Wow. What a concept -- the answer to illegal immigration according to the Times is to ignore it. Integrate and welcome those here illegally and the problem goes away! Let's think about that. Is the answer to gun violence also to ignore it? How about domestic abuse. If we just integrate and welcome the abusers, does it stop being a crime and stop being a problem? I'm generally pro-immigrant (I'm married to one who came here legally to go to college). But the bottom line for me, is that the U.S. can either have open-borders or a strong safety net/welfare system. We can't do both -- we can't welcome an unlimited number of the world's poor who may, over time, generate wealth and income for the country but at least for many early years will suck out billions of dollars in social services. Just look at how much of California's school budgets go to educate and provide subsidized meals to the children of illegal immigrants. It's not the kids fault, but why it is my job and the job of every other taxpayer to pay that bill for people who aren't even legally in the country?
39
This is a shameful article in a long list of shameful articles. When did immigration reform become open borders at any cost? Millions of illegals are flooding our country and draining our resources. Some commentators are correct in pointing out that higher paying jobs are being taken by minimum wage illegals. I doubt they are even being paid minimum wage. Sanctuary cities are harboring criminals, not that democrats care.
It is even more shameful that the NYT tries to connect illegal immigration to gun control. The right for individual people to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the constitution and reaffirmed by SCOTUS - law of the land.
Finally, we have enough home-grown criminals, we do not need to import a tidal wave of criminals that kill our daughters, drain our resources and overrun the land in a democrats' shameful attempt to gain millions of new voters to give them permanent control of the government. Our country is in so much trouble.
It is even more shameful that the NYT tries to connect illegal immigration to gun control. The right for individual people to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to the constitution and reaffirmed by SCOTUS - law of the land.
Finally, we have enough home-grown criminals, we do not need to import a tidal wave of criminals that kill our daughters, drain our resources and overrun the land in a democrats' shameful attempt to gain millions of new voters to give them permanent control of the government. Our country is in so much trouble.
24
"Sanctuary Cities" are the classic example of the regime of prerogative law, of selective enforcement, that under Obama has effectively replaced the Constitution and statutory law. The President is sworn to "faithfully execute the laws" but he only enforces those he likes and he even makes some up. When one adds up his executive order, his memoranda and his "fact sheets" he has taken more unilateral actions -- ignoring Congress -- than any other president in the US. The purpose of Obama's plot, hatched with the heads of the DHS agencies, was to nullify immigration law on the border and the enforcement of immigration law inside the US. What we have in "Sanctuary Cities" is secessionist politics, the kind practiced by southern governors to defy the law of the land when it came to integration. Eisenhower wisely sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1954 to remind Governor Faubus that the law of the land does not stop at the borders of Arkansas. As to the notion of "unjust deportation of innocents" this is simply risible. No one knows who exactly lives in "sanctuary citizens." Are they just illegal aliens who mock our immigration laws and commit identity theft and steal jobs from Americans, or are they violent felons, drug dealers or terrorists? In 2013 and 2014 DHS released 76,000 violent felons who had committed robberies, rape, and homicide. This editorial ignores a huge dangers -- to the Constitution and the safety of the American people.
30
Another smug, self-righteous lecture by the limousine liberal set of Manhattan, I see....
It all comes down to precisely what the "problem" is, doesn't it? I, and a vast majority of Americans (though evidently not our quiche-eating friends at the Times) define the "problem" as the illegal entry of undocumented aliens into the country and the refusal of our Government to do anything about it. Penalizing so-called "sanctuary cities" represents a rational effort to combat that "problem". Maybe not totally effective, but entirely rational and entirely understandable.
So, NY Times, precisely how would you combat the "problem" as I and a vast majority of Americans would define it??
It all comes down to precisely what the "problem" is, doesn't it? I, and a vast majority of Americans (though evidently not our quiche-eating friends at the Times) define the "problem" as the illegal entry of undocumented aliens into the country and the refusal of our Government to do anything about it. Penalizing so-called "sanctuary cities" represents a rational effort to combat that "problem". Maybe not totally effective, but entirely rational and entirely understandable.
So, NY Times, precisely how would you combat the "problem" as I and a vast majority of Americans would define it??
29
Mr. Lopez-Sanchez had seven felony convictions and had been deported from the US five times, yet he was released. To suggest that the murder of Kate Steinle was an accident is unconscionable.
39
This editorial is shockingly manipulative and hopelessly dishonest.
Immigration, illegal or even justifiably illegal, is not simply redefined as 'unauthorized' to soften the reality that it is an invasion of our land and an attempt to illegally steal our resources. Trying to change the term 'illegal' to 'unauthorized' is a semantic ploy I wouldn't have thought objective, balanced intellectuals would ever stoop to even among the uninformed and deluded, let alone the editors of a paper most would want to be clear of vision and balanced in voice.
11 million scrabbling, law defying strangers came here illegally. While I'd love to see a review process fairly allow the more worthy to stay, with penalties for their end run of our protective laws, I am saddened by the Editorial Board's soft hearted, soft headed attempts to coddle these people who jumped the queues to get here, and the many who claim resources from generous city and town social programs that would better serve legal residents if less illegals were encouraged to break our laws to enter.
Terrible editorial, NYT. Wake up and correct your descriptions of our uninvited, often unwanted interlopers. Most of us would support paths to citizenship and some social aide to the desperate. You don't need to mischaracterize them, or lie about what they have illegally done - 'unauthorized'... what's next? Accidentally invasive neighbors??
Immigration, illegal or even justifiably illegal, is not simply redefined as 'unauthorized' to soften the reality that it is an invasion of our land and an attempt to illegally steal our resources. Trying to change the term 'illegal' to 'unauthorized' is a semantic ploy I wouldn't have thought objective, balanced intellectuals would ever stoop to even among the uninformed and deluded, let alone the editors of a paper most would want to be clear of vision and balanced in voice.
11 million scrabbling, law defying strangers came here illegally. While I'd love to see a review process fairly allow the more worthy to stay, with penalties for their end run of our protective laws, I am saddened by the Editorial Board's soft hearted, soft headed attempts to coddle these people who jumped the queues to get here, and the many who claim resources from generous city and town social programs that would better serve legal residents if less illegals were encouraged to break our laws to enter.
Terrible editorial, NYT. Wake up and correct your descriptions of our uninvited, often unwanted interlopers. Most of us would support paths to citizenship and some social aide to the desperate. You don't need to mischaracterize them, or lie about what they have illegally done - 'unauthorized'... what's next? Accidentally invasive neighbors??
29
Living close to Philadelphia, which considers itself a sanctuary city, I am aware of the politics there. One of the city's problems is unemployment amongst minority youth. For many people, and I would bet most of the commenters on this site, entry level minimum wage jobs taught them life lessons about work ethic, interacting with people, basic technical skills and an introduction to how our economy works. Since many illegal immigrants are filling these types of positions, young American citizens are being denied the opportunity of working these jobs and gaining this experience. Artificial increases in the minimum wage will only make this worse. You can't have it both ways and I believe it is more important to employ the young minority population than to create a safe haven for illegal immigrants. (I actually hate the word minority as it is very condescending. I wish there was a better word to use).
The dishonesty concerning the liberal, NYT, and Democrat party portrayal of the conservative view on immigration is astounding. Conservatives fully support LEGAL immigration and many would like to see the naturalizatin process streamlined to make it quicker and easier. This includes Latin Americans so stop with the bogus racist talk. Conservatives are against ILLEGAL immigration. And any person who entered this country illegally has already committed a crime so they are in fact criminals.
The dishonesty concerning the liberal, NYT, and Democrat party portrayal of the conservative view on immigration is astounding. Conservatives fully support LEGAL immigration and many would like to see the naturalizatin process streamlined to make it quicker and easier. This includes Latin Americans so stop with the bogus racist talk. Conservatives are against ILLEGAL immigration. And any person who entered this country illegally has already committed a crime so they are in fact criminals.
22
Every generation of Americans experiences a challenge: Is our behavior and policy consistent with our claim that we are exceptional and a beacon for mankind? Every president has has told us that we differ from those other nations who practice racial and ethnic exclusion. The current issue over the status of the 11 million illegal immigrants provides us with yet another opportunity to test our cultural and national commitments. Based on reading these commentaries a major response can only be described as ugly and a direct challenge to American Exceptionalism. Who are we and what do we stand for? Take the economic contribution of the immigrants. Their aggregate demand contributes to the GDP; there are instances of displacement. Their contribution to SS keeps it solvent, contributions they may never recover. As for assimilation: There are at least a half million who came as children, the Dreamers, who are highly assimilated and who cannot be labelled as "illegals," for they committed no crime. Shall we deport them? Where? This is the only land they know! Aren't they culturally Americans? Well, then, let's deport their parents who broke the law along with grandma and their uncles. Is this what we want historians to say about this generation: At the cost of billions and the creation of a massive infrastructure of transitional camps, patrolled by the US military and local police with orders to shoot any escapees, America deported 11 million illegal immigrants?
5
Calling illegal aliens, "unauthorized immigrants" shades the language to fog the issue. Nobody in either political party claims that all illegal aliens are dangerous felons, but illegal aliens are in the USA because they overstayed their visas or they sneaked into this country, bypassing the legal immigrant process. That, in itself, is a crime.
The definition of a sovereign nation includes having control over its borders and who is permitted to cross them. Our nation has benefited greatly from it's legal immigrants, many of whom have made significant contributions to our culture and well-being. Short-circuiting the legal immigration process is equivalent to line-breaking and is not the way to continue building a great nation.
The definition of a sovereign nation includes having control over its borders and who is permitted to cross them. Our nation has benefited greatly from it's legal immigrants, many of whom have made significant contributions to our culture and well-being. Short-circuiting the legal immigration process is equivalent to line-breaking and is not the way to continue building a great nation.
16
This "sanctuary city" concept was a surprise, even a shock to many American citizens. Apparently it permits a city or a locale to simple ignore or refuse to comply with selected federal regulations.
Is this an example of "City Rights", a present day form of "States Rights"?
If a city or a locale or a state disagrees with federal law, there an established process of legitimate legal recourse, not just politically correct rebellion. Then there is no effective national law.
Is this an example of "City Rights", a present day form of "States Rights"?
If a city or a locale or a state disagrees with federal law, there an established process of legitimate legal recourse, not just politically correct rebellion. Then there is no effective national law.
11
I think most of the people who are fervently anti-illegal immigrant here probably have benefited from their services. Who do they think were picking their food and mowing their lawns? Who do they think were doing menial construction jobs? People will come to this country as long as there are low wage jobs that go begging. If you want to fix the problem raise the minimum wage so more citizens will take these sorts of job and illegal immigrants will not find jobs to fill the gaps and will not come in search of them.
5
There have been studies that show that sanctuary cities are actually safer in terms of violent crime rates than non-sanctuary cities. The reason for this is simple: police require the cooperation of communities to prevent crime by reporting it and aiding in its investigation. If entire communities avoid contact with the police crime usually runs rampant. Just ask the Black Lives Matter protesters about that. I have a question for all the immigrant hardliners. Is it more important to reduce violent crime in American cities or is it more important to deport all the undocumented immigrants because you don't like that they aren't white and don't speak English?
6
So we just ignore federal laws at our discretion? Are we not a nation of laws? You say: "They are based on the lie, now infecting the Republican presidential campaign, that all unauthorized immigrants are dangerous criminals who must be subdued by extraordinary means." I don't see it that way, I know few of them are dangerous criminals, but they ARE criminals. They are illegals. They have broken into our house, taken up residence, and are consuming our resources. Let them get in line and wait their turns at leagl immigration, which should limited to strict quotas and designed to allow in only the best and brightest. The only reason to allow any immigration would be to replace population losses. We should set a strict limit on our population, and unless American reproduction does not meet that limit, then only just enough immigrants to meet that limit should be allowed to enter.
15
Small government republicans and another top down solution to a non-problem. Sounds like they don't believe in state and local government at all. A new bill by the guy in the diaper. It's not meddling, honest.
2
I have on my bookshelf a book published in 1933 entitled “The Rise and Destiny of the German Jew,” the year a radical racist used a convenient scapegoat to not only seize political power but to justify the police state he and his party has planned.
Demagogs need scapegoats. Jews in Germany in 1933 and Muslims and Mexican immigrants, documented or undocumented with many of our fearful citizens and the party which feeds on that fear which promises a solution. A final solution being the destruction of our constitutional principles which grants individual rights to people on our soil and does not make the individual guilty for the crimes of others even it they are members of the group, religion, nationality, race or creed as a criminal.
People are responsible for what they do in the America which the Trumps and the Cruz’s and the radical extremists in the GOP that would lead them. So far among sane and rational people, if a Black or a Jew or a Democrat commits a crime not all Blacks, Jews and Democrats are also guilty and that would apply to immigrants as well.
In 1933 no one stood up to these new saviors or not for long. Un-challenged lies, lead to lies that dare not be challenged which leads to the police state.
Demagogs need scapegoats. Jews in Germany in 1933 and Muslims and Mexican immigrants, documented or undocumented with many of our fearful citizens and the party which feeds on that fear which promises a solution. A final solution being the destruction of our constitutional principles which grants individual rights to people on our soil and does not make the individual guilty for the crimes of others even it they are members of the group, religion, nationality, race or creed as a criminal.
People are responsible for what they do in the America which the Trumps and the Cruz’s and the radical extremists in the GOP that would lead them. So far among sane and rational people, if a Black or a Jew or a Democrat commits a crime not all Blacks, Jews and Democrats are also guilty and that would apply to immigrants as well.
In 1933 no one stood up to these new saviors or not for long. Un-challenged lies, lead to lies that dare not be challenged which leads to the police state.
6
Good for you. The concept of Christian charity is not, of course, an exclusively
Christian one and did not originate with Christianity. But the people endorsing these policies of demonizing, scapegoating and advocating the expulsion of illegal immigrants very often self-identify as God-fearing, good Christian men and women. They would do well to re-read their New Testament and take Christ's teachings to heart. The little heart they seem to have.
Christian one and did not originate with Christianity. But the people endorsing these policies of demonizing, scapegoating and advocating the expulsion of illegal immigrants very often self-identify as God-fearing, good Christian men and women. They would do well to re-read their New Testament and take Christ's teachings to heart. The little heart they seem to have.
9
So basically this paper believes that anyone should be allowed to come here as long they literally agree not to murder? Is that right? Because that is insane. No nation allows any given person to move to their nation without being carefully and closely vetted.
19
There is a pervasive mindset in San Francisco of a righteousness that permits them to pick and choose the laws of the land with which they choose to comply. San Francisco is a city that will do anything to ignore federal law when it suits their leftist agenda, yet they will clamor for every federal protection and dollar.
Sanctuary City is just another defiance of authority they feel they can get away with. Like a bunch of children who only see one very narrow perspective.
San Francisco has become a disturbing place. There is a feel that basic protections of citizens is no longer a priority. Everything has an agenda. And if you don't fit in their anarchist model you are fair game.
Sanctuary City is just another defiance of authority they feel they can get away with. Like a bunch of children who only see one very narrow perspective.
San Francisco has become a disturbing place. There is a feel that basic protections of citizens is no longer a priority. Everything has an agenda. And if you don't fit in their anarchist model you are fair game.
12
We are either a nation of laws or we are not. Sanctuary city ordinances are an injustice to law-abiding citizens and legitimate immigrants who sacrificed so much to help make this nation what it is.
13
I am the child of immigrants, a liberal and a 35 year member of the Democratic Party. That being said this editorial is outrageous and typifies the worst type of warped, politically correct liberalism.
What if cities in Mississippi or Alabama declared themselves sanctuary cities regarding enforcement od civil rights laws? The NYT would be howling about it, that's what. This sanctuary nonsense about illegal immigrants is no different and yet we get this rubbish about it being slanderous to call out that failure to enforce and obey the laws
We had a civil war that settled the issue of federal supremacy. The states and cities do not get to pick and choose, especially for partisan political reasons, which laws they are willing to enforce. Shame on The NYT for taking this hypocritical position favoring law breaking for selected groups of lawbreakers.
What if cities in Mississippi or Alabama declared themselves sanctuary cities regarding enforcement od civil rights laws? The NYT would be howling about it, that's what. This sanctuary nonsense about illegal immigrants is no different and yet we get this rubbish about it being slanderous to call out that failure to enforce and obey the laws
We had a civil war that settled the issue of federal supremacy. The states and cities do not get to pick and choose, especially for partisan political reasons, which laws they are willing to enforce. Shame on The NYT for taking this hypocritical position favoring law breaking for selected groups of lawbreakers.
11
I like the idea of cities and states deciding which Federal laws they will or will not enforce. Maybe some state could decide that background checks for gun purchases are a bad idea and refuse to enforce that law. Nothing could go wrong, could it?
The NYT editorial staff needs to be careful of what it advocates for. If you want open immigration, say so. But don't support the non-enforcement of existing laws to get to your objective. You may eventually regret such a position.
The NYT editorial staff needs to be careful of what it advocates for. If you want open immigration, say so. But don't support the non-enforcement of existing laws to get to your objective. You may eventually regret such a position.
11
"...protect unauthorized immigrants from unjust deportation."
There is no "unjust deportation" for "unauthorized immigrants." It not unjust to deport those here illegally!
Remember "Newspeak," from 1984? That's what is going on here. "Unauthorized immigrants" is a false nomenclature. They are not "immigrants," a term which implies legal entry. They are illegal aliens.
Let us at least use honest terminology for heaven's sake.
There is no "unjust deportation" for "unauthorized immigrants." It not unjust to deport those here illegally!
