Last Thursday, Mayor Setti Warren, Police Chief David MacDonald and City Council President Scott Lennon filed an ordinance to address concerns how police and city officers interact with undocumented immigrants.
One day later, seven city councilors filed a different “sanctuary city” ordinance.
One thing is clear: figuring this out is a test of Mayor Warren’s leadership.
In what way, Tom?
Andy asked the question I was about to ask.
But I’ll add: How would you proceed if you were mayor Tom?
The vote on an ordinance needs to happen ASAP in order to provide a sense of safety for immigrant children and families who live in and drive through Newton. This is not the time. nor the set of circumstances, to turn this into a controversy between and/or among councilors or branches of government.
In my mind, it’s essential to have the Police Chief’s name attached to any ordinance related to this issue. In recent weeks, I’ve expressed the opinion (or agreed with an expressed opinion) to several councilors that the police department needs to be an significant component of this dialogue.
This issue is not about anyone who comments on this topic; it’s not about the players involved in writing the two ordinances. In all fairness to the immigrant children and families whose lives are most affected by the tone and tenor of the dialogue about minorities in our own community and the country, I urge people to refrain from politicizing this issue. It’s unseemly at best and reflects poorly on Newton as a community.
There are people in our community who feel unsafe – with good reason given what’s going on in the country. I know it’s a lot to ask, but for once, could you please focus your attention on the people who need and deserve reassurance from all parts of the community. This is the perfect forum for people to make statements of support for people who feel threatened by what’s going on here and in the country.
Wicked Local is blocking access from the country that I’m traveling in, so unfortunately I can’t read about the differences between the proposed ordinances – but I would like to express my strong support for an effective ordinance that makes all undocumented immigrants feel safe.
I’d actually prefer to see sanctuary legislation enacted at the statewide level so that nobody has to worry about accidentally wandering into some random mean-spirited, underoccupied redneck towns. However, given the cowardice and lack of social responsibility that our governor demonstrates on a near-daily basis at this point, that’s obviously out of the question.
Last night was the last Full Council meeting and at the end of the meeting I made the following statement because I felt it needed to be said before the close of the year because there are so many people in our community that do not feel safe and need to know that we hear their concerns and we will keep them safe.
“As we enter the holidays and close out the year, I want to leave folks (the public) with this message: that Newton is and will continue to be a community that promotes tolerance and celebrates diversity; a community that is inclusive and welcoming and we and our colleagues in government are committed to protecting all of our residents and welcoming all peoples into our community regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, age, disabilities, or gender. Peace, good health and happiness to all.”
I proposed and docketed a similar resolution and had hoped it would have been acted on before the close of the year but no such luck. I’m glad I had an opportunity to make the statement – I just hope enough people heard it.
If you’re an early riser and in the N’ville area, you can express your support by giving a beep or thumbs up to the teachers and staff who’ll be standing out at Tiger Drive and Walnut St. in support of ALL students. From 7:20 until the beginning of the school day,
Great statement, Amy. Promise it will be heard.
@Jane
Unfortunately, the police chief refused to discuss the ordinance directly with us and was reported to have said he was not amenable to making changes. We strongly wish to work will all in the community to strengthen and modify the ordinance so that it protects all of us and sends the right message to the new administration in a time of deep civic stress and risk to due process. We don’t understand why the LA police chief, the NYC police chief and others vigorously support the stronger ordinances we proposed, but our police chief doesn’t.
One of the two most important things a local government is suppose to do is to make residents feel and be safe. If you guys can’t even do that, I’m at a loss of words.
What I don’t understand is why the people who proposed the second ordinance, just propose amendments to the first.
Paul – Newton isn’t LA or NYC. Newton has its own unique demographics, city culture, and immigrant communities and needs adapt the language and approach to an ordinance to what already exists as policy. Making the police chief in a smaller, with various cohesive communities within the larger community is not the way to go.
I know the police department to be responsive to the needs of the community, and deserving of respect. While I don’t have the second ordinance in front of me right now, I do recall being somewhat troubled by the language in it that didn’t appear to be respectful of the current and past efforts of the police department. That’s just my perception and I’ve had no conversations with anyone other than Shawn Fitzgibbons in which I expressed serious concerns that the wording of the second ordinance implied that the police department has not been functioning within a stated policy related to this issue, which I know through my work to be inaccurate. I also know that it wasn’t the Dems intent to offend anyone, but perhaps it would be a good idea to look at the language through other people’s lens.
