuary city for illegal aliens, local police released Sanchez despite a request from federal immigration authorities to keep him behind bars. A short time later, Kate Steinle was dead. <cnsnews.com, link>
Harry Reid, who possesses none of Mitt Romney’s genteel ways (that’s why he wins policy battles, Mitt), had this to say:
Republicans are wasting the American people’s time with a partisan vote on the Donald Trump Act. That’s what we’re going to vote on at 2:15. That’s what the House members have called it, and I think it’s a pretty good description of what we’re doing out there.
I admire Harry’s willingness to go for the jugular against political opponents, and what a terrible shame it is that he is always on the wrong side of issues.
What prompted me to write about this particular Democrat party act of elevating illegal and criminal illegal aliens above ordinary American citizens is a comment that Reid made about sanctuary cities:
In a speech on the Senate floor before the vote, Reid defended states’ and communities’ right to “do the things they think are appropriate.”
HARRY REID IS SUDDENLY A BELIEVER IN STATES’ RIGHTS?
What we have here is a great opportunity to revisit a fundamental principle of American government, which is to apportion power across LOCAL, STATE, and NATIONAL (federal) governmental bodies, each of which has its own legislated and established case law that addresses the functioning of society.
What issues belong to the Federal Government as opposed to the State and Local governments?
Harry Reid, in the case of cities choosing to openly reject federal laws regarding the sovereignty of our country’s borders, supports the rights of local and state governments to give the middle finger to the federal government.
But as usual, he has it backwards and is on the wrong side of an issue.
I am a huge believer in federalism (states’ rights); in fact it is part of the bedrock of my political philosophy. At the same time, the federal government SHOULD be more involved in issues in which coordination across state lines is essential, and illegal immigration is a perfect example of this.
National defense is another: if a foreign power attached Louisiana, should Louisiana have to raise its own army and then coordinate with the armies of Mississippi and Texas (neighboring states)? Of course not: the nation as a whole must have a military organization that transcends each of the 50 states.
This concept is so simple a child can understand it, and we can all be sure that Harry Reid and Manchurian Obama understand it very well.
But they have an agenda, which involves ruthless central control of our lives and bodies, and they will trample the states in a million ways on their way to a full-blown Orwellian regime. If illegal immigration means a faster path to their dream of a New Feudalism in which we are mere subjects and they are the kings and queens who lord over us, then by all means, be a sanctuary city.