Remember "Newspeak," from 1984? That's what is going on here. "Unauthorized immigrants" is a false nomenclature. They are not "immigrants," a term which implies legal entry. They are illegal aliens.
Let us at least use honest terminology for heaven's sake.
11
Sanctuary cities have no place in a country that lives by the rule of law. As much as the Editorial Board would like to deflect the issue of illegality the simple fact is that these foreigners violated US laws by entering the country illegally. Not only should these illegal aliens be removed from the "shadows" and deported but anyone who supports their existence in the US needs to be fined and spend some jail time. A good start is to defund these cities which often put these illegal aliens ahead of their own law-abiding citizens.
So shame on the NY Times for writing such drivel once again. The law is the law and if you violate it you should not be given a free pass.
So shame on the NY Times for writing such drivel once again. The law is the law and if you violate it you should not be given a free pass.
11
"Not turning arrested people over to Federal authorities in not truly sanctuary anyway. This is an act of omission.
What if some Southern city decided not to turn over any murderer if his victim was black and the alleged killer was wearing a white hood? Would that be OK – just an "act of omission?"
What if some Southern city decided not to turn over any murderer if his victim was black and the alleged killer was wearing a white hood? Would that be OK – just an "act of omission?"
11
The true definition of the term "sanctuary city" is preservation of wealthy neighborhoods by increasing blight in poor neighborhoods.
4
The Editorial Board has attempted to write a "treatise" on immigration law and the constitutional fit between state and federal law in the current situation. The Board's essay is so incorrect and confused in this area that one cannot begin to describe how muddled the author(s) are. Best to consult counsel and re-group.
13
Why doesn't the NYT Editorial Board just come out for non-restricted open borders to all comers?
That removes the issue of illegal immigration, sanctuary cities and churches.
New immigrants could immediately apply for public assistance, drivers licenses to enable them to get more quickly adjusted to their new surroundings.
New immigrants often with children should be immediately enrolled in public financed health insurance.
That removes the issue of illegal immigration, sanctuary cities and churches.
New immigrants could immediately apply for public assistance, drivers licenses to enable them to get more quickly adjusted to their new surroundings.
New immigrants often with children should be immediately enrolled in public financed health insurance.
6
Hmmm...It appears to me that the NYT is using the same logic that the anti-gay marriage people have used. That is that we don't think the new gay marriage laws suit our beliefs so therefore we won't issues licenses for them to legally marry. Get it? Sanctuary cities don't like the immigration laws so they refuse to cooperate. Now please explain to me the difference between these positions to me. Both refuse to follow the law of the land and neither has a legal leg to stand on. Just the same old children's song, "If I can't have it may way, I ain't doing it."
9
There is absolutely nothing about illegal immigration that the NYT editorial board does not support.
Your repetitive editorials are boring, your accusations of intolerance and racism hysterical and unfounded, your total blindness to the economic, social and cultural cost of swamping illegal immigration betray the fact that you yourselves are not at risk.
If you can live in gated enclaves, send your kids to private schools full of other like them and hold jobs that are not threatened by the influx of cheap labor, you can blithely sit back and call people not as lucky nasty names. You can also disingenuously intermingle illegal immigration with legal entry, pretending they are one and the same.
The editorial board is elitist, obnoxious, preening and meretricious on this subject. Every Times reader knows where you stand. Please stop bludgeoning us with your irrational, condescending view and move on.
You are convincing no one.
Your repetitive editorials are boring, your accusations of intolerance and racism hysterical and unfounded, your total blindness to the economic, social and cultural cost of swamping illegal immigration betray the fact that you yourselves are not at risk.
If you can live in gated enclaves, send your kids to private schools full of other like them and hold jobs that are not threatened by the influx of cheap labor, you can blithely sit back and call people not as lucky nasty names. You can also disingenuously intermingle illegal immigration with legal entry, pretending they are one and the same.
The editorial board is elitist, obnoxious, preening and meretricious on this subject. Every Times reader knows where you stand. Please stop bludgeoning us with your irrational, condescending view and move on.
You are convincing no one.
19
"I prefer "undocumented," but can live with "illegal" to which people like you are attached."
"Undocumented" has always irked me. It suggests that the individual just left his or her citizenship papers at home. What the word really means, of course, is that there ARE no citizenship papers at home. "Illegal" better describes that person.
"Undocumented" has always irked me. It suggests that the individual just left his or her citizenship papers at home. What the word really means, of course, is that there ARE no citizenship papers at home. "Illegal" better describes that person.
10
Well, if that's how they're going to play, let's pass laws that states who pull more in spending from the government than they contribute--like Louisiana but also the rest of the hardline voting block, pull funding until they figure out a way to at least make their states break even.
Or states who won't extend medicaid to their poor, pull all funding to those who are getting money for healthcare who are not poor.
Or states with poor records of gun laws allowing guns to pour back into states and cities with stiffer laws if for no other reason than occupant density, cut their funds off.
Not only are any and all of these suggestions just plain mean and retaliatory, in the long run, they would just blow back on citizen bases who do look out more for others than they do in states like Louisiana. This proves that Louisiana and other hardliner politicians care more about scoring points than making our country safer for us all.
Or states who won't extend medicaid to their poor, pull all funding to those who are getting money for healthcare who are not poor.
Or states with poor records of gun laws allowing guns to pour back into states and cities with stiffer laws if for no other reason than occupant density, cut their funds off.
Not only are any and all of these suggestions just plain mean and retaliatory, in the long run, they would just blow back on citizen bases who do look out more for others than they do in states like Louisiana. This proves that Louisiana and other hardliner politicians care more about scoring points than making our country safer for us all.
Wouldn't it be interesting if a large number of illegal aliens with criminal records and previous deportations went to the New York Times building with firearms.
I would like to see the editorial written the day after that happened
I would like to see the editorial written the day after that happened
10
Please tell me where I can apply to become an "unauthorized immigrant". It is obvious that paying taxes and being a law abiding person all these years must rank as one of the stupidest things that I have ever done. Little did I know that all I had to do was declare myself an "illegal" and all my troubles would be over. No more paying fines or traffic tickets. No more inconveniences like having to pay for my health care, food, & my children's education. And, if I happen to break the law I automatically get a "get out of jail free" card.
Thank you NYTimes for showing me the way to a better, more carefree life.
Thank you NYTimes for showing me the way to a better, more carefree life.
10
does the times really believe that all these illegal immigrants go to sanctuary cities to get library cards and use banks. This is what passes for policy analysis and why we are in trouble. By the way, Mr. Lopez-Sanchez was deported 5 times and came back each time and it wasn't to use a bank or library.
11
Most intersting editorial, The NYT has found common cause with the slave holding Southern States of the 19th century; exactly the same States rights arguments and amazingly for the same resaon, exploitation of cheap labor.
12
Its ok for cites to pass laws that defy federal laws ok so open that door and guess what happens.
7
When I worked for the federal government I took an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, all of them. There was no "pick and choose" section to the oath. It was realized that we are all in this together. That we stood together or not at all.
A lot has changed in 200+ years.
A lot has changed in 200+ years.
10
Are we literally not allowed to vet any potential immigrant? Since when does any given foreign national have the right to thumb their noses at our immigration laws?
13
" Unauthorized immigrants" and "Unjust deportation" - what do these terms even mean? They should read "illegal immigrants" and "You entered America illegally and you have to leave" to make the meaning crystal. The NYTs hopes that if they substitute the words "unauthorized" or undocumented" enough times in place of the actual word "illegal", then readers will begin to experience what is known as "semantic satiation". The NYTs has officially become the Fox News of the left -unfair and imbalanced.
8
That liberalism now equates to endorsement of lawlessness in the minds of this once notable newspaper is sad indeed. The federal government denying money to cities that refuse to comply with federal law? Outrageous!
Dear NYT: we have an illegal immigrant disaster. Twelve milliono people are here illegally. Actually, if you could use the phrase "illegal alien," it might be easier to remember that. Some, though certainly not most, of those illegals are criminals. All are breaking our laws.
If you want to advocate for open borders, feel free. I suppose that's the next step on the ladder we are falling on. However, while the law still says we have the right to determine which non-citizens live here, it might be best not to pick and choose which laws we ignore.
Dear NYT: we have an illegal immigrant disaster. Twelve milliono people are here illegally. Actually, if you could use the phrase "illegal alien," it might be easier to remember that. Some, though certainly not most, of those illegals are criminals. All are breaking our laws.
If you want to advocate for open borders, feel free. I suppose that's the next step on the ladder we are falling on. However, while the law still says we have the right to determine which non-citizens live here, it might be best not to pick and choose which laws we ignore.
8
The Times champions the supremacy of Federal authority. Except when it doesn't.
11
When Barack Obama put his left hand on the bible and raised his right hand he swore to uphold the laws of the United States of America. He did not say "except the laws that I don't want to enforce." Progressives believe that anyone that can pole vault themselves over the border should be given citizenship and free government hand outs. For some reason many choose to ignore that 70% of all illegal immigrants get some kind of government assistance.
11
If they really wanted this to stop they would arrest, fine and imprison the employers. They won't because they really like the cheap labor.
5
These are jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, or try in other ways to protect unauthorized immigrants from unjust deportation.
----------------------------
They are here illegally there will be nothing unjust about their deportation. In fact the only unjust thing is those of us paying for the "sanctuary cities".
----------------------------
They are here illegally there will be nothing unjust about their deportation. In fact the only unjust thing is those of us paying for the "sanctuary cities".
10
What hypocrites!
When Arizona attempted to help enforce existing federal law the Times said they were usurping federal powers.
When San Francisco flat out refuses to obey the law that's somehow OK.
The Times is guilty of inciting people to break the a law with which they disagree.
When Arizona attempted to help enforce existing federal law the Times said they were usurping federal powers.
When San Francisco flat out refuses to obey the law that's somehow OK.
The Times is guilty of inciting people to break the a law with which they disagree.
15
Sanctuary cities are breaking the law. So was Kim Davis. Why was she persecuted verbally by you and the sanctuary cities are getting a pass? Then it becomes clear that it is not about the law, it is about your priorities. When the law supports your priorities, you support the law. When the law does not support your priorities then you celebrate disobedience.
This is all human nature. But the law is a compromise between different priorities and we have to obey those laws we don't like so that we can ask the others to obey the laws that they don't like.
If we don't then the law as codifying compromise will break down.
And no, I am neither a Christian nor a Republican. But I do believe in fair play and also believe that even conservatives are entitled to fair play.
This is all human nature. But the law is a compromise between different priorities and we have to obey those laws we don't like so that we can ask the others to obey the laws that they don't like.
If we don't then the law as codifying compromise will break down.
And no, I am neither a Christian nor a Republican. But I do believe in fair play and also believe that even conservatives are entitled to fair play.
47
This was truly a pathetic piece. First, the SF murderer wasn't trying to do it. He was out for a stroll with his gun(like we all do), shot, and had the bad luck to kill someone he probably was not aiming at. Gee, the poor fellow. What a bad break. Next, let's look at the concept. If you do not like federal laws, ignore them. Does that mean cities can choose to ignore federal gun laws or abortion rules because they wish to be a sanctuary? Finally, for some reason, the NYT seems to support illegal immigration which implies you want open borders. I read recently(I have no idea how they derived the number), that there are 900 million people world wide who wish to leave their countries. Polls generally show that the U.S. Is one of the top three destinations in the 25% range. Do you really want 200 or 300 million immigrants in a short period of time?
15
The NYT editorial board wrote that this "a class-action slander against an immigrant population that has been scapegoated for the crimes of a few." Exactly how many people need to be criminals before there are enough to be scapegoated? How about beginning with the "illegal" portion of their illegal immigrant description? Is that enough?
7
Fine. Allow illegal aliens entry into sanctuary cities. However should they attempt to leave the city they will be immediately deported when they cross the city line. To paraphrase our President "If you like your illegal aliens, you can keep your illegal aliens". We'll find out soon enough their commitment to sanctuary city status!
7
The politics of fear and hatred is a slander against the reality of the United States. If these craven dividers believed in this country, they would share the faith in it that newcomers have always replenished. Tragically, their ideologies of divisive supremacy deny the collective truth of our nation's source of greatness. It's funny, too, because it is written on their sacred text: "E Pluribus Unum".
Federal Law trumps state and local laws. It is as simple as that. If we don't enforce the principle, every state and local government could do their own thing and we would have chaos. Regardless of whether you are for or against our immigration policies, this is a legal issue that must stop.
10
Sanctuary cities willfully, purposely violate federal law. The hypocritical, despicable Left vilified county clerk Kim Davis for supposedly the same thing ( though SCOTUS had NO right to dictate laws to the states). Repressive Soviet Liberals enable their friends to be scofflaws, while they try to ram "the law" down their enemies' throats.
4
I know my comment will not be published but I am posting anyway.
So the death of Kathryn Steinle was an unfortunate accident? Since you seem to support the illegal alien who fired the gun from which the bullet ricocheted into Ms. Steinle's head, that must mean you support the illegal alien's right to possess a firearm. After all he has a constitutional right to posses the gun.
So the death of Kathryn Steinle was an unfortunate accident? Since you seem to support the illegal alien who fired the gun from which the bullet ricocheted into Ms. Steinle's head, that must mean you support the illegal alien's right to possess a firearm. After all he has a constitutional right to posses the gun.
11
Were any members of the NYT editorial board raised in blue-collar American families? Somehow I doubt it. Otherwise, it's hard for me to understand how they can have so little problem with the current influx of illegal immigrants. American-born roofers, floorers, carpenters, janitors, etc. are all having their earnings negatively impacted by cheap, often illegal, immigrant labor. True, illegal immigration isn't the only problem these workers face, but they are part of the problem. So please quit dismissing their concerns as callous or racist.
14
This article is Orwellian. According to the nytimes, illegal immigrants are "unjustly" deported . How can someone here illegally be "unjustly" deported?
11
I, like others who have commented here, wonder why illegal aliens are considered law abiding when they have broken the law by overstaying their work or tourist visas or entering illegally in the first place. The shift in language used by the New York Times to "unauthorized immigrants" does not alter the fact that these would-be immigrants are illegally here.
The awkwardly worded statement that sanctuary cities are needed "to underscore what should be a bright line between civil immigration enforcement, a federal responsibility, and the state and local criminal-justice systems" further obfuscates the issue. I expect better writing and clearer thinking by the New York Times editorial staff.
The awkwardly worded statement that sanctuary cities are needed "to underscore what should be a bright line between civil immigration enforcement, a federal responsibility, and the state and local criminal-justice systems" further obfuscates the issue. I expect better writing and clearer thinking by the New York Times editorial staff.
14
Advocating that local governments refuse to cooperate with federal laws and agencies makes a mockery of American justice.
The message that the justice system is unjust and should be ignored or actively combatted is dangerous and leads to anarchy.
We are a nation of laws enacted by our elected representatives.
Without those laws,we are nothing.
The message that the justice system is unjust and should be ignored or actively combatted is dangerous and leads to anarchy.
We are a nation of laws enacted by our elected representatives.
Without those laws,we are nothing.
10
Honestly, a completely intellectually bankrupt editorial. Perhaps federal law should be changed but to suggest that it is somehow wrong to try to prevent cities from thwarting federal law as it exists is ridiculous. Selective enforcement of laws is the worst kind of injustice.
16
The only legitimate response to illegal immigration is the make it a criminal offense to hire illegals and then to prosecute those who do!
All else is theater used to obfuscate, to what ends we know not.
All else is theater used to obfuscate, to what ends we know not.
8
A great example of the bankruptcy of progressive ideology. Congrats.
13
Know that the "uproar du jour" from the republican party based in delusions.
They have to rely on lies because they can get no succor from the truth.
Living a lie does not change the rest of reality, only your idea of reality.
They have to rely on lies because they can get no succor from the truth.
Living a lie does not change the rest of reality, only your idea of reality.
The Republicans win whether they succeed or fail in passing this bill. The conspiracy myth of sanctuary cities, like that of birtherism and trutherism, keeps their base alive and well, alternating between fear and anger.
The base already knows that foreigners are bad, and that undocumented aliens are evil -- not to mention that the President is one of them -- so their leadership needs a steady flow of new strategies to keep the fear alive.
Everyone else thinks they are nuts.
The base already knows that foreigners are bad, and that undocumented aliens are evil -- not to mention that the President is one of them -- so their leadership needs a steady flow of new strategies to keep the fear alive.
Everyone else thinks they are nuts.
12
If sanctuary cities do help protect its citizens there should be crime stats and closure rates to back up those claims. I have not seen those used in any argument so far.
7
Every country that is serious about regulating immigration has a national citizenship registry.
US policy screams "We are not serious!"
US policy screams "We are not serious!"
12
The article based on the premise that it is a "lie, now infecting the Republican presidential campaign, that all unauthorized immigrants are dangerous criminals who must be subdued by extraordinary means." If we delete the word "dangerous" it is true "that all unauthorized immigrants are criminals."
Then the question becomes what should be done with these criminals? Do we disregard the law? Do we change the law? Do we rigorously enforce the law? Or do we enforce the law with compassion and understanding?
Ultimately, the question becomes if you do not like a law, are you free to disregard it?
Then the question becomes what should be done with these criminals? Do we disregard the law? Do we change the law? Do we rigorously enforce the law? Or do we enforce the law with compassion and understanding?
Ultimately, the question becomes if you do not like a law, are you free to disregard it?
8
The NYT editorial board writes "They have seized on the tragic death of a woman, Kathryn Steinle, shot in July on a San Francisco pier by an unauthorized Mexican immigrant,"
"Unauthorized" not "illegal". Isn't that just another slander and another lie?