As for the police chief not meeting with you about amending a policy issue, that seems reasonable to me. It’s opening up a Pandora’s box at a very unsettling time in history. If he meets with the Newton Dems, doesn’t he then have to meet with the Newton Republicans, and other political groups etc., all expecting their particular viewpoint to be reflected in the ordinance?
While I’m a member of the Democratic City Committee, I wasn’t able to attend the meeting where this was discussed and voted on. I have no doubt that people voted with the best of intentions. However, I wonder if there was a representative of the police department at the meeting to explain the current policy that’s been in place for years. It not, and this issue was voted on at a meeting without previous notice that the vote was going to take place, maybe what we have here is a misunderstanding.
The Dems proposed ordinance is not a slam against the NPD. It takes best practice from around the country and makes it Newton’s. It codifies what the NPD does now. The mayor’s ordinance weakened the original proposal, making it more advisory. The problem is that with the changing national administration, we need our local institutions to be stronger in protecting the weakest. It is the job of City Council to create ordinances, and the job to the police to enforce them–the objections of the Chief weren’t that the ordinances were too difficult to enforce, just that he wanted more leeway. Leeway is exactly what the Dem’s ordinance wants to avoid–just in case. The argument about meeting with other groups is a red herring–the Dems were working with the mayor and the council and the chief was invited in. If the Republicans were drafting an ordinance with the mayor, I would expect the Chief to meet with them also. Jane, watch out when you try to make Newton “unique” among cities. That argument is used against any change here
Newton Residents support sanctuary policies BUT not if these poor folks want to actually LIVE in Newton.
Watch how quickly liberal Newton residents complain if a developer wants to build a large low-income rental building tailored towards illegal immigrants in Waban or Newton Center.
Hippocrates – This is just a ‘feel’ good ordinance as long as it does affect their own lives (property values or loss of parking space)
Rex raises an interesting point. The seven councilors who are co-sponsoring the broader sanctuary city language are Susan Albright, Jake Auchincloss, Ted Hess-Mahan, Deb Crossley, Emily Norton, Barbara Brousal-Glaser and Jay Harney. Some on that list have been consistent supporters of projects (like, say, Austin Street or coming soon Washington Place) that would add affordable, rental and transit-oriented options to our housing stock which could be of great benefit to immigrant populations.
Others not so much.
The Mayor, City Councilors and the Police Chief should be commended for taking up this issue so quickly. Their responsiveness is admirable and we all hope they will act quickly following a public discussion to ensure protections for those in our city who can benefit from a TRUST ordinance – immigrants and legal residents alike.
At the NDCC meeting, presenters with expertise in immigration law, including from the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (aka MIRA) strongly felt that a TRUST ordinance should be passed in Newton. Our committee unanimously agreed by vote of the nearly 200 attendees. We will continue to push for an ordinance as has been docketed by Councilor Albright and eight of her colleagues.
This morning, I read this Guardian article which I think exemplifies one the many humanitarian issues at hand:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/21/us-immigration-detention-center-christmas-santa-wish-list
There is also an immigration prison in Massachusetts like the one mentioned in PA in the article.
This is all very interesting, but as with other docket items that seek to fulfill personal goals we are taking away from our elective duty, which is municipal governance for the benefit of the residents of our city. I understand that, just like every election, there are people that are nervous about our national government. Crying about the “sky is falling” due to our orderly change of government detracts from our elected responsibility to do our job. Guess what, this has been happening for 240 years and just as 1/2 the country survived the last administration despite their fears, the 1/2 in fear today will also survive the next 4-8 years.
Just last month many local immigrants felt alienated as members of the council sought to take away their livelihoods and family homes through regulating out equipment necessary to operate their businesses. This month the new goal is to “save” immigrants from our professionally trained and nationally recognized police department.
Do you want to assist the undeserved population? Sitting on inner city boards in Boston, I can find great people facing roles for readers/writers of this blog wherein the energy to protest can be put into positive change for those in need our assistance.
