Trump Can and Should Troll the Media on Sanctuary Cities

After Attorney General Jeff Sessions made a valiant speech this past week in Nogales, Arizona affirming that the U.S. border should actually be a border, the New York Times was up to its usual hectoring, again dwelling on the issue of sanctuary cities:

Mr. Sessions and the homeland security secretary, John Kelly, have attacked cities and states that decline to participate in the crackdown. Mr. Sessions has threatened these “sanctuary” locales with loss of criminal-justice funding, on the false assertion that they are defying the law. (In fact, “sanctuary” cities are upholding law and order. They recognize that enlisting state and local law enforcement for deportation undermines community trust, local policing and public safety.)

Allow the full implication of these words to sink in: refusing to deport criminals hinders public safety. Not only that, the editors flat out deny that sanctuary cities are “defying the law” by not turning over criminals. At risk of mind-numbing tautology, let’s state the obvious: national immigration law, by definition, stipulates that someone in the country illegally is breaking the law. I’ve been checking Politifact to see if they will correct the New York Times on this point of not recognizing breaking the law as, well, breaking the law, but bewilderingly the fact checkers have refrained. Politifact? Hello…?

The Times also neglected to quote Sessions’ most basic statement of principle on why anyone might get upset about a nation having borders and enforcing them:

It is just beyond my comprehension how we drifted so far away from the common sense notion that sovereign nations have borders and those borders should be honored … Any country that has common sense, and almost all do, has laws that if you commit a crime while you’re in the country, lawfully or unlawfully, you are to be deported.

The editorial board left these lines out because they may recognize that the common sense of them might interfere with their ability to promote their ultimate desire which, I suspect, is “a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.”

That’s perhaps misleading. Why stop at this hemisphere?

align=”left” Trump should troll them as only he can, which will likely elicit Olympic-level gymnastics of equivocation from the Times’ editorial board, among others. And then, when the editors smugly conclude that by an extremely technical definition they were correct—not to mention morally superior—Trump can smirk as he has drawn attention to how far left they are, and how convoluted their reasoning is.

Lurking here is an implicit assumption that most Times readers will not bother to read opposing views on the topic. If that’s true, then it is likely most Times readers aren’t aware of the polling numbers on sanctuary cities and they may not recognize the Times’s stance for what it is: a far-left position.

A recent poll posed the question, “Should cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes be required to turn them over to immigration authorities?” Eighty percent of respondents answered in the affirmative. Lest you doubt the provenance of the data, nothing less than the aforementioned universal arbiter Politifact determined that the sources were “real,” “legitimate,” and “venerable”—though they couldn’t resist quibbling with the term “sanctuary city,” and suggested that the wording actually encouraged respondents to say “Yes.”

Although the Times is not enormously keen on going too deep into the nuances of sanctuary cities, I will respect a certain journalistic duty here: there are situations where immediate deportation may hinder a criminal investigation, if witnesses are frightened of deportation and so fail to provide their testimony. And yes, people feel differently when it comes to truly minor crimes from how they do in cases pertaining to rape or murder. Perhaps city authorities can announce an exemption for witness situations, or strike a bargain with Sessions on this front?

Politifact also cites “experts” to lead the reader to conclude that sanctuary cities are really about protecting the immigration status of non-threatening individuals. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement recently released a report that lists all declined detainers between February 4-10, 2017, along with a lengthy and annotated list of all noncompliant jurisdictions in the country, explaining whether there are specific circumstances where the local authorities would make exceptions, or, in many cases, if these authorities have indicated they will do as they please. New York City, listed in the latter category, was served 73 detainers and declined 12, with 10 of these individuals charged or convicted of assault, including sexual assault. The report notes this figure probably underestimates the actual number of detainers that will be declined. At this rate, New York City will have refused to cooperate with over 600 requests in 2017.

On the West Coast, not to be outdone, California Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León used the first day of the new legislative session to introduce a new sanctuary state bill, also known as “The California Values Act.” Simultaneously, anger has broken out in Los Angeles over an exclusion of violent criminals from a $10 million fund to provide lawyers to those in the country illegally, with attorney Carmen Iguina of the ACLU remarking that “we shouldn’t be saying that there are good and bad immigrants.”

This remark alone deserves a Trump tweet, and it’s hard to know where to start in highlighting all the others instances of extreme immigration positions justified by mainstream figures and outlets. Still, it is vital for Team Trump to keep garnering easy wins in front of the public, and to make the “newspaper of record” look like a battalion of petulant-child intellectuals—along with renegade mayors and increasingly outlandish activist organizations.

The most visible sanctuary cities—the ones with the most outspoken mayors defending these policies, such as New York—are also often the elite international cities that average Americans view as out of touch and uninterested in their concerns. Drawing attention here would underline for American voters just how these cities feel about citizens of their own country. Furthermore, it would show where the Times priorities really are, and how selective the leading newspapers can be about presenting certain victims over others.

Trump should troll them as only he can, which will likely elicit Olympic-level gymnastics of equivocation from the Times’ editorial board, among others. And then, when the editors smugly conclude that by an extremely technical definition they were correct—not to mention morally superior—Trump can smirk as he has drawn attention to how far left they are, and how convoluted their reasoning is.

