Sanctuary!

The post title comes from the famous line from The Hunchback of Notre Dame, but the subject relates to the ongoing controversy over sanctuary cities.

In case you've been hibernating (or otherwise taking sanctuary), I'll summarize briefly.  The Trump administration wants to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities - those cities that would defy federal immigration policy and not allow ICE officers to do their jobs.  The sanctuary cities are defiant, declaring that they'll continue to thwart ICE's efforts to deport illegal immigrants who have broken laws in addition to the law they broke when they entered the country illegally.

Feel like you need a Gantt chart to follow this line of pretzel logic?  You're not alone.

One such sanctuary city is Chicago, whose mayor, Rahm Emanuel, was the first to speak out in defiance of the Trump administration.  (You'll recall that Mayor Emanuel was formerly President Obama's pet pit bull, and I say that with apologies to all pit bulls.)  Even before President Trump was inaugurated, Emanuel declared that Chicago would forever remain a sanctuary city.  He went so far as to state that cities like Chicago, San Francisco and Boston were the economic, intellectual and cultural backbone of America.

Okay, Rahm, if Chicago is the economic backbone of America, why are you so worried about losing federal funding?  I mean, you don't need money from us uncultured flyover states, right?  (And while we're at it, Rahm, you're about as cultured as Billy Bob Thornton's character in "Sling Blade."  Mmmm-hm.)

Meanwhile, Chicago can't keep its own house in order - seeing as how it's the intellectual backbone of America, you'd think its mayor would be smart enough to figure out how to control crime there.  Chicago's burgeoning violent crime rate makes it less safe than Aleppo.  I love the Windy City, but I wouldn't visit there today on a bet.  Maybe, just maybe, Chicago could be made safer by ridding it of all criminal elements, not just those that were born in the U.S.

Police officials in some sanctuary cities have made the ludicrous assertion that they have to defy ICE, because they need the illegal immigrants in the community to inform on the even worse criminal elements among them.  Their argument goes that if they start cooperating with ICE in rounding up illegal immigrants who've committed crimes since coming to America illegally (pretzel logic, again), their base of informants will stop feeding them information on the even worse criminal elements among the illegal immigrant community.

Stop the madness!

First, I have a few cop friends, and I've never heard any of them voice this nonsense.  Second, have you ever seen a headline about an illegal immigrant that since committed another crime turning in another illegal immigrant who has since also committed a crime, thereby preventing yet another crime?  No, you haven't, and to assume this is commonplace defies logic.  (Apparently the sanctuary cities aren't the logical backbone of America.)

But - have you seen a headline about an illegal immigrant who has since committed a crime, committing yet another crime?  Yes, you have, unless you're impersonating an ostrich.

And third, if we follow that logic, can we have sanctuary cities for legal U.S. citizens who are criminals too?  I'd like to be able to rob a bank and receive sanctuary.  Hey, it's a good deal: I promise if you don't arrest me for bank robbery, I'll rat out all my friends who break the law.  I know a few habitual speeders, after all.  But if I face the threat of arrest, I'm not singing.

Okay, I don't seriously want to rob a bank.  But hopeful the analogy illustrates the sheer stupidity of the "we need them as informants" defense.

One other argument against cutting off funding to sanctuary cities is that among the funding cuts would be cuts to policing those cities.  The assertion is that this would make those cities less safe.

Well, again, Chicago is a shining example.  Federal funding for policing has not yet been withheld from Chicago, yet that city - under Rahm Emanuel - becomes less safe every day.  If the leaders of those cities aren't effective in making their citizens safe today, why are they crying about losing federal funding for policing their communities?  And should we continue to provide that funding if they clearly can't deploy it effectively?

Cut 'em off, I say.  I don't want my federal tax dollars going to subsidize a bunch of scoff-laws who want nothing more than to perpetuate the idea of a liberal majority by bringing more illegal immigrants into the U.S., making them beholden to the party that gave them sanctuary so that they can establish a permanent majority voting block.  That's what the whole pro-illegal immigration movement is really about.

Extreme partisan politics have been threatening our democracy for far too long.  There is no need to perpetuate it, especially through means that defy our laws.

One other alternative:  there's a direct connection via the Great Lakes between Ontario, Canada and Chicago.  Maybe the Canadians would want Chicago?  I'm sure a little poutine would expand Rahm Emanuel's cultural horizons, eh?