When the NYT editorial board cannot even bring itself to call a murder, who has crossed the border of the United States, an illegal immigrant, or even just a murderer, the NYT has no standing to criticize the unnecessary and wrongful establishment of sanctuary cities.
Sanctuary cities are an invitation to illegal immigration. They are an invitation to crime and mayhem. The sanctuary cities are an invitation to disregard American law and order.
The death of Kathryn Steinle should not be trivialized or demeaned by describing her murder as an act by "unathorized Mexican immigrant". It's almost like saying that if the murderer had come here legally, then the murder would have been authorized.
It is not racist or impolitic to call a murderer exactly what he is. In this crime a young American woman was murdered by an illegal Mexican immigrant. The murderer wasn't authorized or seeking sanctuary.
The concocted problem is the creation of "sanctuary" in a nation that is governed by laws.
The NYT has convoluted the meaning of law with compassion.
"Unauthorized" not "illegal". Isn't that just another slander and another lie?
When the NYT editorial board cannot even bring itself to call a murder, who has crossed the border of the United States, an illegal immigrant, or even just a murderer, the NYT has no standing to criticize the unnecessary and wrongful establishment of sanctuary cities.
Sanctuary cities are an invitation to illegal immigration. They are an invitation to crime and mayhem. The sanctuary cities are an invitation to disregard American law and order.
The death of Kathryn Steinle should not be trivialized or demeaned by describing her murder as an act by "unathorized Mexican immigrant". It's almost like saying that if the murderer had come here legally, then the murder would have been authorized.
It is not racist or impolitic to call a murderer exactly what he is. In this crime a young American woman was murdered by an illegal Mexican immigrant. The murderer wasn't authorized or seeking sanctuary.
The concocted problem is the creation of "sanctuary" in a nation that is governed by laws.
The NYT has convoluted the meaning of law with compassion.
14
A scapegoat did not kill Ms. Steinle. An illegal immigrant with a criminal record who had been deported 5 times and was now protected by the laws of San Francisco killed Ms. Steinle. San Francisco's city council and its citizens, those responsible for the sanctuary designation are culpable for her death and they should be held accountable in a court of law. Both Civil and Criminal charges should be brought against every member of San Francisco's city council, its mayor and other office holders.
15
Republicans are losing the country. They will try anything to keep hold, but what you are witnessing is the unravelling of their influence.
A dangerous policy is to encourage cities or states to pick and choose which laws they will enforce or federal agencies they will work with in order to placate a special interest group.
12
What garbage. There is a clear path to citizenship for those who want to emigrate to the U.S. Some refer to it as entering the country legally, as did my parents. If someone wants to take a shortcut, they can live with the consequences, including "unjust deportation," whatever that means. And if you're here illegally (or, to use this article's euphemism, if you're unauthorized), your deportation won't be unjust.
14
I'm not hearing anything about the push factors that have driven illegal immigration to the U.S. No one seems to be looking at our own government's policies and how they affect people elsewhere. Take NAFTA, for example:
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-30.htm
Mexicans who were impoverished in the wake of NAFTA cannot be blamed for trying to earn a living, and if it meant coming to the U.S., then that's what they did.
I'm not saying that we should open our borders to anyone and everyone who wants to come here, but we also shouldn't wag our fingers at desperate people who just wanted to survive.
Today's Republicans might want to look back at the amnesty granted in 1986 by that darling of the GOP, Ronald Reagan. Maybe we do need some "morning in America" again.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0425-30.htm
Mexicans who were impoverished in the wake of NAFTA cannot be blamed for trying to earn a living, and if it meant coming to the U.S., then that's what they did.
I'm not saying that we should open our borders to anyone and everyone who wants to come here, but we also shouldn't wag our fingers at desperate people who just wanted to survive.
Today's Republicans might want to look back at the amnesty granted in 1986 by that darling of the GOP, Ronald Reagan. Maybe we do need some "morning in America" again.
If Mr. Lopez-Sanchez already had several convictions, how in the world was he released? The Times's minmizing his murder of Kate Steinle is shameful.
14
What other Federal laws should be ignored? It is not racism. It is about protecting our borders. Last month the head of our Border Patrol Union testified before Congress that one in five illegals crossing our border has a criminal record. I believe him, and not people sitting around on the 27th floor in Mahattan.
12
What an odd editorial. It shamelessly defends localities' unlawful conduct with respect to Federal Law. Would the New York Times defend localalities if they passed laws limiting cooperation with federal voting rights laws, or protection of abortion providers? The hypocrisy is thick here.
13
This editorial makes Republicans out of Democrats. Congratulations.
8
This is an example of the same old question of Federal vs. State primacy coming to the fore, again. Text books confidently claim this is settled law, while in practice, counter-examples (Colorado's marijuana law), abound.
1
Can sanctuary cities protect tax paying citizens from the IRS and any federal tax requirements as well? I'm fairly certain we could come up with a group of 12M citizens would love the opportunity to avoid unjust tax laws! (And at that scale the law would magically become unenforceable)
12
What would be the outcome a community decided to ignore anti-discrimination laws or regulations required by the ADA? The DOJ moved against Arizona for attempting to enforce immigration laws but chooses to ignore those that would ignore those same laws?
13
Evidently, in its infinite wisdom, the Times Board does not think the U.S. should have laws regulating immigration since it views illegal immigrants as an abused population that should be welcomed. I suppose similar logic might lead to the conclusion that gun ownership and use should not be subject to legal constraints. Somehow I doubt the Board would be happy with that conclusion.
12
This isn't about immigration, it's about refusing to adhere to the rule of law. If we were up in arm about about Kim Davis, as we rightly should have been, about her refusal to follow the law, why would this be any different. Liberals and conservatives cannot pick and chose which laws we should follow and ignore.
Truthiness has become the common thread uniting Democrats and Republicans. We Democrats are just as baffling and bemusing as our Republican friends, and at the of it all, just because we think and (feel) we're right, doesn't make us right.
The NY Times editorial board should give some thought to this and the kind of society they would like to live in if everyone just followed whatever laws they felt like following.
Truthiness has become the common thread uniting Democrats and Republicans. We Democrats are just as baffling and bemusing as our Republican friends, and at the of it all, just because we think and (feel) we're right, doesn't make us right.
The NY Times editorial board should give some thought to this and the kind of society they would like to live in if everyone just followed whatever laws they felt like following.
15
I have been trying to find a sanctuary city for the average family man who works night and day trying to provide a safe place for his family.
15
Notice that the arguments that disagree with the extremist board are also the top readers picks by a long shot.
This is why the moderators censor most non-liberal comments. It would demonstrate how far from the mainstream are the NYT staff.
Of course, this comment will never be published. Two non-liberal comments are all that the partisan moderators allow.
This is why the moderators censor most non-liberal comments. It would demonstrate how far from the mainstream are the NYT staff.
Of course, this comment will never be published. Two non-liberal comments are all that the partisan moderators allow.
10
"Citizens" repeatedly kill scores of school children, maliciously and in cold blooded premeditation. Looking them in the eyes as they pull the trigger.
Stuff happens.
An anauthorized immigrant kills a women. Probably accidentally. A random single murder at it's worst, idiotic and still criminal behavior at it's best. Round those rapists, drug addict "Mexicans" up and kick them out of the country.
Um...
I guess the masses really are stupid.
Stuff happens.
An anauthorized immigrant kills a women. Probably accidentally. A random single murder at it's worst, idiotic and still criminal behavior at it's best. Round those rapists, drug addict "Mexicans" up and kick them out of the country.
Um...
I guess the masses really are stupid.
The Editorial Board seems to believe that America has laws that should not be enforced or obeyed. Some of these relate to entry into the country.
Maybe the Board would favor us with a list of these laws.
Does the Editorial Board believe that each individual should decide for himself which laws to obey, or help to enforce? Or, will they rely on simply telling us?
Maybe the Board would favor us with a list of these laws.
Does the Editorial Board believe that each individual should decide for himself which laws to obey, or help to enforce? Or, will they rely on simply telling us?
14
I see where illegal alien became undocumented immigrant became unauthorized immigrant. Give it up. Illegal is illegal is illegal. Changing the law after an offense has been committed is an example of "unauthorized". Those people are not waiting for laws to be changed; they are waiting to get away with breaking the law. Any govermnent officials suspeted of aiding those people should be arrested and made to stand trial for malfeasance and misfeasance. Enough already with "sanctuary".
15
This strange, inexplicable, blind foolishness that characterizes the NYT's position on illegal immigration (here or in Europe) is just infuriating to me -- and I'm a 30+ year NYT subscriber, and I have never voted for a republican in my life (though I'm beginning to think that perhaps it's time to change my habits).
Is the NYT Editorial Board so ignorant that it does not understand that illegal immigration messes up with our country's labor market (and by doing so, it brings wages down for low-skill Americans -- therefore significantly contributing to the ever present poverty we have in the U.S.)?
The NYT knows that wages have been stagnant for years, and that many Americans are unemployed and on welfare, and yet you guys are practically in favor of open borders. WHY? We can't stay prosperous with open borders. Too many poor people bleeding the federal, state and local budgets means not enough money left for key public necessities.
No country can have a generous social safety net, universal healthcare and quality free education, and at the same time tolerate illegal immigration. The numbers can't work. To think otherwise is short-sighted bordering on stupid.
This country's responsibility must be first and foremost to its citizens. Low-wage immigrants cost our country far more throughout their lives than what they contribute in taxes. The profits from their work are privatized, but their costs to society are shifted to the public. What's wrong with that picture?
Is the NYT Editorial Board so ignorant that it does not understand that illegal immigration messes up with our country's labor market (and by doing so, it brings wages down for low-skill Americans -- therefore significantly contributing to the ever present poverty we have in the U.S.)?
The NYT knows that wages have been stagnant for years, and that many Americans are unemployed and on welfare, and yet you guys are practically in favor of open borders. WHY? We can't stay prosperous with open borders. Too many poor people bleeding the federal, state and local budgets means not enough money left for key public necessities.
No country can have a generous social safety net, universal healthcare and quality free education, and at the same time tolerate illegal immigration. The numbers can't work. To think otherwise is short-sighted bordering on stupid.
This country's responsibility must be first and foremost to its citizens. Low-wage immigrants cost our country far more throughout their lives than what they contribute in taxes. The profits from their work are privatized, but their costs to society are shifted to the public. What's wrong with that picture?
22
Whether it's Mayor Ed Lee of San Francisco or County Clerk Kim Davis of Kentucky, government officials must obey the prevailing laws of the broader nation. Without that, we are not a nation of laws but merely a nation of opinions.
71
"...protect unauthorized immigrants from unjust deportation." This sentence doesn't even make sense. If they are unauthorized immigrants, then deportation can't be unjust.
I don't blame immigrants for trying to get to a first world country any way they can. I would do it too. However, if you are running a first world country, you need laws, quotas and mechanisms to decide which immigrants come in when so that you can be sure your country can support them. This is not rocket science and it's not a personal attack on illegal immigrants.
When you let a bunch of illegal immigrants stay, keep in mind they are taking the place of legal immigrants who have been playing by the rules in trying to get in. Although at this point it's probably more feasible to keep the estimated 10 million immigrants in the US to deport them all, that doesn't mean that it should be policy going forward that immigration laws should be ignored.
I don't blame immigrants for trying to get to a first world country any way they can. I would do it too. However, if you are running a first world country, you need laws, quotas and mechanisms to decide which immigrants come in when so that you can be sure your country can support them. This is not rocket science and it's not a personal attack on illegal immigrants.
When you let a bunch of illegal immigrants stay, keep in mind they are taking the place of legal immigrants who have been playing by the rules in trying to get in. Although at this point it's probably more feasible to keep the estimated 10 million immigrants in the US to deport them all, that doesn't mean that it should be policy going forward that immigration laws should be ignored.
57
If the New York Times’ Editorial Board thinks the nation’s immigration laws should not be enforced, it should have the courage to say so rather than engaging in obfuscation. The Editorial Board’s assertion that should be a "bright line" between federal and local criminal–justice systems when it comes to “civil illegal immigration” is nonsense. County, city and state police routinely cooperate with federal agents to apprehend suspects who violate federal laws, including bank robbery, kidnapping, counterfeiting trafficking and tax evasion. They also hold AWOL military personnel until they can be picked up by Military Police. The board refers to “civil immigration enforcement,” but neglects to mention that “criminal immigration enforcement” applies to virtually all unauthorized immigrants held for ICE in city and country jails. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides both criminal charges, which are prosecuted in federal courts, and civil violations, which are handled by a non-judicial administrative system within the Department of Justice. A person who enters the country illegally commits a criminal offense. A person who overstay his visa commits a civil violation, but a person overstays his visa and then disobeys a court order to leave the country commits a criminal violation. Unauthorized immigrants who overstayed visas don’t show up on the ICE wanted list unless they have committed criminal violations by disobeying a court order to leave the country.
21
County Clerk refusing to issue same sex marriage licenses after Supreme Court ruling upholding constitutionality of same sex marriage - NYT says very bad. Local officials refusing to cooperate in upholding federal laws regarding ILLEGAL immigration - NYT says very good. And the NYT's editorial board does not see either a problem or its own massive inconsistency. So much for the antiquated notion of the "rule of law" and "equal enforcement of the law."
23
So the NYT finds common ground with John C. Calhoun?
States and cities should be able to ignore federal law?
States and cities should be able to ignore federal law?
22
The NYT sees no need to mention the salient fact that Ms. Steinle's killer was a 7 time repeat felon who had been deported numerous times?
More importantly, we are a nation of laws. If we are not going to honor some laws but refuse to take them off the books, this represents unfair enforcement to meet a political objective. The American people - by choice - have not voted to change our immigration laws, a fact the NYT just can't seem to accept. Until the time that we do, cities who do not cooperate with federal agencies that enforce federal immigration law (which trumps state law as the NYT well knows), should be punished. If not, let's just casually agree as well that that the IRS should look the other way when it's tax time.
More importantly, we are a nation of laws. If we are not going to honor some laws but refuse to take them off the books, this represents unfair enforcement to meet a political objective. The American people - by choice - have not voted to change our immigration laws, a fact the NYT just can't seem to accept. Until the time that we do, cities who do not cooperate with federal agencies that enforce federal immigration law (which trumps state law as the NYT well knows), should be punished. If not, let's just casually agree as well that that the IRS should look the other way when it's tax time.
49
I live outside of Chicago and in a town that is probably also a undeclared sanctuary city. Chicago is a sanctuary city and breaking US laws should have consequences by limiting federal funds until the city gets right with the law. Cities can exceed federal laws but can't flout them, that is wrong and enforcing our current immigration laws is not racist it is breaking the law. If you want the laws changed then you must compromise by ensuring that our borders are completely secure and punishment given to the lawbreakers of immigration. This means businesses who use illegal labor and the illegals themselves, everyone has a reason to flout our laws, this isn't negotiable no matter what the personal reasons.
38
Obama loves these potential voters and refuses to protect America
This is an extraordinarily well written Editorial. I hadn't been following the tragic Steinlie incident that closely, so many of the factual and policy dimensions of this incident were new to me.
And this Editorial put them together in such a concise and forceful intellectual package that they confirmed, at the grainy level, what I had always suspected, namely, that this story has been a case of déjà vu all over again with Republican demagoguery.
And this Editorial put them together in such a concise and forceful intellectual package that they confirmed, at the grainy level, what I had always suspected, namely, that this story has been a case of déjà vu all over again with Republican demagoguery.
5
When the economy crashed so did the number of people entering illegally. This is evidence that they come for jobs. which is the easier to enforce policy?
1. Round them up and toss them out.
2. Prosecute the much smaller number of their "job providers"
(I hear no hue and cry from the republicans for the obviously easier solution #2.)
It's easier to kick the little guys because they have no defense. Kicking the big guys (also known as republican donors) not so much.
1. Round them up and toss them out.
2. Prosecute the much smaller number of their "job providers"
(I hear no hue and cry from the republicans for the obviously easier solution #2.)
It's easier to kick the little guys because they have no defense. Kicking the big guys (also known as republican donors) not so much.
6
The Democrats are the ones at every opportunity undermine the E-Verify database. That's the database that should be easily available to employers to verify immigration status prior to hiring anyone.
It's the Democrats that thwart the enforcement against corporations.
It's the Democrats that thwart the enforcement against corporations.
Illegals are not little guys. They're actually a very well organized invading force. It is really tiresome to hear that unskilled Latinos who deliberately break our laws are really saints of a sort.
As part of SB1070, Arizona banned sanctuary cities years ago.
Incredibly, this did not stop illegal immigrants from committing crimes in Arizona.
To a conservative, the exception is always the rule. That is why conservatism always fails as a governing ideology; it whipsaws about looking to pass laws, amend the Constitution even, every time some one does something conservatives don't like.
Incredibly, this did not stop illegal immigrants from committing crimes in Arizona.
To a conservative, the exception is always the rule. That is why conservatism always fails as a governing ideology; it whipsaws about looking to pass laws, amend the Constitution even, every time some one does something conservatives don't like.
1
If people break the law, then you suggest that we shouldn't have laws or try enforce them? That is a self-serving partisan argument, and one that has no logic to it.
The answer never was nor will it ever be to "integrate". The onus is on the immigrant to assimilate. The first way to assimilate is not to break the law.
I should know, I'm a first generation American. My mother, an immigrant, chose the right course and earned her citizenship not by breaking the law but by following in the steps of those immigrants before her who were and are genuinely proud to be Americans, and Americans first.