My colleagues in government are reminded that we all took an oath of office to respect and defend the laws of our land against all enemies foreign and domestic, and if you cannot uphold that standard then you have a personal decision to make.
In closing, the members of the police department have this PC baggage that we keep piling on them, when in an operations sense, I fully expect that the police execute their job in accordance with their usual professionalism and enforce the laws they are sworn to enforce.
I think everyone on this list supports affordable housing, they just oppose certain projects. Thats their choice. One shouldn’t support affordable housing just because it’s affordable housing, it has to make sense for the city. What if someone wanted to build affordable housing next door to you in a residential area, would that be ideal?? I’m sure you would oppose that, maybe you wouldn’t.
The TRUST ordinance is designed to benefit all residents of the city. If people who do not have citizenship feel they can access local police for help without fear of deportation, for example to report crimes or accidents, then our whole city is safer.
While the incoming President’s divisive rhetoric has caused some people to look more closely at the role local police play in immigration enforcement, the push for TRUST legislation is not new. As the Mayor and police chief observed in their initial response, the city already informally practices some of what the TRUST ordinance would enact in law.
Additionally, TRUST legislation has been brought forward at the state level many times in recent years, and has been supported by Sen. Creem, Reps. Balser and Khan. Since the State has not moved ahead, there is a chance for Newton to lead. And it should-given the aggressive stance Trump has taken, and the people he is hiring on to his administration, now is certainly the time.
When I used the term “unique”, I was referring to using a generic definition of a policy and applying it to a specific community. Perhaps “specific” would have been a better word.
I’d like to hear more from the police department about their concerns. While the language used in this thread may not come across as negative toward the police chief to some people, some of the posts have an underlying tone that concerns me. Sorry, but it just does, so I’d like to hear the other side of the story.
As I mentioned, I’ve not been involved in this issue in Newton, but the idea that a concept that’s not really a legal term is being turned into an ordinance, then handing it over to another group of people to somehow enforce just seems like a set up for the police. I felt this way well before the Newton Dems meeting.
I’d prefer an ordinance that includes input from and a cooperative effort with several branches of government and the departments who will be responsible for enforcing it. Along with this, it should include a clear “we will resist” statement.
Andreae – Working with immigrant kids and their families is my profession. I have a clear understanding of the needs and concerns of Newton families who don’t feel safe given the current political climate. From my perspective, what’s needed right now is collaboration, compromise, and a steady hand. I urge the city council and the Newton political parties to refrain from turning this into a political battleground.
Let’s also consider the downsides of ‘welcoming’ illegal immigrants:
-If an illegal immigrant is waiting in the emergency room in Boston and the wait is too long, we welcome them to ‘free’ healthcare at Newton at the expense of tax-paying residents. lets crowd our hospitals
– We welcome illegal immigrants to cram as many kids as possible to rent in Newton. We would like to increase the number of children to our already crowded schools
– illegal immigrants who happen to be ‘petty thieves’ (very small percentage of them) will be given the kid-gloves treatment. But we welcome them with open arms, come and break into our nice homes.. you’ll never be deported
– next time you get into a car accident and the other party is an illegal immigrant without insurance. Suck it up, there is no way to get them to pay for the damage
and the Positives? Newton residents get to wear their “I’m not racist badge”, even though Newton has a very diverse population from all around the world (who came here legally).
James and rex,
You make good points, but the “progressives” on this blog can’t handle them. It doesn’t fit their set of stereotypes of either immigrants as a whole or Trump supporters as a whole. Thankfully, most of the political power in this country is no longer in their hands. It will change. The pendulum keeps swinging. But, for a while we will have some needed changes, in spite of the damage Obama is trying to inflict in his last days in office.
If Newton were a perfect paradise, we could certainly look into welcoming illegal immigrants.
Of course, if illegal immigrants (who are law abiding) were being hunted down like dogs, harassed with acts of violence around Massachusetts then Newton should immediately provide them help in any way possible.
There is absolutely no evidence of non-criminal illegal immigrants facing such persecution. Infact Obama was the one who increased deportations in the last 4 to 8 years. Newton should focus on the needs of its residents, I’m confident Newton would do the right thing if this imaginary scenario of ‘hunting illegal immigrants’ were to occur in the state of Massachusetts.
