Sanctuary Cities: A Call To Action

Cross posted by request from Beth from Wake up America

Okies folks, we made ourselves into pesky little critters regarding the immigration reform idiocy and we WON. We were heard and we beat those trying to offer amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants, into the ground.

WELL, related topic here and we are going to need to massively, as one again, nail our representatives while they are home on break. Emailing, faxing, calling and sending snail mail letters, every day, every night, let them wake up and hear us and go to bed praying they won't have to again tomorrow.

I am posting two things I did, one last night and one today. They should both arm us with the ammunition needed to POUND OUR REPS.

Topic: Sanctuary Cities and make sure to click the link to the list to them and see how freaking LARGE it is.

LINK TO LIST.

Sanctuary Cities and Our Republican Candidates.

Tell Me Why The Had To Die.

Lets force them to start doing their jobs for us.

We were heard once and we can be heard again.

To contact your Senators, click here.

To Contact Your Congressmen, click here.

Tomorrow is the start of a new day and the start of a not-so-new fight.

Lets bring it to them and demand that they do the right thing.

Thank you

Sphere: Related Content

"Tell Me Why They Had To Die."

Cross posted by request, from Beth, from Wake up America

The funeral for Iofemi Hightower, Dashon Harvey and Terrance Aeriel is over, but the questions remain.

Those that are mourning those three students that were lined up against a wall and shot in the head, executed, are asking why?

From the OC Register:

At the funeral of Iofemi Hightower, her classmate Mecca Ali wore a T-shirt with the slogan: "Tell Me Why They Had To Die."

"They" are Miss Hightower, Dashon Harvey and Terrance Aeriel, three young citizens of Newark, New Jersey, lined up against a schoolyard wall, forced to kneel and then shot in the head.

Miss Ali poses an interesting question. No one can say why they "had" to die, but it ought to be possible to advance theories as to what factors make violent death in Newark a more-likely proposition than it should be. That's usually what happens when lurid cases make national headlines: When Matthew Shepard was beaten and hung on a fence in Wyoming, Frank Rich wrote in the New York Times that it was merely the latest stage in a "war" against homosexuals loosed by the forces of intolerance. Mr. Shepard's murder was dramatized in plays and movies and innumerable songs by Melissa Etheridge, Elton John, Peter, Paul and Mary, etc. The fact that this vile crucifixion was a grisly one-off and that American gays have never been less at risk from getting bashed did not deter pundits and politicians and lobby groups galore from arguing that this freak case demonstrated the need for special legislation.

By contrast, there's been a succession of prominent stories with one common feature that the very same pundits, politicians and lobby groups have a curious reluctance to go anywhere near. In a New York Times report headlined "Sorrow And Anger As Newark Buries Slain Youth," the limpidly tasteful Times prose prioritized "sorrow" over "anger," and offered only the following reference to the perpetrators: "The authorities have said robbery appeared to be the motive. Three suspects – two 15-year-olds and a 28-year-old construction worker from Peru – have been arrested."

So, this Peruvian guy was here on a green card? Or did he apply for a temporary construction-work visa from the U.S. Embassy in Lima?

Not exactly. Jose Carranza is an "undocumented" immigrant. His criminal career did not begin with the triple murder he's alleged to have committed, nor with the barroom assault from earlier this year, nor with the 31 counts of aggravated sexual assault relating to the rape of a 5-year-old child, for which Mr. Carranza had been released on bail. (His $50,000 bail on the assault charge and $150,000 bail on the child-rape charges have now been revoked.) No, Mr. Carranza's criminal career in the United States began when he decided to live in this country unlawfully.

Jose Carranza isn't exactly a member of an exclusive club. Violent crime committed by fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community is now a routine feature of American life. But who cares? In 2002, as the "Washington Sniper" piled up his body count, "experts" lined up to tell the media that he was most likely an "angry white male," a "macho hunter" or an "icy loner." When the icy loner turned out to be a black Muslim named Muhammad accompanied by an illegal immigrant from Jamaica, the only angry white males around were the lads in America's newsrooms who were noticeably reluctant to abandon their thesis: Early editions of the New York Times speculated that Muhammad and John Lee Malvo were being sought for "possible ties to 'skinhead militia' groups," which seemed a somewhat improbable alliance given the size of Mr. Muhammad's hair in the only available mug shot. As for his illegal sidekick, Malvo was detained and released by the INS in breach of their own procedures.

[...]

Tell Me Why They Had To Die"? Hard to answer. But tell me why, no matter how many Jose Carranzas it spawns, the nationwide undocumented-immigration protection program erected by this country's political class remains untouchable and ever-expanding.

Read the whole thing....The title of the piece asks another great question "Speaking of sanctuary, where's ours?"

Yesterday we linked to a site that has a list of the Sanctuary cities across America.

Take a good look at that list and notice a couple of things.

#1. How large that list is.
#2. That Newark, NJ. was added to that list on 6/3/07.

If you find your city on that list, you need to call, fax and email your representatives and insist that all funding be stopped until it is no longer a sanctuary for criminals to hide in.

Yes, they are criminals, even those that are not our robbing or killing they are criminals because they are here ILLEGALLY.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters nationwide favor cutting off federal funds for “sanctuary cities” that offer protection to illegal immigrants, according to Rasmussen and it is a problem just as illegal immigration and illegal immigrants themselves are a problem.

