If Democrats Honestly Cared About Border Security, They Would Not Support Sanctuary Cities - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics
If Democrats Honestly Cared About Border Security, They Would Not Support Sanctuary Cities

In their every press conference and interview rejecting President Trump’s call for a wall along our southern border to help prevent and protect against human trafficking of women and children, the unbridled import of opioids, and the entry of criminals and terrorists into our country, the Democrats maintain that they oppose only the Wall but otherwise strongly support border security. Thus, they state that they prefer drones and hi-tech equipment instead of a wall because, they say, those more modern approaches will do an even better job than will an old-fashioned wall at guarding the border. In other words, they claim to be as concerned as is the President over the chaos transpiring along our porous southern border.

There are two ways to demonstrate they are lying. One way is by sitting and arguing back-and-forth with the other side endlessly, as in a cable news panel discussion. I have come to hate wasting my time watching those. When I have a few moments each day to grab some news on Fox, the only value-added from Marie Harf, Chris Hahn, and Jessica Tarlov is that, while muting them, they offer a few moments for me to check the channel guide or pay a bill or two. But there is a much quicker alternative way to cut through the muck and prove Pelosi, Schumer, and their gang a bunch of liars on border security:

Just ask yourself: Side by side with their opposition to a wall, why do they also support Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary States? If they truly are so concerned about protecting the public against the infiltration of Illegals into our midst, why do they seek to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from receiving the information and tools ICE needs to remove illegal entrants safely and promptly from our land? Would that kind of helpful cooperation with ICE not be a logical part of any drone, hi-tech, and “everything-but-a-wall” approach to protecting the border?

They support Sanctuary Cities because they want porous borders, and they will do everything humanly possible to swell the tide of illegal immigration into a tsunami. They do not want word to spread southward that this country punishes and promptly deports those here illegally. Au contraire — they want a message to be sent to Guatemala, the Honduras, El Salvador, and Mexico that it all is a children’s game of tag: once you get past the “home-base” line without getting tagged, you may call “Sanctuary” — just like Quasimodo (or even Totalmodo) — and you are safe. Thus, ICE plans a raid to arrest Illegals, and Pelosi’s northern California ally, the despicable mayor of Oakland, publicly warns the Illegals that “The Fuzz” are coming, so get away quick. In another time in this country’s history, that mayor of Oakland would have been arrested. However, in today’s America it is the President of the United States whom the Democrats would impeach. The inmates in charge of the asylum.

Need more proof that the Democrats do not merely oppose The Wall but actually want porous borders? OK. Remember Jeff Sessions, the guy whose virtual absence from ministering the Justice Department for two years prepared all of us to experience what a Government Shutdown would look, sound, and feel like if they ever did to the rest of Washington what The Recuser did to Justice? Well, no sooner did he finally act against Sanctuary Cities, announcing a Trump Administration decision to withhold federal funds from any municipality refusing to cooperate with ICE, than the Democrats and their Left allies sprinted to House Lannister in King’s Landing — the Westeros-like fantasy land also known as the region within the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — and got themselves an Obama Judge to strike down the law with a nationwide injunction. United States District Judge William H. Orrick III nailed the door, pending eventual Supreme Court review one of these years, on the Trump Administration’s efforts to stop the madness. “Not an Obama Judge,” huh? Guess what? He previously had bundled $200,000 for Obama. Thus, the Justice Department never had a chance with him, and they did not have a snowball’s chance in a California summer of doing any better on appeal in the Democrat-Left-dominated Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the lower court in pertinent part.

