sanctuary cities

Sanctuary! Well, Not So Much…

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

It is mordantly amusing to listen to progressives on MSNBC bemoan the incursion of ICE into the “sanctuary” of churches attempting to extend their invisible force field around illegal immigrants. These are the same people who have shown no respect or reverence for Americans who assert their religious beliefs regarding, to take one infamous example, compelled speech.

In the case of church sanctuary, they are oh, a couple centuries behind the times. Allowing a church to harbor criminals and others sought by the state is a tradition that goes back to Roman times, and here and there it has been bolstered by the law. Not here and now however. The tradition makes no sense in modern times, and if churches have no legal grounds to protect lawbreakers, the claims of so-called sanctuary cities and states are weaker still.

The political and ideological Left has dashed itself on the rocks of illegal immigration, and based on some of the talking head nonsense I saw on MSNBC and CNN today, they are still dashing. When they are not crying “Think of the children!” (Note: law-breaking parents who put their children in untenable positions by their parents’ conduct are 100% accountable for those children’s plight) the apologists for illegal border-crossers are asserting that they are “human beings” and deserve to “have their humanity respected and recognized.” That’s fine: nobody denies that they are human beings. They are also human beings who do not belong in the United States.

This, for some strange reason, seems difficult for some progressives and Axis hacks to grasp. One of the two women I saw rending their garments over the Trump deportation policy, stuttered, babbled, shrugged, sighed and finally said, “I just can’t believe that this is happening! It’s so cruel!” Her partner in absurd “Good Illegal Immigrant” rhetoric nodded and agreed that deporting illegal immigrants who weren’t violent criminals is a violation of human rights.

There is apparently, according to these revolutionaries, a human right to live anywhere you want to. This is pure “Imagine-ism,” probably caused by hearing John Lennon’s fatuous paean to brainless utopianism one time too many. Both women also bemoaned the “collateral damage” of deportations. All law enforcement has “collateral damage” to families and others who depend on the law-breakers. That is a reason not to break laws, not to stop enforcing them.

***

Bonus cultural literacy quiz: Who is that lovely young actress playing Esmeralda in that clip from “The Hunchback of Notre Dame”? No cheating, now: this is an ethics blog…

Time To Pass the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” (or to Consider Kicking Oregon Out of the United States)

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

In 2017, the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” (HR 3003 ) would have prohibited federal, state and local government entities from obstructing or restricting law enforcement actions related tothe enforcement of immigration laws. That and a similar House-passed bill in 2015 were blocked in the then-Democrat-controlled Senate, because the Democratic Party is committed to facilitating illegal immigration.

How much? This much: the Oregon Department of Administrative Services is conducting mandatory staff training sessions to ensure that its employees do not to cooperate with Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE). Oregon’s sanctuary laws prohibit state and local law enforcement and government employees from assisting federal immigration officials with immigration enforcement. This has to stop. Of course the laws are unethical, as are similar anti-law enforcement laws around the country.

This week Oregon’s Department of Administrative Services sent an email to 11,000 employees reminding them to complete its “Oregon Sanctuary Promise” training. Debbie Dennis, deputy director of Oregon’s Administrative Services, said in the email,

“A new training will be assigned to you in Workday (starting Friday, Jan. 17) and I want to explain its importance and the timeline for completing the training. The title of the training is Oregon Sanctuary Promise and it covers Oregon’s laws relating to our status as a ‘sanctuary state.’ Many of you know that Oregon was the first state to pass a law (in 1987) prohibiting state and local police and government from helping federal authorities with immigration enforcement. This training is about Oregon law and how it affects what state employees can and cannot do. The training will help you identify if you are witnessing behavior that violates the law, and you will know what action to take. And in the rare event that any of us are approached to assist in immigration enforcement, we’ll know the steps Oregon law specifies we must take. The training takes about 30 minutes, and we have 30 days to complete it. Workday will assign it to you Friday, Jan. 17, and I ask that you make completing it a high priority, working with your supervisor if you experience any workload or other issues that hinder this assignment.”

Now that polls suggest that even a majority of Democrats want at least the criminal illegals deported and with the entire party seemingly at death’s door, making the “sanctuary” movement illegal as it should be might finally be attainable. The cities and states behaving like Oregon have always been unethical: they appear to be under the delusion that enforcing our borders is the equivalent of the Fugitive Slave Act. The progressives’ insane attitude toward illegal immigration and the Federal duty to enforce the immigration laws has been unethical from the start. When ethics fail, the law steps in, and in this case, it is high time.

I don’t think there is any mechanism for expelling a whole state, but if there has to be a test case, Oregon would be an excellent choice.

