By Jack Mayne For a majority of its three and one-half hour meeting on Monday night (Dec. 5), the Burien City Council heard residents comment on a proposal by three Councilmembers to declare it a â€˜sanctuary cityâ€™ with the idea of protecting â€œillegalâ€ or undocumented immigrants. The â€˜sanctuary cityâ€™ status is similar to the one created by the Seattle City Council and many other local jurisdictions around the nation. Such a status would prevent local police and other officials from assisting federal officers working to deport undocumented aliens as threatened by President-elect Donald Trump. Councilmembers Lauren Berkowitz, Nancy Tosta and Austin Bell pushed the proposal onto the Council agenda. In the Council agenda, City Attorney Lisa Marshall said Burien does not have such an ordinance (see screenshot here). There also was no proposed ordinance creating such a sanctuary city before the Council, merely a request for discussion of the issue by the three Councilmembers. The Council asked that Acting City Manager Tony Piasecki and Marshall come back with a proposal for consideration at the Dec. 19 meeting. â€˜Donâ€™t askâ€™ status That has been a policy of the Burien Police Department for many years, whose officers are members of the King County Sheriffs Office. Officers do not to inquire about a person’s immigration status, said Sheriff John Urquhart. â€œFirst of all, the Sheriffâ€™s office has had a written policy for at least the past 25 years that deputies are not allowed to ask someone for their immigration status,â€ so sworn deputies, cannot ask for a green card, or other documents. Burien Police are sworn King County deputies since the city contracts for police from King County. The sheriff said deputies may use immigration documents if the documents are offered by the person upon if asked something like, â€œmay I see some identification?â€ â€œI have no intention of changing what we do â€“ or donâ€™t do â€“ with the election of Donald Trump. I would add that LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department) has had a similar policy since 1979, as do many police departments. â€œAs we have always done, we will continue to notify Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) if we learn of a dangerous criminal in our midst, that we believe may have entered the county illegally,â€ Urquhart said. â€œBy â€˜dangerousâ€™ I mean a gang member, rapist, murder, major drug dealer, that sort of thing.â€ SeaTac also contract for police services from King County so the same police will be in place in that city. Police chiefs of Des Moines and Normandy Park say they have similar policies. County could change law Berkowitz, as usual on the telephone from home, said creation of a sanctuary city would reinforce the view that the city did not want police to enforce federal immigration laws and that the city doesnâ€™t have jurisdiction over King County deputies, only jurisdiction over Burien ordinances. â€œThe policy could be changed tomorrow and moreover, we have no control over King County policies,â€ she said. â€œThat is why Burien needs its own ordinances to make sure that whatever the sheriffâ€™s policies are, Burien is actually requiring them to follow the valuesâ€ of the city. Berkowitz said a city ordinance would apply to contractors with the city, the CARES animal agency and all city municipal employees who might accidentally or involuntarily provide information harmful to undocumented residents. Deputy Mayor Bob Edgar, who took over as presiding officer when Mayor Lucy Krakowiak left the meeting just after 10 p.m. â€“ before leaving the meeting himself shortly thereafter â€“ asked Police Chief Scott Kimerer when the policy against enforcing federal immigration laws took effect and was told 1992. â€œIt is not only a policy we have in the Sheriffâ€™s office, but it is a fundamental belief that we all have, and me, as the leader of the police department, have that we need to be inclusive in our community, we need to embrace our community, we need help from the community and that is not always the easiest thing to do, especially with the diversity we have here. We have to build an atmosphere of trust and part of that trust is not only following this policy, but really believing in this policy,â€ Kimerer said. â€œIt does not take much, and we donâ€™t want to break that trustâ€ with immigrants, especially the Latino populations of Burien, Kimerer added. Several residents favor sanctuary Resident Katie Hiedeman acknowledged that city police had a policy through the Sheriffâ€™s department, but â€œthat it would be an opportunity to formalize the policy as a city ordinance.â€ She said such an ordinance is not just symbolic because it would show â€œBurienâ€™s commitment to uphold civil rights and basic human decency,â€ adding that the immigrant community relies on police services â€œas all residents do.