I should know, I'm a first generation American. My mother, an immigrant, chose the right course and earned her citizenship not by breaking the law but by following in the steps of those immigrants before her who were and are genuinely proud to be Americans, and Americans first.
35
For many people, resistance to Sanctuary cities is based on a belief that there should not be incentives for illegal and inequitable conduct.
Stop projecting.
Stop projecting.
27
The 2 million deportees during the Obama administration apparently were not deported because of criminal behavior but rather because they were living in this country illegally. The legal path to immigration must exist but is never spelled out by the media. The US should abide by the legal process and that process should be made clear to prospective immigrants and should be efficient.
11
The times is not only wrong here, it is inconsistent based on its political agenda. The times went very strongly against Arizona, which it said had its own policy on a matter pre-empted by the federal government. These criminal sanctuary cities are doing the same thing, except they are having a foreign policy the times likes.
I encourage Congress to pass the Vitter bill. If Mr. Obama wishes to veto it, his problem.
I encourage Congress to pass the Vitter bill. If Mr. Obama wishes to veto it, his problem.
35
Crossing our borders without papers is, in and by itself a criminal act. So anyone who is here illegally, is by definition a criminal. I am a liberal and I belief that these illegal aliens shouldn't be given a path to citizenship. They should be deported. Criticizing states who are trying to enforce the laws is misguided and totally unjustifiable. Every American citizen is paying the price for this unwanted burden.
I will be voting for a candidate who will put an end to this practice.
If they didn't respect our laws in the first place, they won't respect them afterward. I am for any state Liberal or Republican that is prepared to do something about this vexing problem.
I will be voting for a candidate who will put an end to this practice.
If they didn't respect our laws in the first place, they won't respect them afterward. I am for any state Liberal or Republican that is prepared to do something about this vexing problem.
44
When cities and states disrespect the law, they invite the public to do the same. There is simply no argument that justifies the subversion of Federal law by cities. This nation can not function with political entities and residents only following laws they like: allowing cities to do so undermines respect for the rule of law, as well as cities, states and the country.
34
It says something that the 13 most liked responses to this piece are in opposition to it. I myself favor immigration reform that grants a path to citizenship, but undermining federal law is no way to go about that and opens a can of worms. Should we also have sanctuary cities for people who want to discriminate against the LGBT community? Was Tuscaloosa allowed to be a sanctuary city for segregationists, and should it have been? It seems more and more that the NYTimes editorial board sees their mission to troll their readership with the most far left policies imaginable and see the response.
29
Immigration bills, basically the same bills for the same reason were passed under Johnson, Reagan and Clinton and never sincerely enforced. 12 million illegal immigrants from Mexico have created what most of us see as a problem. However Congress and the administrations see this differently. Its an issue to be maintained, nurtured and grown as a tool for their personal agenda, which is getting elected, and I mean both Republicans and Democrats, together acting as team. In the process the politicians have found that instead of “working” out meaningful compromises which are in the benefit of this county its better to find issues that divide the country, and maintain, nurture and grow them to polarize the country. Its their best strategy for election and re election.
8
Timely article on the human rights' abuses by the "tedcruzes" and "donaldtrumps" of this world, dangerous demagogues trying to capitalize on innocent, hard working immigrants (other that entering the country without 'papers', a Gordian knot unresolvable until a formal immigration reform takes place) for their own narrow interests. David Vitter, another charlatan, initially subdued for his cheating sex scandal, has returned to harm so many for no good reason, destroying the social framework of cities vibrant because of hard-working immigrants. The republicans, when not in an obstructing mood towards government (of which they are part of), try to find scapegoats to hide their own insignificance, to persecute those that cannot defend themselves, to try to find relevance by hurting others. Despicable.
2
Why do you think it okay for people to break our immigration and employment laws? Many illegals function largely as scabs, pushing down wages on hard working natives. How is that all that innocent? The people in question need to go home and remake their own nations, not move here and make demands on natives.
Thank you. Federal immigration law unjustly and absurdly calls people criminals simply for moving across a border. Such a law is unworthy of obedience or respect and should be repealed, but with Congress too dysfunctional to do the right thing and legions of bigots seeking to harm immigrants for no good reason, it falls to sensible people in state and local government to mitigate the harm of this horrifying policy. I firmly believe that our current immigration policy will be remembered as one of the great moral travesties committed by this nation, and those who resisted this injustice will be remembered as heroes.
22
It is not bigotry to have and enforce immigration laws. The notion that either we allow all unskilled Latinos to move here or we are fundamentally bad people is an absurd liberal delusion that harms the middle class with rising taxes and our own poor with imported foreign scabs. Mexican leaders need to reform Mexico not demand the endless right to ship their underclass here.
3
Illegal entry is illegal. Curbing it is another matter.
Is illegal entry a problem? Is curbing it a problem? Or are both problems?
If your answer to either Q is 'yes', then would you make all entry legal--no barriers?
No less than the great liberal icon, Minnesota's Sen Eugene McCarthy, foresaw the risks of liberal admittance of low-skilled, low-productivity immigrants of little education and low cultural level.
He worried about laws that would admit them legally, then allow them to bring in relatives.
He never contemplated just looking the other way as illegals stowed away as fast as they could, then effectively okaying their sanctuary here.
Is illegal entry a problem? Is curbing it a problem? Or are both problems?
If your answer to either Q is 'yes', then would you make all entry legal--no barriers?
No less than the great liberal icon, Minnesota's Sen Eugene McCarthy, foresaw the risks of liberal admittance of low-skilled, low-productivity immigrants of little education and low cultural level.
He worried about laws that would admit them legally, then allow them to bring in relatives.
He never contemplated just looking the other way as illegals stowed away as fast as they could, then effectively okaying their sanctuary here.
So what do you propose? Totally open borders where anyone from anywhere can just come here if they want? Having border controls is really, in your view of the world really "horrifying"? How is that the US alone, then should not have control of its own borders or sovereignty? Do you also condemn the "bigotry" and "harm" by Mexico, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, and country after country (even those we are constantly told are so much more enlightened that the nasty old US) that sets rules for entry and punishes those who violate their laws, including by the "travesty" of deportation?
It I absurd on its face that the US should utterly throw away its sovereignty on the basis of trying to accommodate the entire world. For then you simply do not have a nation or culture, you merely have a spot on the globe that is an open zone. That is illogical and destructive and insupportable.
It I absurd on its face that the US should utterly throw away its sovereignty on the basis of trying to accommodate the entire world. For then you simply do not have a nation or culture, you merely have a spot on the globe that is an open zone. That is illogical and destructive and insupportable.
1
The notion of proportionality is missing from the whole illegal immigration and sanctuary city debates.
If a person is charged with a minor offense (e.g. speeding, J-walking, ...) it's a silly waste of time to investigate whether the person is a legal immigrant. On the other hand, someone charged with assault or other major crimes definitely should have his/her legal immigrant status checked.
All too often, partisans prefer to reduce things to polar opposites -- investigate/deport everyone vs. investigate/deport no one -- when common sense lies in the middle.
If a person is charged with a minor offense (e.g. speeding, J-walking, ...) it's a silly waste of time to investigate whether the person is a legal immigrant. On the other hand, someone charged with assault or other major crimes definitely should have his/her legal immigrant status checked.
All too often, partisans prefer to reduce things to polar opposites -- investigate/deport everyone vs. investigate/deport no one -- when common sense lies in the middle.
43
The notion that any illegal should be allowed to violate nearly any laws they want as long as they aren't actively engaged in violence is not common sense.
Close our borders
Enforce our laws and this issue would be moot
Enforce our laws and this issue would be moot
This is another of these issues in which the Republicans are being amazingly inconsistent. They repeatedly want power to devolve to "The States" but when a municipality wants its share of authority then they are unalterably opposed. Indeed when states like Arizona and Texas assume they can have their own immigration policies well that's just fine by "conservatives" but when cities in those states do the same their heads explode and logic flies out the door. But this is part of a larger trend: Through gerrymandering and voter suppression, in state after state, the suburban and rural areas have a disproportionate say as to what goes on in cities. They routinely under-fund urban school districts in favor of the rural and suburban areas and that is just one symptom of the tailing wagging the dog disease that infects today's Republican Party.
2
Lets at least admit we have a immigration problem. A problem which as the world population grows to 9 billion and climate change takes effect, is only going to get worse. We need to come up with a humane and fair set of laws and procedures to deal with the process. I suspect most people are not angry at immigrants, they are upset and the complete lack of legal enforceable processes to deal with this current and growing phenomena. We are a country of 330 million people not 100 million, and we need to confront the reality that we cannot absorb millions on immigrants, legal and illegal every year. Donald Trump is not the problem, a lack of enforceable laws that deal with today's realities is the real problem. I hope we never loose out tradition of welcoming outsiders,and refugees, but we need to face modern 21 century realities.
17
During the 1960's and 1970's protesters of the civil rights movement and the anti war movement objecting to government policies often allowed themselves to be arrested, suffer the "punishment melted out for such protesting" by various governmental authorities in order to object to and protest against such policies in order to change both policies and the laws of the time. These protesters accepted these punishments as both their duties and their rights.
While one may agree in the cause of protest they too must be willing to subject themselves to governmental power in order to effect the change they seek. Unlike the editorial board I see no reason cities who choose to violate the laws and policies they object to should not also be willing to accept, even embrace the punishment, in order to object to and change such governmental policies and laws. It is our system and our rights.
While one may agree in the cause of protest they too must be willing to subject themselves to governmental power in order to effect the change they seek. Unlike the editorial board I see no reason cities who choose to violate the laws and policies they object to should not also be willing to accept, even embrace the punishment, in order to object to and change such governmental policies and laws. It is our system and our rights.
8
Accept? The people in question accept nothing but their supposed right to move here and work off the books while demanding that Americans learn their language and offer them all kinds of subsidies and praise.
This editorial is virtually filled with inaccuracies. The first of which is to say that sanctuary cities have policies to prevent "unjust deportation". It is against the law to enter this country illegally and therefore proper that illegal immigrants are deported.
And then without any proof it is stated that sanctuary cities do not encourage illegal aliens to seek those cities out. The true slender here is to say that the illegal immigrant community along with its supporters don't understand that in fact sanctuary cities are a first choice among illegal aliens.
Let the editorial board state clearly what they mean here which is they approve of open borders without restrictions because that is the result of the policies they support.
To say that we in fact need more sanctuary cities makes clear that the editorial board in fact approves of what is now correctly called illegal immigration. Increasing the number of sanctuary cities will increase illegal immigration which should be obvious to everyone except those who are little affected by the consequences
And then without any proof it is stated that sanctuary cities do not encourage illegal aliens to seek those cities out. The true slender here is to say that the illegal immigrant community along with its supporters don't understand that in fact sanctuary cities are a first choice among illegal aliens.
Let the editorial board state clearly what they mean here which is they approve of open borders without restrictions because that is the result of the policies they support.
To say that we in fact need more sanctuary cities makes clear that the editorial board in fact approves of what is now correctly called illegal immigration. Increasing the number of sanctuary cities will increase illegal immigration which should be obvious to everyone except those who are little affected by the consequences
100
The great big horror that is always mentioned in the immigration issue is "they broke the law!!!". OK. Did you ever speed in a car? Drive without a properly registered vehicle? Litter? Jaywalk? Hire an "illegal" immigrant? Well, if so, you broke the law, too, but like many 'illegal' immigrants you just haven't been caught yet.
1
The 'sanctuary city' concept has been with us a long time, and has been defended by both Republican and Democratic mayors, like NY's own Rudolf Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg. And yet these same mayors have typically had no problem imposing a zero tolerance 'broken windows' style of law enforcement on native born and naturalized Americans - in the process subjecting any number of wholly innocent, law-abiding, hard working citizens to routine harassment, unjust incarceration, and even premature death.
Am I the only person who sees the inconsistency here?
The Sanctuary City concept may be to useful to big city mayors, but it leads to a number of vexing questions: Are some laws, like immigration laws, mere recommendations? Is it ever appropriate to impose a higher degree of scrutiny on naturalized Americans than undocumented Americans? Could this obvious double standard be prompting Americans' growing sense of dis-ease with the current two party system? And finally, what would happen if more naturalized Americans began concluding that our laws were mere recommendations, and not fixed prescriptions that need be upheld by every person within the borders of the United States, for as long as they are here?
Our immigration system may indeed be broken - but it's far from the only component of our Union that needs major renovations.
Am I the only person who sees the inconsistency here?
The Sanctuary City concept may be to useful to big city mayors, but it leads to a number of vexing questions: Are some laws, like immigration laws, mere recommendations? Is it ever appropriate to impose a higher degree of scrutiny on naturalized Americans than undocumented Americans? Could this obvious double standard be prompting Americans' growing sense of dis-ease with the current two party system? And finally, what would happen if more naturalized Americans began concluding that our laws were mere recommendations, and not fixed prescriptions that need be upheld by every person within the borders of the United States, for as long as they are here?
Our immigration system may indeed be broken - but it's far from the only component of our Union that needs major renovations.
15
Big city mayors and county governments deciding that Federal immigration laws are optional is what has broken the immigration system. Protecting and sheltering illegals only invites more illegals to come in a vicious cycle. And who is paying for the support of these illegals and the local resources that they consume? I guess the stupid tax payers haven't figured that out yet.
17
It's not broken, it's not enforced
By refusing to enforce federal law, aren't local authorities thumbing their noses at the rule of law concept? A "cafeteria" approach to law enforcement is a small step towards anarchy. If a local government doesn't agree with a given federal law, then, work to change it. That's how a democracy is supposed to operate.
The NYT seems more and more determined to promote these uber-liberal ideas, and this liberal reader doesn't like it at all.
The NYT seems more and more determined to promote these uber-liberal ideas, and this liberal reader doesn't like it at all.
81
Enforcement of federal immigration law is not within the purview of city governments. It is the responsibility of the federal government.
What a worthwhile point, underestimated by sloppy thinking and writing.
"Sanctuary City" is a derisive term? No, the City of San Francisco refers to its own ordinance as the "Sanctuary Ordinance", leading to the linguistically natural conclusion that San Francisco is a "sanctuary city".
The Republican campaign is infected by the lie that all unauthorized immigrants are dangerous criminals, who must be subdued by extraordinary means? No, that is an exaggeration, and is not true. Perhaps the Editorial Board can review the meaning of the word "all". Words matter.
The bullet that Mr. Lopez-Sanchez fired ricocheted before killing Ms. Steinle, suggesting that he had not targeted anyone? To me it suggests that he was an inaccurate marksman.
Unfortunately, a reader noting these errors might doubt much of the rest of the essay.
"Sanctuary City" is a derisive term? No, the City of San Francisco refers to its own ordinance as the "Sanctuary Ordinance", leading to the linguistically natural conclusion that San Francisco is a "sanctuary city".
The Republican campaign is infected by the lie that all unauthorized immigrants are dangerous criminals, who must be subdued by extraordinary means? No, that is an exaggeration, and is not true. Perhaps the Editorial Board can review the meaning of the word "all". Words matter.
The bullet that Mr. Lopez-Sanchez fired ricocheted before killing Ms. Steinle, suggesting that he had not targeted anyone? To me it suggests that he was an inaccurate marksman.
Unfortunately, a reader noting these errors might doubt much of the rest of the essay.
22
There are even more errors in the editorial. Lopez-Sanchez was not brought to San Francisco by federal officials to answer the local drug charge and then be released. The federal officials specifically asked to be notified before he was released so he could be returned to federal custody. San Francisco refused even to communicate with the feds. And it is not false that he was attracted to San Francisco by the sanctuary policy. That attraction was the very reason he had been in San Francisco in the first place before he was arrested. And, to be clear about his criminal record, he had 7 felony convictions and and been deported 5 times.
24
All illegal aliens have committed a crime. I fail to see why these people should not be deported. Are you suggesting that we have an open boarder policy? If so, come out and say it. Otherwise our laws should be obeyed.
Is it the contention of the NYT that it is OK for local jurisdictions to flout Federal Law?
Is it the contention of the NYT that it is OK for local jurisdictions to flout Federal Law?
128
illegal aliens have not committed a crime. They are subject to deportation, a civil procedure, not criminal prosecution. If you are unfriendly to immigrants, as I suspect is the case, you would not want illegal presence in the US to be treated as a crime. Criminal prosecution would entail meeting all the requirements of the US constitution for such prosecutions, including Miranda warnings, appointed attorneys, jury trials, etc. This cost and complications of this would make it virtually impossible to deport any significant number of undocumented persons, contrary to what you anti-immigrant people apparently want.
As for the Federal law point, there is no law requiring state and local law-enforcement agencies to enforce Federal immigration law. Again, as a conservative who believes in federalism (as I assume you are) you should be happy that this is the case.
As for the Federal law point, there is no law requiring state and local law-enforcement agencies to enforce Federal immigration law. Again, as a conservative who believes in federalism (as I assume you are) you should be happy that this is the case.
2
Your premise is false. Entering the country, or remaining here, without legal authorization is a civil offense. So is driving a car above the posted speed limit. Do you consider all drivers who are speeding on the highways to be criminas?
Most illegals break our employment laws and should be deported on that basis alone.
4
So states's rights trump federal laws?
