The American Spectator

Giuliani isn’t being asked too many questions about sanctuary policies, but he should be. For one thing, they would appear to directly contradict his approach to crime which worked so successfully when he was mayor of New York City: the idea that vigorous prosecution of relatively minor crimes improves the overall quality of life for the law-abiding majority and enhances the ability of law enforcement to pressure small-time offenders for cooperation in bringing the most dangerous, violent criminals to justice.

Indeed, people who have worked with Giuliani say he hasn’t always been soft on the question of illegal immigration. Michael Cutler, a former INS agent, recounts a meeting sometime in the early 1980s in Sen. Alfonse D’Amato’s office, during which Cutler led a group of immigration officers protesting what they said were insufficient criminal penalties for serial violators of federal immigration law. When he heard their concerns, D’Amato became angry and telephoned Giuliani, then U.S. attorney in New York, on his speaker phone. As Cutler and his fellow agents listened intently, Giuliani researched the relevant statute of the federal code, and then made it clear in no uncertain terms that he agreed: the penalties needed to be strengthened.

The relevant question today is this: Would President Giuliani govern like the tough-minded U.S. attorney who agreed with the border agents that day in D’Amato’s office, or like the mayor who lobbied tenaciously to defend sanctuary policies? It’s a pretty safe bet that the great majority of people who applauded him at CPAC would prefer the former — and for good reason.