OPINION:
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Bill O’Reilly in a recent “O’Reilly Factor” appearance on Fox News that sanctuary cities may face more backlash from the administration than a loss of funding — that the White House is considering other punitive measures, as well.
Good. No punishment is too small for sanctuary cities that go out of their way to help the criminal element. But for the left, this must be like the twisting of the proverbial knife.
“We are looking at other possibilities that would be detrimental [to these cities],” Sessions told O’Reilly. “In the future, we can put requirements on some.”
Sessions didn’t detail what those requirements might entail. And he didn’t elaborate on what the other possibilities could be.
But he did double down on the long-running White House message that cities in violation of federal immigration policy face a very real threat of losing taxpayer money.
“Right now, under the Obama administration, they sent out grant notices that require people to assert they’re in compliance with the laws and [that] threaten cutting off of various funds if they didn’t comply,” Sessions said, Breitbart noted. “So we’ll continue to proceed [with] that and go further.”
In other words — sorry, Democrats. The weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left over the looming loss of federal dollars has fallen on deaf President Donald Trump ears.
He’s actually keeping this campaign promise.
And the hint in Sessions’ words is that cities that assert they’re in compliance — but actually aren’t — are lying. And isn’t that some kind of crime or something?
Could be.
Really, the fact that Democrats in dozens of cities around the nation are standing so strong on the side of sheltering illegals — on the side of lawbreakers — is pure partisan and pure outrage. Some of these Democrats met in New York earlier this week for a pow-wow session on fighting Trump’s sanctuary city crackdown.
Among their discussions?
A report from a University of California San Diego assistant professor, Tom Wong, that concluded crime in sanctuary cities is actually lower than in non-sanctuary cities.
The takeaway: Sanctuary cities are actually good for the nation.
Well, ask Kate Steinle’s father about that one. You remember Kate — she was the San Francisco woman who was shot to death while walking with her father on a pier, by a man police have said was an illegal immigrant with a felony background who had been deported on five prior occasions. He was walking around free after San Francisco authorities dropped drug charges on him — and was reportedly in the city simply to enjoy its sanctuary offering.
But this is what the left doesn’t get: It’s not about how much crime is committed by illegals. It’s the fact that any crime at all is committed by illegals — by those who are already breaking the law by being in the country without permission.
Whether it’s one crime or 1,000 crimes is not the point. The point is crimes committed by illegals just would not happen if they weren’t in the country.
The point is that illegals, by their very name and presence, are already committing a crime.
And cities that say to these illegals, hey come on in, we’ve got a home for you, are just slapping the faces of every legal immigrant, every American citizen, who belong here.
Besides, Sessions already made clear the feds aren’t going after illegals who are simply working and raising families.
“This is not where we [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is focusing its efforts at all,” he said, to O’Reilly.
It’s the criminal element — the ones who commit the rapes, the murders, the serious property damages — that he said ICE is focused on removing.
You know, the no-brainers to deport — no-brainers except, it seems, to Democrats.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.