â€ She added that without an ordinance, many of the undocumented aliens might not cooperate or communicate with police over potential disputes, â€œmaking our community more unsafe.â€ â€œAs a resident, I am here to strongly encourage the mayor and the Council to consider adopting an ordinance to prohibit the city police employees from inquiring into the immigration of a person, as well as prohibiting the police and employees from participating in any activities that are the federal governmentâ€™s responsibility.â€ Hiedeman, over the time limit and told my Mayor Krakowiak to wrap it up, said elected officials should stand with â€œall of our communityâ€ by adopting the ordinance. Margarita Suarez said she was an Ã©migrÃ© from Cuba and an American citizen who served as an army nurse in Vietnam and has lived in Burien since 1992. â€œI know it is controversial to have a sanctuary city,â€ but she wanted to support it. â€œIt promotes safe and respectful relationship with members of the immigrant community and the local police…â€ and encourages people to work with police â€œwithout fear of deportation.â€ She quoted Seattle Police Chief Kathleen Oâ€™Toole as saying, â€œIt is important that the most vulnerable people know they can trust the local police.â€ Irene Danish said that despite the policy by the police, an ordinance â€œwould make this policy clearer.â€ Need to be welcoming Oksana Bilobran said she was a practicing immigration attorney and an immigrant herself who works with immigrants and refugees and sees the outcome of the presidential election â€œalready playing out in a way we probably didnâ€™t predict â€“ we see way more harassment, physical assaultâ€ and supported a city sanctuary ordinance, â€œalthough there is not a clear definition of what a sanctuary city is … but I want us to send a clear message that the City of Burien is a welcoming community.â€ Bilobran said becoming a sanctuary city would not attract or protect the criminal elements â€“ â€œthat is not how the immigration system works … we do have federal agencies responsible … and no one is going to dismantle those agencies.â€ Those agencies will still be doing its work and did not need the local police to assist. â€œWe want that message to be heard and clear in the community,â€ she said. At the end of the meeting, Tosta said that citizens want the Council to express the same beliefs as the Sheriffâ€™s Department policy. â€œWe know that we live in a different time right now and it seems more important than ever to emphasize this, to reaffirm that we respect all the citizens of our community,â€ Tosta said. Tosta said she would look to city staff, especially the city attorney, to decide the best way to reinforce the Sheriffâ€™s policies on not handling immigration law problems, whether it is a sanctuary city ordinance or just a policy resolution. Councilmember Debi Wagner said she had heard that the Trump administration would consider withholding federal funds from any city that did declare it a sanctuary city, but such decisions would have to be made after the new president is sworn into office on January 20. TAKE OUR POLL: What do YOU think of the idea of Burien declaring itself a ‘sanctuary city’? Please take our Poll below, or leave a Comment: [poll id=”91″]
EDITOR’S NOTE: To read a part of the council packet that includes an article from The Economist on what a sanctuary city is, click here (right click and ‘Save As’ to download).]]>
â€œFirst of all, the Sheriffâ€™s office has had a written policy for at least the past 25 years that deputies are not allowed to ask someone for their immigration status,â€ so sworn deputies, cannot ask for a green card, or other documents.”
Why was this done again? So something could be put on paper? Smells political.
“. Such a status would prevent local police and other officials from assisting federal officers working to deport undocumented aliens as threatened by President-elect Donald Trump.”
That is not really correct. Local LEOs will always support federal officials when there is the correct paperwork/process followed; it’s only when it’s not, and the feds just “ask”, that requests are denied.
It’s important to describe the situation accurately, as there’s enough misinformation floating around.
If this policy goes through, I hope Trump cuts any Federal funding coming Burien’s way.
Why should some people get to break the law and enter this country illegally, when we have others waiting in line patiently for years to come here legally?
Progressives are turning Burien into one big swamp.
I don’t know what my opinion is on this issue. What I do have an opinion on is that Burien has LOTS of issues that have been before the council for a long time. Let’s start at the top of the list first and get some decisions made. We need them to spend their time on our priorities and vote yes/no and move forward on things like a new city manager, crime in our neighborhoods and addicts in the parks, supporting small and large business in our community, etc.