This is, by it’s very nature, a political issue and question. To think otherwise is naive.
I remember when there was an invitation by some to invite someone from GITMO here, there was broad based support for the idea on the BOA. Until, that is, there was a public outcry leading to the overwhelming majority of the Board re-thinking the idea thus avoiding security issues and public embarrassment.
http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/How-to-inflame-the-Jews-of-Newton-Massachusetts
Important to note that this is a different issue and we should always enthusiastically welcome legal immigrants and those in the process of obtaining legal documentation who share our love for peaceful coexistence as a full fledged member of the community. Our Police Dept is sensitive and successful in how they go about their daily duties and we should look to their expertise on safety.
Charlie – you’re last paragraph makes my point. There’s no need to politicize this issue.
Oh, dear. Commenting after 9:00pm again. Correction: “your last paragraph…”
@Greg the vast majority of units in Austin St and the Washington Place development are projected to be $3-4K/month range. Not affordable to most immigrants or native-born alike. It would be great if developers would build housing that normal people could afford but that is not as lucrative.
@Councilor Norton: I’m guessing that folks who can afford market rate apartments would be disappointed to learn that one of Newton’s city councilors doesn’t consider them to be “normal people.”
You might want to consider retracting that statement.
Eastern Massachusetts in general and Newton in specific are facing a severe housing shortage and not just an affordable housing shortage. Immigrants or native-born alike are having trouble finding apartments at any price point.
I agree with Charlie’s last paragraph as well. As a child of legal immigrants who went through a lot to come here (needed a sponsor, had to be deemed healthy etc) I struggle with this issue a bit. It appears that the police are currently treating people with respect and that their current policy is in sync with what people are trying to achieve. Honestly I feel this whole ordinance issue is becoming very political and more about making a statement than anything of substance. Walk the walk don’t just talk the talk. If the police in their actions are connected to all communities in Newton then people in immigrant communities will know they are safe to report crime much more so than if there is an ordinance.
The One Newton “guidelines” are wordy and vague.
Among other things, they state:
“The decision to search, arrest or charge an individual rests on reasonable suspicion of unlawful behavior.”
“The Newton Police Department may detain an individual in cooperation with Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) if the individual was suspected of terrorism activity, of committing a felony, or of posing a safety risk to the public.”
“We urge subsequent city officials to affirm these guidelines.”
In the above quotes, the language used such as “guidelines,” “expectation,” “suspicion,” “suspected,” and “urge to affirm” is problematic. They are “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
In councilors Albright, Auchincloss, Hess-Mahan, Norton, Crossley, Brousal Glaser and Harney’s proposed ordinance there are specific actions named such as “no public city official will request or seek information … ” and “No city official will report to, respond to or cooperate with … except in the case where that person has been convicted of a felony, is on a terrorist watch list, poses a serious substantive threat to public safety, or is compelled to by operation of law except as required by law.”
The Trust Act and its provisions cannot be discussed as an issue independently and on its own merits because it is associated with the opinions of clusters of people that generally share ideological viewpoints.
Immigration itself has been politicized for many years as it pertains to asylum seekers, legal immigration, child citizenship for visiting nationals of other countries and American citizens born to undocumented immigrant families. During the presidential campaign it became even more politicized as it concerns immigrants who entered illegally, their children who have grown up here and those who entered on work, education and tourist visas and continued to live here without going home to obtain an extension. The “clustering effect” of conservatives vs progressives has introduced an extra layer of biases and polarization, and damaged the ability of people to consider and discuss issues in a balanced way.”
With the inauguration approaching, there is no time for long-term debating in the city council. Newton passing Trust Act provisions is not symbolism. It’s protection offered to those who mostly have no choice but to do the most menial jobs for meager pay under the table. They clean our houses, do our landscaping, clean our schools and businesses, work in our restaurants and other businesses and either live here or travel miles to get here. They keep Newton pristine.
They don’t collect social security, they don’t have health benefits or retirement plans and employers can pay them less than minimum wage. They endure whatever we want to them to because who are they going to complain to – the police? If they do anything to get noticed by the law, they fear they could be deported
What we need are sensible immigration laws that offer these people a path to citizenship, a way for them to climb out of perpetual servitude and fear. No hope for that in a Trump administration. So instead we need a Trust Act ordinance passed.
Marti,
What’s wrong with you?
The reason these people have fear is because, like any criminal, they broke some law and they don’t want to get caught.
The people with whom we should sympathize are the low-paid legal workers whose low and minimum wage jobs are being taken by illegals, who work for less.
Marti,
You would be surprised how many ‘legal’ immigrants are working menial jobs or paid under the table. USA accepts and welcomes thousands of legal immigrants annually. Newton should do everything they can to welcome and help these legal immigrants by providing jobs and low income housing.
After we have done as much as possible for these law abiding folks, we can then consider if we have resources to people who decided to ‘jump ahead’ of these fine folks who waited in line and did the right thing.
Barry, it depends on who you ask.
Your statement “The reason these people have fear is because, like any criminal, they broke some law and they don’t want to get caught” is simply incorrect. It’s what we were told to justify the Patriot Act and NSA surveilance, to name a couple. If you’re doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear is used to create a false sense of safety.
It’s precisely the ones you named that will be held with the Trust Act provisions. It is all of the other non-criminal, non-white citizens and immigrants alike who will have to carry proof of who they are, where they are from and their citizenship if they can be randomly or under some unknown suspicion asked their immigration status. When we have neighbors reporting neighbors with vague suspicions, we are doing the totalitarian’s job for them.
It adds work, taken from more important things, and costs money for the members of the police force to follow up on every suspicion if it’s basically because they might not be a citizen. It keeps crimes from being reported.
Greg, what I see in the group of councilors submitting Trust Act provisions, is a common cause that brought them together. That’s a good thing.
@Marti: I’m having trouble reconciling anyone who champions sanctuary city protections while embracing NIMBY housing policies.
Rex, with the manufacturing jobs leaving, I agree that many people are having a hard time making ends meet, immigrants or not. It’s the undocumented worker who makes the lowest pay, does the most menial jobs and can be more easily abused because they have no recourse.
Greg, I understand your point and agree but I’m trying to see that something positive is coming from the alliance. If they can agree on something like this then I’m all for it.
Emily, perhaps if zoning/permitting/approvals on projects didn’t take 3 years in Newton for larger projects, and weren’t subject to major opposition on every turn, there might be more ability to bring lower costs to bear on overall rents. Not easy to do in the current environment in Newton. Witness Austin Street…
And before I forget, just a quick response to Jim Cote’s word salad posting a bit further up. I’m not sure how you link sanctuary city issues with the topic of leafblowers, but you somehow found a way to do that. I still do not see how that is an immigrant issue, as in, landscapers don’t get special status because a portion of them are legal immigrants or sons/daughters of immigrants. So am I. I don’t use that status as an argument to get my way on a purely regulatory matter that doesn’t involve immigration.
Also, Jim states:
“My colleagues in government are reminded that we all took an oath of office to respect and defend the laws of our land against all enemies foreign and domestic, and if you cannot uphold that standard then you have a personal decision to make.
In closing, the members of the police department have this PC baggage that we keep piling on them, when in an operations sense, I fully expect that the police execute their job in accordance with their usual professionalism and enforce the laws they are sworn to enforce.”
Is your insinuation that illegal immigrants are enemies of the state? All illegal immigrants? Pardon my snark, but you might want to check with the landscaper folks you’ve been advocating for, as I believe some of them employ many such folks on a daily basis (I don’t personally have a problem with that, and I also recognize that not every landscaper does that, but based on my conversations with quite a few folks working in my neighborhood, daily laborers are not uncommon during the busy months). Illegal immigrants aren’t causing the downfall of our republic, and in the end from my experience they are nice people trapped in difficult situations. Folks trying to improve their lives by moving to a country better then from where they come. It used to be a few decades ago we welcomed such folks with more open arms. Now we don’t. But if your fellow councilors are concerned about their well-being, isn’t that part of that oath of office you glibly offer up?
Also, from my conversations with police on this issue, the status quo is just fine with them. Are you hearing otherwise? Is this legislation doing much more than putting in writing what is already occurring?