(The Ninth Circuit panel split 2-1. Affirming the Obama Judge were U.S. Circuit Judges Sidney Thomas and Ronald Gould, both named by Bill Clinton. Voting in the Ninth Circuit minority to support the President’s Executive Order was U.S. Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, initially named a federal district judge by President Reagan and there after elevated by President George H.W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Circuit Judge Fernandez found that District Judge Orrick’s court “fail[ed] to accord the Executive Order a fair enough reading. That resulted in its abusing its discretion when it issued the injunction.” In the words of Chief Justice Roberts: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”)

If Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and all those newly harvested Democrat House representatives up and down California really wanted border security, why did they not join the chorus who spoke out against the judge’s ruling? Why do they instead all support Sanctuary Cities? Just as we are told that cereal and fruit juice are part of a balanced breakfast, isn’t the arrest and removal of illegal immigrants an obvious part of a complete border-control policy, side-by-side with drones and high technology and increased border patrols? Is there a consistency between Democrats saying, on the one hand, that they would pay for more guards and drones along the border… while, on the other hand, guaranteeing “sanctuary” for all criminals who sneak past those very guards and drones?

So it all is a game. A joke, a lie. When they say they are for border security in every which way — everything, everything except for a wall — there is the truth, the proof. No need for a cable television-news panel debate. This does not take rocket science. If you install a home protection system, but then a crook evades the front-door camera or the home alarm or just defiantly smashes your front window and breaks into your home anyway, do you take the position that you will not shoot the invader or call the police — or first call the police and then shoot the invader — because, well, they got past the alarm, so…SANCTUARY! If you employ an insect exterminator — and, no, we are not comparing illegal immigrants other than MS-13 and opioid smugglers and human traffickers to insects — and if that exterminator does a great job, but you later see an ant or spider or silverfish that got past him, would you not squish it? Or do you look at that centipede and proclaim liberty throughout the land: SANCTUARY!

The pernicious “Sanctuary City” secessionist movement from the federal government and from the supremacy of federal immigration law that has spread throughout Democrat-controlled urban polities proves definitively that all the other talk about “protecting our borders, just not with a wall” is facially mendacious. For the liberals and their Democrat party, the issue is not The Wall but assuring that our southern border remains porous so that the national voting electorate can continue to be transmogrified from a rooted majority-conservative constituency to a blue New Mexico, a converted-blue California, an increasingly blue-ing Nevada, and a purpling Arizona. It is about changing the demographic of our country by importing a new voting bloc of people who, because of their understandable poverty and limited Anglophonic skills, amplified by their utter ignorance of the values and beliefs and self-evident truths that animated our nation’s founding, will need to fall on the Government for handouts for at least a generation — free healthcare, free education, free hospital emergency rooms for stuffy noses, food stamps, welfare. They will be as natural a constituency for Democrats in other states as they have proven to be since turning California from the reliably Republican state that it was as recently as twenty years ago.

That is what this is all about. It is not about drones and high tech and about what else “works better” than a wall. Rather, it is about the destiny of this magnificent social experiment that, as of now, we still call America — until someone on the Left finds a tweet from Amerigo Vespucci where he said that there only are two genders, male and female.

Dov Fischer
Follow Their Stories:
View More
Rabbi Dov Fischer, Esq., a high-stakes litigation attorney of more than twenty-five years and an adjunct professor of law of more than fifteen years, is rabbi of Young Israel of Orange County, California. His legal career has included serving as Chief Articles Editor of UCLA Law Review, clerking for the Hon. Danny J. Boggs in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and then litigating at three of America’s most prominent law firms: JonesDay, Akin Gump, and Baker & Hostetler. In his rabbinical career, Rabbi Fischer has served several terms on the Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America, is Senior Rabbinic Fellow at the Coalition for Jewish Values, has been Vice President of Zionist Organization of America, and has served on regional boards of the American Jewish Committee, B’nai Brith Hillel, and several others. His writings on contemporary political issues have appeared over the years in the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, the Jerusalem Post, National Review, American Greatness, The Weekly Standard, and in Jewish media in American and in Israel. A winner of an American Jurisprudence Award in Professional Legal Ethics, Rabbi Fischer also is the author of two books, including General Sharon’s War Against Time Magazine, which covered the Israeli General’s 1980s landmark libel suit.
Sign up to receive our latest updates! Register

By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: The American Spectator, 122 S Royal Street, Alexandria, VA, 22314, http://spectator.org. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact

Be a Free Market Loving Patriot. Subscribe Today!