We need to tighten our ship. By this, I mean how the city council is run. First, we need to insist that anyone running for council in the future, be available for meetings and the duties of the job. I understand illness and maternity leave are valid reasons for not attending. But, there needs to be a limit. Someone needs to be responsible for how these meetings are run.
We need leadership. This topic of sanctuary is important, please do not read this post as dismissing it. But, we have so many other things to iron out that are also important. We need someone who can cut to the chase and suggest something like,’ We can make a formal statement of following the King County guidelines for our Burien police officers.’ Get the public in the loop by explaining how this makes sense when the police need everyone’s cooperation. And then move on to other issues. If there are those who still want a ‘Sanctuary’ to be declared, let them work on the details of what this means and then bring that to the council. A whole council meeting devoted to one topic, when it is first brought before the council, is poor organization.
How come it’s all about those who don’t follow immigration rules and cross international borders without following the law, rather than those who did or do? How come breaking the law has become not up for discussion and those who did break it now get a free pass and a entire meeting dedicated to them?
First of all: a disclaimer: I am not of the “build the wall, deport them all crowd.” I am generally pragmatic on the issue of immigration overall and believe that most illegal immigrants are here to find work, support their families, etc.
That said, regarding the push to make Burien a “sanctuary city” : I wonder if those supporting that are aware of Kate Steinle who was killed by an illegal immigrant that was protected by SF sanctuary city policies?
Lauren, Nancy, & Austin Bell, what would you say to the family of Kate Steinle ? But for the sanctuary city status of SF, Kate Steinle would likely be alive. Are you willing to accept potentially more victims like Kate Steile if Burien were to become a sanctuary city? If so, how many more? What would you say to those families? (And Kate Steile is not the only victim, btw, there are many more).
Finally: one positive comes out of this city council meeting: we now know (as if there was any doubt) that Austin Bell is basically coming from the same radical ideological turf as the “kshama sawant of the south end” Lauren Berkowitz. Congratulations, Austin – I will now work even harder to make sure your opponent defeats you in the next election. Same for Lauren and Nancy.
“Kate Steinle who was killed by an illegal immigrant that was protected by SF sanctuary city policies?”
The sanctuary city policies you speak of are purely that the INS has to follow the proper procedure for deportation. It’s not SF saying, “all your illegals are welcome here, go away feds”. While it is a tragedy that Kate died, I don’t see how it had anything to do with being a “sanctuary city”. A study cited by the WaPo found that “sanctuary city” status doesn’t increase crime.
It seems sanctuary cities are really just big cities saying, we have enough crime to deal with on our budget, as well as immigrant communities to interface with, that we’ll leave immigration work to the feds (where it belongs anyway).
Sanctuary cities do in fact increase crime, because many illegals don’t report crimes to police in fear of getting on the INS radar.
This creates a snow ball effect where more and more crime goes unreported until the city becomes a big crime filled ghetto (AKA New Burien).
B – as a result of sanctuary cities, people who should be deported, who have come to the attention of police because of committing some crime, are released back into the community. Sanctuary cities shied illegal aliens – including convicted criminals – from the federal authorities.
This is why Kate Steine’s murder was avoidable. Prior to her murder, Lopez-Sanchez had been arrested by the city on drug charges, but it released him when the charges were dropped, even though Immigration and Customs Enforcement wanted to take custody of him for deportation. If there was a poster child for someone deserving of deportation, Lopez-Sanchez was it. But again, they released him because they are a sanctuary city.
Now you may say the city did this because they are already too busy dealing with other problems. But the proponents of sanctuary cities frame this as a political / social justice issue of protecting immigrants against “hate.” Sanctuary cities defy federal law and harbor potentially dangerous criminals. In the case of SF and Kate Steinle – it led to murder and there have been many other cases where people are victimized by crimes committed by people who should have been deported, but were not due to sanctuary cities.