45
I live in California where deporting all the unauthorized immigrants would immediately collapse the state’s economy. Agribusiness has for years blocked sensible reforms that would allow migrant farm workers permits because it’s easier to deal with people who can be paid less and threatened with deportation if they speak out. This is wrong but at least I can understand what their goals are. Maybe that’s what’s holding up reforms for other workers as well. But opponents of today’s system, or lack thereof, generally sound as though what they want is an end to borders altogether, to simply allow anyone who wants to to come to America and work and vote and drive, etc. without restrictions of any kind. I doubt that’s what the Times editorial board has in mind, but without pointing to a better solution what we have here is just a rant that helps no one. What do you want? Who has a sensible immigration plan and what is it?
29
the reason that California Ag has to use illegals is that unions have blocked their ability to have a legal guest worker program.
Low skilled Latino labor really isn't necessary for anyone but greedy employers. California is sinking under the weight of illegals. A sensible immigration plan would be one that discourages unskilled labor we don't need rather than pandering to Latino racism.
So, some laws are bad and have to be broken and other laws are good. Right, NYT Editorial Board?
Well, even as NYT Editorial Board you can't just pick and choose your laws to support or ignore, as the US is a nation built of laws. If ILLEGAL immigrants are caught and should be deported, as is the law, exactly what is the problem? And if Kim Davis doesn't follow the law and issue marriage licenses to all couples, then she goes to jail. Right?
Unfortunately, the NYT seems to be intent on pushing its pro-illegal immigration agenda on its readers at any cost including its own credibility of thought and reason. Shame.
Well, even as NYT Editorial Board you can't just pick and choose your laws to support or ignore, as the US is a nation built of laws. If ILLEGAL immigrants are caught and should be deported, as is the law, exactly what is the problem? And if Kim Davis doesn't follow the law and issue marriage licenses to all couples, then she goes to jail. Right?
Unfortunately, the NYT seems to be intent on pushing its pro-illegal immigration agenda on its readers at any cost including its own credibility of thought and reason. Shame.
133
the author keeps leaving out the phrase "illegal" every time they mention immigrants. How are some areas just allowed to decide that they do not want to follow federal immigration law? What other laws should cities just be able to ignore? Why can't Mississippi and Alabama declare that minorities can no longer attend the same schools as whites? We are a nation of laws and if you don't like the law you can work to change it, but it is very dangerous to just refuse to enforce a law because you don't like it. A not very well thought out editorial .
115
"unauthorized immigrants" and "unjust deportation"
Love it. And about the Ms. Steinle "tragedy?" Nice work, NYTEB, making the "unauthorized immigrant" who had been "unjustly deported" numerous times for multiple felonies into the poster-boy victim. Just brilliant...and shameful.
Love it. And about the Ms. Steinle "tragedy?" Nice work, NYTEB, making the "unauthorized immigrant" who had been "unjustly deported" numerous times for multiple felonies into the poster-boy victim. Just brilliant...and shameful.
111
The dairy industry in Vermont employs between 2000-3000 Mexican farm workers who make an average of $35,000 per year - jobs that Americans won't do. Without these people, the Vermont dairy industry (as well as the farm industry, hotel industry, building industry, poultry industry. etc., etc.) in ALL 50 states COULD NOT SURVIVE. Vermont is actually a sanctuary state (probably the only one). All four of my grandparents were immigrants. JHCAM - I glad the extreme right-wing Republicans weren't in charge 120 years ago or I would have been wriiting this in Polish or Gaelic - Irish).
11
I find it very difficult to believe they can't find 2,000 - 3,000 US citizens or valid green card holders for these jobs. What I find believable is many business want to save money by hiring illegals or outsourcing the jobs altogether (i.e., Toys R Us, etc.). They don't want to provide legal workers with medical insurance or pay unemployment and worker's compensation premiums, etc. which was once considered the cost of doing business in this country. What is even more believable is these illegals are getting paid approximately 35K per year in untaxed income. They are now several lawsuits where illegals have sued for minimum wage...ironic considering they are breaking the law by being here. Their families receive government assistance in the forms of Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, etc. They also get free use of other services such as fire, sanitation, police, education - services legal residents and citizens pay for. Illegals only care about getting over by using our systems against us at the expenses of those here legally. I know, they came here to fulfill their dreams for a better life because that is more important than the misery they inflict on the rest of us.
12
There is legal and there is illegal. Your ancestors were most likely legal. The Republican party supports LEGAL immigration but opposes ILLEGAL immigration.
5
$35,000 per year in VT is a decent salary. Vermont also has a growing heroin problem. What is happening that people would rather sit on their porches getting high than do these very respectable jobs?
3
Another unreasonable leftist editorial from the increasingly marginalizing Times!
71
Okay the NYT editors have officially lost it with the nonsense of "These are jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, or try in other ways to protect unauthorized immigrants from unjust deportation."
What is so "unjust" about enforcing the law when the person KNOWINGLY broke the law and knew the consequences?
Illegal sneaks in which (1) breaks the law and (2) they knew they were breaking the law and would be deported if caught.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time - they knew the risk when they sneaked in.
EVERY country deports people who have no right to be in the country. Every single one.
Enough just enough with this Open Borders nonsense.
There is NO SUCH thing as "Unjust" deportation of an illegal migrant who snuck into the US (note: migrant - not refugee from wars)
The immigration laws have not been changed because the majority do NOT want them changed. Just because some upper 5% sitting in their NYC multi-million dollar co-ops or summer homes and the illegals want it changed does not mean it should be changed.
Changes were proposed and didn't have the votes.
So does the NYT want "sanctuary cities" for other types of law breakers? After all, can't have the local pot dealers worried about getting arrested.
What is so "unjust" about enforcing the law when the person KNOWINGLY broke the law and knew the consequences?
Illegal sneaks in which (1) breaks the law and (2) they knew they were breaking the law and would be deported if caught.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time - they knew the risk when they sneaked in.
EVERY country deports people who have no right to be in the country. Every single one.
Enough just enough with this Open Borders nonsense.
There is NO SUCH thing as "Unjust" deportation of an illegal migrant who snuck into the US (note: migrant - not refugee from wars)
The immigration laws have not been changed because the majority do NOT want them changed. Just because some upper 5% sitting in their NYC multi-million dollar co-ops or summer homes and the illegals want it changed does not mean it should be changed.
Changes were proposed and didn't have the votes.
So does the NYT want "sanctuary cities" for other types of law breakers? After all, can't have the local pot dealers worried about getting arrested.
80
"Unauthorized" = illegal. No matter how you cut it, and no matter the origin of the person/s illegally in this country. Whether from Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico, Syria, Guatemala...if in fact the person/s is here without proper documentation, that person is illegal. Changing the wording doesn't prettify the fact. If you aren't happy with that fact, then change the law. After all, all it takes is votes.
55
Interestingly, while crossing the border without documentation is a crime, being in the US without documentation is a civil offense. Read an explanation at: http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/07/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-...
As for the release of Lopez-Sanchez by San Francisco, from what I've read the San Francisco authorities complied with the law. INS sent a letter asking SF authorities to hold him until INS came to pick him up, and a letter has no legal authority. If INS really wanted him, all they had to do was get a judge to issue a warrant or court order for his detention by SF, but INS didn't comply with the law. Here's a NYT article describing the circumstances. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/us/san-francisco-murder-case-exposes-l...
It's interesting, by the way, to learn that the gun Lopez-Sanchez fired was traced back to a federal agent:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/weapon-felon-gun-woman-federal-age...
Golly, facts are so pesky.
As for the release of Lopez-Sanchez by San Francisco, from what I've read the San Francisco authorities complied with the law. INS sent a letter asking SF authorities to hold him until INS came to pick him up, and a letter has no legal authority. If INS really wanted him, all they had to do was get a judge to issue a warrant or court order for his detention by SF, but INS didn't comply with the law. Here's a NYT article describing the circumstances. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/us/san-francisco-murder-case-exposes-l...
It's interesting, by the way, to learn that the gun Lopez-Sanchez fired was traced back to a federal agent:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/weapon-felon-gun-woman-federal-age...
Golly, facts are so pesky.
11
This concept of sanctuary cities (like San Francisco) is progressive lunacy run amok. They have no legal basis for thwarting federal immigration law. Who do they think they are, a damn city-state, a sovereignty unto themselves, not subject to the federal government or U.S, laws? They should be rightfully penalized for this stupid, adolescent behavior. Their more sensible citizens should run those city councilmen out of town on a rail.
55
"all unauthorized immigrants are dangerous criminals who must be subdued by extraordinary means." This is nothing but a blatant strawman intended to bias the reader. The success of our system of jurisprudence depends on federal and state cooperation. We lost hundreds of thousands of Americans in a Civil War to defend this bedrock principle. Now comes the Times with its groundless campaign to weaken this covenant, and in the process make our nation more violent and vulnerable to the international gangs and cartels. Absurd!
62
I find it interesting to observe that those who now claim sanctuary cities should be punished for making federal immigration laws more difficult to enforce are likely the same ones who cheered when the Supreme Court decided in 1997 that the federal government could not compel cities to enforce the Brady gun control act. (Printz v. United States)
10
This is an unbalanced comparison. Whether one liked Brady there was and is always the Second Amendment to consider. No such amendment to the Constitution protects illegal aliens or limits or restricts the rights of the people to have their laws enforced. The core principle here is rule of law. The current trend, begun with the Obama administration, is to obey only laws you agree with. That is a recipe for anarchy, plain and simple.
Each month sees the NYT's editorial board run further off the skids. Lopez-Sanchez was convicted of seven felonies in the US, including heroin possession and narcotics manufacturing. He was deported five times--all clearly a tad bit more than the old marijuana conviction the editorial references. The US government intended to deport him again or hospitalize him had San Francisco not followed their asinine sanctuary policy protecting criminals who have repeatedly burgled their way into the country.
Does anyone doubt that every member of the editorial board would be troubled to find this serial felon loitering outside their residence and infuriated if the police decided to take no action? Even when he shot and killed, it is being minimized as a ricochet accident. Simply incredible.
Does anyone doubt that every member of the editorial board would be troubled to find this serial felon loitering outside their residence and infuriated if the police decided to take no action? Even when he shot and killed, it is being minimized as a ricochet accident. Simply incredible.
70
A really simple comment. Illegal is illegal. Why not start from that perspective or the fact that illegals working here take jobs from legal residents including African Americans who have a much higher unemployment rate? If the Times believes in a one world government with open borders, say it. If instead they see the future voting for progressive policies, say it. But stop this garbage about civil enforcement
54
"These laws are a false fix for a concocted problem."
I agree, these proposed laws are probably a false fix, but illegal immigration is hardly a "concocted" problem.
We will never send all the immigrants that are in the US illegal back to their home countries (nor should we or could we [too costly and resource draining]). But we should fine them, make sure their taxes are paid and put them on a path to some sort of legal status as perhaps guest workers.
That is not amnesty. That is a punishment. The degree of punishment (size of fine, waiting period) is up for discussion.
I agree, these proposed laws are probably a false fix, but illegal immigration is hardly a "concocted" problem.
We will never send all the immigrants that are in the US illegal back to their home countries (nor should we or could we [too costly and resource draining]). But we should fine them, make sure their taxes are paid and put them on a path to some sort of legal status as perhaps guest workers.
That is not amnesty. That is a punishment. The degree of punishment (size of fine, waiting period) is up for discussion.
67
Any refusal to deport them is amnesty and must be off the table.
Sure, let's try and track down every illegal and force them to pay a fine, the taxes they owe (I'm sure there will be millions of underreported dollars) and wait in line for the guest worker program. If illegals really wanted to do the right thing by this country, they would've done things the legal way. There are millions of immigrants who came here legally. My entire family did it the legal way, it takes time and it does work. The common thread all criminals share is lack of patience. Once illegals get here, they waste no time creating anchor babies, finding the local government assistance office and squeezing their brood into an already overcrowded classroom. They then go on to rip jobs out of the hands of those here legally and harp about how Americans (especially African-Americans) are lazy. If they receive a deportation notice, they find a Legal Aid and their case moves slower than molasses on a winter day. We are tired of being punished by them and their flagrant disregard for our laws. Deport them all...it will be much cheaper than implementing this type of "punishment" you speak of.
How is the sanctuary city concept different from the never ending arguments for nullification that come from the right? We do have (or at lead did) a reasonable concept of the rule of law. Now, depending on how you place on the political spectrum, there is a sense that some laws can be treated differently than others. When I look at both ends I see citizens who've abandoned their government, and see themselves as the final arbiters. The sanctuary cities and groups like the Oath Keepers have more in common than either would like to admit.
30
I fully agree with this editorial. The Republicans have found their latest "wedge issue" and public whipping-boy to rile up the racists, the know-nothings, and the never-knew-very-muches, who have now fulminated against "illegal aliens" -- a true non-problem for this country.
I live right here in San Diego, minutes from the border. We are not overwhelmed by lawless hordes of illegal immigrants who wander through the streets, committing mayhem, like Zombies in a movie. No, those that are here are too busy working at poorly paid jobs to make a living providing necessary services that all of us use.
The anti-immigrant ground is composed of angry whites who, at bottom, are angry that the country will soon cease to be one in which they are the majority. I am white too, but I think our diversity is a source of strength and dynamism.
Anyway, there is no national emergency caused by undocumented immigrants, just a national emergency caused by the doltish, mindless hysteria of the Rush Limbaugh crowd.
I live right here in San Diego, minutes from the border. We are not overwhelmed by lawless hordes of illegal immigrants who wander through the streets, committing mayhem, like Zombies in a movie. No, those that are here are too busy working at poorly paid jobs to make a living providing necessary services that all of us use.
The anti-immigrant ground is composed of angry whites who, at bottom, are angry that the country will soon cease to be one in which they are the majority. I am white too, but I think our diversity is a source of strength and dynamism.
Anyway, there is no national emergency caused by undocumented immigrants, just a national emergency caused by the doltish, mindless hysteria of the Rush Limbaugh crowd.
9
Too bad you try to respond to a backlash against a senseless editorial with senseless, racist and diminishing remarks. This is pretty much the classic Leftist debate technique: if you have no valid argument to make, call those who don't agree with you racist and ignorant (works with any topic). The "angry white male" is another canard used to make a point when none rational is available to you, and bingo, you fell right into that one, didn't you.
Such puerile tactics actually confirm that there's no discussion to be had with illegal immigrant advocates: we've heard all the arguments for, and most are based on lies, exaggerations, omissions, and in any case, the sole interest of the Illegal Immigrant population.
Such puerile tactics actually confirm that there's no discussion to be had with illegal immigrant advocates: we've heard all the arguments for, and most are based on lies, exaggerations, omissions, and in any case, the sole interest of the Illegal Immigrant population.
All whites are not racists just because we believe in the rule of law and that it is dangerous to have a society that can pick and choose what laws to obey. Our illegal immigration problem is really a failure of government on both sides of the aisle. There must be a way to have a guest worker program that matches potential immigrants with jobs. The problem is the leftist are looking for votes and refuse to work with the right to lawfully solve this problem. It has nothing to do with the whites losing the majority. We are a nation of immigrants and majorities have changed every generation. The good news is that maybe Hillary will win and although right now she is being pushed to the left, she will probably govern in the middle like Bill did....
Undocumented immigrants are illegal immigrsntsrs; their immigration status is illegal. They are not in the US legally. This is true no matter their skin color or ethnicity or national origin. To be for requiring immigrants to this country to follow the law is not racist or being anti immigrant. But then that would be too rational.
As to sanctuary laws.....our federal highway department ties federal funding for highways to following the rules; the same for receiving federal educations funds and other types of federal benefits. The decision to apply this same standard to sanctuary cities isn't unheard of. In my opinion if an entity or person wants federal funding they should have to follow the law. I would apply this standard to sanctuary cities as well as hospitals who refuse to do abortions or provide contraception advice or the drugs themselves. Hospitals and doctors who refuse Medicare patients should lose their federal funding and or have to return any federal benefits they enjoyed during their career. The laws are either for everyone or they are for no one. We already have a huge class of people who view laws as mere suggestions, we don't need any more.
Refusal to follow the law can cut both ways....some cities and organization's are claiming they can ignore anti discrimination laws and or other laws meant to protect humans. Do we really want to say that is how we should proceed?
As to sanctuary laws.....our federal highway department ties federal funding for highways to following the rules; the same for receiving federal educations funds and other types of federal benefits. The decision to apply this same standard to sanctuary cities isn't unheard of. In my opinion if an entity or person wants federal funding they should have to follow the law. I would apply this standard to sanctuary cities as well as hospitals who refuse to do abortions or provide contraception advice or the drugs themselves. Hospitals and doctors who refuse Medicare patients should lose their federal funding and or have to return any federal benefits they enjoyed during their career. The laws are either for everyone or they are for no one. We already have a huge class of people who view laws as mere suggestions, we don't need any more.
Refusal to follow the law can cut both ways....some cities and organization's are claiming they can ignore anti discrimination laws and or other laws meant to protect humans. Do we really want to say that is how we should proceed?
37
No other country in the world has allowed millions of illegal immigrants to come to their shores, get free medical care and obtain a License to drive a car except America. No other superpower has a problem managing its borders.
While it is true that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants come to America and do not violate our laws, and that they are hard working and willing to do the work most American do not want to do, by doing nothing about the problem more millions are streaming in.
The construction industry has been harmed severely because immigrants from Mexico who crossed the border illegally are being paid much less than what American construction workers are being paid and costing them their jobs.
I have friends that cannot afford their health care premiums but yet someone from Mexico can come here illegally and not have to worry about obtaining free medical care. I have friends in the construction industry who were making $35 an hour who lost their jobs to illegal immigrants that companies were paying $10 or less an hour to.
