Since the election of Donald Trump to a second term as president, some have said that the results are indicative of an ideological shift in the country. Sanctuary cities are on the way out, the argument goes, as well as open borders, catch-and-release and a number of other failed policies that were trademarks of the Biden presidency.
That ideological shift may turn out to be a real thing but, much like the aftermath of the fall of Baghdad, there will be a healthy number of dead-enders unwilling to face reality.
It should surprise no one that a hotbed of dead-enders can be found in California. Not content to just be a garden variety sanctuary jurisdiction riddled with crime, overcrowding and insolvency, San Diego’s Board of Supervisors recently voted to make the county a “super sanctuary.”
This was not a superficial move to give local politicians yet another opportunity to flaunt their purported moral superiority. The resolution creates even more restrictions on cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration agents.
According to Jim Desmond, the lone supervisor who voted against the measure, it will prevent local officers from notifying Immigration and Customs Enforcement “about individuals, in custody, who have committed violent and heinous crimes, including: rape and stalking, assault and battery, burglary, child abuse and more.”
This doubles down on the California Values Act, which was passed in 2017 to counter the immigration policies of the first Trump administration. However, the San Diego measure gave its supporters a fig leaf against soft-on-crime accusations, claiming that ICE detainer requests do not provide due process for those in county jails, and that local law enforcement will only be permitted to cooperate if ICE presents a judicial warrant.
This is not nearly as reasonable as it is meant to sound. Requiring a judicial warrant is a purposeful impediment to transferring an someone in the country illegally from jail. It is a red herring as, under law, no federal judicial warrant is necessary for civil removal charges.
In their shameless attempt to virtue signal, the caretakers of San Diego County claim in the resolution that they seek “to protect public health and safety, which is founded on trust and cooperation of and between community residents and local law enforcement.”
This is next-level hypocrisy. How much safer will the county be with untold numbers of people in the country illegally charged with violent crimes freely roaming the community when they should be in deportation proceedings?
Policies like this are almost guaranteed to create more Laken Rileys, innocent members of the community brutally murdered by criminals who were allowed to be there by permissive sanctuary laws. When that happens, the supervisors who voted for the resolution will speak the mandatory condolences and take no responsibility for the loss of life they made possible.
Sadly, this twisted behavior is more the rule than the exception from California lawmakers. Gov. Gavin Newsom, an ardent sanctuary city supporter, recently convened the Legislature to propose $25 million for a legal defense fund the “Trump-proof” the state against the coming changes in federal immigration policy. This from a state that has been awash in crime, illegal immigration and high cost of living that has resulted in a mass exodus of Californians to other states and a shortage of U-Haul rentals.
Amid the madness, there is a glimmer of hope for concerned San Diego residents. County Sheriff Kelly Martinez has declared she will not comply with the “super sanctuary” policy, citing that as she is an independently elected official, the Board of Supervisors does not set policy for her office.
Martinez added that she will follow state law on when local law enforcement can cooperate with ICE. In a best-case scenario, a standoff between the sheriff and the Board of Supervisors will save lives if the “super sanctuary” policy is never enforced.
This sordid tale is yet more revelatory evidence on the true nature of sanctuary, and now “super sanctuary,” politicians. These fallen shepherds of their communities may claim they seek to protect the downtrodden, but all they end up doing is harboring violent criminals and allowing innocent people to die.
Trump’s landslide victory was indeed a statement by the American people and a rejection of deadly, nonsensical sanctuary policies. Sanctuary politicians need to accept that and start prioritizing their legal residents.
