Sanctuary Cities and Counties . . .

For many, many years there had been a trickle of folks from the South who illegally crossed our border and entered the United States and no one paid much attention. The simple reason was because those who came were honest, decent people who were willing to leave family and home, risk peril, and come here seeking to earn a better living. Their presence here did not present a problem or add any strain on our system . . . and quite honestly they took low-waged jobs that our citizens shunned. It seemed a win/win for both sides of the equation.

However, over the past two decades that trickle has turned into a flood and today it is estimated that there are some 12-million illegals in residence. Honestly, that number, while quite large and staggering, is not the problem inasmuch as who these new border-crossers include. Suddenly the nature, ambitions, and behaviors of many of those crossing the border as illegal immigrants has changed. Today, they have strained our benevolent system which has always been intended to help our lower-income citizens. That assistance includes Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) (monthly cash stipend), food stamps, public housing, medical assistance, free public education, and such. Even beyond that, many of them have proven to be criminals . . . some of them are criminals of the worst order: rapists and murderers.

Of course, we have federal laws concerning immigration and the capture and deportation of those found to be here illegally. That federal system provides an avenue for immigrants to obtain clearance to live and work here temporary (green card) and to even ultimately become citizens. I have a number of employees who have followed that pathway.

However, over the past few years there have been some folks who have been elected to city councils and county offices who have influenced those bodies to ignore such federal laws and to become what is being called sanctuaries for these illegals . . . and it does not seem to matter how criminally inclined the illegal might be or his criminal background. They put in place prohibitions on local law enforcement from cooperating with federal officials when such illegals are apprehended.

So, what is up with this? Is it simply a matter of tender-hearted, compassionate people seeking to do the Lord’s work while deciding that the federal system is wrong? There are those who seek to make such an argument. In fact many who have no otherwise use for the Holy Bible (and discount pretty much everything else it says), take a custom from ancient Israel and attempt to make it the parallel for this new anarchy. In the Bible there were, in fact, “Cities of Refuge” . . . safe places in which perpetrators of manslaughter could claim rights of asylum once there. Is today’s sanctuary city the same thing? I would argue that it is not . . . not by a long shot!

The simple truth is the Levitical Cities of Refuge were for citizens of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Moreover, they were for folks who were guilty of a crime, but a crime of accident or circumstance, and not a crime involving the heart or motive. There has always been a clear distinction between murder and manslaughter (Hebrew law, Roman law and USA laws). Manslaughter is the crime of killing a human without malice or aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder. There is, in pretty much every legal system, a recognized difference in crimes and associated punishments for things that are willful as opposed to those of circumstance.

Beyond that truth, I would argue that these modern day, self-appointed prophets of right and wrong are themselves criminals. The simple truth is that each and every individual elected to any office in the United States . . . regardless of how high or low that office might be . . . share two common obligations, as follows:

ONE: Any person so elected is obliged to represent the interests of those who elected him or her to said office. One would have to be mentally challenged and morally bankrupt to argue that one here illegally who rapes and murders a young girl has rights even close to those of the victim or her family. Providing a sanctuary city that protects such criminals clearly puts the interest of those here illegally well above the interests of those who elected the so-called representative; and

TWO: Each and every person so elected to public office must publicly take the uniform oath-of-office prior to being permitted to take such office. The common oath-of-office clearly includes a promise to “support, protect, and defend the Constitution . . . from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.” I fully believe that any elected representative(s) who fails to abide by the oath-of-office is a criminal and ought to be removed from office. The privilege of elected office does not afford one the option of selecting the laws one likes as opposed to those he does not like. In a democracy, one follows a prescribed process to facilitate the elimination, repeal, or revision of a law that is deemed improper or wrong. History provides many such changes in law.

It Seems to me . . . that these violators of federal law . . . these false prophets . . . are not nearly as righteous as they wish to appear. They surely have a hidden agenda that is clearly not healthy for the USA.

Common sense says that the USA is a nation in which the rule of law is an important principle of governance. Removing that rule of law would make us like a third world nation wherein the strong survive and the weak perish as the laws of the jungle play out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.