They have broken our laws and if they cannot show the respect to come here and stay here in a legal fashion...then guess what? WE DON'T WANT THEM HERE.

Power Line shows us, via Wapo, there were three more arrests made today in relation to the Newark murders, go read that also. (More on that from Michelle Malkin, A Blog For All and Daily Pundit.)

The anger felt by those that were there to mourn the three students is echoed by the writer of the OC Registers piece and echoed by the majority of Americans.

Tell us why they had to die?

Tell us why sanctuary cities have not had funding already cut off?

Tell us why, despite all the promises made, this problem is getting worse and not better?

Tell us why our border is not secured yet?

Tell us why we are not shipping anybody and everybody, that is not here in a legal manner, right back home again?

Last but not least, tell me why I, as an American, do not have the right to MY sanctuary called the United States of America?

Related posts:

Why are we not hearing about this?
Newark Executions Update
Sanctuary Cities and Our Republican Candidates

Others discussing this: (Via memeorandum)
Bookworm Room, BizzyBlog, Blue Crab Boulevard and Daily Pundit

Sphere: Related Content

Sanctuary Cities and Our Republican Candidates

Cross posted by request from Beth, from Wake up America

[Update Below regarding the Newark, NJ. students that were executed]

One of the key advantages going into the 2008 elections that the Republican contenders will have, is their stance on illegal immigration as opposed to the those that are favored to win the democratic nomination for presidency.

By and large, the majority of the Republican candidates are firm on illegal immigration, enforcing our laws and securing our borders and that stance is more generally popular with the voting public as this latest Rasmussen poll is showing.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters nationwide favor cutting off federal funds for “sanctuary cities” that offer protection to illegal immigrants. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 29% are opposed. Republican Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney proposed such a plan earlier this week.

By a 71% to 16% margin, voters also favor a proposal that would require all foreign visitors to carry a universal identification card as proposed by another GOP Presidential hopeful, Rudy Giuliani. Seventy-four percent (74%) also favor the creation and funding of a central database to track all foreign visitors in the United States.

By a 56% to 31% margin, voters want the government to continue building a fence along the Mexican border.

You can read Fred Thompson's opinion about sanctuary cities over at Townhall.

If you listen to folks who oppose immigration and border enforcement, you get the feeling they think we put locks on our doors to keep everybody out. The truth is we have locks so we can choose who comes in.

An example of what happens when we don’t make the choice took place August 4th when three Newark, New Jersey, college students with great promise were executed, gangland style. The killers’ ringleader was apparently an illegal alien indicted twice in 2007 for felonies, including the rape of a kindergarten-aged girl.

Why would such a person be set free instead of being handed over to authorities for deportation? The answer is that Newark is a “sanctuary city” which bans cooperation between local officials and federal immigration officials. More than 60 sanctuary zones, including 30 of America’s largest cities, provide a national networked haven for foreign and organized criminals who recruit and operate outside those areas as well. These sanctuaries include Cambridge, Massachusetts; Los Angeles, California; Detroit, Michigan; Chicago, Illinois; Austin and Houston, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and New York City.

The consequences of “sanctuary cities” may be most obvious in the city that became the first in 1979 — Los Angeles. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, a confidential California Department of Justice study from the mid-1990’s showed then that at least 60 percent of the members of L.A.’s most violent gangs, with membership in the tens of thousands, were illegal aliens. Of all outstanding murder warrants in Los Angeles, 95 percent are for illegal aliens. Frustrated police say they are powerless to pick up even well-known, previously deported felons.

Read the rest...

Now, in case you do not realize how widespread the problem of sanctuary cities truly is, then take a look at a list of sanctuary cities across our country. (List updated 8/14/07)

Back to the Rasmussen poll:

A quick look at the opinions of Republican voters makes it easy to understand why Romney and Giuliani are so eager to engage on this issue. Seventy-three percent (73%) of GOP voters favor cutting off funds for sanctuary cities and 75% want the government to keep building the border fence. Eighty-one percent (81%) favor a universal identification card for foreign visitors and 88% of the GOP faithful support a central database to track all foreign visitors.

All cities that provide sanctuary to illegal aliens and those that are breaking our laws by being here illegally should have all funding for that city cut off, until they start abiding by the laws of our country.

No exceptions.

The Republican candidates should and will take advantage of this issue. The general public stood up, loud and clear during the immigration reform debacle and we soundly defeated it, showing that on this issue, the public holds more regard for those that will enforce our standing laws, build the fence, secure our borders and cut funding for sanctuary cities.

This is a major advantage fr the GOP party for 2008 and they should all make their positions clear and make sure to point out where Hillary Clinton, the favored democratic candidate for president, stands on this very issue. ( She voted FOR the immigration reform policy that would have granted amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants)

They should point it out loudly and on a consistent basis, in case she, once again, changes her mind with the polls.

[Update] After reading this, if you do not agree, perhaps you should go try to answer those mourning the three students from Newark, NJ who were lined up against a wall, forced to kneel and executed with a shot to the brain, when those mourners ask "Why Did They Have To Die"?

Sphere: Related Content