B – as a result of sanctuary cities, people who have come to the attention to the police due to having committed some crime and should be deported are instead released back into the community. Sanctuary cities shield illegals, including convicted criminals, from federal authorities. Kate Steinle’s murder was avoidable. Her murderer, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez had been arrested by the city on drug charges, and had 7 previous felony convictions. The Feds wanted to take custody of him for deportation, but the sanctuary city of San Francisco released him. If there ever was a poster child for someone deserving of deportation, Sanchez was it, but the city of SF released him. And Kate Steinle is dead. Again, what do the proponents of sanctuary cities say to the family of Kate Steinle?
The Steinle family is suing the City of San Francisco over the slaying.
One important part of our ‘undocumented immigrants’ that is conveniently ignored by the powers that be, is the fact that there are several large industries that rely on such people to work, often at a poverty level to ‘grow their businesses’. Some of those businesses, go so far as to post ‘Help Wanted’ signs and ads in foreign countries with all the detail of how to get hired. Our state’s produce suppliers, the hotel industry, meat and poultry industry, medical assistants and care giver corporations are just some of the businesses that would find it tough to replace all of their ‘undocumented labor’. They know it. But are very reluctant for the general public to see how they abuse the laws and have been for years. If Trump thinks these jobs could be filled by US citizens, he better wake up to what the majority of our young people are like. They will want more money and/or unions to get reasonable health insurance and other perks. It’s going to be a roller coaster ride for the next 4 years without adding this hot potato to the TO DO list.
3 hours for Burien to debate THAT? There are whole heck of a lot more important issues facing Burien than this! I would ask that the 3 Stooges that brought this to the council actually focus on the citizens of Burien and the city they were voted to represent. Not sure who is padding their resume with these frivolous causes….but they should just resign now.
Because of federal preemption laws and the supremacy clause of the constitution a declaration that we are a sanctuary city has little to no legal effect any more than does taking refuge in a church.
Such a declaration says a great deal about who we are as human beings tho, and the
fact that such a declaration is thought to be necessary by so many people says a great deal about an undercurrent of fear for our future. Tom
The Burien police have the policy that they believe enhances their abiltity to communicate with and protect all the residents of Burien. They have had the policy for a long time and it apparently works fine. Plus, as our Police Department, they have the ability to administer the policy and or modify the policy using their best judgment. We have no need to make this policy and ordinance and risk politicians’ interference with what our police are doing. Moreover, many of us believe that there is no chance the Country will grant a path to citizenship to the overwhelming majority of our “undocumented” neighbors who we would be proud to have as fellow citizens until the Country believes we have a relatively secure border that would permit us to deport violent criminal aliens without them coming back over a porous border within weeks of their deportation. So for those of you who believe Burien should be a “sanctuary city” let’s keep our eye on the ball. Let’s not do something that is merely symbolic and unnecessary given the police policy is working just fine. And let’s not do something that will brand us as standing against a secure border and the real ability to remove and keep our violent criminal aliens, when that is the only thing the new Administration is currently proposing.
So are you suggesting that we allow any and all undocumented illegal immigrants and homeless people to come to the city of Burien and be housed and clothed without paying any revenue into the city tax coffers? Who is going to pay for this? Have any of you been to downtown Seattle and seen the repercussions of the “sanctuary city” rules allowing anyone who likes to come to your city or to camp out on the street?
I have no problem helping those who are down and out on their luck however I have no interest in supporting those who are already breaking a law by being here. I have family who came from Cuba, legally, and have no qualms about immigration. LEGAL immigration!
Donald Trump was elected by the people of this land, if you don’t like it vote next time! Do you really think that the officials of BURIEN are qualified to buck Federal law? The women can’t even come to the infrequent meetings!
I was accosted by two homeless people asking for money or whatever in the parking lot at Safeway and Staples, I for one do not want that to be my community! Who will pay for more services to stop the harassment of law abiding and taxpaying citizens that will be created by the people coming because they can? Who will pay to clean up after the people deciding to camp out on the street like what happened on 148th on the backside of the hearing aid business or under the West Seattle bridge? I want to be a part of the community of those of us who work and pay taxes to live here. Who are you people? And do you really think you represent your constituents?
