The "Mother of All Migrant Caravans": A New Wave of Illegal Immigration

Mexican officials have advised the US Government that the "mother of all migrant caravans" is headed north to the US border. This will be the fourth such caravans over the past couple of years. Mexican officials estimate that there's approximately 20,000 individuals, mostly from Honduras, is gathering and expected to head our way in waves, with dozens or even hundreds joining along the way. However, the caravan which has already formed and is headed our way has approximately 12,000 members on the heels of another column of around 2,600. While many are from Honduras, others are from El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, as well as Cuba and even Africa.

As with the previous caravans, no one really seems to know for sure who is behind them. After all, someone or some group has to be funding these mass movements. In fact, individual immigrants have been filmed and photographed taking money, often as much as $100.00 per person, from unidentified individuals (even when cornered, these individuals profess ignorance about where the money is coming from).

Naturally, suspensions fall on the usual cast of characters---the governments of Honduras or Venezuela, the drug cartels,or the all-purpose uber-rich Left leaning villain George Soros. Even the Russians and Chinese have been accused of being behind the massive influx in order to destabilize the US government by overwhelming the border patrol, ICE, court system, and, of course, the American social safety net. The influx has also served as cover for members of various drug gangs and even potential terrorists from the Middle East posing as migrants (last year, Honduras reported detaining approximately 12 individuals---pulled from a caravan--who were on a "Most Wanted" list of suspected ISIS members).

As an interesting aside, these individuals also seem to be reciting from the same script. They are immigrating in order to seek "asylum"; asylum from their respective countries high crime rates and to seek jobs and better living conditions. Interestingly, none could explain why they didn't apply for asylum at the local US consulate's office (there's a embassy or consulate in every capital; often times even multiple offices). Secondly, apparently none of these individuals could answer why they weren't seeking asylum in the next closest and most stable country as required under international law. Lastly, the UN does not recognize economic migrants, such as these, as bona fide immigrants, and therefore, under international law do not qualify as immigrants.

As if this is bad enough (and it's already pretty bad), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that they were going to have to release as many of 100,000 detainees into the US on the promise that they will return for a future court date to determine their immigration eligibility (yeah, like that is actually going to happen). The reason is that government facilities are filled to beyond capacity, leaving government officials no choice.

Thus, hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants could be released into the country based on little more than their "promise" to appear at some future date to see if they can remain or will have to be deported. To counter this, President Trump has ordered that detainees be held in Mexico until they can be processed, which obviously makes much better sense.

We also have another, perhaps even more serious issue to consider---infectious diseases. The vast majority of these so-called "immigrants" have never been immunized from diseases which the US has long ago eradicated; diseases like smallpox, the measles, mumps, chickenpox, or tuberculosis. These diseases are extremely contagious. With most Americans not being immunized, there's a serious potential that these diseases will spread, which could provide to be lethal to those with weaker immune systems, especially for seniors or young children.

You may recall that a few months ago, a young girl who was infected and critically ill was abandoned in the US, presumably, with the expectation that American doctors would treat the girl and her parents would later reappear and demand entry into the country in order to be reunited. However, the girl died. This, at least according to the corporate media, was somehow our fault. No one addressed the issue as to why the child wasn't taken to a doctor in a native country or even to a doctor in Mexico at some point during their weeks long trek through the country. Since then, there's been a couple of other similar instances where sick children were left abandoned, presumably with the hope that US doctor's will intervene.

To make matters worse, the corporate media has made the conscious decision to refer to these individuals as "asylum seekers", though they are clearly not. They've also taken to chastise anyone who refers to these individuals crossing into the US as "illegal immigrants" or "criminals"; thus to soften their image and make them appear to be more acceptable. In addition, many so-called "human rights" groups, especially those affiliated with churches, have been encouraging these individuals to come (some even illegally leaving supplies for them at various stopping points along with doctors and information to aid them in crossing illegally such as maps and where to find protection).

At present, we really don't know just how many illegal immigrants are currently living in the US. Some estimates put the number at about 12 million while others say the number is much less, only about 5.3 million. Of these, it's estimated that approximately 58% are believed to live in California, Texas, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. In addition, Louisiana, Maryland, and Massachusetts have shown signs of growth while other states such as Florida, Alabama, Michigan, Nevada, and New Jersey have seen a decline. The majority of illegal immigrants appear to be employed in just four areas, farm labor, construction, hospitality and the service industry.

