Paul Slams ‘Sanctuary Cities,’ Calls Out Both Parties for Failing to Secure...

Paul Slams ‘Sanctuary Cities,’ Calls Out Both Parties for Failing to Secure Border

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Senator Rand Paul has chimed in on “sanctuary cities” in light of the recent fatal shooting of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco. The city, which has become notorious for not detaining illegal immigrants, had released the shooter, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, in spite of the fact that he was wanted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on a drug-related warrant.

Appearing on the Laura Ingraham Show this morning, Paul said the following:

Conservatives say we believe in the rule of law, and the beginning of the rule of law is enforcing the law. Since 1986, there was a promise we would enforce the law on border security. We’ve done squat. We’ve done nothing… Eleven million people have crossed over illegally. So, the first thing we have to do is enforce the law.

He went on to call out both parties and the current administration for failing to do their jobs.

[W]e have not had a president, Republican or Democrat, who is willing to enforce immigration law. Now we have whole cities and states who stand up and say, ‘We just don’t care. We want these people here at all costs, and we’re not going to do anything about it.’ And I think the time’s come for that to end. But it’s not going to end until you have an executive in the White House who says, ‘I will enforce immigration laws.’

Senator Paul joins fellow Republican candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in calling for an end to sanctuary cities. Notably, however, Paul has not defended Trump’s controversial statements about Mexican immigrants, as Cruz has.

[wpdevfb]

6 COMMENTS

  1. Is the purpose of sanctuary cities to provide a sanctuary for the fugitives and criminals. All those who disobey federal law must be arrested and given a lesson that even those in position of authority and power are not exempted from the law. It is absolutely absurd that law-makers need to make a law which mandates that law breakers must respect the law and suffer consequences. How many more lives must we lose before we start enforcing law.

  2. For any who might ask such as Drsleuth, (from Wikipedia) ” A sanctuary, in its original meaning, is a sacred place, such as a shrine. By the use of such places as a safe haven, by extension the term has come to be used for any place of safety. This secondary use can be categorized into human sanctuary, a safe place for humans, such as a political sanctuary; and non-human sanctuary, such as an animal or plant sanctuary.”

    In medieval times, anyone needing sanctuary, such as someone who might have committed a crime who the government wanted to arrest and hang immediately, could claim sanctuary once inside any religious facility such as a church, temple or other holy grounds. Whether attaining that ground through acceptance or force, once on holy ground the person could claim sanctuary by stating such and it was recognized. As long as that individual remained on the holy ground, he was untouchable to the law on the outside.

    Sanctuary cities are an extension of that premise. However, these cities were not created for the purpose of accepting all criminals fleeing the law. The people who applied for sanctuary were supposed to have special need, not that of the standard. People applying for sanctuary tended to live in that community, or nearby, they were contributing members of their communities until something unique occurred placing them in need of sanctuary.

    THEN… (This again from Wikipedia)

    “Sanctuary of refugees from Central American civil wars was a movement in the 1980s. Part of a broader anti-war movement positioned against U.S. foreign policy in Central America, by 1987, 440 cities in the United States had been declared “sanctuary cities” open to migrants from these civil wars in Central America.

    These sites included university campuses and cities. From the 1980s continuing into the 2000s, there also have been instances of churches providing “sanctuary” for short periods to migrants facing deportation in Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland, Australia, the United States, and Canada, among other nations. In 2007, Iranian refugee Shahla Valadi was granted asylum in Norway after spending seven years in church sanctuary after the initial denial of asylum. Norwegian authorities will not, as a rule, enter churches to deport illegal immigrants.[4] From 1983 to 2003 Canada experienced 36 sanctuary incidents.[5] The “New Sanctuary Movement” organization estimates that at least 600,000 people in the United States have at least one family member in danger of deportation.[6]”

    It appears evident that “Sanctuary” no longer means what it once did. Sanctuary was for a singular or small-group unique circumstance while awaiting new legal recourse, etc. Today, it is for an entire people to have (basically) asylum.

    • Most of these sanctuary are on unholy ground and they are not protection for one or a few people. Sanctuaries were never meant to be safe heavens for the entire criminal population to invade our country. By the way 8 U.S.C. § 1324 : US Code – Section 1324 – Bringing in and harboring certain aliens.

      It is a violation of law for any person to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection in any place, including any building or means of transportation, any alien who is in the United States in violation of law.
      HARBORING MEANS ANY CONDUCT THAT TENDS TO SUBSTANTIALLY FACILITATE AN ALIEN TO REMAIN IN THE U.S. ILLEGALLY.
      The penalty for felony harboring is a fine and imprisonment for up to five years for each alien harbored.
      Where the crime causes serious bodily injury or places the life of any person in jeopardy, the penalty is a fine and up to twenty years’ imprisonment.
      If the criminal smuggling or harboring results in the death of any person, the penalty can include life imprisonment.
      Convictions for aiding, abetting, or conspiracy to commit alien smuggling or harboring, carry the same penalties.

      Once again the President is not above the supreme Law of the Land .

      • I thank you for providing the actual law and section of code. This leaves the President responsible for yet more… I have saved the law code you shared to use in future responses. Thank you again.

Leave a Reply