<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Thursday, March 28, 2024
March 28, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

Letter: Sanctuary cities aren’t havens

By Bruce R. Randall, VANCOUVER
Published: February 23, 2017, 6:00am

Right here and now, let’s shatter the fairy tale that a “sanctuary city” is a safe haven for those who live within the U.S. illegally. The definition of a “sanctuary city” is: a municipality which refuses to use community funds or resources for the arrest and prosecution of those who are in violation of federal immigration laws.

Here are three reasons a “sanctuary city” is not a safe haven: First, federal immigration law pre-empts state law — any immigrant residing within the 50 United States, illegally, risks discovery, apprehension and deportation. Second, the framers of the Constitution wisely gave Congress the power to define our nation’s immigration policy. Immigration law is a necessary tool for defending our borders and regulating the influx of nationals from other countries. Third, our nation’s highest courts will never distinguish a “sanctuary city” as a refuge from the rule of law.

For those who would argue there aren’t sufficient Enforcement and Removal Operations agents needed to apprehend and deport nearly 12 million uninvited immigrants, there are powers available to Congress, the president and the ERO, to make it reality. Consequently, a “sanctuary city” is not a safe haven for those who have circumvented the immigration process. Truth!

We encourage readers to express their views about public issues. Letters to the editor are subject to editing for brevity and clarity. Limit letters to 200 words (100 words if endorsing or opposing a political candidate or ballot measure) and allow 30 days between submissions. Send Us a Letter
Loading...