Here's the Final Tally on How Much Money Trump Raised for Hurricane Victims
WATCH: California's Harsher Criminal Penalties Are Working
Here's the Latest on That University of Oregon Employee Who Said Trump Supporters...
Watch an Eagles Fan 'Crash' a New York Giants Fan's Event...and the Reaction...
We Almost Had Another Friendly Fire Incident
Not Quite As Crusty As Biden Yet
Legal Group Puts Sanctuary Jurisdictions on Notice Ahead of Trump's Mass Deportation Opera...
The International Criminal Court Pretends to Be About Justice
The Best Christmas Gift of All: Trump Saved The United States of America
Who Can Trust White House Reporters Who Hid Biden's Infirmity?
The Debt This Congress Leaves Behind
How Cops, Politicians and Bureaucrats Tried to Dodge Responsibility in 2024
Meet the Worst of the Worst Biden Just Spared From Execution
Celebrating the Miracle of Light
Chimney Rock Demonstrates Why America Must Stay United
Tipsheet

What Exactly Do They Think 'Sanctuary' Means?

YouTube

We've covered the subject of hypocrisy and virtue signaling among Democrat-led "sanctuary" jurisdictions pretty extensively in recent years.  It's basically been impossible not to notice the yawning, political disconnect between leaders' preening rhetoric and policy preferences during the previous administration, and their incoherent meltdowns when directly confronted with the consequences of their stated preferences and alleged principles throughout the Biden border crisis.  We've seen this in places ranging from Martha's Vineyard, to Chicago, to California, and beyond.  But ground zero for this phenomenon might be New York City, where officials' 180 degree heel turn has been quite a sight to behold. 

Advertisement

In response to Julio highlighting of Mayor Eric Adams' continued griping about how wave after wave of illegal immigrants arriving in the Big Apple threatens to "decimate" the city's budget and crush its resources, Emily Zanotti recalls Adams' prior rhetoric and asks a question that could and should be put to numerous Democratic politicians across the country:


"This passive voice is galling," writes Noah Rothman. "This isn't happening to him. These are policies he supported right up until the moment their logical consequences became untenable."  Indeed.  I suspect the short answer to Zanotti's question is cynical, but generally accurate: 'Sanctuary' declarations were never really about actually helping anyone on a substantive level.  They were about telegraphing hostility toward the other partisan tribe's opposition to illegal immigration, motivated by a desire to win plaudits from left-wing activists and votes from the party's base and certain communities.  These Democrats figured they could vaguely signal their rejection of "inhumane" enforcement, order local authorities not to cooperate with federal enforcement, then pat themselves on the back for being good, compassionate people.  If they could evince self-righteous resistance against certain Republicans loathed by their core constituents in the process, all the better.  

Advertisement

When the outcomes associated with insane, anti-enforcement, pro-illegal immigration policies started to become undeniable under the Biden administration, these craven politicians continued their posturing, so long as the problem was down there, for other people to deal with.  A small fraction of those outcomes (thousands, hundreds, or even dozens of the millions of illegal immigrants who've crossed on Biden's watched) has been delivered to the doorsteps of "sanctuary" cities, counties, and states, and Democrats in charge have recoiled in horror.  They've furiously denounced Republicans who've dared to give them a tiny taste of what providing "sanctuary" to illegal immigrants might actually entail, under the unsustainable chaos their ideology endorses.  They talk as if the transporting of migrants from the border is the real problem, as opposed to a system that incentivizes and rewards mass unlawful migration to and across the southern border.  Hence the indignant, nonsensical bluster.  Consider the opprobrium directed at the governor of Texas over these actions:


At first blush, more than 30,000 sounds like a lot.  But it amounts to a drop in the bucket.  In June, the "best" month in ages, US officials encountered just under 145,000 illegal immigrants at the border (not counting tens of thousands of months 'got-aways,' per usual).  The total number of migrants sent by the state of Texas to sanctuary cities over the course of this entire crisis adds up to thousands less than one week's worth of June's illegal crossings (July got worse again, despite sweltering temperatures).  There were 6,000 apprehensions in one day last week.  Overall, that's 30,000 out of roughly seven million.  Yet the squeals of outrage are somehow reserved for Abbott.  It's because they have nothing else.  No actual solutions, beyond mumbling a few bromides about a 'broken system.'  It's pure politics.  Look at this local New York Democrat suddenly concerned about public safety:

Advertisement

A top upstate Dem official and previous vocal supporter of housing migrants there now says he will refuse additional resettlements — after a second local alleged sex assault involving an asylum-seeker. The frustrated pol, Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz, added that the National Guard will start providing security at the three hotels-turned-migrant shelters in Cheektowaga in Erie within a day or two, after he learned the facilities are not safe, according to a weekend report. Poloncarz said the county’s “trust and good faith has been betrayed,” including potentially by the New York City-hired firm paid hundreds of millions of dollars to oversee the relocation of migrants from the Big Apple to other areas. The county exec said the company, DocGo, “may have interfered” with a Cheektowaga police investigation into the second assault case, which involves a hotel-worker victim.  “I demanded [New York City] Mayor [Eric] Adams pause all further transportation of asylum-seekers to our community until such time as we can resolve all security issues,” Poloncarz said during a Saturday press conference, according to Spectrum News.

Same guy, a few months ago:

Erie County will not declare a state of emergency to address migrants, County Executive Mark Poloncarz confirmed on Saturday. "I won't be declaring a state of emergency regarding the possibility that legal asylum seekers may be housed in our county," he said. "I will not be issuing an emergency order prohibiting the housing of such persons. Not only is such an order illegal, it is morally repugnant."... Poloncarz pushed back against that notion when it came to Erie County. "Unless you are a Native American, all of us are the descendants of immigrants, some who were forced to come through slavery," Poloncarz said Saturday in a statement. "You would think that the sons and daughters of immigrants would welcome new peoples to our land...However, the history of our country is replete with xenophobic attacks against immigrants who don't look, speak, or pray like us."

Advertisement

A few sexual assaults later, and it seems he's all of a sudden open to "morally repugnant" and "xenophobic" actions after all.  What a fraud.  It's unfair to portray illegal immigrants as disproportionately violent or dangerous, but when borders are not controlled, and millions of people stream into the country under-vetted or unvetted, horrible things will happen.  "Sanctuary" politicians bear some responsibility for these crimes, as do members of the Biden administration.  Terrible tragedies like these are not the fault of officials trying to enforce the law and deter dangerous, cartel-enriching crossings.  I'll leave you with more scenes from the ongoing border crisis:

Advertisement


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement