Sanctuary City Conflict: Civil War On Horizon

Sanctuary City Conflict: Civil War On Horizon
By Greg Anthony. JD
Feb. 25, 2017
Sanctuary Cities will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, leading to America’s second Civil War.
Most will laugh at that statement for good reason. How can there be a civil war with complacent, WalMart, computer nerd Americans who have no idea even what the word “CAUSE’ means.
Enter Politics 2016. Derisive, inflammatory, downright mean, fighting words.
And it only takes a match to ignite a flame, ignite a city fire that destroyed Chicago. And it only takes a few violent leftists and rightists to create a civil war.
But first, a look at the conflict brewing and then similarities of our first bloody civil conflict.
In the United States, a sanctuary city is a loosely defined term for a city, county or state that welcomes illegal immigrants essentially giving illegals safe harbor from Federal Immigration officials. The designation has no precise legal meaning.
Simply put, sanctuary jurisdictions openly ignore and defy federal immigration laws while at the same time receiving federal funds. If funds are withheld, sanctuary jurisdictions will feel the financial hurt and try to use the courts for relief.
Specifically, local governments in certain cities began designating themselves as sanctuary cities during the 1980s. Some critics say this was a concerted push by Democrats to swell the immigrant voting rolls in their favor.
Other harsher critics said this was the first big push to change the Western Caucasian face of America for a global citizen society.
Looking back, the policy was first initiated in 1979 in Los Angeles to prevent police from inquiring about the immigration status of arrestees.
The internal policy, now adopted in more than 300 local US jurisdictions, states: “Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person. Officers shall not arrest nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code (Illegal Entry).These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances banning city employees and police officers from asking people about their immigration status.
After the murder of a restaurant waitress in New Mexico, in late June 2009 perpetrated by three undocumented immigrants (one of whom was not deported despite being arrested for two prior DUI incidents), then mayoral candidate Richard Berry  decried the city’s sanctuary city policy. He also vowed, if elected, to repeal the policy that had been continued by the incumbent mayor.

Following the shooting death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco (a sanctuary city) by an undocumented immigrant, Hillary Clinton told CNN on 8 July 2015: “The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.”[16]

The following day, her campaign stated: “Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years.”

Clinton of course double speaks on this issue for political reasons while President Trump is firm, vowing to end sanctuary for the protection of US citizens. The question becomes why has the Left denounced Trump while Clinton essentially had the same position?

On January 25 President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Secretary of Homeland Security and Attorney General  to defund sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to comply with federal immigration law.

He also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to begin issuing weekly public reports that include “a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.” Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University, has argued that Trump’s withholding of federal funding would be unconstitutional.

So the battle lines are being drawn with California and New York leading the fight against President Trump. And if recent violent protests erupting all over our country is any indication, it will only get worse.

As of this writing, one in three Californians support the succession movement to leave the Union as the political divide is growing throughout the country

Recently, Jon Miltimore wrote an article looking at the similarities between present day America and what was going on prior to the Civil War.

Below are five causes of the Civil War. To be fair, each of these causes was impacted by the institution of slavery to one degree or another. But each cause also existed apart from the institution of slavery.

1. Sweeping Economic Changes

Southern political insecurity was exacerbated by external economic pressure. Around the globe, more and more countries were ramping up production of raw cotton. While Southerners boasted that “Cotton is King,” their primary export had become steadily less valuable in the decade leading up to the Civil War. Since the South had no financial system to speak of, one bad crop often sent plantation owners to Yankee banks (or London ones). “In effect, the South had all the disadvantages of a one-crop economy,” wrote the historian Paul Johnson. The North, on the other hand, was a burgeoning industrial economy with an elaborate financial sector intent on expansion.

2. The Union Was Rapidly Changing Amidst Political Upheaval

In the decade preceding the conflict, California, Minnesota, Oregon and Kansas all became states. Up until the 1850s, the Union had survived largely through the Missouri Compromise, a Faustian bargain that maintained the political balance between the North and South but did nothing to address the slavery question. The question of how these states were admitted to the Union, and which ones, created tension between the North and South.

It’s easy to lose sight of all the things that happened in the latter half of the 1850s. The Missouri Compromise was killed. The law that replaced it—the Kansas-Nebraska Act—was found unconstitutional (a stunning action at the time). A major political party (the Whigs) abruptly died. Two free states joined the Union (Oregon and Minnesota), while a slave state (Kansas) was initially denied entry. All of these things occurred under Democratic presidents relatively sympathetic to slavery. The prospect of a president opposed to slavery struck fear in the hearts of Southerners. As the nation changed, it seemed to give credence to John C. Calhoun’s warning (made just days before he died) that if the South waited too long to act it would no longer be strong enough to leave the Union (peaceably or not).

3. There Was a Breakdown of Decorum and Civil Discourse

Both North and South burned with righteous anger because both passionately believed in the justice of their cause. This caused not just harsh language, but spasms of violence that racked the nation. One of the earliest instances involved Elijah P. Lovejoy, a printer who was killed in 1837 when his small abolitionist newspaper was attacked by a mob of slave sympathizers. One of the last was John Brown’s deadly failed raid on Harpers Ferry in 1859.

In between these events were numerous other violent events, and lawmakers were not immune. Perhaps the most notorious instance was Congressman Preston Brooks’ attack on Sen. Charles Sumner, who on the Senate floor delivered a speech filled with sexual innuendo that impugned the honor of a kinsman of the South Carolina Congressman. In response, Brooks attacked Sumner in his Senate office with a cane, leaving Sumner in a bleeding heap surrounded by cane shards. (It took two years for Sumner to recover.)

In normal times a violent attack on an old, unarmed man would spark outrage. Instead, as historian Shelby Foote noted, “Southern sympathizers sent Brooks walking sticks by the dozen, recommending their use on other abolitionists…” Brooks, censured by Congress, was later overwhelmingly reelected to his congressional seat.

4. Fundamental Disagreement on Constitutional Principles

Uncertainty as to what the federal government could and could not do began before the ink on the U.S. Constitution was dry. If, how, and to what extent the federal government could limit or abolish slavery loomed over American history.

Lincoln—both before and during the Civil War—said the federal government lacked the power to force emancipation on the states. The Founders had created a system “conceived in liberty”—but one, he admitted, that lacked the power to liberate the enslaved. Radical Republicans disagreed. All constitutional issues aside, the radicals probably were correct that no nation conceived on such lofty principles could indefinitely condone a system that enslaved.

Even before the Constitution was written, Samuel Johnson ironically asked, “How is it that the loudest yelps for liberty come from the drivers of Negroes?” By the 1850s the hypocrisy could no longer be ignored because of the sheer scope of slavery. The Census of 1860 shows there were some 4 million slaves in the South—compared to 78,000 in 1727 and 697,000 in 1790.

The South might have had the Constitution on its side, but history was not. Radical Republicans with increasing frequency came to believe they had a moral duty to abolish slavery, that they were obligated by “a Higher Law than the Constitution.”

5. Different Nations, Different Dreams

The North and the South shared a common history, but they effectively became two nations in the early 19th century. One was an agrarian society reliant on slave labor that exported cash crops; it had little liquid capital, less manufacturing, was debt-dependent, favored low tariffs, and opposed direct taxation. The other was an industrial economy that favored high tariffs (to protect industry), favored direct taxation, had an elaborate financial system, and was eager to expand into the West through homesteading and railroads.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s