Chicago Makes Its Play To Be Named Capital City of ‘The Great Stupid’

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has asked for $70 million to care for illegal aliens after already spending upwards of $150 million to make sure defiant border-crossers know they are welcome. Or, as the late johnny Olden used to say on “The Price is Right,” “Come on Down!”

The budget committee voted 20-8 this week to advance the proposal to the full City Council. The money will come from a discretionary fund, because, apparently, there is no good use for it involving the citizens of Chicago. The idea is so irresponsible that even some Democrats are willing to say so. “Here we are begging for more money when we don’t have money for the people here!” said 9th Ward Alderman Anthony Beale. “When we don’t have money for after school programs. We don’t have money to help our kids get off the street. But yet, we would just blow money left and right.”

Continue reading →

Friday Forum Open For Business…

/ Jack Marshall / 27 Comments

Things are getting ugly out there. My favorite story that I haven’t written about yet is the New York City school that has kicked out the students so it can house illegal immigrants. The kids will he schooling over Zoom—and we all know how well that works. Guess how the MSM is reporting it, if it is reporting it at all? Media Matters called the play: “Right-wing media melt down over NYC using a public high school to shelter migrants overnight ” during a winter storm. “Republicans pounce!”

Oh…that’s lovely “Emily Pellegrini” above, the sensational digital model created with the assistance on an AI program. After just four months on Instagram, she has nearly 150,000 fans and is well on her way to being a web influencer. I think Natalie Portman should sue, especially since Emily may be a better actress than she is.

But I digress. See if you can find some of the beauty in ethics today.

Is It Unethical To Laugh, Mock And Applaud As “Sanctuary Cities” Define The Bard’s Phrase “Hoist With His Own Petard”?

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

No, of course not. In fact, it’s mandatory, necessary, and appropriate. Everyone knew, or should have know, that the progressive, woke, Democratic grandstanders who undermined U.S. sovereignty and the rule of law by announcing that their cities would not cooperate in the enforcement of immigration laws were irresponsible fool, indeed (sorry) destructive assholes all along. (Anyone who voted for such officials are also irresponsible assholes, just to get the accountability aligned,) Now, however, we know that they know they are assholes, and have to behave in a manner that exposes to all what assholes they are. This is great.

The utter hypocrisy of mayors and governors declaring their love for illegal immigrants as long as most of them arrived and stayed in cities along the Southern borders was exposed when governors of states overrun by what the news media calls “migrants” to hide their problematic and illegal features have sent busloads and plane-loads of the them to cities like New York City, Chicago and Washington, D.C. Suddenly, the “sanctuaries,” which were so compassionate and welcoming as long as there were few negative consequences of their facile lip-service were not so understanding.

Continue reading →

Enjoying Seeing Open Borders Hypocrites Squirm, Part II

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

It is rather glorious, though I can wipe the smile off my face by remembering how many doltish knee-jerks fall for the posturing of such unscrupulous politicians as Eric Adams, the mayor of NYC, and Lorie Lightfoot, the deservedly soon-to-be-unemployed mayor of Chicago. New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. are sanctuary cities (among others), which means that they literally invited illegal immigrants to defy U.S. laws and cross our borders. Welcoming them sent the message that major American metropolises would not assist in the enforcement of our laws, and the cynical non-performance of the Department of Homeland Security reinforced that message.

Now those cities are freaking out as the prospect of more illegals being transported to their metaphorical doorsteps and left there like abandoned babies of yore yawns before them. (Good.) The Title 42 policy, which is about to expire with the already unethically extended pandemic public health emergency, will no longer be around to discourage border-crossers, and it is estimated that 10,000 of them will arrive daily once the public health restrictions end. As usual, it will be the border towns that bear the brunt of the chaos, though those municipalities are emphatically not sanctuaries. Texas governor Greg Abbott, and probably some other governors as well, will resume his policy of busing as many of the invaders to sanctuary cities as possible, causing sanctuary city mayors to cry out indignantly about having to deal with the problem they helped create.

Part I of this theme, if you have forgotten, was posted here last September. That’s when the smug little enclave of Martha’s Vineyard, which sported “Illegals welcome!” signs like this…

was suddenly faced with actual people arriving. The islanders did not take it well. The towns treated the “migrants” little better than Alex Kintner-eating sharks, and quickly shipped the newly arrived border-defiers to a military base, triggering MSNBC’s progressive hacks and Hillary Clinton to claim that governors who transport illegals to welcoming shores areengaged in “human trafficking.” This was both legal and logical nonsense. Then Gavin Newsom, whose whole state is a “sanctuary,’ accused Abbott of “using kids as political pawns.” This raised raised the bar in the hypocrisy competition, for, as the EA post noted, “The Open Borders progressives have applauded the illegal use of children by border-breaching aliens, and revved up the “Think of the children!” chorus to a scream when President Trump had to separate alien children from illegally migrating parents in the same emergency enclosures Obama used…”

Continue reading →

Unethical Proposal, But The Reaction Was Worth It…And Maybe That Was the Idea

/ Jack Marshall / 33 Comments

“Mr Gallagher, are you that smart?”
“You’re damn right he is!”