This isn’t really my issue (I confess to ignorance regarding sanctuary cities to some extent), just stopping by to comment on rhetoric. I’ll go back to eating cookies and commenting on random topics that interest me.
Marti,
Your reply to me was so disjointed that I don’t know how to reply.
But in a foreign country legally, I think we wouldn’t be shocked to be asked for a passport or some form of ID in certain situations. I always carry something. Similarly someone here who speaks with an accent, dresses differently, etc., should be prepared to support his status if asked, especially at a time of huge numbers of illegals and the threat of terrorism. I’m not advocating harassment, just civilized behavior.
You would rather risk criminals and terrorists here than set up a legal way to enforce the laws of our country. I consider your ideas dangerous. Like when Ted wanted to bring a Girmo detainee to Newton because he felt guilty.
Really Barry – Then by your books, Timothy McVeigh or Unabomber were not terrorist.
And I suspect you don’t drink coffee at Dunkin Donuts because people there have accent. I think you should also stop shopping at Stop and Shop or Whole Foods or pretty much anywhere – all of those accent speakers are really terrorist.
Seriously – how do you get yourself down to even think this way. I really feel sorry for you.
I personally think the sanctuary city is a utter waste of time that does not solve any problem. It is a good way for politicians to show they actually accomplished something.
But for you, Barry – I have only one piece of advice – Seek some help.
Neil,
I was trying to make a point about what is being expressed by most people here, and you twisted my words. We have plenty of home-grown criminals here.
I’m not advocating stopping everyone on the street and asking for proof of citizenship, but one is not being harassed if say in a traffic stop or something a police officer asks for ID. You know, like a driver’s license.
Then the problem is things like giving driver’s licenses to illegals, like is probably advocated by most here. I’m sure those same people think it’s an intrusion to require ID to vote. Everything they ask for just creates more ways to scam the system rather than live as a citizen participating in a system which one is part of. This is known as the “progressive” ideology. I just don’t happen to like it.
By the way, don’t feel sorry for me. Feel sorry for a country being destroyed by this ideology. Hopefully that is going to change.
Barry, You said, “Similarly someone here who speaks with an accent, dresses differently, etc., should be prepared to support his status if asked, especially at a time of huge numbers of illegals and the threat of terrorism.” I’m hoping someone as educated as you can’t believe this statement. Surely you aren’t that fearful.
You’re saying every US citizen who “dresses differently” (Who decides what that means and differently from whom?) and “speaks with an accent” should be required to carry documents supporting his immigration status.
And yes, I’d “rather risk criminals and terrorists here” than live in a police state. For one they are already here as US citizens born and raised here. For another no one is ever totally safe anywhere and those who believe the government, a gun bearing militia, or anything else can achieve complete safety is already in trouble.
“Immigrants or native-born alike are having trouble finding apartments at any price point.” Really? Would love to see the data that there is a dearth of luxury rental units.
@Councilor Norton: It’s debatable as to whether or not units overlooking the Star Market or Mass Pike should be considered “luxury apartments,” although I’m sure some real estate brokers will position them that way. But the mere fact that developers are anxious to build them should be all the data anyone needs to establish that there’s a market for them.
More importantly, please please tell us that you did not intend to suggest that people who can afford market rate apartments are not “normal people.” I want to believe that’s not what you meant but, you wrote it and it merits clarification.
Oh and one more thing…foreign born persons have legitimate reasons to be worried about Trump Administration immigration or deportation policies regardless of their income level. The conversation here has mainly focused on low income workers but also potentially at risk are families and individuals that could afford to live in a Newton market rate apartment, if only they could find one.
@Greg how would you describe $3-4K/month for rent? I’m guessing they’ll be pretty darn nice, even considered “luxury” by normal people. (THERE I USED IT AGAIN!)
The areas of disagreement between the Mayor and the councilors who docketed the TRUST ordinance are narrow but important.
Among other things, the Mayor’s office wants to maintain discretion to contact ICE when a person is accused–not convicted–of a felony. The TRUST ordinance would limit contact with ICE to persons who have either been convicted of a crime or who threaten public safety. All too often, undocumented immigrants who are accused of a crime are also threatened with deportation, which gives the government undue leverage to obtain a plea bargain or conviction, and could result in the denial of due process. Sadly, too, false accusations against individuals who are involved in marital and child custody disputes can also result in deportation. As a result, persons who may be wrongly accused of a crime may be deported and permanently separated from their families and children. This is cruel and inhumane treatment, regardless of immigration status. That is why I believe Newton should adopt the TRUST ordinance.
