Immigration sanctuary idea goes nowhere [San Antonio, Texas]

At least one city leader thinks so, and she'd like her colleagues to back a proposal calling for the city to provide migrants shelter from federal policies meant to boot them out of the country.

Patti Radle, a councilwoman representing District 5 on the West Side, a traditional destination for immigrants, pushed for passage of a resolution denouncing federal legislation clamping down on undocumented migrants and calling for local police to not double as immigration agents.

But Radle was not able to round up a majority of the 11-member council to get the resolution on Thursday's agenda.

"I'm the granddaughter of an immigrant, and these actions (federal laws and policies) speak against the very root of who we are in San Antonio," Radle said. "They are a direct threat to our constituents, whether they're here legally or not."

The touchy idea grew more controversial after being linked to the concept of San Antonio being a "sanctuary" or "safe haven" city, meaning it would symbolically open its arms to undocumented immigrants and instruct city employees to steer clear of questioning or investigating peoples' immigration status.

Dozens of cities across the country have enacted sanctuary resolutions since the 1980s, but the number of signatories is unknown.

Large cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles passed resolutions last year. In Texas, El Paso passed one last month. Austin adopted a measure in 1997, declaring the city a "safety zone" for immigrants.

The language and tone of most of these symbolic texts — they have no legal bearing because immigration is a federal matter — are similar, particularly those approved this year that target a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in December.

That measure, which will need to be reconciled with a Senate version before landing on President Bush's desk for final approval, calls for, among other points, making crossing the border illegally a felony and penalizing advocacy groups that aid immigrants.

Such criminally oriented changes in immigration law are what prompted Radle to seek her resolution, an effort that immigrant advocates wanted to see extended to include designating San Antonio as a sanctuary city.

"Our city cannot stay silent while we allow immigration (agents) to run rampant," said Jaime Martínez, a longtime civil rights activist who belongs to several local organizations. "We're going to keep going to every council meeting until we get a statement of support."

The move may not pay off, judging from the dearth of support Radle received from her colleagues — only one other council member signed the resolution.

The opposition has a unanimous argument: The City Council is already swamped with work and shouldn't waste taxpayers' time debating matters that have nothing to do with their job description.

Several council members said they personally agree with Radle's politics, but countered that they're against using their jobs as a conduit to espouse personal political views.

"Quite frankly, I applaud Patti's desires and values," said Councilman Kevin Wolff. "But she's mixing business with pleasure."

Councilman Chip Haas offered a solution: Instead of lobbying the council, Radle should pressure her congressman to change immigration laws.

San Antonio is not a sanctuary city, and its leadership has never forbidden city employees, formally or informally, from asking people about their immigration status; nor have workers been told to reject cooperating with federal immigration agents, said J.J. Saulino, a spokesman for the mayor.

"My position is that there's no room for police to enforce immigration laws," said Chief William McManus. "Local police should be concerned with local issues."

McManus' top concern is not letting the immigration issue interfere with the goal of staying close to the community — if people are afraid that by calling police they'll get deported, undocumented immigrants won't report crimes or assist with investigations.

Sometimes officers don't have a choice but to call immigration agents, he said, such as a typical smuggling case in which the driver bails out of a van, leaving behind many people crammed in the back.

Federal immigration agents in San Antonio said they've always had an effective, albeit informal, collaboration agreement with San Antonio police.

"We help them and they help us," said Mike Barón, in charge of the city's Border Patrol station. "Basic professionalism between law enforcement brothers, that's all it is. We'd like to keep it that way."

Although it looks unlikely that San Antonio will join the ranks of sanctuary cities, Radle said she is not quite ready to give up the fight — just the method.

Putting the resolution idea on hiatus, she seems to have heeded Haas' advice: She'll soon send a letter to Texas' congressional delegation, asking them to back immigrant-friendly laws.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If they are illegal, they can't vote, and are not your constitutes you ninny. (And she is a ninny, IIRC from living in San Antonio, on the far West side, and working adjacent to what's generally considered the "West Side")

There is another little difficulty.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Constitution for the United States, Article VI.

As far as I'm concerned, all these city and state officials who refuse to enforce US immigration law are in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and should be removed from office and punished the same, sans deportation, as those violating the laws would be.

There is a border between right and wrong, for instance, but that is a hard one for some people to see. They say there is no border, but what they really mean is that they feel free to cross between right and wrong as they see fit and don’t want anyone to tell them to “get back to where you once belonged,” as the Beatles told Jojo.

There is a border between you and the rest of the world, too. It’s called skin, and it holds you in. Most people find it to be modestly (or immodestly, according to taste) useful and prefer not to see it breached. When stuff on the inside crosses that border, it is called bleeding. When stuff on the outside crosses the border, it is called being shot or stabbed. In either case, you should rush yourself to a hospital.

There is a border between the inside of a jet plane and the outside. It comes in particularly handy at 32,000 feet. Breaching is not recommended at any speed. There is a border between the United States and Mexico, too — oh wait, that’s not a border; it’s a joke. In fact, the thing between Mexico and the United States is more accurately referred to as the world’s largest unguarded port of entry.

