Why the Boston bombing problems could matter to the immigration issue
If you listened to the pundits and strategists on the left, and lamestream media, you heard the outcry about bringing the bombing into the debate over illegal immigration. Well, what debate, it was actually a private deal being crafted by a group in Congress. And just as they were ironing out their plan, the Boston Marathon bombing took place.
Almost immediately came the cries Republicans better not use this against the “immigration” proposal coming down the pike like a 90 mph fastball. You better not, they said. But there are legitimate ties and questions about immigration reform related the bombing. They were from a satellite Russian region, who came here around ten years ago. The parents returned to Dagestan.
Suspect #1 was the subject of a tip from Russia warning of radical ties, which we still haven’t got the details about. He had traveled back to the area for a six month tour, which is still being questioned.
But things seemed to fall apart as to connecting him to the bombing early on. It seems some intelligence or connections were missed. There are questions if information was shared. Then, in fact, they had a hard time connecting the pictures on a guy the feds had already questioned in detail. Someone who was on a watch list at one time anyway. Why? It looks now like something was not connected or followed through.
And now the left is adamant that “you cannot tie immigration to what happened in Boston.” And why not, why is it suddenly off the table? The truth may be closer than you think.
One little irrelevant thing no one has mentioned is Boston had been listed as a sanctuary city in 2005, and Cambridge has long been a proud sanctuary city, something they boast about. Ah, and the bombing debacle has nothing to do with immigration?
Well, sanctuary cities have a long pattern of not working with ICE or federal immigration authorities. They consider it almost a matter of protest. Now it starts to make a little more sense. Likely a glaring reason why Libs did not want the immigration issue with the bombing investigation.
Could that have been a big part of the problem? Could it be these lax policies, and politics, played some role in the original investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, suspect #1? Maybe those are the dots that didn’t connect they way they should have?
This matters if information was not shared regarding Tamerlan Tsarnaev, or others that may have known or cooperated with them — like visa violations. If the mindset was to withhold sharing of certain critical info, or not to cooperate with ICE or Feds where immigration is an issue, how far does it go? Does it impact on national security?
Policy Order Resolution
IN CITY COUNCIL
May 8, 2006
Cambridge has a proud history as a Sanctuary city, as declared by City Council Order Number 4 of April 8, 1985; and
(Whereas) There are now approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States /… …
(Whereas) Current US immigration policy does not reflect our standards of what is just, humane and moral; and
Both undocumented and documented immigrants in the U.S. fuel our economy and those of their countries of origin;
NBC Firstread Aug, 2011
In at least 2005, however, Boston was identified as a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants by a former lawyer for the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Spring 2005: Sanctuary cities, states undermining the Republic
James H. Walsh
Recent proclamations by certain U.S. cities and
states offering sanctuary to all immigrants, despite
their legal standing, demonstrates contempt for federal
laws. Among the new sanctuaries or civil liberties safe
zones are the states of California, Maine, and Oregon.
Sanctuary cities include Anchorage, Baltimore,
Durham (NC), Madison (WI), along with Boston,
Houston, Los Angeles, and New York City. These
renegade governmental entities, which challenge the
validity of U.S. immigration laws, are spreading like a
cancer rotting the sinew, muscle, and bone of the
American Republic. The result, intentional or not,
promises to be a balkanized network of warring city-states.
By Steve Salvi, Founder, OJJPAC.org
Despite a 1996 federal law [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA )] that requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities (and some small) have adopted so-called “sanctuary” policies. Generally, sanctuary policies instruct city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens–so illegal aliens often benefit from taxpayer funded government services and programs too.
A formal sanctuary policy is a written policy that may have been passed by a local government body in the form of a resolution, ordinance, or administrative action–general or special orders, or departmental policies. Formal sanctuary cities are the easiest to identify because their sanctuary policies are in writing, often get the attention of the media, and subject to public records requests by citizens and the press.