By the way, I stand by the resolution Steve Linsky and I docketed to welcome a man who was wrongly detained at Gitmo and released after many years. Two Newton attorneys represented him pro bono to get his release, but because of his situation, it was unsafe for him to return to his own country or almost anywhere else. He should never have been detained there in the first place, and, as a person of faith who was raised a Christian, I thought it was the right thing to do. Even though it did not pass, and was controversial, I still think it was the right thing to do.
In this holiday season, I wish other people of faith could all share the same sentiments. As the Bible says, we should not mistreat foreigners, because we were all once foreigners ourselves. (You can look it up yourselves in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy.)
Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year to all.
Merry Christmas, Ted. Thankfully you didn’t become our mayor.
As usual, progressives refuse to distinguish between illegal immigrants, who are criminals, and legal immigrants, whom we welcome with open arms. Ted believes in anarchy, where everyone lives by his own laws based upon his own personal ideas.
Ted, since you like the Bible, are you aware of the seven Noachide laws by which all societies are required to live? One is to “establish courts/legal system to ensure obedience to the law”. This is something you think is unimportant. However, it’s fundamental to a peaceful society.
@Barry, that is why I am trying to get a law passed that will protect undocumented immigrants.
God loves you too, Barry. I will pray for you.
Wow, Ted.
God loves everyone. Please don’t pray for me. You’d be praying for me to think like the saint you think you are, which is foolish and dangerous.
No, Barry, I only pray for you because it obviously makes you crazy. But, based on some of the things you say, I do think you need God’s love more than most.
There is a difference between laws against deeds that are malum in se, i.e., evil in themselves, such as murder. Other laws are against deeds that are malum prohibitum, i.e., conduct that is wrong only because it is prohibited. To my liberal mind, immigration laws fall into the latter category, while exploiting a person’s immigration status is evil in and of itself.
Peace.
So, Ted, by your definition, abortion should be categorized as “malum in se”, but I’d guess you support unrestricted abortion.
And “malum prohibitum” means laws that should be followed until they can be changed, right? So, illegals are still illegal, and there is federal law about how to deal with them, while sanctuary cities act to interfere with such law.
@Barry, in law, what goes around almost always comes around.
President-Elect Trump has threatened to take away federal funds from Sanctuary Cities. Ironically, Supreme Court decisions written by conservative justices to thwart progressive laws would prevent him from doing so. Time and again, the Supreme Court has ruled that taking away federal funds in order to coerce compliance with federal laws, when it would in effect “put a gun to the head” of state and local governments, is unconstitutional. This constitutional principle was most recently endorsed by Chief Justice Roberts, when he voted to uphold the individual insurance mandate but shot down the Medicaid expansion requirement under Obamacare. Depriving Sanctuary Cities of federal funding would also run afoul of the “anti-comandeering” principle, enshrined in constitutional law by none other than the late Justice Antonin Scalia, in order to strike down the provisions of the Brady Act requiring that states do background checks on gun buyers.
But that might not be the biggest problem for the future POTUS, who may have a serious dilemma with the Emoluments and Treason clauses of the Constitution unless he divests his business interests and puts them in a blind trust, and if he knew Russia was attempting to interfere in US elections as the CIA and FBI have found.
As I say, what goes around, comes around.
Barry and Ted will be performing their act at the Sands in Vegas on New Years Eve. Until then, peace, love and happy holidays to all!
And a Happy Festivus to you, Greg!
For those who support sanctuary cities:
If it were cold and raining outside and a hungry homeless man broke into your house, would call the police?
Would you invite them to stay the night?
This is essentially what illegal immigrants are doing. there are many ways to enter the country legally, we cannot let help everyone in as we don’t have infinite resources.
there are about 1 billion people in Asia who would give anything to be able to live in USA. Should we just let them in?
In my opinion, we should secure the border and give the folks who are already here some way to stay here legally without fear. Deport those who commit crimes or just want to collect free benefits