In terms of cost, it's estimated that while illegal immigrants have actually paid into the US economy in terms of taxes---around $19 billion dollars---they have taken out $116 billion in tax based services (combined federal, state, and local tax dollars). Thus they consume far more taxpayer dollars than they contribute. In Kentucky, the state cost to residents is $4635 per person while in Florida it's $4919 and $4429 for Texans. New Yorkers pay $6424 in state tax dollars per person. Californians pay $6517 per resident.

Meanwhile, the Center for Immigration Studies has stated over a lifetime, illegal immigration will cost US taxpayers $750 billion dollars, or to put it another way, it would be six times cheaper to deport the estimated 11 or 12 million illegal immigrants than to allow them to remain. Another interesting aside is that approximately 2/3 of all illegal immigrants have lived in the US for ten or more years, meaning that the majority of those now here illegally entered the country under President Obama.

There's no question that the massive influx along our southern border is not based religious, ethnic, or political persecution, nor are their countries the subject of ongoing wars, which would be legitimate reasons for asylum. However, this is nothing short of a defacto invasion, not entirely unlike the invasion that Europe is experiencing from the Middle East and Africa except that in Europe's case, it has become increasingly violent as migrants have increasingly demanded that Europeans conform to their religious based values and laws. Nevertheless, neither group of migrants have shown any willingness to assimilate. This could possibly trigger violence at some point in the US just like it has in Europe. Unregulated immigration has also crippled Europe's once famous social safety net and put a tremendous strain on their national economies, which could just as easily happen here as it has in Europe.

While there is also the question as to who may be behind the human invasion, the more pressing question is what to do with the massive numbers who are threatening to overwhelm our borders. It seems that regardless of how many are rejected and sent back, even more keep coming. So, what can we do, if anything? The majority of these migrants are coming from Central America. They are crossing the length of Mexico. Each time Mexican authorities have attempted to stop them, they've broken through the barriers and attacked local police and federal troops. In a few instances, Mexican police officers have been shot or badly injured. Despite this, Mexico has shown a great deal of restraint in dealing with migrants, especially considering its tough laws on illegal immigration (not to mention that the majority of illegal immigrants into the US are from Mexico), but how long will that last? We've already been told by two past Mexican presidents that the US had "no right" to prohibit individuals from Mexico to enter the US.

If we seal the 1,954 mile border (with or without a wall), we risk creating a negative impact on not just our own economy, but that of Mexico and other Latin American countries. In 2017, $558 billion dollars passed both ways just between Mexico and the US (Mexico is our third largest trading partner, behind Canada and China). In 2018, $424 million dollars worth of goods passed across the border by trucks alone; that's 69% of all truck traffic along the southern border. $78 billion in goods passed through by rail, $17 billion by air, and $5 billion via pipelines. So, while we need to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the US, we have to be careful that our actions don't impact trade between us and our trading partners south of the border.

America already spends billions of dollars propping up economies throughout Latin America and the world in the form of economic aid. Apparently this doesn't appear to be enough, judging by the number of migrates. We cannot continue to support the world on the back of US taxpayers anymore than we can continue playing the world's policeman. So, what can we do? First, we can reduce supply by eliminating demand. That means going after those who aid and support illegal immigration, be it businesses or non-profits, including churches and religious organizations.

We have to make the cost of hiring or aiding illegal immigrants prohibitive. That means automatically losing their business license or tax exempt status. That means jail time for corporate officers, priests, or ministers, plus hefty fines starting with their first offense. It means losing government contracts. It means cutting off federal tax dollars to any state, city, university, or other institution which offers "sanctuary" status.

While farmers and the like can continue to hire non-residents, the requirements to get a "green card" need to be tighter so that we know the whereabouts of anyone issued a work permit. We need to need to make citizenship a requirement for any benefits derived from taxpayer dollars. All government documentation should be printed in English only except documentation which deals with immigrants specifically. We need to increase the number of border patrol agents and expand their authority as law enforcement officers. We also need to deport illegal immigrates to the nearest consulate or embassy and let them foot the bill of sending them back. Alternatively, we can simply deduct the cost from amount we send them in aid. If we're seriously interested in stopping illegal immigration, we have to cut off the demand. We also have to stop their ability to obtain taxpayer based services. You do that and they will stop coming.

