If I were a Democrat, I’d be very embarrassed by the people who represent my party in the Senate, not to mention that I’d be similarly embarrassed by the Democrat occupying the White House. You ask why.
thanks to Derryckgreen.net
Today, the Democrats in the Senate, backed by the President’s threat of a veto, blocked a bill that would punish cities that failed to follow Federal immigration law or cooperate with Federal Immigration officials. The purpose of the legislation was to force certain cities to obey Federal law.
My guess, from how the Democrats framed the debate, is that they had two main objectives both of which were intended for political gain for their party and neither of which was for the good of the people they purport to represent.
First, they labeled it the “Donald Trump anti-immigrant bill.” They did that because they are scared to death by the popularity of Mr. Trump and how his message is resonating with many “rank and file” Democrats. Second, they think that immigration law enforcement loses votes in Hispanic precincts. Oh, yes, there is the fact that almost all of the cities which claim to be ‘sanctuaries’ are controlled by Democrats. At last count, 31 major U.S. cities call themselves sanctuaries and, at most, four are not solidly in control of Democrats.
If you are a member of the Democrat Party, please tell me why this doesn’t embarrass you. I would love to understand or at least know one good reason to oppose such legislation.
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 4, 2015 at 11:49 pm
Patrick
This argument could be flipped to the other side… Republicans in congress put forward a bill that has zero chance of passing just so they can brand themselves as fighting the scourge of illegal immigration. Same thing with pointless votes to repeal Obamacare over and over.
A few years ago it seems like there was momentum to actually reform our federal immigration laws. That effort was scuttled by conservatives peddling fear of higher crime and loss of American culture and values (neither idea is supported by the evidence: it is very clear that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born Americans [http://econ.st/1HjjQcz], and a recent study indicates that new immigrants are assimilating into American culture as fast or faster than immigrants who arrived during previous generations [http://nyti.ms/1KynGjI]).
But now immigration reform is a non-starter. As a result states and cities are writing their own laws, both pro- and anti-immigrant. Sanctuary cities make plenty of sense. Evidence suggests that sanctuary cities enjoy lower crime rates and higher levels of trust/cooperation with the police. I don’t support the idea that states and cities can just say that they will no longer follow federal law. Certainly the better solution is to modify and improve the federal laws in question, but that is impossible at the moment. It seems like in a variety of areas, cities and states that break/ignore federal laws are how things change in this country. Take marijuana legalization (medicinal or otherwise), for example. States started to ignore federal law given that a change in that law was very unlikely.
Anyway, I’m not proud that this is the way it works, but I also find it hard to blame cities that are trying to look out for the safety of their citizens.
November 5, 2015 at 11:23 am
ttoes
Appreciate your well considered response. However, I disagree that there was zero chance of passing the bill. The Bill would have passed on Republican votes alone but would not have had the votes to overcome a veto. Had the President not loudly proclaimed that he would veto the bill (not just threatening to veto it but promising to do so), many Democrats may have felt safe to support the bill. Instead, flip the argument to say that the President needs the support of his backers for his (already judged unconstitutional) plan of November 2014, to “fix” immigration. It can be said that Mr. Obama wants his plan and has blocked the Congress from doing its job. He wants to wear the mantel of the one who “fixed” immigration and doesn’t want to share any success with Congress. It is a game that requires adversaries and is a sad state of affairs.
It is interesting that Mr. Obama’s administration has deported more illegal immigrants than any previous administration (keeping his promise to his union supporters) but he has made every effort to keep this from being publicized since that does not fit the image he wants to portray to his other supporters. He walks a fine line.
The reason for the post, and my main point, if poorly put, was that we have city, county, and state governments acting illegally and we have a President and his fellow party members who condone it. That is wrong. Again, they are choosing which laws they should obey and which they should ignore. That’s like the cop who speeds at will when he is off duty because he thinks he is above the law and won’t be punished if caught. It doesn’t make it right.
I’m involved here in Oregon in an industry that relies heavily on immigrant labor. I think there have been many reasonable guest worker solutions put forward, but they can never even get considered by our State’s Democrat controlled legislature at the risk of offending their union backers.
I was going to use the Marijuana law issue in my post and am glad you brought it up. It is another problem that requires a federal solution and is now being ignored at the federal level.
I have heard that there are enough pot users in the Federal Government that leaders quietly hope for reversal of federal regulation of pot but that for political reasons, they can’t publicly support that. Similarly, I have heard that most sanctuary cities are predominantly white collar and they need immigrants to do their dirty work.
Unfortunately, it seems politics rule the day. That fact, however, does not make any of this any less revolting.
Tom