Liberal hypocrisy about sanctuary cities
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
No one can accuse Donald Trump of not being able to grab attention.
He lobbed his latest political hand grenade, announcing that he is considering shipping off illegals who have been arriving in droves at the U.S.-Mexico border to sanctuary cities.
These are municipalities with ordinances directing local authorizes to not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement being carried out by Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
States, cities and localities that have assumed sanctuary status are invariably Democratic and liberal strongholds.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, among the burgeoning list of Democratic presidential hopefuls for 2020, said on Meet the Press that he welcomes the proposal. Washington is home to a long list of sanctuary cities including Seattle and Spokane.
"We relish it," he said. "We're built as a state of immigrants. We've welcomed refugees."
Seattle mayor Jenny A. Durkan expressed similar sentiments in a Washington Post op-ed: "We will not allow a president who continues to threaten our shared values of inclusion, opportunity, and diversity to jeopardize the health and safety of our communities."
This is interesting to me, having just left Seattle after a several-day visit there on a speaking engagement.
My experience was just the opposite of the glowing, warm and inclusive community of opportunity conveyed by the governor and the mayor.
The most intense experience one gets in downtown Seattle is the massive, grotesque problem of homelessness.
The omnipresence of homeless individuals in Seattle's central district is overwhelming. And one cannot escape a feeling of incongruity by the proximity of these homeless to fancy downtown restaurants.
Forbes Magazine reports the Seattle/King County area has the nation's third largest homeless population, after New York City and Los Angeles.
According to a recent article in the Manhattan Institute's City Journal, Seattle spends more than $1 billion annually struggling with its homeless problem, "nearly $100,000 for every homeless man, woman, and child in King County ..."
And yet, the article continues, "the crisis seems only to have deepened, with more addiction, more crime, and more tent encampments in residential neighborhoods. By any measure, the city's efforts are not working."
The author, Christopher Rufo, a fellow at the Seattle-based Center for Wealth, Poverty & Morality at the Discovery Institute, surveys what he calls the "ideological power centers" driving the discussions in Seattle about how to deal with their homeless.
Not surprisingly, they are all on the left, and, of course, one socialist city councilwoman explains it as "how deeply dysfunctional capitalism is." Seattle-based corporations such as Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks and Boeing, in her analysis, "drive up housing prices, and push the working class toward poverty and despair -- and, too often, onto the streets."
The irony of this distorted analysis lies in tying it to the immigration crisis. Those massing on our southern border, trying to gain entry to our country, are pouring out from dysfunctional socialist Central American countries like Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua. Capitalism and economic freedom are the answer, not the problem.
Rufo gets to the heart of the matter, pointing out that "homelessness is a product of disaffiliation. ... As family and community bonds weaken, our most vulnerable citizens fall victim to the addiction, mental illness, isolation, poverty, and despair that almost always precipitate the final slide into homelessness."
We should appreciate that along with the disintegration of our core social institutions such as family and community is the unraveling of our country itself.
It is this very fundamental crisis, the disintegration of the institution we call the United States of America, that President Trump has recognized and is working hard to remedy.
We must restore the integrity of our national institutions and strengthen the borders that contain and protect our country.
We ought to be glad to have a president who understands our real problem and has the courage for bold action.
COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM
Star Parker (starparker@urbancure.org) is an author and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education.
Tags
Who is online
103 visitors
“The irony of this distorted analysis lies in tying it to the immigration crisis. Those massing on our southern border, trying to gain entry to our country, are pouring out from dysfunctional socialist Central American countries like Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua. Capitalism and economic freedom are the answer, not the problem.
Rufo gets to the heart of the matter, pointing out that "homelessness is a product of disaffiliation. ... As family and community bonds weaken, our most vulnerable citizens fall victim to the addiction, mental illness, isolation, poverty, and despair that almost always precipitate the final slide into homelessness."
We should appreciate that along with the disintegration of our core social institutions such as family and community is the unraveling of our country itself.
It is this very fundamental crisis, the disintegration of the institution we call the United States of America, that President Trump has recognized and is working hard to remedy.
We must restore the integrity of our national institutions and strengthen the borders that contain and protect our country.”
Yea, the right has been screaming that since the slaves were freed, women got the right to vote, interracial marriage, Roe V. Wade, same sex marriage, etc. etc. etc.. All of these things were going to destroy the country....we're still here. This alarmist view is amusing, but nothing more.
The first three were right and proper actions that are to the benefit of the country. That last two are not and do harm to the country.
how does it harm the country for two people of the same gender to enjoy the secular legal right of Marriage together ?
Marriage is reserved for one man and one woman. Any other arrangement needs another name or term to describe it. Marriage for any other is a part of the general degradation of morals and values. It can be called a civil union that comes with all the insurance, hospital visitation rights, and adoption that marriage does without trampling on the religious foundation of what marriage is.
You're totally wrong, because of your religious blinders.
Marriage long predates your religion. You can have your holy matrimony and define that however you want - we'll keep the word marriage, which has nothing to do with Christianity - or any religion. A marriage is a legal contract. Your holy matrimony isn't even legally binding, and you can discriminate as much as you want within those boundaries. You can have your church only conduct holy matrimony only between two people who are at least 6 feet tall, for all we care.
Learn some history, please, before you try to steal words that don't mean what you claim they mean. You are referring to HOLY MATRIMONY, not marriage.
You have never once been able to provide anything to support your claim that marriage between two people of the same sex hurts you, or anyone else, or our country. I realize it offends your outdated, hypocritical sensibilities, but that's your problem. I know you wish we could go back to the days when little girls were sold to old men, and widows were forced to marry their deceased husbands' brothers (whether or not the brother was already married), and rape victims were forced to marry their rapists, and men could commit adultery but women were stoned if they did, and women couldn't choose their own husbands, and women were the property of men, and you didn't have to face the fact that many women are more intelligent than you are - because women weren't allowed to go against their husband's decisions, even if they were the smarter of the two. That disgusting, immoral "biblical marriage" you admire so much. Your sense of morality is totally backward.
there's your problem - you stated "religious" and did you see the word "religious" anywhere in my statement ? let's look again:
nope, no word "religious" in there at all, but the word "secular" is in there and that's what i'm referring to -- secular. You are talking about "Holy Matrimony" and i'm talking about "Marriage". would you care to try your statement again and actually talk about the same topic i'm discussing ??
Aiding, abetting and harboring an Illegal Alien violates NUMEROUS Fed laws.
Figures that cities who are violating Fed laws would also welcome and encourage Illegal Aliens to "live" in their cities.
Unless they are brought there by Trumps border patrol or ICE then they aren’t welcome.
(f) Finally, and most conclusively in these cases, the Court's jurisprudence makes clear that the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.
Please tell me again what laws they have broken. It is up to the Feds to enforce their laws. If you really desire to have Federal law be "the" law, then you will need to abolish the states.
Just the blue ones...
Trump = The "Illegals" are headed your way !
The Loveable all inclusive Sanctuary Cities = Not by the hair on our chinny chin chins they ain't !!!!!!!!!
When Obama was in office and they was forcing Middle Eastern "refugees" on blue states and cities, I the left said too bad so sad and firmed them to accept them. Now that Trumo wants to send "assylum" seekers to sanctuary and other like progressive areas , the progressives are all up in arms against the plan. I
What's changed?
The name and party of the President of the United States 🇺🇸.