Once again, President Trump brings us utilitarianism at its best and most brutal, and perhaps trolling at its most refined.

The White House apparently has discussed sending illegal immigrants  and dubious “migrants” to sanctuary cities. A Washington Post story described this as “targeting political foes” :

White House officials have tried to pressure U.S. immigration authorities to release detainees onto the streets of “sanctuary cities” to retaliate against President Trump’s political adversaries, according to Department of Homeland Security officials and email messages reviewed by The Washington Post.

Trump administration officials have proposed transporting detained immigrants to sanctuary cities at least twice in the past six months — once in November, as a migrant caravan approached the U.S. southern border, and again in February, amid a standoff with Democrats over funding for Trump’s border wall.

If true, and since the Post is reporting it, who knows if it is, the proposal is unethical, however diabolically amusing. The national government cannot and must not pick and choose among the states, cities and citizens: all must be treated equally, even those, like the sanctuary cities, that are asking to be slapped down. The idea is redolent of Chicago local politics. or the prime of Washington’s Mayor Barry, who somehow managed to see that the roads in Republican districts stayed snow-bound long after Barry-supporting districts got plowed.

However, nothing about the fact that the White House may have wanted to play games with illegal immigrants in the face of Democratic refusal to help him enforce our laws is either surprising or substantive. The reaction of the President’s foes, however, is useful intelligence. If this was ploy launched to make Democrats and others reveal their real attitudes and monumental hypocrisy, boy, did it work. Continue reading →

Is It Unfair To Say That The Democrats Favor “Open Borders”? Ten Reasons Why It Is Not.

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

My sister, a smart if feisty woman who I plead guilty to using on Ethics Alarms like as William Saroyan used his bartender,  was annoyed at my statement in a recent post that the Democratic Party, or which she is a member, though perhaps not quite as proud a member as she once was,  had become the party of open borders. She’s a lawyer, and combining that with the increasing tendency on the left to deny the elephants behind them (“Elephant? What elephant?”) whenever the metaphorical beast starts to stink and squash things, she’s pretty good at blurring such issues. On this one she says, “Obviously the Democrats don’t support open borders. Nobody has ever proposed open borders. We will never have open borders. Obama deported a lot of illegal immigrants.”

All true, and all deceitful. The policy advocated by Democrats and the rhetoric they use in the process creates a modified open borders policy, if an astoundingly stupid one. An open borders policy of any kind for a nation like the United States is suicidal in the long term, destructive in the short term. Progressives and Democrats resort to hilariously consistent talking points when confronted on their hypocrisy and dishonesty: “The system is broken, and we need comprehensive immigration reform.” Quiz them on what that pat phrase means, however, and you get humming. Yes, the system is broken. Democrats, for one illicit reason, and business interests, aka Republicans, for another, broke it long ago, and both have intentionally tap-danced, lied, and intentionally muddied the issue to keep it broken. Now, if my sister objected to my labeling of the Democratic Party as the party of open borders by a arguing that it is unfair to  leave the GOP out of that box, okay, I’ll concede the validity of that in part. The problem is that the Republicans have a President in office who is unequivocally opposed to open borders, to say the least, and who is trying to end the nonsense. Democrats, not Republicans, are blocking him.

The totality of Democratic party and progressive conduct and rhetoric equals a desire to keep out southern borders porous, which means “open” in reality, if not political double talk. Among them, in no particular order since I am rushed and want to get a pots up before I have to do a 7:30 am tech check here in San Diego: Continue reading →

Weekend Ethics Warm-Up, 6/9/18: PART II, The Bee-Free Zone…Facebook Friends Behaving Badly, Stupid Pardon Tricks, More On The Dancing Doctor, And Another “Good Illegal Immigrant”

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

Now that we have the unpleasantness of Samantha Bee out of the way, your gorge is safe. Well, sort of…

2. Short version: “Grow up!” If the long-time theater friend who just defriended me on Facebook is reading (yes, I know who you are), this is a message for all the people who can’t tolerate, or remain friends with, anyone who challenges their anti-Trump fanaticism by pointing out–nicely!– that they sound like lunatics. I know you assume that you are in the warm, comforting womb of a left-wing echo-chamber, but friends don’t let friends write stupid, or shouldn’t. You, let me remind you, stated in black and white that Al Franken was the best hope to defeat Trump in 2020 (See how nice I was? I didn’t even challenge that nonsense!) until Republicans secretly engineered his destruction. I wrote in response that this was tin foil hat stuff, which it is; that implicitly accusing Kristen Gillibrand of being in cahoots with the GOP  was bonkers, which is accurate, and that you should get help, which you should.