But Trump’s smiles upon “winning” here will fade as he remembers all the irreparably broken hearts he encountered on the campaign trail, those of families wounded by sanctuary city policies. The fact that Kate Steinle’s killer was deported five times and still managed to find his way back to San Francisco—a “sanctuary” for him but certainly not one for her—was an atrocity that enabled Americans to see precisely how perverse American immigration standards and enforcement had become. This is a truth we need to keep hammering home.


Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

11 responses to “Trump Can and Should Troll the Media on Sanctuary Cities”

  1. I agree with all of this, but there is a rider which needs declaring; for not fully understanding your enemies’ motives is like going into a war without a clearly defined objective. It may mean you cannot win.

    The reason why the ‘liberals’, ‘progressives’ and the Left generally fight like wildcats for every wrong kind of development in re Immigration, indeed in public policy generally, is because they are furiously angry at finding themselves in a universe so ordained that all ethical issues come to the pinch, any sentient creature has to take responsibility (ultimately) for his/her choices and actions and to suffer the consequences.

    They detest the true Doctrine of Original Sin, they cannot forgive God for putting Himself and the Cosmos under judgement. So, like Satan, their patron, they express their wrath as a rabid lust for spiritual destruction. They want to see all human beings turn into tenth-rate moral agents cowed by totalitarian rule which imposes penalties of oppression, murder, torture galore on anyone who behaves bravely in the cause of virtue.

    Flooding the USA with Third-World populations is one way of jettisoning all the American good qualities and inaugurating just such a world. Another is imposing Islam. The globe-wide urban guerrilla warfare championed by jihadists is a strategy which worked like a charm for the men of violence in Ireland and led, with the 1999 ‘Agreement’, to those guerrilla warriors’ chief honchos becoming the government in that country’s northern province.

    That is why the Left have so little to say about the status in the Islamic world of people and principles that allegedly they care for; e.g. what happens to women, homosexuals, human rights at large.

    That is why President Trump has had no political honeymoon nor even been given a few weeks’ grace to show what he can do. It is why the opposition to him is frenzied and screaming and right over the top. This present world is the one opportunity the spoiled-children members of mankind have to rave and shriek and run amok; for it is appointed that in Hell, which after all is a place of constrained imprisonment, ‘the wicked shall be silent in darkness’ (1 Samuel, chapter 2).

    President Trump and his team need to realise that they should hunker down for four years of doing continuously everything which undermines the Loony Left and doing it in a besieged White House which essentially ignores the frantic catcalls and simply imposes ultra-tough sane measures on their opponents. I fear that the President was not fully prepared for all that would, that must, happen to him in the event of his winning the election, not least in respect of having a full list of radically Trumpist candidates for every office in government well before Jan. 20th. So some of the enemy seem to be already in or very near the Oval Office.

    Of course Badness does not win in the end; that is what they are frenetically exasperated about. Yet it is up to us how much of a field day it has before the end.

    • The motive indeed is to end Western Civilization through mass migration, both legal and illegal. It was progressing rapidly until Brexit, Trump and the rise of nationalist parties on the European continent. It’s a battle worth fighting.

    • Haha, trying to make a logical point based upon “original sin” is like trying to build a sandcastle without water. Nice try tho.

  2. It’s hard to disagree with the suggestion President Trump should troll sanctuary city officials. What will get their attention, though, is defunding them to the deepest extent possible, and some noisy prosecutions of elected officials. Select some smaller cities and utterly destroy them first. Democrats understand only raw power. It looks like USAG Sessions is ready to take the gloves off in a way they understand.

    • “It looks like USAG Sessions is ready to take the gloves off in a way they understand.”

      Something one must hope and pray for on a daily basis.

  3. If you don’t want to ” live in the shadows ” then kindly return to your country and migrate legally ! Don’t expect to come to the U.S. illegally and get special treatment for breaking the law !

  4. Will someone ask Nancy Pelosi why she voted for a boarder fence/wall in 2006 & now it’s immoral?

  5. “…They recognize that enlisting state and local law enforcement for deportation undermines community trust, local policing and public safety…” Two things: (1) Someone needs to tell the failing NY Times and all the other leftists who raise this point to show us their proof. If they can’t, their argument crumples like an empty suit. (2) Since there is no question but that this “withhold federal money from self-styled ‘sanctuary cities, counties & states'” will wind up in court, the DoJ or some conservative legal group or foundation should ASAP do some verifiable social science / survey research into this question. No doubt, the DoJ is correct on the law, but proof that refutes the opponents’ arguments can’t hurt. It seems to me that poor people living in crime infested neighborhoods should be happy to cooperate (albeit anonymously) to get illegal alien criminals not only out of the neighborhood but out of the country. Likewise, it seems to me local law enforcement (the cops on the beat not their politicized supervisors) would be happy to get illegal alien criminals not only out of the neighborhood that they have to patrol but out of the country. Their responses should also be studied.

  6. Why aren’t these mayors, councilmen and leading progressive citizens of the “sanctuary cities” quartering and feeding these poor souls in their own homes? Hmmm…..some walls okay?

  7. America is stupid enough. We don’t need to import more people with a 4th grade education, at best. illiterate people from 3rd world countries (Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala) will always have their hands out for government ‘help’ because they’re not capable of providing for themselves. I know democrats (socialists) love these potential voters because they will always vote for whoever promises to give them the most. It’s great for them and it completely sucks for everyone else.