>
Who are the Lawbreakers?
Your comments about this column are welcome ~ e-mail Frank at
The Spectator
founded 2004 by ron cruger
A place for intelligent writers
A place for intelligent readers
 by Frank Shortt
2017 Spectator Ron - The Spectator All Rights Reserved
C
shafra@sbcglobal.net
       Article 2, Section 1 of the constitution grants the President “executive power.” Executive Orders do not require Congressional approval to take effect, but have the same legal weight as other laws passed by Congress.
       Recently, President Trump, right or wrong, signed an executive order to remove all illegal aliens from the United States who have committed crimes or who pose a threat to our National security. There seems to be some dissension among city governments as to whether this is a real law. These executive orders by Mr. Trump are meant to supersede those already in effect issued by Trump’s predecessor President Obama.
       The cities of San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, San Jose, and now San Leandro have declared themselves “Sanctuary Cities”, defying President Trump’s executive order. The question, “who is breaking the law here?”
       Each of these cities stand to lose millions of dollars in Federal aid should they go ahead with their ‘Sanctuary’ plans. It has been proven in history that the best way to get anyone to agree with your plan is to declare “economic sanctions” against the dissenter! This arrangement, although harsh at times, has usually been effective in restoring dissenters into line, be they right or wrong. San Francisco’s ‘sanctuary ordinance’ goes back to 1989. In essence, it says that City employees are prohibited from helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with immigration investigations or arrests unless such help is required by Federal or State law, or a warrant. Is San Francisco saying that they are ok with illegal immigrant criminals walking their streets? Does this also apply in Berkeley, Oakland, and San Jose? Do these cities deal with immigration crimes on a case by case basis?
       The worst part of this decision by City Councils to protect the immigrant criminal element is; what kind of message are they sending to their constituents who are law abiding citizens? Are they telling all citizens that they can pick and choose which laws they wish to abide by or to break? Is this a good message to send out to gangs and other criminals within the confines of the cities? It seems that all a criminal would need to do after committing a crime would be to run to a “Sanctuary City” declaring that he is an illegal alien! A law is not a law unless there is a penalty for breaking that law. It is not worth the paper it is printed on. The most crime in countries and cities are the ones who choose not to invoke a penalty for existing laws. This is the reason why society, as a whole, is disintegrating. Most of the time, all it takes to get out of a crime is to have enough money and get the right lawyer.
       Another order is to go out soon from the Federal Government stating that marijuana is not legal according to Federal mandates left on the books since President Obama. Several states have passed laws that recreational pot may be smoked and may be raised according to certain guidelines. This will also cause states to have to make decisions as to whether they will continue to depend on Federal funding, or will they forego them in favor of lawbreakers?
       Our age old Constitution is being questioned heavily at this time in American History!