If you try to explain the concept of a sanctuary city to someone that has never heard of it before, there’s a good chance you’ll see a furrowed brow after the explanation is complete.
That’s because the concept of a so-called sanctuary city is completely outrageous. How can a city leader effectively thumb their nose at federal law and still look themselves in the mirror?
That doesn’t appear to be too challenging of a task for the liberal leadership of some of the biggest metropolises across the nation. They know what they’re doing is in complete defiance of federal law, but they apparently could care less.
As long as their individual profile is raised inside the liberal echo chamber, everything’s just fine.
The Washington Examiner reports on how one judge just informed leaders in Richmond, Calif. that it’s really not.
Judge William H. Orrick granted the Trump administration’s request to toss the case because he wrote late Monday that Richmond “has failed to allege an actual controversy” and said the city’s purported “conflict is, currently, purely academic.” The city, north of Oakland, had argued that it could be harmed by the order because it has a large Hispanic population and has been called a sanctuary city.
The judge ruled that Richmond’s policies have not had any effect on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s efforts and that “it is hard to imagine” that the federal government considers Richmond’s policies a high priority.
Judge Orrick is the same judge who ruled against Trump in the past when he tried to end sanctuary cities once and for all. Looks like Trump is helping these judges see the light.
The city had challenged President Donald Trump’s executive order that called for a crackdown on sanctuary cities.
The fact that he would even have to issue such an order is mind-blowing enough, but for a city to assume it even had a leg to stand on is downright unbelievable.
“Despite having no real-world friction with ICE or the defendants over its policies, Richmond argues that it is likely to face enforcement under the executive order because it has been called a sanctuary city and because it has a large Latino population,” Orrick wrote. “Neither of those arguments is persuasive.
“Richmond asserts that it has been called a sanctuary city, but does not say by whom or in what context. This vague assertion that someone, somewhere, referred to Richmond as a sanctuary city is insufficient to demonstrate that the federal government believes Richmond is a sanctuary city or is likely to enforce the executive order against it.”
Cases are pending for the cities of San Francisco and Santa Clara, so this case has all the markings of a trial balloon to see which way the winds are blowing.
Richmond took the proverbial bullet for the larger cities, and you can bet the respective legal teams are poring over each and every word from Orrick’s ruling to find an escape hatch.
The smart money says that there’s not one, as no judge in their right mind can view a city that thumbs its collective nose at federal law as somehow being in the right.
Source: Washington Examiner