Not every person who expresses concerns about millions of people being in our country illegally is a racist. It is a valid concern all Americans should share. My grandparents came here in the 1900's fleeing persecution and anti semitism. All they had when they arrived was the clothes on their back. They came legally, thru Ellis Island. We must protect our borders. That's not racist. It's what every other nation does.
While it is true that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants come to America and do not violate our laws, and that they are hard working and willing to do the work most American do not want to do, by doing nothing about the problem more millions are streaming in.
The construction industry has been harmed severely because immigrants from Mexico who crossed the border illegally are being paid much less than what American construction workers are being paid and costing them their jobs.
I have friends that cannot afford their health care premiums but yet someone from Mexico can come here illegally and not have to worry about obtaining free medical care. I have friends in the construction industry who were making $35 an hour who lost their jobs to illegal immigrants that companies were paying $10 or less an hour to.
Not every person who expresses concerns about millions of people being in our country illegally is a racist. It is a valid concern all Americans should share. My grandparents came here in the 1900's fleeing persecution and anti semitism. All they had when they arrived was the clothes on their back. They came legally, thru Ellis Island. We must protect our borders. That's not racist. It's what every other nation does.
240
" I have friends in the construction industry who were making $35 an hour who lost their jobs to illegal immigrants that companies were paying $10 or less an hour to." Let's grant the truth of this and ask the question: Where is the cry from republicans to prosecute the job providers that you speak of? Your party "leader" Mr. trump is a big wig in an industry (hotels and casinos) that employs huge numbers of Hispanics (are they all legal?)
From reading this piece one would think that the sanctuary these cities provide is to prevent non criminals from being deported. However the very opposite is true. That the sanctuary they provide is only for criminals, and not just any type of criminal, but those deemed to be deserving of deportation under Obama's policy of limiting deportation to those who have committed serious crimes. Serious crimes are defined as violent crimes or high level felonies.
And that is because the whole issue of sanctuary is over whether they should turn over criminals in their jails to the federal authorities when those authorities request they be turned over because the crimes they have committed are considered to serious enough to warrant deportation.
So it is precisely about "leaving local law enforcement free to focus on catching criminals and protecting public safety". And that as opposed to those who have a right to be here who must be released once the justice system has dealt with them, despite the fact that they still pose a threat to public safety, those who do not have a right to be here are supposed to be deported, as per Obama's relaxed immigration policy.
And the reason some cities choose to become sanctuary cities is not at all because of their love for the illegal felons living amongst them. Its for the sole reason of feeling good about the impression that being a sanctuary city makes. Having to put up with illegal felons in their midst is the price they are willing to pay.
And that is because the whole issue of sanctuary is over whether they should turn over criminals in their jails to the federal authorities when those authorities request they be turned over because the crimes they have committed are considered to serious enough to warrant deportation.
So it is precisely about "leaving local law enforcement free to focus on catching criminals and protecting public safety". And that as opposed to those who have a right to be here who must be released once the justice system has dealt with them, despite the fact that they still pose a threat to public safety, those who do not have a right to be here are supposed to be deported, as per Obama's relaxed immigration policy.
And the reason some cities choose to become sanctuary cities is not at all because of their love for the illegal felons living amongst them. Its for the sole reason of feeling good about the impression that being a sanctuary city makes. Having to put up with illegal felons in their midst is the price they are willing to pay.
24
"Mr. Lopez-Sanchez was a homeless man with drug convictions but no record of violent crime; the bullet he fired was found to have ricocheted off the pier, suggesting that he had not targeted anyone. The suggestion that it was a horrific accident could well be true."
There he was, innocently firing a gun on a public pier (no doubt a "misstep" in Times speak). Like all of us do from time to time. No violent crime there.
And he had the "misfortune" of having the bullet ricochet and hit someone (Ms Steinle).
What good would have come, the NYT asks us, from enabling federal authorities to deport him?
The Times has lost all credibility on this topic.
There he was, innocently firing a gun on a public pier (no doubt a "misstep" in Times speak). Like all of us do from time to time. No violent crime there.
And he had the "misfortune" of having the bullet ricochet and hit someone (Ms Steinle).
What good would have come, the NYT asks us, from enabling federal authorities to deport him?
The Times has lost all credibility on this topic.
196
It is possible he may have accidently pulled the trigger, as so many accidents with guns seem to happen that way.
A bullet fired is, in almost all cases a "misfortune" as you call it if it hits someone or some animal.
As an aside, what percentage of America's population have used any form of drug, and of that percentage, how many have actually been charged, then convicted?
My guess would be a lot that have never been convicted, and you would be surprised at who some of those people are.
Drug use doesn't make them bad people, necessarily.
A bullet fired is, in almost all cases a "misfortune" as you call it if it hits someone or some animal.
As an aside, what percentage of America's population have used any form of drug, and of that percentage, how many have actually been charged, then convicted?
My guess would be a lot that have never been convicted, and you would be surprised at who some of those people are.
Drug use doesn't make them bad people, necessarily.
I think what the article is really suggesting is that the myopic viewpoint of people like you make honest discussion and honest solutions impossible.
A stolen gun no less. From a federal park ranger apparently. Remember when gun violence was bad and we need more laws and more enforcement to get guns off the streets. One would think that those who favor strict gun control would see Mr. Lopez-Sanchez's possession and use of an illegal firearm as a bad thing but somehow because they consider him a Dreamer, he is not held to the same standards as citizens
"...to protect unauthorized immigrants from unjust deportation."
This should not be the primary focus of our immigration policy. Instead, Americans should be protected from unlawful entry into our country.
This should not be the primary focus of our immigration policy. Instead, Americans should be protected from unlawful entry into our country.
112
The problem with Sanctuary Cities is that they aren't sanctuaries at all. All too often, poor immigrants fall prey to violent crime, and the criminals are treated with kid gloves, because they, too, are immigrants. There was one tragic case in Houston, where a Middle Eastern man, a father who had fled with his family from a war in his home country, was accosted and shot dead by a robber. What kind of sanctuary is that?
.
It's obvious to me that we need to redefine sanctuary cities. They shouldn't be about protecting illegal immigrants who commit crimes, from deportation. Rather, they should be about finding ways to better police immigrant communities to make them safer; to encourage immigrants (legal or not) to speak up when they witness crimes; and to help immigrants who are victims of crime, get the Justice they deserve. In essence, the whole concept of sanctuary cities needs to be stood on its head - if we believe that sanctuaries should be sanctuaries.
.
It's obvious to me that we need to redefine sanctuary cities. They shouldn't be about protecting illegal immigrants who commit crimes, from deportation. Rather, they should be about finding ways to better police immigrant communities to make them safer; to encourage immigrants (legal or not) to speak up when they witness crimes; and to help immigrants who are victims of crime, get the Justice they deserve. In essence, the whole concept of sanctuary cities needs to be stood on its head - if we believe that sanctuaries should be sanctuaries.
5
The justice that illegals deserve is deportation. This is not their nation and they have no right to violate our contemporary immigration laws.
This editorial is a disgusting piece of sophistry that one may even think was subsidised by Mexican cartel money. The illegal immigrants who flock to "los sanctuarios" are indeed criminals by definition for their flagrant flouting of Title 8, United States Code [immigration law]. And their members disproportionately get involved in large-scale narcotics transactions with related money laundering and homicide cases. They are the reason we have such a huge influx of cheap Mexican heroin. I work in Federal law enforcement and hear the complaints from my ICE agent coworkers that they are unable to do their jobs because Rahm Emmanuel has hamstrung their ability to enforce Title 8 code in Chicago. I see the thousands of narcotics and money laundering cases crossing my desk and those of my coworkers and guess whose names are in the docket? Latinos. We must deal with this scourge with the heavy hand of the law.
153
80 years of punitive and misguided drug laws are the main reason why drug cartels exist. Making a desirable (and abusable) item hard to get drives up the price (the free market in action!) and makes profitable the trade; to protect that source of enormous and ill-gotten gain violence is inevitable. The real harm from drugs is the Drug War itself; it can never be won.
However, it is not just the cartel kingpins who benefit. The money-launderers, the currupt law officers, the departments that make a killing in civil forfeiture, the private prison industry etc. --- all of a large stake in continuing this endless and unwinnable war. Thus I always have to wonder what the most vociferous of the anti-drug crusaders are really after.
If you want to reduce drug-related crime, make the drugs legal, regulate them (which will help prevent over-dose deaths), tax them, and use the proceeds for treatment. We do that for both alcohol and nicotine, which are far more destructive than most illegal drugs.
FYI: I am a recovering alcoholic 27 years sober; I have direct experience of what substance abuse can do and would not wish it on anyone. But it is a social and medical problem not a criminal one: the last is so only because we have made it so.
However, it is not just the cartel kingpins who benefit. The money-launderers, the currupt law officers, the departments that make a killing in civil forfeiture, the private prison industry etc. --- all of a large stake in continuing this endless and unwinnable war. Thus I always have to wonder what the most vociferous of the anti-drug crusaders are really after.
If you want to reduce drug-related crime, make the drugs legal, regulate them (which will help prevent over-dose deaths), tax them, and use the proceeds for treatment. We do that for both alcohol and nicotine, which are far more destructive than most illegal drugs.
FYI: I am a recovering alcoholic 27 years sober; I have direct experience of what substance abuse can do and would not wish it on anyone. But it is a social and medical problem not a criminal one: the last is so only because we have made it so.
Minneapolis welcomes both legal and illegal immigrants, often with large number of unsupported children. This keeps housing and school classrooms filled, and adds many government and "non-profit" advocacy jobs. Having volunteered at a food distribution center, what is immediately obvious is that the recipients do not volunteer -- they only come in to take home food. The cost of free health care to all legal immigrants and many illegal immigrants keeps people employed, but raises taxes for native workers who bear the cost burden. Uneducated and low I.Q. immigrants are not the same as the Canadian immigrants who were once welcomed if they brought $1,000,000 or more into the country. And there is no right to assume that all immigrant children will want to be grape pickers, roofers, maids, dishwashers, and janitors in perpetuity, thus necessitating a continuous flow of 3rd world immigrants to provide cheap labor to unscrupulous businessmen and wealthy vineyard owners such as Nancy Pelosi. And of course, while some very liberal inner cities invite immigrants, it is the less liberal suburbs that often end up with the burden as immigrants are encouraged to flee the crime ridden inner cities with awful inner city schools. (Minneapolis is now rated as the worst in the Nation and it is not because of the middle and upper income, smarter residents who have not yet fled.)
75
"Uneducated and low I.Q. immigrants"
Mexicans are low IQ? We know some very different Mexicans. In fact, they are downright genius compared to *some* of the mouth breathing droolers who are in the Republican base.
Mexicans are low IQ? We know some very different Mexicans. In fact, they are downright genius compared to *some* of the mouth breathing droolers who are in the Republican base.
About so-called 'Sanctuary Cities':
While the article's specific subject may be an unworthy reason to crush them, the don't-ask-don't-tell policies of the more than a hundred of these cities have protected numerous criminals among the undocumenteds and have helped to make the U.S. a drug-drowned nation. The sanctuary cities were initiated by Republicans who used them to continue and worsen the porosity of the border to break unions and put pressure on wages in general, then corrupt Democratic city governments supported them to produce a compliant, controllable segment of population. And now Republicans decry the situation as if they bore no responsibility for their existence while well-meaning liberals have become the sanctuary cities' defenders.
It all adds up to a mess that defies anything resembling an equitable solution.
While the article's specific subject may be an unworthy reason to crush them, the don't-ask-don't-tell policies of the more than a hundred of these cities have protected numerous criminals among the undocumenteds and have helped to make the U.S. a drug-drowned nation. The sanctuary cities were initiated by Republicans who used them to continue and worsen the porosity of the border to break unions and put pressure on wages in general, then corrupt Democratic city governments supported them to produce a compliant, controllable segment of population. And now Republicans decry the situation as if they bore no responsibility for their existence while well-meaning liberals have become the sanctuary cities' defenders.
It all adds up to a mess that defies anything resembling an equitable solution.
13
The Times Editorial Board may finally have 'jumped the shark' on illegal immigration: to the intellectual confusion on this issue to which the Board has us well accustomed, we now have the moral squalor of the trivialization of the killing of an American citizen and a dangerous advocacy of a political tactic with a long and ugly history in our country. If deportation of a convicted drug felon with multiple previous returns after deportation is "unjust", then one is left to ponder what deportation the Board would consider "just" - it is apparently the Board's position that unless and until an alien murders someone he or she should be immune from the democratic will of the American people as expressed through their laws. Ms. Steinle, meanwhile, is dead, and it is irrelevant to the discussion of the role of sanctuary policies in her death (and certainly irrelevant to the family and friends) whether the bullet that killed her was intended for her or was a ricochet, as the Board so dismissively argues; the salient point is that she would be alive if immigration laws had been enforced. Finally, while I know that the Board is comfortable with the idea that what was once a country of laws is increasingly a country of executive actions, our history as a people has long since demonstrated that nullification is the path to anarchy and disaster in our national life.
102
Sanctuary is one of the earlier forms of religiously-based civil disobedience dating back to ancient Egypt and later ancient Greece. Church sanctuary was originally supported by secular law in the West but has been illegal for centuries. Sanctuary has never been legal in the USA. All civil disobedience is simply criminal activity with a sugar-coating of moral justification. As we supposedly established with the Nuremberg trials, obedience to immoral laws can be a crime. Thus, there is no question about the criminal nature of municipal sanctuary laws and policies, rather only a question of whether the perpetrators of same have a lawful defense. A good metaphor is the law of homicide. Willfully killing another human being is one form of homicide (first degree murder) unless the killer was legally justified (e.g. self-defense) or there are factors in mitigation (e.g., mental incapacity to form an intent). The only way to resolve the municipal sanctuary dispute is for the mayor of some city, say San Francisco, to be arrested and tried for violation of federal immigration law with the verdict appealed to and decided by the Supreme Court. Until that time the debate is just hot air blowing in an intellectual vacuum. For the best review of all these issues see: http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1503/article_1310.shtml
7
The sanctuary provided by the church in Europe was based upon the laws providing seven priestly cities where a person who had killed someone could repair to and the avenging family could not follow and enter. This sanctuary was available only to those who had committed what we would call accidental homicide or manslaughter. The murderer, one who had killed in anger or to rob was not provided sanctuary.
These cities have chosen to not cooperate with federal authorities because they have set themselves up as their own authority on what laws they will obey on a selective basis. By not informing federal authorities that they are releasing a criminal wanted by the Federal government they make it possible for these people to commit more crimes. Lopez-Sanchez was deported numerous times before and returned each time to San Francisco because the welfare system made it possible for him to stay here a fact he acknowledged. That he was probably committing crimes before this killing is a sure bet.
Lopez-Sanchez is not the only illegal who has been arrested for a crime here and protected from deportation. There are thousands of these incidents every year most related to the drug business as in the many home invasions we are seeing even here in Charlotte. These cities disobeience makes them no different than the Southern states who were doing the same thing and were willing to to leave the jurisdiction of the US to do as they please. These cities though aren't as honorable as the South.
These cities have chosen to not cooperate with federal authorities because they have set themselves up as their own authority on what laws they will obey on a selective basis. By not informing federal authorities that they are releasing a criminal wanted by the Federal government they make it possible for these people to commit more crimes. Lopez-Sanchez was deported numerous times before and returned each time to San Francisco because the welfare system made it possible for him to stay here a fact he acknowledged. That he was probably committing crimes before this killing is a sure bet.
Lopez-Sanchez is not the only illegal who has been arrested for a crime here and protected from deportation. There are thousands of these incidents every year most related to the drug business as in the many home invasions we are seeing even here in Charlotte. These cities disobeience makes them no different than the Southern states who were doing the same thing and were willing to to leave the jurisdiction of the US to do as they please. These cities though aren't as honorable as the South.
3
I share the goals of the sanctuary movement, but the methods are deeply troubling. There is no question that immigration policy falls within federal jurisdiction. If this defiance of federal authority gains acceptance, on what grounds would anyone be able to challenge states that decided to ignore the SC ruling on same sex marriage or imitated Arizona and enacted a state immigration law harsher than the policy of the federal government?
At its heart, this defiance of federal jurisdiction with respect to immigration resembles the nullification movement of the early 19th century. John C. Calhoun and the state government of South Carolina, anxious preserve slavery against any federal interference, developed the theory that states had the authority to reject enforcement of federal laws they considered in violation of the Constitution. San Francisco and other cities are not claiming the legal right to defy federal authority, but in practice that is what they are doing.
The impasse over immigration reform has created a tragic dilemma for illegal immigrants and their supporters. But that dilemma cannot be resolved through actions that threaten the legitimate authority of the federal government and potentially create precedents that groups with very different agendas might use. Tea partiers already seek to weaken federal power; they should not receive any aid and comfort from liberals.
At its heart, this defiance of federal jurisdiction with respect to immigration resembles the nullification movement of the early 19th century. John C. Calhoun and the state government of South Carolina, anxious preserve slavery against any federal interference, developed the theory that states had the authority to reject enforcement of federal laws they considered in violation of the Constitution. San Francisco and other cities are not claiming the legal right to defy federal authority, but in practice that is what they are doing.
The impasse over immigration reform has created a tragic dilemma for illegal immigrants and their supporters. But that dilemma cannot be resolved through actions that threaten the legitimate authority of the federal government and potentially create precedents that groups with very different agendas might use. Tea partiers already seek to weaken federal power; they should not receive any aid and comfort from liberals.
55
Ilegals create their own tragedy by their belief that they are innately entitled to override our immigration laws.
I am not an immigration expert.