It sounds like the police have been handling this situation in a very satisfactory manner for a long time. Why make a law that could be misunderstood. I feel very proud at the way the police have not been asking immigration status for over 20 years when it wasn’t even an issue in the press. Often when new laws are made it is impossible to think thru at all the ways they will be used that was not the original intent.
A lot of these comments sound so fear based. I’d be proud to live in a Sanctuary City!
Why, because you feel individuals who break the law have more rights than those who don’t? Your views do not have any valid basis and only indicate you feel non legal residents deserve something they haven’t earned by blatantly disregarding the law.
And,the City Council has nothing better to do than debate that drivel instead dealing with all the existing problems in the community with the tax paying, law abiding citizens who fund the local government.
My views on this are based on logic and rational thought. What are yours based on?
You are right on. But although the fear is not rational it is very real.
Fear mongering is the tool of the demagogue and he has a receptive audience.
How sad it is that we even have to think about sanctuary cities. Tom
Tom – the demagogue smears his opponents and refuses to engage in a calm, rational dialogue. Sanctuary city proponents brand those who disagree with them as “haters.” So to me – the proponents of sanctuary cities can rightly be called demagogues.
Respectfully Peter, a demagogue is one who preys on false claims and fears of a people who are deficient in the art of critical thinking. When I was a kid the arch demagogue was Joseph McCarthy. Before him the prince of demagogues held sway in Germany.
Today we have a contemporary home grown specimen.
And his targets are easy. Homeless folks, minorities, immigrants – the usual rabble.
Or as the last line i Casablanca goes, “The usual suspects”. Tom
I get your point and appreciate your perspective on this, but demagogues come in all shapes and sizes – and party affiliations. What is a sanctuary city, but a preying on fear? Fear of Trump, Feds, Immigration officials. etc. I don’t go back to McCarthy era, but I’m old enough to know that preying on fear has been the modus operandi for Democrats for decades. They do this every time someone proposes reforming entitlements. And recall Joe Biden just a few years ago to crowd full of minorities: “they’re (GOP) gonna put you all back in chains.” Remember Medi-scare? That is/ was a shameful demagogic campaign trotted out regularly to frighten older Americans. The Democrats regularly use fear to keep their interest groups in line. They might better be called the Demagogue party. And overwhelming majority of those in favor of sanctuary city support them. But I agree- Trump is a total (and frighteningly effective) demagogue. On that we can agree.
Peter, you need to take a democrat to lunch. Maybe 2 or 3 times and get to know a bit about who some of them are first hand. I am a life long Dem. and I certainly do not identify with how you describe Democrats. I, like many other Dems have worked my whole life, tried to be of use to my neighbors and community, as well as family. I avoid abusive use of insurance, or any such support including Social Security, though I am of an age to collect it. This is not to toot my horn, but to say, you may have an erroneous idea of what ‘those Dems’ are all about. I don’t identify with our dear Lauren B., but I would like to see such things as the minimum wage and SS increased. It seems a valid thing to do when rents are increasing along with all other costs. I believe in better public transportation, not to give away our tax money to ‘those who live on the dole’ but because it is a more efficient way to move huge numbers of people in our congested city/county and it is so much less harmful to our environment than an equal number of vehicles.
When it comes to the topic of sanctuary, I am not blind to the fact that there are those who would abuse it. But, I also am not blind to the horrors that some people are fleeing. Whether it be horrific poverty, countries over run with drug lords and their assassins, or just out and out war. If you saw a way to escape such evils, wouldn’t you take it? Would that mean you were a criminal?
I recently meant a man who now lives in Missouri and has for 16 years. He was born in Bulgaria where he got his education. He is now a US citizen. He moved to this country after he had his car stolen from him in a car jacking incident and a few month later had his apartment ransacked. He was badly beaten in both events and was given no help by the police. He has returned to Bulgaria a few times, but says it hasn’t changed and he would not care to live there, though he misses it. He had a rather interesting take on our current political climate. He fears it is all too familiar.