America has always welcomed immigrants, and hopefully we always will. However, we are a nation of laws like every other country. And like every other country, we have the right---indeed the responsibility---to secure and protect our borders. If someone wants to come to this country, then their first act should not be breaking our laws. Their country wouldn't tolerate it, so why should we? If they want to come to this country, great. We'd love to have you. We just ask that you do it legally. Is that asking too much?


MORE: New Migrant Caravan has Formed and Headed To US-Mexico Border

Migrant caravan swells to 12,000 At Mexico's Southern Border


5 facts about illegal immigration in the US

New caravan of 2600 migrants could be headed towards US border

Illegal Immigration cost nearly taxpayers $750 billion over lifetime: Report

Does the United States have the Right to Secure its Border?

I'm intrigued by the fact that the presidents of several South American countries have publicly stated that the United States does not have the "right" to prevent migrants, illegal or otherwise, from entering our country at will. They've gone as far as to say that America may not secure its southern borders at any time or for any reason. Now why is that I wonder? The US is a sovereign nation like every other country. We have not just the legal right to secure our borders, wherever they may happen to be, but even a moral reason in order to protect the rights and safety of our citizens and to uphold our laws.

These same countries who believe that the US doesn't have a "right" to secure its borders happen to have among the strictest immigration policies of practically any country anywhere, and how they go about both protecting their national sovereignty and punishing those who violate their immigration laws are downright barbaric. I'm talking about countries such as Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venezuela, and Honduras among others.

These are places where illegal immigrates are often robbed, raped, beaten and in some cases, tortured...and that's by the police! Anyone who aids them in any way is subject to arrest and imprisonment for the first offense. In some cases, local police or government law enforcement will ransack their homes and, well, things happen to go missing. In a few cases some individuals are able to bribe their way out of arrest or jail time, but it's always a high price.

Prison in these places are best described as "hell holes" almost in the literal sense. Individuals typically get one very badly and often infested mattress on concrete floor. Their tiny cells are usually either freezing in the winter or unbearably hot in the summer; it's not uncommon that they are open to the elements. Food (if you call it that) is bare minimum. Often not much more than watery soup, stale bread or crackers twice a day. If prisoners want anything more, it's up to their friends or families to provide it. If you're there illegally, that's rather hard to do.

Even if you're a citizen, it can be difficult to make sure you actually receive additional blankets, clothing, food, or even proper medical care. Jail time for illegal immigrants can range from a few months for a first offense to several years for secondary offenses. Same goes for anyone who help you. Is there any wonder some of these individuals, especially criminal gang members, laugh at our prisons? Is it any wonder these people see our border security as a mere inconvenience?

Nevertheless, we're told that we don't have a "right" to impose our immigration laws on those attempting to come here; immigration laws that every single country in the world has and legally applies. So, why is it that America isn't suppose to have this same right? Some like to argue that the original settlers were no different than "illegal immigrants" or that they stole land from the Native Americans. What do you think? Were the first settlers simple land grabbing interlopers or was there something more to it?

Of course we know that when many of the native immigrants arrived in the Americas, there were already other groups who had come here earlier. Also, while Native Americans really didn't have any concept of land ownership per se, they did establish certain areas in which they hunted and grew food. Anyone who impeded on that land faced attack. In fact, it wasn't uncommon for Native Americans throughout the Americas to fight over good crop and hunting land. So, when the first Europeans arrived, there was no usurping of land since there was no ownership of the land. The construct of "ownership" was essentially a European one. As more and more Europeans arrived, they occupied lands held by Native Americans, often at the point of a gun, but also just as often, by trade. But how was this different from how the Native Americans interacted with each other over the use of land?

It wasn't until the US was firmly established, and legal agreements with Native Americans came into being that the notion of "stealing" land came into being. Why? Because both the Native American tribes came to recognize the European concept of legal ownership or possession. It was here that the real problems developed; where the federal government would enter into a signed agreement with the Native Americans, only to ignore the terms and push the Native Americans off of the lands they had agreed to. More often than not, this was done for mining--particularly gold and silver.