In my opinion, however, the influx of immigrants is not a problem due to influx of crime. Most criminals can't operate in foreign-speaking countries, because their criminality would be much more apparent there.
I do believe and have seen many examples in a large metropolis that immigrants, legal or il-, are supportive, solid pieces of the economic and civic life.
What the readers of the NYTimes and the editors miss is that immigration is a plus, and a huge economic plus, but it needs to be administered in moderation. Not because it's bad, but because too much of a good thing can often be harmful, too.
I am not debating the sanctuary issue. I am debating the fact that the amount of roads, waterworks, food terminals, telephone cell sites, housing opportunities, can only be advanced at a certain pace; and if all immigration broke lose, so to speak, there would be too much of a strain on the infrastructure of the American economy and civic supplies of goods and services that the only government alone provides.
This is the reason for curtailing immigration, and the FEDs are smart enough to realize this. I don't think that FED lawmakers are any more evil and/or condemning of immigrants' values: FEDs recognize the willingness of immigrants to abide with the law of the land. The Fed lawmakers want to curtail immigration to allow a smooth, not too taxing expansion instead of rapid change of ballooning population growths.
In my opinion, however, the influx of immigrants is not a problem due to influx of crime. Most criminals can't operate in foreign-speaking countries, because their criminality would be much more apparent there.
I do believe and have seen many examples in a large metropolis that immigrants, legal or il-, are supportive, solid pieces of the economic and civic life.
What the readers of the NYTimes and the editors miss is that immigration is a plus, and a huge economic plus, but it needs to be administered in moderation. Not because it's bad, but because too much of a good thing can often be harmful, too.
I am not debating the sanctuary issue. I am debating the fact that the amount of roads, waterworks, food terminals, telephone cell sites, housing opportunities, can only be advanced at a certain pace; and if all immigration broke lose, so to speak, there would be too much of a strain on the infrastructure of the American economy and civic supplies of goods and services that the only government alone provides.
This is the reason for curtailing immigration, and the FEDs are smart enough to realize this. I don't think that FED lawmakers are any more evil and/or condemning of immigrants' values: FEDs recognize the willingness of immigrants to abide with the law of the land. The Fed lawmakers want to curtail immigration to allow a smooth, not too taxing expansion instead of rapid change of ballooning population growths.
4
The federal government slowed immigration down to a crwl for nearly 50 years which allowed for those already here to acculturate themselves into Americans. I grew up in a ghetto where the majority of commerce and even everyday conversation was in Calabrese. today you'd have a tough time finding such a community.
The huge present day influx of immigrants has given us ghettos that will not disappear because they are constantly being repopulated by new people. Many of the people who came here 15 years ago still do not speak English. We have five year olds who were born in this country starting school unable to speak English causing our school system to pay extra tax dollars for translators and tutors.
We must have control of immigration or we risk the disunity of a common culture where the national culture is either subsumed or is secondary.
The huge present day influx of immigrants has given us ghettos that will not disappear because they are constantly being repopulated by new people. Many of the people who came here 15 years ago still do not speak English. We have five year olds who were born in this country starting school unable to speak English causing our school system to pay extra tax dollars for translators and tutors.
We must have control of immigration or we risk the disunity of a common culture where the national culture is either subsumed or is secondary.
3
Unskilled Latino migration is not a net plus for most Americans.
1
The thing is that GOP politicians play to the right wing whose "truth" is not the reality that Mr. Obama deported thousands, but rather their own "fact" that he has opened the borders to "millions" who come in, get gov't benefits (housing, healthcare, food, free college), and immediately register to vote (illegally) and vote for Democrats.
A part of this story is the most of these Mr. Obama is bringing across our borders are dangerous thugs (it is the old story of the bogie man, who is this case speaks Spanish, coming to get us in our beds and take all our stuff). Because the right-wing sees a grand plot/conspiracy to take what they have and "destroy America" in everything Mr. Obama does, they are impervious to the facts of the matter, i.e., that most immigrants (documented or not) simply want a good job, decent housing, and a better life for their kids.
A part of this story is the most of these Mr. Obama is bringing across our borders are dangerous thugs (it is the old story of the bogie man, who is this case speaks Spanish, coming to get us in our beds and take all our stuff). Because the right-wing sees a grand plot/conspiracy to take what they have and "destroy America" in everything Mr. Obama does, they are impervious to the facts of the matter, i.e., that most immigrants (documented or not) simply want a good job, decent housing, and a better life for their kids.
7
The time has come so let it be the law of the land.
1
I fail to see how the NY Times can call illegal immigrants law biding since they entered the country illegally. Hundreds of thousands of crimes have been committed by people who are illegally. If they were not here many thousands of Americans were not be victims of crimes. Apparently the NY Times believes that federal laws are not laws but just suggestions that are to be optionally obeyed.
61
Re: " Hundreds of thousands of crimes have been committed by people who are illegally." Citations, please? Or are these statements simply based on your gun feelings?
At some point, I wish the editorial board would simply state that it advocates open borders. In the board's opinion, it seems no one warrants deportation unless he/she is convicted of some unnamed felony. Of course, no functioning nation state in the world does this; rather, they enact and enforce laws governing who comes into and remains in the country. Would the Times similarly embrace certain cities deciding they no longer want to participate in federal background check programs for firearms? For the "rich" who don't want to pay federal income tax? Finally, the phrase "class-action slander" merely reinforces that the board does not understand legal concepts relating to class actions or slander. You should choose verbiage more carefully. Words have meaning--especially legal terms of art--and the board appears foolish by using them improperly.
87
"...try in other ways to protect unauthorized immigrants from unjust deportation."
After reading this howler, the rest of the editorial can be safely ignored. Thankfully we are still a nation of laws, even if our so-called commander-in-chief chooses not to enforce them.
After reading this howler, the rest of the editorial can be safely ignored. Thankfully we are still a nation of laws, even if our so-called commander-in-chief chooses not to enforce them.
62
All illegal "immigrants" broke the law by entering the country and continue to break it by remaining in the country. They can not legally work. If they are working, they are doing so off the books -- illegal -- or on the books, by using a forged Social Security card and perjured I-9 -- seriously illegal. What they can do is have kids at taxpayer expense and we consider them US citizens, thanks to the continuing lunacy of Birthright Citizenship. This opens the taxpayers' wallet to pay for the kids.
It is a felony to aid and abet illegal immigrants, so, on that basis alone, the entire sanctuary movement should be stomped on. Here's hoping Vitter's move is successful.
It is a felony to aid and abet illegal immigrants, so, on that basis alone, the entire sanctuary movement should be stomped on. Here's hoping Vitter's move is successful.
97
Has the New York Times ever once spoken for the people in this country who work hard and play by the rules? You people are on the side of every criminal you can find.
104
The laws denying sanctuary cities federal funding are not "based on the "lie that all unauthorized immigrants are dangerous criminals." They are based on the fact that sanctuary cities make federal immigration laws more difficult to enforce. Releasing unauthorized immigrations already in custody allows them to go on violating immigration laws until they are caught again. Some criminal aliens may be more dangerous than other criminal aliens, but non-violent criminals also undermine society.
87
William Case:
"non-violent criminals also undermine society"
*****
Failure to enforce laws undermines society. Those who do this, including the president, are sending a dangerous message: Laws are only meaningful when they support one's ideology.
"non-violent criminals also undermine society"
*****
Failure to enforce laws undermines society. Those who do this, including the president, are sending a dangerous message: Laws are only meaningful when they support one's ideology.
10
So here the Times drops all pretense of distinguishing between legal immigrants and illegal err "unauthorized" immigrants, as the Times euphemistically calls these unwelcome criminals disobeying our laws, and lets its readership know that there is zero distinction, in the Times' eyes, between those who are invited and welcome in our country, and those who choose to break our country's laws and stay here when they are not welcome. The Times doesn't care that a young woman was murdered by an illegal immigrant--she was white so her fate is irrelevant to the Times' editorial board. Rather, those of the ilk of the illegal immigrant murderer are the true "victims" according to the Times. This newspaper has gone off the ails, completely.
84
Guy in KC: To say that "the Times doesn't care that a young woman was murdered" is ridiculous. What they are saying is that it is nonsense to take the criminal behavior of one and suggest that it somehow taints millions of others. It makes as much sense as it would make for us to say that Joe Blow from Missouri killed someone so all Missourians, including you, are criminals.
As to the suggestion that NYTimes readers are easily snookered by the Times choice of language, we are actually a pretty smart, informed bunch who can and do make up our own minds. I prefer "undocumented," but can live with "illegal" to which people like you are attached. I see these people as desperate people deserving of compassion, not horrible "criminals" - frankly, I am sorry to have folks who simply want to deport them as fellow citizens for it lacks any shred of compassion.
As to the suggestion that NYTimes readers are easily snookered by the Times choice of language, we are actually a pretty smart, informed bunch who can and do make up our own minds. I prefer "undocumented," but can live with "illegal" to which people like you are attached. I see these people as desperate people deserving of compassion, not horrible "criminals" - frankly, I am sorry to have folks who simply want to deport them as fellow citizens for it lacks any shred of compassion.
1
Ms. Hislop, if you prefer "undocumented," you have been snookered. The law is free of compassion. And we are a nation of laws, not compassion. Maybe you've been snookered there too.
3
"These laws are a false fix for a concocted problem." Which means this is a win-win for Republicans pandering to "the base".
6
The problems illegals pose are not imaginary.
The only appropriate response to illegal immigration is deportation, no questions, no exceptions.
85
Path to citizenship is a valid entry document to the US and five years crime free
15
No. The path should only exist if the person can pass an English test and does not get welfare at any time.
1
How about this: if the NY Times stops conflating illegal (ahem, unauthorized) immigrants with legal immigrants, then the Republicans will agree to stop conflating immigrants with criminals.
At any rate, this op-ed, misses the point. Most of what's written there is misleading, if not downright false.
The stat cited about the Obama administration deporting an "unprecedented" number of people is incorrect. This stat is often cited by democrats to show that Obama is not soft on border control, but the numbers only seem high because within the last several years the method in which deportations are calculated was modified to include additional people caught and released, rather than just those deported through "traditional" methods. If you control for that, deportations are actually relatively low. See http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html.
Moreover, it is almost comical how the NYT makes a point to say that Lopez-Sanchez, Steinle's killer, had "drug convictions, but no record of violent crime." Isn't that the entire point? Now he has a history of violent crime, as a direct result of the sanctuary city policy. His numerous drug convictions made him removable (as did his several illegal reentries after numerous prior removals).
Sanctuary cities provide perverse incentives and put their citizens at risk for victimization.
I'm not sure when Democrats decided that enforcing immigration laws was beyond the pale.
At any rate, this op-ed, misses the point. Most of what's written there is misleading, if not downright false.
The stat cited about the Obama administration deporting an "unprecedented" number of people is incorrect. This stat is often cited by democrats to show that Obama is not soft on border control, but the numbers only seem high because within the last several years the method in which deportations are calculated was modified to include additional people caught and released, rather than just those deported through "traditional" methods. If you control for that, deportations are actually relatively low. See http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html.
Moreover, it is almost comical how the NYT makes a point to say that Lopez-Sanchez, Steinle's killer, had "drug convictions, but no record of violent crime." Isn't that the entire point? Now he has a history of violent crime, as a direct result of the sanctuary city policy. His numerous drug convictions made him removable (as did his several illegal reentries after numerous prior removals).
Sanctuary cities provide perverse incentives and put their citizens at risk for victimization.
I'm not sure when Democrats decided that enforcing immigration laws was beyond the pale.
46
I feel that this editorial is both strident and inaccurate. My understanding of the case in question is that local SF authorities, notably the Sheriff's Department (run by a convicted spousal batterer, btw), requested that the felon in question be transferred to SF upon his release from prison. The city was even willing to send a privately contracted van to get him. Then they released him, since no one would have prosecuted on the 20 year old marijuana warrant for which he was booked.
I have voted for President Obama and have supported him and been frustrated by him, depending on the issue and episode. I live in a sanctuary city. And I wouldn't vote for Donald Trump if he stood on his head and held his breath until the general election. The sanctuary city policies, though, are insane, an unauthorized local opt out of policies that are rightly set at the federal level. It strikes me that the legislative approach to counter them - denying discretionary federal funding - is exactly the right approach, both in method and in goal.
I have voted for President Obama and have supported him and been frustrated by him, depending on the issue and episode. I live in a sanctuary city. And I wouldn't vote for Donald Trump if he stood on his head and held his breath until the general election. The sanctuary city policies, though, are insane, an unauthorized local opt out of policies that are rightly set at the federal level. It strikes me that the legislative approach to counter them - denying discretionary federal funding - is exactly the right approach, both in method and in goal.
39
Encouraging anarchy and violation of duly constituted laws is not a legitimate form of dissent. Setting up free zone cities in which illegal aliens are intended to be beyond the reach of our laws is a distortion of justice that seeks to give illegal aliens a special right not available to other kinds of lawbreakers. Sanctuaries for illegal aliens are no more justifiable than sanctuary cities for those guilty of other traditional types of crimes.
88
I'm usually with the Times on most of the Editorials but this piece is amazing.
These illegal immigrants weren't only unauthorized as the editors like to down play what they did. They broke the law and these cities are harboring them. They don't have to be dangerous criminals. What they did was illegal. No if, ands or buts. So what if other cities started harboring every other person who broke the law with non-violent crimes like theft? That would be ok too?. This mindset is one of the main reasons why I left the Democratic party to become an Independent.
These illegal immigrants weren't only unauthorized as the editors like to down play what they did. They broke the law and these cities are harboring them. They don't have to be dangerous criminals. What they did was illegal. No if, ands or buts. So what if other cities started harboring every other person who broke the law with non-violent crimes like theft? That would be ok too?. This mindset is one of the main reasons why I left the Democratic party to become an Independent.
142
Does the GOP ever base legislation on facts? Or does the nation have to look forward to, under a GOP president, more pointless "investigations" and Joe McCarthy tactics?
8
Above all else the hypocrisy of the Republican Party takes the cake on this one. And the Democrats are to blame too. This has been a year investigation by the Florida Sun-Sentinel and it should even upset the Times editorial board:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/us-cuba-welfare-benefits/
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/us-cuba-welfare-benefits/
4
Sadly typical...if the editorial board agrees about "unjust deportations", whatever that really means, it's okay for these jurisdictions to thumb their noses at federal law. Now, if they were doing the same to ignore environmental laws, or same sex marriage rulings, or any number of other things, the Times would be virtually apoplectic in its indignation of the defiance of federal supremacy. Uh huh.
40
Another in a series of nonsensical editorials attempting to justify illegal immigration. The editorial board embarrasses themselves when opining on this subject, especially when using straw man arguments against your position Check out the comments, even the very liberal readership of the NYT disagrees with you.
And when you write words like these
"These are jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, or try in other ways to protect unauthorized immigrants from unjust deportation."
how can anyone take your arguments seriously?
And when you write words like these
"These are jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, or try in other ways to protect unauthorized immigrants from unjust deportation."
how can anyone take your arguments seriously?
47
Unauthorized must be the new PC 'undocumented'. How about 'pre-deported'?
23
"The laws are a class-action slander against an immigrant population that has been scapegoated for the crimes of a few, and left stranded by the failure of legislative reform that would open a path for them to live fully within the law."
There is already a wide-open path for living fully within the law - obey it. It is the first duty of citizenship. This is something every legal immigrant, whom as the son of one I welcome with open arms and wish for more of, knows by heart.
There is already a wide-open path for living fully within the law - obey it. It is the first duty of citizenship. This is something every legal immigrant, whom as the son of one I welcome with open arms and wish for more of, knows by heart.
14
They are not stranded. They can leave.
3
"The country needs more sanctuary cities." Really? The last I looked, inscribed on the freize above the entrance to the Supreme Court is the phrase, "Equal justice under law."
Am I the only one who sees a problem here?
Am I the only one who sees a problem here?
33
Very quietly, I've always been just a little proud of the fact that when good things happen in peoples lives, it is often right here in California that it happens first.
Banks began opening accounts for anyone who wanted one several years ago. Almost anything could be used for ID so people could start cashing their paychecks and saving. Then they allowed people to buy houses and cars without proving they were citizens. Thankfully our state government stepped in and gave everyone photo ID's and drivers licenses.
Seems we're ahead of the curve here on immigration and polar opposite of of some states.
Someone might even say California is a sanctuary state. I believe we are all much better for it.
Banks began opening accounts for anyone who wanted one several years ago. Almost anything could be used for ID so people could start cashing their paychecks and saving. Then they allowed people to buy houses and cars without proving they were citizens. Thankfully our state government stepped in and gave everyone photo ID's and drivers licenses.
Seems we're ahead of the curve here on immigration and polar opposite of of some states.
Someone might even say California is a sanctuary state. I believe we are all much better for it.
106
Issuing drivers licenses to those who are not citizens in California is one matter but, automatically registering each to vote is a contentious one. If using Europe as a model comparator (http://cis.org/NoncitizenVoting#legality) is hardly prudent regardless of the language in the 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, 26th Amendments, the VRA of 65, as amended, and the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act.
1
The editors’ argument is excessive, and based on inaccurate premises.
What attracts Republicans (and some Democrats) to the notion that sanctuary cities are bad isn’t that we believe that “all unauthorized immigrants are dangerous criminals who must be subdued by extraordinary means”. It’s that we believe that the illegal aliens protected in these sanctuaries don’t belong here because they broke our laws to enter and remain. We reject this curious notion on the left of the propriety of osmotic movements of people across frontiers to seek some kind of economic balance across continents. We attach value to our culture, and see a threat to allowing in unmanageable numbers from other cultures and eventually allowing them to vote based on values that haven’t yet been assimilated.