Out here on the edge: thank you for the lunch suggestion. I have lived, worked, and been taught by liberal Democrats my whole life. So I know where they are coming from. My “beef” is not with the rank and file Democrat living in Burien, like yourself. Rather, my criticism is with the Democrat party at the national level, which has been engaging in demagoguery and fear mongering for decades, as well as certain Democrats at the local level – such as those now proposing Burien as a sanctuary city.
Ironically, you seem to have a very misinformed view of my opinions. I am all for those who have paid into SS, collecting the benefits. My problem is with the national Democrat party smearing those who propose reforming entitlements so they remain solvent and available for those who need them. Entitlements are the life blood of the Democrat party (again the national Dems). To suggest reforming them is to threaten that life blood (i.e. political power). Thus the demagoguery and fear mongering on the part of the Democrat party toward those who propose reforms.
Regarding the immigration issue: perhaps you did not notice my initial post in which I stated that i am not a hard core anti-immigrant, “build the wall, deport them all” type. I recognize the need for pragmatism on this issue. I do not think that we can effectively deal with the status of those already here illegally without getting a grasp on our borders as well as visa over-stays. I have already stated that I think most immigrants come here to work and make an honest living, provide for their family, etc.
We are a nation of laws. And sanctuary cities disregard that. Our country has always welcomed those seeking a better life, but if memory serves, there has always been a process whereby one can legally gain entrance to this country. We disregard that at the peril of the rule of law in this country – which we ought to be preserving.
I hope this makes sense – I appreciate your comments and perspective.
No Peter, the proponents of sanctuary cities are not fearmongers, they are attempting to allay what I perceive to be reasonable fears in groups who have been targeted by a very frightening man. This is neither a Democtic or Republican issue but an issue of human decency. And decent people come in all stripes.
Is it a practical solution? Probably not. But it shows me that there are a lot of compassionate people striving for answers.
Tom, sanctuary cities are not a reaction to Trump because they’ve been around for years and people were proposing them long before Trump even declared his candidacy. So obviously its something else. The left has been creating fear out of fictional threats in order to gain support/votes for decades. I demonstrated that in my previous post, which you did not address. And that is what they are doing here. This is pure interest group driven politics based on fear mongering.
True, sanctuary cities and the concept of sanctuary have been around for years – centuries in fact and come to the fore whenever the threat of persecution rears its ugly head. Think of Amsterdam. Think of the Frank family. Think of the underground railroad.
The concept is not new but the threat has once again reared it”s ugly head and once again decent people are coming forward.
And we all know where today’s threat has come from.
You deny you are fear mongering, then you compare the situation today with that of Nazi Germany era and 19 century slavery era. Thank you for making my point for me.
Peter, I get that this is a tough issue and I get that feelings on it are likely to be intense and polarized, with thoughtful people on both sides having legitimate fears. Tom is sharing his just as you have shared yours related to the Kate Steinle tragedy and the risks of political party hyperbole and legislative overreach. You both shared your fears, and the civil sharing and discussion of concerns like these seems like anew important role for community forums like this one. This is a time of concern and fear for many of your fellow residents, so please let all of us share them without stamping those you don’t agree with as fear “mongers.”
And I would be proud to help you move to one.
I for one am sick of paying for them.
8 U.S.C. 1324
Harboring of illegal aliens
Does she have proof of this or is she just fear mongering?
Oksana Bilobran said she was a practicing immigration attorney and an immigrant herself who works with immigrants and refugees and sees the outcome of the presidential election â€œalready playing out in a way we probably didnâ€™t predict â€“ we see way more harassment, physical assaultâ€
How cool that Hillary Sux and Peter agree.
What do we agree on ?
Lets us some common sense and facts here…
*A Sanctuary City ordinance does not prevent federal enforcement of immigration laws, nor does it prevent police from investigating crime.
*Burien contracts its public safety services to King County which already has this ordinance in place. Is King County rampant with crime because it has a Sanctuary City ordinance? No.
*The 10th Amendment of the US Constitution provides protection for local governments from being forced by the federal government into using its resources to enforce federal regulations.
*If you can’t see this as a moral issue, try looking at this as a economic issue. Do you want your local tax dollars used to enforce federal regulations?
