When I read this truth, and these facts about SB31, knowing full well that Illinois is now a Sanctuary State I am in disbelief of how far we have sunk that the men and women who call themselves Law enforcement officers would misrespresent what has really happened. They are standing and encouraging for Lawlessness, not law enforcement.
I am not so much angry, I want to cry because there are so few men in Illinois who will stand up and tell the truth and be true leaders, especially those who call themselves Christians. It seems there are few who are worried about what kind of society we are leaving for our children, and their children. ~ Rosanna Pulido
There are two separate issues here, both of which they’re wrong on: 1) are the policies in SB 31 sanctuary policies, thus making Illinois a sanctuary state since its enactment? And 2) are sanctuary policies in general, and the policies in SB 31 in particular, good policies?
First, are the policies in SB 31 sanctuary policies? Of course they are. Sanctuary policies are any policies that seek to frustrate, impede or prevent federal enforcement of immigration law. Refusing to comply with detainers is a sanctuary policy: indeed, it’s one of the most common and central policies of jurisdictions that happily, proudly and explicitly flaunt their sanctuary status, like San Francisco. So is ignoring immigration status as a basis to stop, search or arrest someone.
By enacting SB 31, Illinois took any discretion away from individual local governments, police departments and sheriffs to set their own policies and choose to comply with detainers or to consider immigration status as a basis for even the most temporary investigative stop. Merely because the bill did not also impose every other conceivable sanctuary policy doesn’t mean it didn’t make Illinois a sanctuary state: for anyone to say otherwise is simply playing word games. It begs the question: if these supporters don’t think Illinois post SB-31 is a sanctuary state, what do they think a real sanctuary state would actually look like?
Separately, are sanctuary policies—even whether one calls them that or not—actually good policies because, as their supporters say, they encourage illegal aliens to be cooperative with state and local law enforcement in solving crimes? This is a talking point they repeat frequently, but there’s no actual evidence of it. Quite the contrary: crime rises in sanctuary jurisdictions.
As a matter of simple logic, of course, obviously crimes are committed by people who otherwise wouldn’t be present to commit them. And the data from ICE bears out this logical expectation: just between January 1 and September 30 of 2014, for example, sanctuary jurisdictions released 9,295 aliens that ICE had sought to remove; of those, nearly 6,000 had significant prior criminal histories or other public safety concerns; of those with a prior history of concern, 58 percent had prior felony charges or convictions; and 2,320 or almost 25% of the total number of released aliens were re-arrested just within that 10-month period.
Shari Rendall Sent:
Friday, September 01, 2017 9:18 AMTo:
David Jaroslav <[email protected]
Some Republican are trying to convince people that the Sanctuary Bill does not make Illinois a Sanctuary This is their arguments: Here's what law enforcement leaders have to say about the TRUST Act:
"Don't believe what you may be hearing – this is not a sanctuary state bill! I would never support that. This is a good bill that will make Illinois a safer place. Law enforcement must use every tool available in order to protect our communities from the true predators on the street. The relationships built because of this bill will give police officers and investigators a much better chance at convincing victims and witnesses of violent crime to come forward."
- Republican Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran"I embrace this bill because it allows law enforcement to do their jobs better and in a safer environment, plain and simple. It does not make Illinois a sanctuary state, and it does not conflict with federal efforts aimed at sanctuary cities. Law enforcement put their lives on the line every day. This bill simply gives police another tool to protect our communities and find the people who have committed serious crimes by encouraging victims and witnesses to come forward and cooperate with law enforcement.”
– Republican Lake County State's Attorney Mike Nerheim "Don’t believe a lot of what you’re hearing about the Illinois Trust Act, which Governor Rauner will sign into law Monday (SB 31 HA3).
"It will not make Illinois a 'sanctuary state.' Not even close, despite what some critics and headlines are saying. So don’t worry, it’s not happening. We are pleased that Governor Rauner [signed] the bill."
– Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police
Last week, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown interviewed
Republican Lake County Sheriff Mark Curran on why he supports the TRUST Act:
…Curran runs the third largest sheriff’s department in Illinois in a county that is roughly 20 percent Latino.
Elected in 2006 as a Democrat, Curran switched to the Republican Party in 2008 and won re-election twice more.
Last year he ran as a Marco Rubio delegate to the Republican National Convention but in the end voted for Donald Trump for president to keep Democrats from controlling the Supreme Court.
Most important for our purposes today, he is a committed supporter of immigration reform and to limiting the role of local police in immigration enforcement — another complete switcheroo from when he came into office as a self-described “hard-liner.”
That makes Curran one of the key supporters of legislation Gov. Bruce Rauner intends to sign Monday that would restrict how local police interact with federal immigration authorities.
…In addition, the TRUST Act would prevent local police from stopping, searching or arresting anyone based on their immigration or citizenship status.
Again, that’s already how it’s done in Lake County, Curran said.
…“If you’re pro-life, this is a life issue,” Curran said. “It’s not simply the unborn child. It’s the dignity of the human being. These are people number one. At that point in time, I knew I was totally wrong.”
Separating police work from immigration enforcement also makes sense from a law enforcement perspective, he said.
…“In order to police these communities, protect these communities from the true predators, you have to be able to pull up with lights and all and not have widespread fear and panic among citizens that really have nothing to do with the crime.”
Consider the source. A good one.