No. of Recommendations: 4
Yes! Why do say "now"? Many liberals have always felt that the problem with federal immigration law enforcement is that it does not distinguish between people who are genuine dangers to their community and people that are generally law-abiding and pose no threat.
Uh, huh. Here's one of many problems with this: "Serious". Somehow, the word "serious" is never mentioned.
I'd say vehicular homicide is "serious", but sanctuary laws (and evidently mainstream liberal thought) disagrees. Convenient, that.
Most of the people who are in those "jail hallways" are either: i) not going to be charged; ii) are there for misdemeanor offenses like drug possession or minor property crimes.
So they've committed crimes on top of being an illegal alien. And by refusing the retainers, the local jurisdictions appoint themselves arbiters of who gets to stay and who needs to leave the country.
That's power and moral authority that sanctuary cities lack. Bigly.
Of course it does. The issue isn't whether there exist the 5% of people that are arrested for serious violent crimes; the issue is whether the other 95% deserve to have the same treatment as the 5%.
And now you're back to your framework thing, which cloaks the sanctuary policies in the warm blanket of emotional cover in the form of "It's our principle that it's better a hundred guilty men go free than 1 innocent one going to jail".
Slight problem: The people making this judgement have no standing to do so.
It's about whether those same major consequences get imposed indiscriminately on the people who are genuinely not truly bad.
Which isn't the job of these local jurisdictions.
Steve has it right: if you don't like the immigration laws, change the immigration laws. You don't get to just ignore them because Reasons.