Law enforcement officers regardless of which agency they report to are all sworn to enforce and uphold the law, it’s called cooperation and it all costs the same when your paid by the hour. Morality is moot.
It’s called illegal aliens for a reason…because they are here in our country without being becoming a citizen, having a green card or some other work or education visa. If people are not intending to become a citizen, then why are they still here? And I know there could be plenty of reasons why from family, money, etc., but the fact still remains that it is illegal. What are we doing to upkeep the law? If we blindly ignore we are allowing illegal acts to go on, is that ok too? We have become so much of a melting pot in the U.S. that we are becoming blind to the fact of legal issues around this. Pretty soon, it won’t matter to the majority and there will be more illegal than legal citizens in the U.S. I guess you have to ask yourselves if this is just fine with you. Then as a nation and how that is going to affect the future of America. No one agrees on this subject, certainly not here in Burien and certainly not in the U.S. So we can’t solve the issue on our own but I don’t feel becoming a sanctuary city is going to help the cause.Why would be be giving them sanctuary anyways? Are we trying to hide something? How does it support our legal and political systems by having a large number of citizens that can’t even vote. This just all smells really bad to me.
Can’t vote for school bonds but “ESL” is virtually to supplement them but at our cost. Plus homeowners pay more percentage wise than a apartment owner who packs them in without doing legal background checks. When this State started handing out ID without verification it all went down hill and I wish the Feds would pull that sooner than later.
Phew! Could everyone take a minute to listen to themselves? We human beings are very inclined to see what we want to see. We pass around a label or headline and rarely look at what is under it. Mixing apples and oranges without even noticing or caring until the consequences of such mindlessness begins to show itself to such a degree we can no longer be blind to it.
There will always be bad actors who will take advantage of every possible situation. At the same time there always have been, and I presume always will be, those who are good souls. We need to care for our good souls wherever they spring from, while giving no quarter to those who are corrupt.
Many young people are good souls wanting to live in helpful ways and sadly find themselves labeled by their skin color or ethnic or religious heritage as being corrupt. What are they to make of this daily assault on their good hearts?
Please, I ask again that each of us listen to ourselves and ask if we ever assumed someone is a ‘bad person’ for no further justification then that there name is foreign or their attire is uncommon. Is it not possible to know someone who is different from you, that is likeable? I mean really likeable. Until each of us can cross this bridge, we will never hear one another or find a way out of this mire.
And how can you know who the good and bad ones are, before they behave either good or bad? Do we wait till there’s another San Bernardino type shootout where 14 people were killed last year by a couple of radicalized muslims?
Meanwhile please invite them all to live with you and you pay all their expenses and if any one of them misbehaves, well, you’ll have to pay for that too.
I think the point others are making is that America can’t be the worlds life boat forever.
It’s getting crowded and it’s getting expensive for the taxpayer to have to care for all the foreigners flooding here.
Good luck vetting all the “good” foreigners and hopefully you have very deep pockets for affording their needs.
Spot on Mr or Ms Edge
Aren’t there enough people here already?
As a nation we are being over-run and this “sanctuary” initiative only facilitates that.
How about a “sanctuary” for the beleaguered American taxpayer??… who is expected to fund immigration and welfare services without end.
We are waaaay beyond life-boat ethics.
It is time to take care of our own, and thats okay.
Well put !
I am the son of immigrants, first to have the honor of being born here. Both of my parents immigrated here legally and worked hard, paid taxes, and assimilated in their new homeland. They did not demand to have public services speak their native tongue, or expect free entitlements of any kind. I wonder when and why this has changed, they were grateful to live in a country full of opporotunity and promise and would have never dreamed of taking handouts of anykind. Welcoming illegals and encouraging this behavior is just the beginning of a list of possible bad outcomes. Being undocumented is inherently dangerous, it makes law enforcement difficult and puts the public at peril. Globally social services of every kind are to the point of collapse by the financial burden this causes. The list is long of the benefits we provide those who shouldn’t even be here, free food , schooling, healthcare by clogging emergency clinics, free housing, driving without licenses or insurance, … all in all a pretty sweet deal, until the eventual collapse of the host country…..
Comments are closed.