I want the U.S. to Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans
On July 1, 2015, 32-year-old Kathryn “Kate” Steinle was shot and killed by illegal immigrant Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez in San Francisco, California. Juan had already been deported five times, had an outstanding felony warrant, and shot Kate with a gun stolen from a Bureau of Land Management ranger — a story which plays havoc with so many liberal narratives, I don’t even know where to start.
Gun control legislation would not have prevented this man from shooting a woman in the back at one of the city’s most popular tourist destinations. Lenient immigration policies for illegal immigrants allowed not only for Juan’s release, but also his presence on the pier that night with a stolen weapon. Here is the perfect example of a convicted felon that has been repeatedly caught and deported, not exactly ideal amnesty material.
Today, almost four months after Kate’s death, the United States Senate is set to vote on the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act (S. 2146).
What does the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act Do?
Under this act, any city that does not remove its sanctuary policies, after being notified by the DHS of noncompliance, will lose federal funding. The federal programs that will have funding cut include the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) and the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG program). The act also includes “Kate’s Law,” which states that the re-entry of an illegal alien can incur penalties including fines and/or jail time of up to 5 years and that individuals who were “convicted…of three or more misdemeanors involving drugs, crimes against the person, or both, or a felony” will be fined and/or jailed for up to 10 years.
SCAAP reimburses states and municipal governments for the costs associated with incarcerating illegal immigrants. Funding for SCAAP has varied widely from $400 million annually for FY2006-2009 to almost half that amount in recent years. JAG Program “is the leading source of federal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions” and it “provides states, tribes, and local governments with critical funding necessary to support a range of program areas including law enforcement, prosecution, indigent defense, courts, crime prevention and education, corrections and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, planning, evaluation, technology improvement, and crime victim and witness initiatives.”
Will It Change Anything?
It appears the answer to this question is probably “no.” In San Francisco, the infamous sanctuary city where Kate Steinle was murdered, funding from SCAAP and the other programs listed actually make up only a small percentage of the budget. San Francisco received $167,000 from SCAAP in FY2014 out of its approximately $180 million budget for the city Sheriff’s office. That is .09% of the budget. The JAG program awarded San Francisco $458,753. The city planned to use the award to “pay personnel and fringe benefits for selected staffing working to reduce crime and violence.”
It is clear from these numbers that, at least for cities like San Francisco, the funding isn’t enough to put much of a squeeze on the local leaders. In fact San Francisco Mayor, Edwin M. Lee, defended the sanctuary policy as necessary for law and order in the city:
“Our city’s policy helps immigrant and limited-English speaking communities where sometimes people fear and mistrust the criminal justice system. We want people to report crimes, we want children of undocumented immigrants to attend school, and we want families to get access to much needed social services without fear of their city government reporting them to Federal authorities.”
I am glad that Sanctuary Cities are now being addressed and applaud the senators who have put forward this act, as well as the representatives who passed similar legislation in the house this summer. However, as needed as steps like this are, this bill will likely not entice die-hard sanctuary cities like San Francisco. If the cities aren’t willing to change their policies, provisions like Kate’s Law will do little good because the illegal immigrants will not be in custody to be fined or imprisoned.
I hope that this act is passed in the senate, but I don’t think this small step will be enough. I encourage our legislature to keep going with conservative immigration reform. We have a problem in the United States with illegal immigration and with how we have been responding to it. Illegal immigrants should not be a protected class of people. Illegal immigrants should not receive benefits as if they are U.S. citizens. Treat them with compassion, help them as needed while they are in our care, but send them home, whether they are convicted felons or not. With every right given them, my citizenship means less. As an American citizen who prizes her citizenship this disturbs me on a fundamental level; why should I pay and participate in a system if anyone can benefit from it?
If illegal immigrants want the perks, opportunities and education available here, they should go through official channels instead of breaking the law and undermining my own status as a citizen of the United States.
Image courtesy of Quotationof.com
