Opinion

Sanctuary Cities: Killing For The Common Good

When you take your literacy for granted, you tend to forget the consequences facing those who are illiterate.

Cultures that do not share a common language are barren to social development.  They tend to feature elevated crime rates that produce an undue strain upon the resources of their surrounding community.

That is why it is critical to understand that when it comes to the concept of sanctuary cities, America is completely illiterate.  The term simply does not mean what we think it means.

The Washington Times reports that there are nearly 500 sanctuary cities in the United States.  According to the cultural narrative, sanctuary cities are jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with the federal government when it comes to enforcing immigration law.  The underlying philosophy of these cities can be summed up on one sentence:  there is no such thing as an illegal person.

Earlier this week, the city council of sanctuary city Denver, Colorado unanimously passed a measure affirming that city officials will ignore requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the federal agency tasked with protecting our national security.  Denver Mayor Michael Hancock issued a statement explaining that his city “(stands) with the immigrant and refugee communities and (is) committed to remaining a city that is safe and welcoming for all.”

The move comes just one month after the Trump administration announced a new policy that will begin withholding a small portion of federal grants from so-called “sanctuary cities” who refuse to cooperate with national immigration agents.

Hancock is not the first mayor to balk at the president.  Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced plans to sue the Trump administration earlier this month in response to the policy shift.

Assuming the moral high ground in what he contends is an ongoing struggle to uphold the virtues of diversity, tolerance, and inclusion, Emanuel explained that “Chicago will not let (their) residents have their fundamental rights isolated and violated…and Chicago will never relinquish (their) status as a welcoming city.”

It is all too easy to get caught up in the theatrics of productions such as these, but if we accept the premise of a “sanctuary city” according to its assumed definition, we have already lost the battle.

A sanctuary city provides anything but sanctuary for human life.  It doesn’t even have anything to do with human life.

What it pertains to are human ideas.  To be more specific, a sanctuary city provides refuge for one simple belief — human beings have progressed beyond the need for the rule of law. And that belief represents the ripened fruit from a tree that rejects the idea of the fallen nature of man.

Think this is a little extreme?  Let’s consult, then, with a couple of the leaders of the sanctuary movement.

Robert Greenwald is the Founder and President of Brave New Films, a film studio specializing in the distribution of content with the larger goal of educating and mobilizing people for the advancement of progressive causes.  Angel Padilla is the Policy Director for The Indivisible Project, a grassroots organization intent on influencing policies for the betterment of progressive causes.

In a joint piece carried by the Huffington Post in May of 2017, these two individuals explained that “sanctuary tactics are the backbone of a civil resistance strategy,” and when used effectively, they can empower citizens to overthrow the entire government.

These aren’t my words.  Read the article!  The editorial was entitled Not Just Cities:  We Can Become a Sanctuary Nation.

You see, the entire purpose of a sanctuary city is the destruction of a civil society.  Therefore, a sanctuary city can only be accurately defined as a city run by a group of elected officials who publicly shame law-abiding citizens for challenging their decision to abandon the rule of law.

As confessed by the Huffington Post editorialists, this strategy is intentional. By refusing to enforce federal immigration law, sanctuary cities effectively function as beacons that attract the most malicious members of society.  Again, these cities are on public record that they refuse to enforce the law.  This is basic cause-and-effect.

The most notorious case in recent memory comes courtesy of the foremost sanctuary city in the country:  San Francisco, California.

Kate Steinle was a 32-year-old American citizen who was fatally shot in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant with seven prior felony convictions.  Prior to this homicide, the would-be murderer had previously been deported five times from the United States only to receive a cordial invite to return to the city time and again.

What did San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee say less than two years after this incident?  When threatened by the Trump administration’s withholding of federal funds, Lee explained that “we are going to remain a sanctuary city precisely because the purpose is to keep everybody safe.”

You may scoff at his response, but if you understand the central processing unit that is his human mind, this is not a lie.  Mayor Lee fully believes that intellectual safety trumps physical safety, and his commitment is to first and foremost protect the safety of the progressive experiment.  This experiment is, above all else, an idea.

Sanctuary cities preserve and defend the notion that human nature can gradually be perfected when shaped within the confines of a progressive system of governance.  The “moving forward” slogan of progressivism is ideologically built upon the belief that man can deliver society into a utopian living experience.

Utopian societies, by definition, have no need for a legal framework.

Since our current system of law and order is built upon the belief in the fallen nature of man, Lee must champion its upheaval and overthrow for the common good.  If Kate Steinle had to pay for this promise with her life, then that is a small price to pay to accomplish the greater good of shepherding all of humanity into a man-made Garden of Eden.

When San Francisco Mayor Lee, Denver Mayor Hancock, or Chicago Mayor Emanuel remark that their respective jurisdictions will remain sanctuary cities for “safety reasons,” they are explaining that they will never stop protecting failed human ideas, even if they come at the observable expense of human lives.

While they are all too eager to consider themselves leaders of “sanctuary cities,” they fail to see that they are only safeguarding a completely broken human philosophy.  If man is indeed fundamentally flawed, it can never be possible to perfect the human experience.  Thus, these mayors are not spearheading a cultural war for inclusivity.  They are waging a war against basic human nature.

If we continue to cede ground by allowing this misnomer to endure, we had better get used to the gradual upheaval of order, civility, and stability in our culture.  These are not sanctuary cities; they are beacons of lawlessness.

Exercise your critical thinking skills.  How can people take sanctuary through the pursuit of anarchy?

Michael Abbott is a Christian philosopher, author, and apologist. His articles have appeared on World Net Daily, The Christian Post, and The New Americana. His first book, “Entitled to Slavery: A Blueprint for Breaking the Chains that Threaten American Exceptionalism,” is published by WND Books.  Interact with Michael on Facebook @AbbottSpeaks, subscribe to the AbbottSpeaks weekly podcast, or visit www.AbbottSpeaks.com.