That was established once and for all last week when a million or more illegal immigrants from Mexico and a few other countries rallied in the United States of America for their God-given right to American citizenship. Say huh? When did American citizenship become a human right? Oh that’s an easy one — it happened when we decided not to enforce our border security. You can’t expect to have anything precious left in your treasury when you throw open the doors, send the guards home and invite passers-by in to spend the night. At that point, what’s yours is theirs, and not much you can do about it unless you have mastered the magic trick of closing the barn door once the horse is gone.

What is astounding is not that the passers-by want to take your precious pearl of citizenship with them. What is astounding is that so many Americans don’t mind being robbed — apparently on the theory that we are all God’s children, or maybe just because we are the softest touches on the planet. “What’s yours is yours, and what’s mine is yours, too.”

I suppose at this point I could simply go off on a rant. How dare they! What is wrong with those idiots in Washington! Build the wall! Call in the national guard! Send the employers who are hiring illegal workers to jail! Then let’s see how long the illegal immigration problem remains.

But why bother? Everyone who is concerned about the future of the United States of America already knows what needs to be done, and everyone who likes the idea of amnesty for illegal aliens has already sold out the country anyway. Globalization good for America? Yeah, I suppose so — if we aspire to be an outlying province of China. Hitler had a globalization program, too. It was called Deutschland Uber Alles, which roughly translated from the German means, “It’s my world, you can cry if you want to.”

But there’s no use crying over spilt milk is what we are told.

So we had better stop worrying about the good old days when “the common welfare” stopped at the border. That is passe. Nowadays, Americans have a responsibility to share everything with the rest of the world. First we give them our jobs, then we give them our standard of living, and when we have nothing else left to give, we just give up.

It reminds me of the story in the Bible of Jacob and Esau. The elder brother Esau was a mighty hunter, but one day when he was hungry he sold his birthright to his brother for “a mess of pottage” — a bowl of lentils.

That’s kind of the position we are in, too. The immigrants are telling us they have something we want — cheap labor — and if we don’t want big problems, we had better give them what they want: our birthright of citizenship. Esau decided he didn’t want to be troubled with finding a solution to his problem of hunger, so he gave away everything for next to nothing. “Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?” So he took the easy way out, but he had a lifetime to regret it.

You hear the same kind of thinking in this country. People have surrendered to the problem of illegal immigration. “What can we do?” people ask plaintively. “Send them all back?” Well, no, probably not, but if we make sure they can’t get jobs or government services, they will probably tend to migrate in the opposite direction on their own. That’s one of the nice things about an open border. It works both ways.

But let’s be realistic. There is almost no chance our government will take any action at all. Like Esau, our president and legislators are “faint.” They will take the bread and lentils and rise up and go their way, having given away everything for next to nothing.

So we had better start to assess what we have left and make plans to live in the new world without borders. There are some advantages, after all. It would eliminate the need for passports, for one thing. No need to get the paperwork stamped anymore since you are a “citizen” as soon as you cross the former invisible line that was a border. (By the way, does an invisible line become visible when it becomes former?)

But really, what are you a citizen of anyway? I mean since there are no borders anymore, then we don’t really have countries anymore, do we? It’s all just one big happy family where you do your thing and I do mine.

But how exactly does anything get done when there are no governments? Or is there just one big government for all of us? And if the majority of the world’s population lives under some sort of dictatorship already, then won’t the populations that favor dictatorship persuade the rest of us — like the Borg in “Star Trek” — that “resistance is futile.” Isn’t it inevitable that one-world government will eventually go the way of all governments and become uncaring, corrupt and deadly? And when the one-world government goes bad in a world where there are no borders, where exactly do we go for help?

Borders? We don’t need no stinking borders! Just buy your ticket to the dark ages and hold on. It’s a helluva ride.

San Antonio City Charter

ARTICLE XII.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 138. Oath of office.

Every person elected or appointed to office in the city, shall, before entering upon the duties of his office, take and subscribe the official oath prescribed by the state constitution and shall give such bond and security for the faithful discharge of his duties as may be required by ordinance.

Sec. 159. Loyalty oath.

Before entering upon the duties of his or her office or employment, every officer and employee of the city shall swear or affirm to the following:

"I ________(Name of officer or employee)________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member or affiliate of any organization, group or combination of persons that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States of America by force or violence; and that during the tenure of my office or employment under the City of San Antonio, Texas, I will not advocate nor become a member or an affiliate of any organization, group or combination of persons that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States of America by force or violence." The foregoing oath shall be sworn to or affirmed before a person qualified to administer oaths or affirmations, and shall be attested to by such person. Any person who shall be found guilty, in a public hearing held thereon by the council, of having falsely taken such oath shall immediately forfeit his or her office or employment under the city, and, upon conviction of such offense in any court having jurisdiction, may be punished as provided by the general laws of this state.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.