Whenever the Native Americans complained or fought back to protect what was legally theirs under the terms of the treaty or agreement, the interlopers would convince the local "Indian Agent" or other federal authority to send in the military, which they routinely did. The result became nothing less than a intentional genocide of a proud people; a national tragedy which remains uncorrected to this day. However, for the sake of our discussion, it addresses the notion the Europeans settlers were in some way "illegal immigrants", which they clearly were not.

In terms of immigration laws, every country on this planet has some form of restrictions and quotas. The United States is not unique in that regard. Anyone wanting to enter this country may, assuming they meet some specific requirements such as age, health, and employability. Once approved, they can then apply for a "Green Card" which would allow them to live and work here (most individuals need a sponsor, a family member or employer). Others can apply for temporary residence under special circumstances such as seeking asylum or as a refugee, provided they meet a very narrow definition of a "asylee" or "refugee". Application for any of these procedures can be obtained at any US Embassy or Consulates office in the world (there are typically multiple offices scattered through a given country, but at least one in the capital or main city)and where US officials can help you through the process.

So, I bet you're wondering what constitutes an "asylee" or a "refugee"? Well, someone seeking asylum is called a "asylee". These are individuals who are unable or unwilling to return to their native country out of fear of persecution due to their race, religion, ethnic group, social group, political status, or more recently, their sexual preference according to the US Department of Homeland Security. As a rule, this would Yazidis, Buddhists, or Assyrian Christians fleeing Syria due to persecution by Muslim extremists like ISIS/ISIL or the Syrian military. Recently, white South Africans, many of whom have roots dating back to the 1600's, have been forced from their lands, attacked, beaten, robbed, raped, and murdered by black members of the pro-Communist ANC. Unfortunately, however, the US has been slow in accepting applications for asylum from these white South Africans although some other countries, such as Russia, have. Also, as an aside, the US has also not been particularly pro-active in allowing groups like Kurds, Yazidis, Christians, Hindus, or Buddhists from the Middle East asylum status as well.

A refugee is typically someone who has been forced to flee their country due to war, violence, or some environmental disaster such as famine. A refugee may start off as a asylee and ultimately be accepted as a refugee once a decision is made regarding their status and reason for leaving. As a rule, international law requires both types to leave the country where they are endangered and seek entry in the next closest country where there is no danger.

There is a third class of individual, which I think we need to pay close attention to since this directly pertains to the current situation on our southern border and to the approximately 8 million illegal immigrants living in the US right now, and that's the "Economic Migrant". These are individuals who are not endangered by their race, religion, political class, or any of the other factors previously mentioned. These are individuals who are simply looking for employment or a better job; they willingly chose to relocate rather than are forced to leave. As such, they are entitled to no protection under international law. This describes those who are currently "demanding" entry into the country right down along our southern border. It also describes the vast majority of the illegal immigrants present in America. Economic migrants often try to claim "refugee" or "asylee" status as a way to gain entry into a particular country which otherwise would be closed to them.

We should also bear in mind that their presence represents a "jump in the line" ahead of those who are trying to enter the US and/or become American citizens legally. In short, they are shoving law abiding potential immigrants aside; those who are trying to enter the country the right way. In addition, 85% of all illegal immigrants receive taxpayers assistance of some sort. That means that ordinary Americans are having to pay their way because they broke the law. Many of those are do work are paid cash and thus pay no taxes. Others find ways to use stolen social security numbers and draw on them. Meanwhile, churches and other religious organizations continue to aid immigrants, pretending that somehow the laws just don't apply to them while hiding behind their tax-exempt status. Why is that?

Here's a couple of interesting statistics for you. According to the Department of Justice, 26% of all federal inmates are illegal immigrants (the Center for Immigration Studies put that number at 32%). The Bureau of Prisons report that 66% of all inmates are illegal aliens, which means that one in five prisoners are in this country illegally. The majority are serving time for various drug offenses, followed by violent assault, robbery (including theft, burglary and armed), and homicide. So-called "sanctuary cities" have provided many illegal immigrants, especially those active in criminal gangs, with a safe haven akin to the "Hole-in-the Wall" and "Robber's Roost" of the Old West or the "safe cities" like Chicago, New York, or Miami during the glory days of organized crime in the 1920's and 1930's.

