I think we have to conclude that the latter is the case.
Representative Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.)—that’s him above— condemned the anti-sanctuary city bill passed yesterday by the House of Representatives. H.R. 3003 would reduce sanctuary cities’ and states’ “eligibility to receive certain Department of Justice or Department of Homeland Security grants” when the cities or states were “determined to be in violation of federal law.”
Espaillat thundered at the Democratic press conference yesterday on Capitol Hill that H.R. 3003 would have a “chilling effect” in local communities:
“People will go into hiding. People will not come forward to report crimes, and if we begin to deny funding to cities across the United States, a city like New York, who experienced 9/11, which has been the safest biggest city in the country since 9/11 because of the federal funding that we got to combat terrorism, providing for training, equipment, overtime pay for law enforcement, we will be allowing terrorists to come in and attack us again…So this is a travesty. This is a lie. We’ve been hijacked and bamboozled by Donald Trump and we should all stand up against this.”
Then Espaillat described sanctuary cities—that is, cities that encourage and endorse illegal immigration by announcing that they will protect illegals from any consequences of their breaking immigration laws—as compassionate communities that allow families to stay together regardless of immigration status without “fear,” using the false dichotomy that the proposed bill unfairly treated sanctuary cities as places that harbor illegal immigrants with criminal records.
“It is a safety net for people that are part of our family – they take care of our children, they wash our dishes, they take care of our elderly, they pick our crops…I’m not saying all of his followers are racist, but all of the racists in the country follow him and they have peddled this erroneous vision that immigrants are criminals. We all oppose any violent criminals not being arrested. We want them to be arrested and do their time in jail and go back to wherever they came from.”
Columnist George Will often follows a statement or quote that he believes is screamingly obvious nonsense by beginning his next paragraph with an arch and contemptuous, “Well.” Seldom have I read or heard a more “Well”-deserving speech as Espaillat’s demogoguery.
1. Sanctuary cities undermine the rule of law. They should be punished, and punished severely enough that they stop defying the federal government and behave responsibly.
2. It is irresponsible and a breach of duty for the federal government to allow sanctuary cities to continue this conduct. Mark it down as one more ideology-driven botch by the Obama Administration.
3. “People will go into hiding” if cities start enforcing the law rather than making it clear they don’t care if those people break it? You mean people like other law-breakers? The Horror. Every single dire consequence that Espaillat cites is applicable to other illegal activity.
4. Nothing will happen to ex-sanctuary cities that obey the law, as they are obligated to do. If they obey the law, there will be no lost funds, and no undesirable results of lost funds. A city that decides it is more dedicated to keeping illegal immigrants from apprehension than keeping its citizens safe only its warped priorities to blame.
5. The argument that deporting illegal immigrants is unconscionable because of its effects on families is the same as the argument that criminals shouldn’t be sent to prison because their families will suffer. Lessons: Don’t commit crimes if you care about your family. Don’t start families if you are in a country where you don’t belong.
6. “They take care of our children, they wash our dishes, they take care of our elderly, they pick our crops”-–Fascinating! A Hispanic-American Congressman is defining illegal immigrants as some sort of sub-citizen, those who are fit for stereotyped menial jobs that real citizens won’t do. (Hint: They will if they are paid what the job is worth, when there are no longer those sub-citizens who can be paid cheaply and under the table.)
7. Of course the Congressman delivers the racism canard, because that’s the last resort when terrible progressive arguments start looking as terrible as they are. It’s all racism. Enforcing the laws is racism. Ensuring the integrity of the borders is racism. Sure.
Are we reaching a point where even progressives are embarrassed by such rhetoric yet?
8. Finally, the Congressman scrapes the bottom of the barrel with the “Illegal immigrants are just immigrants” falsehood. Will we ever reach a point where even progressives are embarrassed by that?
9. “We all oppose any violent criminals not being arrested.” Does that mean that “we” think that non-violent criminals should be left alone and welcomed with open arms? What else could it mean?
10. This kind of speech, this kind of rhetoric, this kind of elected Democrat and this kind of thinking on the Left are the main reasons, above all the others, that Donald Trump is President. If the Democrats don’t stop talking like this, he will be President for eight, long, loooooong years.