The mess of the sanctuary city: what really happens when cities choose politically correct policies on...
The mess of the sanctuary city: what really happens when cities choose politically correct policies on security
What is more important: promoting social causes of the left or protecting American lives? The answer is obvious. But unfortunately, some cities in the United States, such as Lawrence, Massachusetts, have chosen politically correct policies on the safety of their residents.
By opting to implement "sanctuary city" policies that prevent the federal government from detaining and deporting illegal immigrants accused or convicted of crimes, these cities have chosen to keep dangerous people in their communities, which in turn helps perpetuate the ongoing opioid epidemic.
Lawrence has been a sanctuary city since 2015, when the municipal council voted in favor of "limiting cooperation with federal authorities seeking illegal immigrants."
Lawrence officials refuse to inform federal authorities when illegal immigrants accused of committing local crimes are arrested, and not even handed over to illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes after serving their sentences. jail.
Earlier this month, the Department of Justice of the United States stopped and accused dozens of people in Lawrence who were accused of being involved in a major drug trafficking and distribution operation. This effort included 35 accusations for "drug crimes, firearms and immigration." One third of the accused are foreign citizens.
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) arrested 11 illegal immigrants, all of whom have previous criminal convictions. Federal law enforcement officials are still looking for almost two dozen other people.
The arrests occur immediately after a growing drug problem in Lawrence, which attorney Andrew E. Lelling of the United States calls "A clearing house for illegal drugs arriving in New Hampshire and Maine through (Interstates) 93 and 495."
As part of the Department of Justice's Safe Neighborhood Initiative, the drug raid seized 20 pounds of fentanyl, an extremely potent drug that Lelling said would be enough to "kill half the state" of Massachusetts.
These accusations reflect a problem overlooked in the war on drugs: the connection between sanctuary cities and illegal immigrants accused or convicted of drug-related crimes.
Lawrence officials decided it would be better to free illegal immigrant offenders and accuse them of returning to the community, where they can commit more crimes, instead of allowing them to be deported to their countries of origin.
Since July 2017, the entire state of Massachusetts has been a so-called "sanctuary" for criminal illegal immigrants seeking refuge from the federal government.
Lawrence was warned about his sanctuary policy in a 2017 letter from the US Department of Justice to his chief of police. Mayor Dan Rivera, incredibly, responded that Lawrence did not "harbor criminals."
President Trump also highlighted Lawrence in a speech in March when he said that "the end of sanctuary cities is crucial to stopping the crisis of drug addiction."
Rivera dismissed the president's criticism, alleging that Trump was "creating boogeymen where we need solutions." The numerous federal arrests of the "boogeymen" that included illegal immigrants with previous criminal convictions that brought one of the most dangerous illegal drugs to shows in the city of Rivera. What's wrong with the mayor?
Adopting sanctuary policies makes cities like Lawrence less effective in dealing with the opioid crisis. As Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies correctly signaled at a February hearing before the US House Judiciary Committee. In the US, "federal agencies have unique immigration authorities that can be particularly effective in addressing the problem of opioid trafficking."
Vaughan added that "the prospect of expulsion, while not a true punishment compared to a prison sentence, can be a powerful incentive for criminal foreigners to cooperate with the authorities."
The holy cities, Vaughn said, are "allowing some of the criminals who distribute opioids to remain in the communities, where, like American citizens, they often reoffend."
In recent years, Massachusetts has seen drug overdose registry. Fentanyl, reportedly the drug of choice for defendants in the most recent sweep, has been present in toxicology reports for 89 percent of opioid-related deaths so far this year. While most of those who risked taking fentanyl drugs used to be heroin users, it is now a risk for users of other illicit drugs, due to the increase of cocaine with fentanyl.
In his testimony, Vaughan said that the US Drug Enforcement Administration. UU He reported that "approximately 80 percent of the illegal opioids sold in this country are brought by foreign criminal organizations, mainly drug cartels based in Mexico."
The link between sanctuary policies and the current opioid crisis, according to ICE, is quite extensive.
In a report released last summer, ICE determined that Massachusetts sanctuary policies "often result in the release of potentially dangerous criminal aliens into the community because ICE agents are not notified of pending releases of custody of the state". This includes "innumerable extractable foreigners (who have been arrested for contributing to the opioid epidemic in Massachusetts, primarily for trafficking and distribution of Class A drugs," including "heroin and fentanyl."
The report also says that these "foreigners are routinely released on bail from local jails," and federal authorities "are not notified about the release."
According to ICE, this lack of cooperation from Massachusetts authorities (which would include Lawrence) "has contributed significantly to the continued distribution of dangerous drugs."
To illustrate this point, the ICE report gives examples of the imprudent obstacles facing the agency. In January, ICE issued arrests for two illegal immigrants arrested in Worcester, Massachusetts, for "possession with intent to distribute Class A and Class B (Heroin and Cocaine)." Due to the policy of the city sanctuary, none of the arrests was respected. Illegal immigrants were released by local authorities and "remain at liberty."
In Lawrence, the report details an illegal immigrant from Guatemala arrested for armed robbery. But, thanks to Mayor Rivera's sanctuary policy, the city ignored ICE's detention of the illegal immigrant and freed him. The man accused of armed robbery "remains at liberty".
So, what would you prefer? Do you want your city to implement a refugee policy that frees illegal immigrants who are criminals and accused criminal aliens of returning to their neighborhood? Or do you favor cooperation with the federal authorities so that, when you arrest such dangerous people or are about to be released after serving a prison sentence, they can be picked up and deported?
One of these policies endangers public safety. The other will help make our neighborhoods safer and help curb the flow of illegal drugs that are poisoning and killing an unprecedented number of Americans.
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script',
'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');
fbq('init', '369524843414444');
fbq('track', 'PageView');
.
SOURCE LINK ERESVIRAL.COM https://www.beviral.online
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario