NOT IN MY HOUSE

I love it! Absolutely, love it! In my view, with his latest proposal to re-settle some illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities President Trump has called the far left’s bluff and exposed its hypocrisy for all to see. Basically, it’s Trump saying “you want ’em, you can have ’em,” and the lefties, rather than embracing the idea, are saying, “wait a minute. We want them, but not in my state/city/congressional district/neighborhood/house.”

If you think I am being unfair or disingenuous, or grossly exaggerating the situation, read on. But, first, a brief history lesson.

The idea of a sanctuary city is not a new concept. It has been associated with virtually every major religion, including, among others, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. For instance, the Book of Numbers in the Old Testament refers to the designation of six such cities in which, for example, a perpetrator of manslaughter could seek asylum and be protected from vengeance by members of the victim’s family, which otherwise, was legal. In 392 Roman emperor Theodosius I established sanctuary cities under the control of the church. Similarly, in circa 600 in England churches were given a general right, by Royal charter, to provide sanctuary under certain conditions. This policy was in effect until 1621.

In the US the practice took root in the 1980s when certain faith-based groups provided sanctuary to refugees who were fleeing El Salvador and Guatemala, which were politically unstable and violent. In 1985 San Francisco became the first city to offer sanctuary. As of 2018 the US had some 560 sanctuary cities/counties/states.

Immigration/border security has become one of the most controversial issues of the day. It figures to play a significant role in the 2020 presidential election. Certainly, there are strong opinions on both sides, and most of us are frustrated by the federal government’s inability or unwillingness to resolve the issue. The purpose of this blog is not to debate the merits and demerits of the issue, per se. I have done that in previous blogs, and there is no need to repeat myself here. Rather, the focus of this blog is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the left regarding this issue.

Immigration has become a litmus test for any Dem seeking the nomination. All 20 or so of them, as well as some non-candidates, have been critical of the current administration’s handling of the matter and have been espousing open or relaxed borders. For example:

1. Nancy Pelosi has said that “all immigration is good, [both] legal and illegal.” She has called the wall “expensive, ineffective and immoral.” By implication, if you disagree, you are not only a “spendthrift,” a “nationalist” and a “racist,” but also “immoral.” Maybe, someone should inform “Reverend Pelosi” that she has characterized twelve centuries of popes as immoral.

2. Beto O’Rourke went even further. He has been advocating tearing down the wall that already exists.

3. Kamala Harris has told us – “we welcome refugees.”

4. Elizabeth Warren admonishes us to “offer a home to refugees.”

5. Kirsten Gillibrand lectures us that there is “no such thing as an illegal human.”

6. Incoming CA Governor Gavin Newsome advocates a house that is open “to all who need it and seek it.”

7. And, then we have, perhaps, the poster child of sanctuary advocates, Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf, who not only provides sanctuary to illegals, but also has, on at least one occasion, tipped them off about an upcoming ICE raid, so they could evade capture. She purports to “welcome and honor all people [regardless] of where they came from and how they got here.”

So, one would think that President Trump’s proposal would be cheered by the left. He would not only give them what they say they want, but also transport them at federal government expense. A win-win, right?

Nope. Initially, the left was stunned by this proposal “out of left field.” Then, enraged at the audacity of the plan, it went into full attack mode. The left-leaning media was in full lock-step, even using the identical derogatory, if not racist, word to describe the proposal, as if they were following a script:

1. Greg Miller in the “Washington Post” characterized the proposal as “busing people… to dump them in cities…just to punish political rivals.”

2. “Mother Jones” – “Donald Trump wanted to dump asylum seekers on the streets of Democratic cities.”

3. Harry Siegel in the “Daily Beast” – “The White House wanted to dump refugees in sanctuary cities.”

4. Both MSNBC and CNN featured the proposal throughout the day and characterized it as “dumping migrants into sanctuary cities.”

5. Finally, Nancy Pelosi, always good for a quote – “The extent of this administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated.”

Note the consistent use of the word “dumping.” Once again, the media is attempting to cast President Trump in the most negative light possible.

CONCLUSION

Not being an immigration attorney, I cannot comment as to the legality of Mr. Trump’s proposal. In any event, I would expect the president’s proposal to be challenged in court, probably all the way to the Supreme Court. Your guess is as good as mine as to the outcome, although I seem to recall that there is precedent for refugee relocations. Maybe, you attorneys can opine on the matter.

As I said in the beginning, if nothing else, the proposal has exposed the blatant hypocrisy of many on the left. They advocate unfettered immigration, legal or illegal, except when it is in their neighborhood. For example, I would love to see Mayors Bloomberg and De Blasio’s reaction if illegals were resettled in the Upper Eastside of NY, or Obama’s if they were resettled in the Kalorama section of Washington, DC, or John Kerry’s if they were relocated to Beacon Hill (areas where those respective people live). Each of them has advocated unfettered or loose immigration policies. I think we all know what their reaction would be – “NOT IN MY HOUSE.”