LOL at the Boston Globe

My wife still likes to get the Globe, but I only read it for laughs these days. We continue to receive the print version but I called today to cancel it. Now that winter is almost over, I don't need all that extra newsprint around for starting fires.

But last Sunday, the Globe had the irony of all ironies in its front-page story, titled "WE ARE STILL A NATION OF LAWS" (caps original!). To see this visually, click here: http://www.actonforum.com/sites/default/files/globecover.jpg

The article was about how President Donald Trump's efforts to stop immigrants from seven countries to travel to the U.S. was being halted by the courts. Evidently, despite his campaign promise to reverse the government's acceptance of tens of thousands of refugees and immigrants without more stringent vetting, the courts ruled that the President is not the one in control of our country's borders.

If the executive office of our country can't take immediate action against perceived threats, then how will action get taken in the future? Will we need an act of Congress if there is an imminent threat, otherwise some judge in East Oshkosh will issue a nationwide ruling to suspend the President's order?

While this gets appealed and sorted out over the coming weeks, months, or years, don't you love the irony? The Globe touts the U.S. as being a nation of laws, except when it comes to illegal immigration. In that case, it "isn't illegal to be illegal." In a double irony, in an article below the fold, the Globe then promotes their political agenda through "sanctuary cities" which attempt to prevent the federal government from enforcing the current law. What a joke.

The Globe feels that we are a nation of laws when it suits their purpose (preventing the President from acting unilaterally) but not a nation of laws when it doesn't suit their purpose (allowing illegal immigrants to come or remain in the country.)

Well, liberals are not known for their consistency.

Subscribe to the Acton Forum and get our newsletters emailed to you -- FREE! Click on http://www.actonforum.com/subscribe-actonforum-newsletter

Comments

LOL at Acton Forum

Funny your article mentions reading for laughs. I find that based on the right-wing only opinions offered by the Acton Forum I read it for laughs.

Steve K.

Reading for laughs

I guess after the election, if you don't laugh, you would cry. So enjoy!
And for the record, I have an open invitation to anyone who wants to write or blog. And we have had that since Day One.

Allen Nitschelm has lived in Acton since 1998 and writes about fiscal issues at the
local and state level. He is a former member of the town's Finance Committee
and is an Associate Publisher of Acton Forum.

Sanctuary doesn't prevent the feds from doing their job

Hi Allen: you mentioned "Sanctuary cities which attempt to prevent the federal government from enforcing the current law."

All of the Sanctuary regulations I've read about do not prevent ICE agents from coming to any city or town to enforce immigration laws. Instead, they simply clarify that local law enforcement is not tasked with immigration enforcement. That lets local police have a better working relationship with all residents, which helps lower crime rates by removing barriers to people cooperating with local police.

I get that this question has gotten heavily dramatized and polticized by anyone with a partisan stake, but it's mostly a police-procedural matter that is entirely lawful.

Jim Snyder-Grant is a member of Green Acton - more at http://greenacton.org. More about me at http://snyder-grant.org/jim. Or - just contact me at 978 266-9409 or jimsg@newview.org

If it's lawful, how can the feds threaten to withhold funds?

Hi Jim,

If sanctuary cities are lawful, how can the Feds threaten to withhold funds from cities that declare themselves sanctuaries?

I agree that under the Obama administration, anything to prevent illegal immigrants from being deported was done. So, naturally, a city or town would never face prosecution or otherwise suffer any damages from their refusal to act. But there is a new sheriff in town, and that policy appears to be changing.

President Obama also signed several executive orders to change immigration policy and enforcement. His department followed out his orders, but several were taken to court and overturned or suspended. Does that mean his orders were also unlawful at the time they were signed, or were they lawful until the courts ruled them illegal?

Let me highlight one word in my response: "attempt." If Sanctuary Cities impair the ability of Federal agents from finding and detaining illegal immigrants, then they are "attempting to prevent" the federal government from enforcing the current law. Not "preventing." By not fully cooperating, for example, they may not "prevent ICE agents from coming to any city" but they impair them from doing so.

On one point, we agree: Asking local cops to "enforce" immigration makes local policing harder. Illegal residents will not report crimes or cooperate with the police if it puts them at personal risk. That is a problem that must be addressed very carefully and compassionately.

On the other hand, if you attended the BOS meeting on Monday night, you may have heard several references about going further than what Acton currently does in order to protect illegal immigrants. In fact, the terminology being used, making Acton a "safe community," implies going further. If making Acton a "safe community" is the same as a "sanctuary town," then ask your friends on the Left to stop using confusing and misleading terms to describe the effects of their proposals.

Finally, you may argue that our current policy is and will remain lawful. But that doesn't mean that whatever is being proposed at Town Meeting by "Sanctuary Town" proponents will follow that same line. As a matter of logic, you would think both sides would be wise enough to just leave well enough alone. Our current policy sounds compassionate, it is working, and it is the same as what they do in Cambridge. The fact that pro-illegal-immigrant residents are going to push for actual legislation at Town Meeting strongly suggests that our police policies may change if their proposal is enacted. Otherwise, why bother?

Thanks for writing!

Allen

Allen Nitschelm has lived in Acton since 1998 and writes about fiscal issues at the
local and state level. He is a former member of the town's Finance Committee
and is an Associate Publisher of Acton Forum.

withholding funds, deportations

Under what circumstances can the federal government withhold funds? It's an interesting legal question. A lot of federal education policy is enforced via withholding or not withholding funds, so it doesn't require an illegal action. On the other hand, many legal thinkers doubt that the sanctuary defunding order is legal as written. On the third hand, many analysts have suggested other ways that the Trump administration could financially punish sanctuary cities. Decent overview here: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1119/Why-Trump-might-not-stop...

Obama deported more people than any president before him. I know that doesn't fit your narrative, so here's the Snopes investigation: http://www.snopes.com/obama-deported-more-people/ with good links.

Jim Snyder-Grant is a member of Green Acton - more at http://greenacton.org. More about me at http://snyder-grant.org/jim. Or - just contact me at 978 266-9409 or jimsg@newview.org

Deportations

Hi Jim,

If the number of illegal immigrants in the country is at record levels, then it might follow that the number of deportations would rise, just because the base number is higher. And we keep hearing anecdotes of people charged with crimes who have been deported and returned to the U.S. several times. So deportations without a very tight border security are inefficient at correcting the underlying problem. This is why we need a wall.

My "narrative" is that Obama took unilateral steps to allow some illegal immigrants to stay in the country. If Obama successfully deported more people, yet gave legal sanctuary to others for whatever reason, then that doesn't mean that higher deportations "forgives" a policy on allowing sanctuaries. In other words, deportations is an important yardstick but certainly not the only one.

Let me try to give you an analogy. If you argued a president was "tough on crime" because he executed more people convicted of murder than anyone ever before, yet he signed executive orders allowing all rapists to get out of jail free, would you criticize "my narrative" complaining of the freed rapists?

Allen

Allen Nitschelm has lived in Acton since 1998 and writes about fiscal issues at the
local and state level. He is a former member of the town's Finance Committee
and is an Associate Publisher of Acton Forum.

So your wife likes to get the

So your wife likes to get the Globe,but you summarily cancelled the Globe. What a guy! Not!

Alma S.

Just cancelled the print edition

Hi Alma,

Thanks for allowing me to clarify. I cancelled the print edition. My wife reads the Globe in the electronic version, which we retained.

See, I am a good guy!

Allen

Allen Nitschelm has lived in Acton since 1998 and writes about fiscal issues at the
local and state level. He is a former member of the town's Finance Committee
and is an Associate Publisher of Acton Forum.