Your response was defriend me. Nice.

This has happened with about five theater friends, and in all cases over hysterical assertions that would be only acceptable from a 12-year-old. They, like you, are used to making ridiculous, hyper-partisan statements without being challenged, and regard a dissenting argument as a personal affront as well as the mark of Satan. You should not want to remain deluded, you should want to be called out when you write something idiotic, and you should not react with hostility to a friend who does so in good faith.

What I have learned about the resistance is that their logic, facts and debate skills are fatally flawed or absent. Their only defense against rebuttal is to censor it.

You really should not want to hang out with this crowd, my friend. Get well soon. I mean it.

And shame on you. I don’t deserve that.

3. Google is your friend, Mr. President. Yesterday, President Trump floated the idea of pardoning the late Muhammad Ali, who was famously convicted of draft-dodging during the Vietnam war. Ali, however, needs a pardon as much as I do. (Less, really, since he’s dead.) His conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. There is nothing to pardon him for.

This kind of thing is an unforced error that justifiably undermines trust in the President. It’s just inexcusably sloppy—typical, I concede, but sloppy. I don’t blame Trump for not knowing that Ali’s conviction had been reversed: I had forgotten that myself. Making impulsive statements based on flawed information and snap decisions, however, suggests that the President might take impulsive actions based on misunderstandings as well.

Well, he does that, too.

More on pardons: I have seen several news sources, including the New York Times, contrast President Trump’s political “celebrity” pardons with President Obama’s pardons of less high profile Americans. Fake news. At this point in his administration, how many pardons do you think Obama had issued?

None. Zero. Zilch. Continue reading →

Ethics Observations On The Acquittal Of Kate Steinle’s Illegal Immigrant Killer

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, a serial illegal Mexican immigrant who had been deported five times and was wanted for a sixth deportation, shot young Kate Steinle in the back in 2016. Since this occurred shortly after Donald Trump, announcing his candidacy for President, had decried Mexico “sending us murderers” across the border, Zarate took on the role of Trump’s  Willie Horton.  Zarate admitted to the shooting, but said that he had just found the gun on the street, and fired accidentally. The jury found him not guilty on murder and manslaughter charges, but he was convicted on a gun charge.

Ethics Observations:

The Kate Steinle killer came back and back over the weakly protected Obama border, always committing crimes and being violent, and yet this info was not used in court. His exoneration is a complete travesty of justice. BUILD THE WALL!…The jury was not told the killer of Kate was a 7 time felon. The Schumer/Pelosi Democrats are so weak on Crime that they will pay a big price in the 2018 and 2020 Elections….A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration.

Ugh. The question before the jury was whether Zarate murdered Steinle, not whether immigration enforcement is too lax, not whether he was a bad guy, not what previous crimes he had committed. The verdict was no more disgraceful that O.J.’s acquittal, George Zimmerman’s acquittal, Casey Anthony’s acquittal, the acquittals in the Freddie Gray case, or any other acquittal where the prosecution does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nobody not on the jury or the courtroom has any basis or justification to attack the verdict.

The President’s comments are embarrassingly ignorant or dismissive of the basic principles of our criminal justice system.

  • Attorney General Jeff Sessions‘ statement following the verdict was better, but still wrong:

“While the State of California sought a murder charge for the man who caused Ms. Steinle’s death—a man who would not have been on the streets of San Francisco if the city simply honored an ICE detainer—the people ultimately convicted him of felon in possession of a firearm.When jurisdictions choose to return criminal aliens to the streets rather than turning them over to federal immigration authorities, they put the public’s safety at risk. San Francisco’s decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle. I urge the leaders of the nation’s communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.”

This “but for” argument is a “Back to the Future”/”Terminator” con. The fact that it was Zarate who picked up an abandoned gun that discharged and killed Steinle—this is what the jury concluded—and not a Cub Scout, a fumble-thumbed bank teller, a stoned gay guy or Pablo Sandoval is 100% moral luck.  Yes, if Zarate was in Mexico—or Iowa—Steinle might be alive today. Or maybe not.  Also if the US gave more aid to Mexico and it wasn’t such a hell hole that its citizens keep coming here illegally, she might be alive. Maybe if Zarate’s mother had been killed by an android from the future before she met Zarate’s father…

The reason to enforce immigration laws is that they are important laws and should be enforced. Steinle’s death and Zarate’s acquittal don’t affect those facts one way or the other. Continue reading →