The sanctuary city movement clearly is maintained by people who wish to open our borders to all comers, in any numbers. We simply disagree. If progressives want to change the practical effect of that disagreement in legislatures, then the solution is simple: grow more progressives. But you’re having a serious problem doing that, aren’t you?
What attracts Republicans (and some Democrats) to the notion that sanctuary cities are bad isn’t that we believe that “all unauthorized immigrants are dangerous criminals who must be subdued by extraordinary means”. It’s that we believe that the illegal aliens protected in these sanctuaries don’t belong here because they broke our laws to enter and remain. We reject this curious notion on the left of the propriety of osmotic movements of people across frontiers to seek some kind of economic balance across continents. We attach value to our culture, and see a threat to allowing in unmanageable numbers from other cultures and eventually allowing them to vote based on values that haven’t yet been assimilated.
The sanctuary city movement clearly is maintained by people who wish to open our borders to all comers, in any numbers. We simply disagree. If progressives want to change the practical effect of that disagreement in legislatures, then the solution is simple: grow more progressives. But you’re having a serious problem doing that, aren’t you?
216
Thank you, Richard. It gets so tedious reading the straw man arguments ("Republicans believe...) and then the ensuing diatribes against republicans, as if they are the problem. or attacking them were a substitute rational debate.
There has been a sustained lack of interest in the consequences of actions taken by this Administration (just blame republicans?). As if it weren't bad enough that tens of thousands of unchaperoned kids flooded our borders and were then flung far and wide into communities without any warning -- or media coverage, now local governments are mimicking the Administration.
There has been a sustained lack of interest in the consequences of actions taken by this Administration (just blame republicans?). As if it weren't bad enough that tens of thousands of unchaperoned kids flooded our borders and were then flung far and wide into communities without any warning -- or media coverage, now local governments are mimicking the Administration.
9
Actually, progressive policies are favored by large majorities, if you believe the polling. Those who want every illegal alien out of the country don't seem to want to pay for the government necessary. (Donald Trump would have the Mexican government pay for his fence; how he's going to convince them to do it has been left unsaid.) Nobody, including the progressives I know, wants untrammeled immigration. But we progressives are thoughtful enough to realize that keeping all illegals out--much less deporting the millions that are already in--will cost billions of dollars that could be better spent on other things.
3
I don't have an opinion on sanctuary cities. However, your last sentence is clearly wrong. Republicans are going to lose another presidential election soon, the only true measure of the general publics' political disposition. Un-gerrymandered, people want progressive policies.
1
Given the refugee crisis in Europe and the insecurity engendered by it in public mind, and the hype built around the Mexican immigrants by Donald Trump the Republican legislative move to punish the sanctuary cities for being liberal to the immigrants is likely to get traction, however cruel the move might be. Why things came to this absurdity is because Obama despite his good intentions failed to fix the immigration problem the way it should have reasonably been done.
6
How convenient to try to make this about Donald Trump. It's not.
5
Under the guise of discussing sanctuary cities, the NYT appears to be calling for an end to deportation for everyone except violent criminals.
Criticizing the deportation of 2 million people under President Obama ignores the reverse: that the population of people here illegally would have grown by 2 million under his presidency if he had not done so, since the numbers have held steady at 11-12 million during his 8 years in office.
In fact, with no threat of deportation, we can assume that many more would have come.
And that, in essence, is an end to the pretense that we have any control over who comes here.
This is an extremist position, and no more useful, or reasoned, that calls to deport all 11 million people already here.
Criticizing the deportation of 2 million people under President Obama ignores the reverse: that the population of people here illegally would have grown by 2 million under his presidency if he had not done so, since the numbers have held steady at 11-12 million during his 8 years in office.
In fact, with no threat of deportation, we can assume that many more would have come.
And that, in essence, is an end to the pretense that we have any control over who comes here.
This is an extremist position, and no more useful, or reasoned, that calls to deport all 11 million people already here.
55
It is already the Obama Administration's policy that only those illegal immigrants who have committed a felony should be deported.
4
If just being in the country without papers will get people jailed, deported, or both, they'll avoid any contact with law enforcement. So if you are the victim of a violent crime and the witnesses melt into the shadows when the police come and the assaulter can't be convicted and jailed, is this a price you are personally willing to pay? Think about it -- our Los Angeles police have.
21
Anyone illegally in this country is committing a crime and should be in jail themselves. We need to make it clear that either you are here legally and vetted or you will be found and deported. The notion that we should let someone stay here just because they are a witness to a violent crime is laughable.
7
In general law enforcement agencies do not take action against victims who are illegal aliens. Here in New York there are restrictions reporting victims. Offenders should enjoy no such rights.
2
Howard: your logic is flawed, I am afraid. If your premise is true, then they will not be able to stand witness to criminal activity in courts, since they never can be there to eyewitness criminal activity which are in the US (not their deportee countries) and outside of jail. The guys and gals ARE in jail or outside the US. IN both places they are not in a position to witness a crime on the streets of the USA.
Why would they be intimidated by law to not stand witness in court? They can't see crime from outside the USA or form inside prisons. Once you accept your own premise.
Another way of putting it: "Once they get jailed or deported (but not both at the same time and at the same respect, if USA jail) they will avoid contact with law enforcement agents / agencies." No, that is not right either. Yes, if they get deported, no, if they are jailed in the USA. USA jails are notorious for having a close supervision by US law enforcement agents.
Thus, your fearmongering frightful rhetorical question at the end is meaningless, since the premise of your argument nullified your own conclusion.
I am not against the spirit of what you are trying to say, necessarily; I am just saying you must learn to word your claims more carefully, please.
Why would they be intimidated by law to not stand witness in court? They can't see crime from outside the USA or form inside prisons. Once you accept your own premise.
Another way of putting it: "Once they get jailed or deported (but not both at the same time and at the same respect, if USA jail) they will avoid contact with law enforcement agents / agencies." No, that is not right either. Yes, if they get deported, no, if they are jailed in the USA. USA jails are notorious for having a close supervision by US law enforcement agents.
Thus, your fearmongering frightful rhetorical question at the end is meaningless, since the premise of your argument nullified your own conclusion.
I am not against the spirit of what you are trying to say, necessarily; I am just saying you must learn to word your claims more carefully, please.
Why is the deportation of illegal immigrants unjust? Can I openly break the law and gain sanctuary uncertain cities? The NYT editorial board is clearly out of touch. The immigration laws are Federal Laws that should be enforced. Who gets to pick and chose what laws they will obey? Apparently only illegal immigrants.
219
"You're so holy, you're so holy, you probably think you never broke The Law."
14
Amen. You couldn't have said it any better.
3
Is the NYT editorial board aware that the May 28, 2015 report of the Center for Immigration Studies indicates that according to ICE records, that agency admits to releasing 30,558 convicted criminal aliens in 2014. Convictions included 175 homicides, 373 sexual assaults, 186 kidnappings, among the 79,059 crimes. What does it say about a society that ignores and protects such behavior? No wonder people feel safer owning guns.
6
"jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, or try in other ways to protect unauthorized immigrants from unjust deportation"
This begs the question: What is unjust deportation?
When I was a student at University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, students got the vote and took over City Council. Students voted that marijuana offenses were a mere violation, because they couldn't legalize outright, so they went as low as they could go. Then they made it City policy that the police would enforce only the violation, and in fact not even that.
It was a way of redefining justice as we saw it. And I think we were right to do so. The rest of the country is only now catching up.
But we were imposing the views of our local government in opposition to what we felt were the unjust views of higher levels of government. We were right too, remember.
That is what is happening here. Local governments are taking their own view of what is unjust deportation, and demonstrating a considered distrust of the judgment and actions of other government levels. And they too may be right.
Can local government do this? Yes. Local government can be very responsive to democracy. We are a democracy. If that is what a community wants, then they ought to be able to vote that.
But we need to be clear that is what we are doing, not beg the question.
This begs the question: What is unjust deportation?
When I was a student at University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, students got the vote and took over City Council. Students voted that marijuana offenses were a mere violation, because they couldn't legalize outright, so they went as low as they could go. Then they made it City policy that the police would enforce only the violation, and in fact not even that.
It was a way of redefining justice as we saw it. And I think we were right to do so. The rest of the country is only now catching up.
But we were imposing the views of our local government in opposition to what we felt were the unjust views of higher levels of government. We were right too, remember.
That is what is happening here. Local governments are taking their own view of what is unjust deportation, and demonstrating a considered distrust of the judgment and actions of other government levels. And they too may be right.
Can local government do this? Yes. Local government can be very responsive to democracy. We are a democracy. If that is what a community wants, then they ought to be able to vote that.
But we need to be clear that is what we are doing, not beg the question.
43
@Mark Thomason: That summation is worthy of LInda Greenhouse. Thank you for putting the issue of democracy before us.
The editorial is too kind to the GOP. They want massive, top-down enforcement of all kinds of laws, not local option or democracy. And they don't want the states to be laboratories for experiment, unless the experiments are their experiments.
The editorial is too kind to the GOP. They want massive, top-down enforcement of all kinds of laws, not local option or democracy. And they don't want the states to be laboratories for experiment, unless the experiments are their experiments.
24
"if that is what a community wants, then they ought to be able to vote that". Sorry, that is simply incorrect as a matter of constitutional law. Immigration is a federal responsibility, individual communities have no right under our constitutional system to enact their own immigration policies. When they do so, it is a form of anarchy and a violation of law. What's next? Can individual communities conduct their own foreign policies and decide, for example, that local businesses are not bound to respect sanctions imposed on Russia and will be shielded from enforcement of federal law if they violated them?
7
"individual communities have no right under our constitutional system to enact their own immigration policies"
They do have every right to control their own police, their own prosecutor, and their own local courts that they elect. If they choose not to refer matters to the Feds, they don't have to do so.
Constitutional powers exist on both sides. Each level of government must respect the others while asserting its own voters' choices. Balance of Power, Checks and Balances. That is Constitutional too.
They do have every right to control their own police, their own prosecutor, and their own local courts that they elect. If they choose not to refer matters to the Feds, they don't have to do so.
Constitutional powers exist on both sides. Each level of government must respect the others while asserting its own voters' choices. Balance of Power, Checks and Balances. That is Constitutional too.
3
Too, the ' sanctuary city ' malarkey fits with GOP'er attempts in several states to make sure individual cities do not have a higher minimum wage than the state, that cities do not have anti-discrimination ordinances against LGBT persons that are stricter than state standards, that there are no city ordinances against plastic bags that are stricter than state ordinances, etc., etc.
Trump, Cruz, Rubio, et al are also acting at the behest of red state donors that don't want ' blue ' urban areas exerting local power on a host of issues where GOP'ers at the state capitol have been bought-and-paid-for and the regulators have been captured.
Trump, Cruz, Rubio, et al are also acting at the behest of red state donors that don't want ' blue ' urban areas exerting local power on a host of issues where GOP'ers at the state capitol have been bought-and-paid-for and the regulators have been captured.
35
If the Republicans really want to stop illegal immigration they need to penalize the individuals and companies who hire workers who do not have the paperwork necessary to work in the U.S.
Workers providing false identification should not be a legal shield for these businesses. Nor should the law protect any individual willing to hire someone for cash, off the books as nannies or handymen or whatever.
If Republicans were actually serious about illegal immigration that is where they would start -- with busting up these sanctuary employers, not attacking people who just want to work.
Workers providing false identification should not be a legal shield for these businesses. Nor should the law protect any individual willing to hire someone for cash, off the books as nannies or handymen or whatever.
If Republicans were actually serious about illegal immigration that is where they would start -- with busting up these sanctuary employers, not attacking people who just want to work.
104
It is called Form I-9. Until H.W. Bush, every employer had to keep one on file for every employee, with attached copies of documents showing right to work. It had to be available for inspection, and there were inspections, and fines for noncompliance. Republicans did not like that, and ended it.
6
Leave Obama out of it please! The national mood in general is hostile to illegal immigration from the south- in spite of the fact that in general they represent an element of the work force supply and demand equation, and Obama has done the minimum necessary to acknowledge public fear. Beyond that he has treated the problem (and it is a problem if for no other reason than its contentiousness) with sensitivity.
Trump and the republicans exploit this fear as a cudgel to animate anti-immigrant nativism for political purposes. Obama has done anything but -trying to walk the fine line between fairness for fearful citizens and immigrants who want to work, live and raise families in a more lawful and civil society. This is an example of creating a false equivalency to look even handed when there is no reason to do so.
Trump and the republicans exploit this fear as a cudgel to animate anti-immigrant nativism for political purposes. Obama has done anything but -trying to walk the fine line between fairness for fearful citizens and immigrants who want to work, live and raise families in a more lawful and civil society. This is an example of creating a false equivalency to look even handed when there is no reason to do so.
35
In reply to Greg Thompson: I agree that Pres. Obama has shown favorable feelings toward immigrants, especially toward undocumented young people, the "dreamers." But in my view he exhibited extraordinarily poor leadership from Day One, and the editorial described the situation well.
When Pres. Obama was elected in 2008, the nation placed an unusually great deal of hope in him. He had a mandate to lead. But instead of taking advantage of this, he seemed totally concerned with trying to please everyone – horrible judgment, given that a substantial minority of Congress was utterly determined to stop him from governing. On health care, he declined to submit bill to Congress, saying that Congress should produce the bill – resulting in months of delay, conflict, strife, a summer of rage in 2009, and the Tea Party election of 2010 that will leave some states' governments and Congressional delegations solidly Republican for at least a generation. Likewise, on immigration, he seemed to think that if he deported enough people, talked "tough" enough, and destroyed enough immigrant families' lives, the Republicans would like him and pass immigration reform.
I am not trying to flatter myself, but it seemed clear to me from 2009 onward that this President squandered many opportunities on a tragic, historic scale. And his greatest failure may have been in the area immigration reform, a cause that, ironically, appears to be particularly close to his heart.
When Pres. Obama was elected in 2008, the nation placed an unusually great deal of hope in him. He had a mandate to lead. But instead of taking advantage of this, he seemed totally concerned with trying to please everyone – horrible judgment, given that a substantial minority of Congress was utterly determined to stop him from governing. On health care, he declined to submit bill to Congress, saying that Congress should produce the bill – resulting in months of delay, conflict, strife, a summer of rage in 2009, and the Tea Party election of 2010 that will leave some states' governments and Congressional delegations solidly Republican for at least a generation. Likewise, on immigration, he seemed to think that if he deported enough people, talked "tough" enough, and destroyed enough immigrant families' lives, the Republicans would like him and pass immigration reform.
I am not trying to flatter myself, but it seemed clear to me from 2009 onward that this President squandered many opportunities on a tragic, historic scale. And his greatest failure may have been in the area immigration reform, a cause that, ironically, appears to be particularly close to his heart.
3
Greg, these immigrants swallowed up every new job created since the year 2000 according to gov't stats. The American workers in our country have lost more than $5000 per family since 2008 because wages are not rising due to the resaulting market oversupply of cheap labor.
You have to choose between poor American workers and immigrants. To get jobs for all these extra million, you'd have to elect a Reagan to employ million with lower taxes, more conomic activity sending cash to the Treasury Dept., and ten or twenty years' worth of regulations put o hold until things improve. Otherwise, we are becoming Greece or Venezuela.
You have to choose between poor American workers and immigrants. To get jobs for all these extra million, you'd have to elect a Reagan to employ million with lower taxes, more conomic activity sending cash to the Treasury Dept., and ten or twenty years' worth of regulations put o hold until things improve. Otherwise, we are becoming Greece or Venezuela.
7
Illegals cause their one problems. It is like the boy who killed him parents and then want mercy because they are an orphan.
2
So, let's have a guest worker program that benefits all of us. For every hour worked, the employer puts three dollars into an "undocumented immigrant" IRA. At the end of 10 - 20 years that person has a middle class income in Mexico, etc., forever. They form the backbone of a Central American middle class. If they become American citizens, that money goes to Social Security.
As for their criminals? Seriously?
As for their criminals? Seriously?
22
You lost me at "protect unauthorized immigrants from unjust deportation". If a person is here illegally, then deportation is always just.
244
One should be careful with equating "legal" (that which is in accordance to the law) and "just" (what is morally right and fair). Slavery was perfectly legal in Southern states before 1863, but it was totally unjust. It was illegal for a woman to vote in federal elections before 1920, but that didn't make it just. Blindly applying laws without every questioning them is incompatible with democratic principles.
9
D. Jiang was referring to people who are here illegally. Naturalized citizens and green card holders are here legally.
5
How is this different from Kim Davis ignoring federal law by refusing to issue marriage certificates to gay couples? And the outcry from liberals! States and elected officials don't get to choose the laws they want to obey. All laws, including immigrations laws, must to enforced. Sanctuary cities are illegal.
236
@M. Good ol' Kim Davis is a public official refusing to obey the law. "Sanctuary" is not disobeying a law; it is refusing to cooperate with a federal dragnet. (Please note that the federal government does not trump the states in this country.) The marijuana situation described by Mark Thomason is not disobeying a law.
16
Cities have governments which are empowered to pass laws that apply to residents. The laws these cities passed were in no way unconstitutional, or at odds with existing federal legislation. That vote comes next week. Individual employees are not so empowered, they must follow the "law" of the workplace. Your comparison is invalid.
7
You are 100% wrong. The "sanctuary cities" are not violating federal law. Read the article. The article is about a push to pass a law or laws which would force cities and other jurisdictions to cooperate with federal authorities even when they don't want to.
8