Sanctuary Jurisdictions Should Reap What They Sow - Granite Grok

Sanctuary Jurisdictions Should Reap What They Sow

Lawyers can justify almost anything under the law if you give them enough time and if you have sufficient money to stay in court scrapping. There are legal professionals who do argue that it is illegal to move illegal aliens from collection sites at the border to sanctuary cities and states. The assertion whether it is true or not is logically ridiculous.

The rule of law

Why does it make sense to anyone, that the people who are forcing the rest of us to live with law breakers, against both the current law and our objection, should be somehow unwilling to accept the consequences of their decisions in their own communities. Sure there are some governors and mayors who are protecting those who enter the country illegally from the law.

But what gives them the right to pick and choose which laws they will enforce and which they will not? What gives them the right to choose when to enforce the law and when to look the other way? Are we not a nation of laws? Does the rule of law not require equal application to all?

If they were protecting other lawbreakers say drug dealers, or murderers wouldn’t the law consider them accessories after the fact? Wouldn’t they face prosecution and prison time? Our politicians refuse to update laws full of loopholes. They then exploit the loopholes for political gain. We are failing to hold them accountable. The current problem is our doing as much as it is the politicians doing. Everyone knows that continuing to ignore the issue will add to the problem, not correct it.

Origins of sanctuary

Sanctuary cities were established in Old Testament law (Numbers 35:11). They protected someone who had killed another person by accident and without malice aforethought. They needed protection from “the avenger of blood.” That was usually a close relative of the dead person.

Under the priestly code, the accused was removed from the city. The person did not escape accountability. They faced trial. The sanctuary was in place to ensure they got the chance to survive long enough to be tried. If they were found innocent of murder, they were returned under guard to the sanctuary city. There they claimed asylum. They enjoyed protection until the Jewish high priest died. At which point they were free to leave the city without fear of harm.

Political sanctuary today

Today’s sanctuary cities and states have nothing to do with the original intent or outcome. Those living in this country without legal permission have broken the law. At the same time some of us are granting them protection from our law. That is a protection which they have not right to. Does this make sense? Name another law American citizens could break and not be held accountable.

One of the president’s problems has been his approach, his propensity do too much in the media. He often tweets comments as trial balloons to see if any will stick. He should stick with values and principles, the founding ones would be good a good set, and bring public opinion with him. The ultimate solution lies with our irresponsible, no budget Congress.

Conclusion

Only Congress can solve the problem. For political reasons, both political parties refuse to do so. Those who support sanctuary cities ought to experience the consequences of their support of this political policy. They should receive on their own front lawns and in their backyards the results of their policy. There’s a proverb, from Galatians if memory serves, something to the effect that, “As you sow, so shall you reap.” Maybe then Congress could be motivated to action.

Ref: Daily Signal, Cal Thomas, April 17, 2019