Lastly we come to another type of "immigrant" key to this discussion, the "Anchor Baby". So, just what is a "anchor baby"? Under current US immigration laws, if a non-citizen woman gives birth in the United States, her child automatically becomes a US Citizen. Thus, by extension, she gets to remain in the country along with her husband and family (that definition has been broadened to include grandparents, aunts and uncles, and in some cases, even cousins have been approved). As an aside, in Canada, this is often referred to as "Passport Baby" and has resulted in a cottage "Baby Tourism" industry worth millions (in the case of Canada, it's allegedly popular with wealthy Asians). How did this come about?

The Citizenship Clause under Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" was adopted on July 9, 1868, just three years following the end of the Civil War. It's intent was to ensure that all freed slaves were given the same rights as any other citizen of the United States. Thus, its intent was reinforce the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and clarify that all former slaves were citizens, subject to all the rights, privileges, and laws accorded to the ordinary US citizen. It was not envisioned as a means by which individuals could bypass immigration laws. Nevertheless, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, 73% of all children of illegal immigrants qualified under this provision.

So what does all this mean? Basically, it means that the US does have a duty and obligation to secure and protect its borders as a sovereign nation; the same right afforded to every other nation without exception. It means that the majority of illegal immigrants now in this country, and the thousands on our southern border "demanding" to be allowed to enter do not qualify under the definitions of "asylee" or refugee", but rather are economic migrants, which entitles them to nothing under international law. It also means that those who protect illegal immigrants do so as the costs of those who are attempting to do the right thing; to follow the law.

It also means those who aid these individuals are defacto criminals as well ("aiding and abetting") while at the same time demonstrates that over 1/4 of prison population is comprised of those who in prison not because of their violation of US immigration law, but because of crimes they willingly committed. All of this totals billions of dollars---approximately $113 billion dollars at the federal, state, and local levels--- imposed upon the average American Taxpayer; money that could be used to improve roads, schools, infrastructure, medical research, and so forth. The only real question remaining to be answered is just how long are we going to allow this? Some cite that "No Human is Illegal" but fail to mention that their actions are. That's why we have laws and a legal system to enforce those laws. Continuing to grant amnesty simple encourages more to come illegally in the hopes that they can wait out the next call for amnesty. Meanwhile, taxpayers are continue to get crushed by mounting increase to cover not just the influx, but for medical claims, education (including tutors), subsidized public housing, food, and utility bills.

Perhaps the worst part, at least from my perspective, is that the majority of these individuals have no interest in becoming citizens, nor do they have any intention of assimilating as other immigrants have done in the past, thus creating a "melting pot". In fact, they seem to want everyone to adapt. Ultimately, this will result in a nation not of mixed cultures, but of mini-nations similar to other nations which have fractured and broken apart as the result of various conflicts, be it ethnic, racial, religious, or whatever. I have to wonder if that's our destiny. It would certainly appear that if we continue along these lines, it most definitely will be.


US Department of Homeland Security: Definition of a Asylee

Amnesty International: Difference between Refugee and Asylum Seeker

Center for Immigration Studies: 32% of Federal Inmates are Aliens

Louisville's Folly: A Transition To A Sanctuary City?

The City of Louisville Kentucky, famous for its Kentucky Derby , production of whiskey, and as a shipment hub took a significant step on October 25, 2017. Whether that step will be good or bad remains to be seen. The City's local government, the 26 member Metro Council, which is dominated by Democrats, voted most along party lines, 16 to 7, to become a so-called "sanctuary city". The Metro Mayor, Greg Fischer, also a Democrat, was extremely pleased with the result of the vote. Fischer had been promoting the notion that becoming a "sanctuary city" for the past year or so. Fischer claims the status would be benefit the City's 740,026 residents. As an aside, many residents were surprised, not to mention stunned, when they learned the results of the vote since there was little pre-noticed made available to public that the subject would be on the agenda Thursday night. For better or worse, it appears that the deed is done. So, let's discuss what being a "sanctuary city" actually means and what the residents of Louisville can expect, based on other "sanctuary cities".

So, just what is a "sanctuary city"? A "sanctuary city" is a metropolitan city or town which have voted not to cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies, such as ICE or the U.S. Border Patrol, in the identification and detention of individuals who are in the United States illegally. The intent is to make individuals feel welcome, and to encourage them to make use of taxpayer funded social services, as well as other services provided by religious and private institutions (both of which are usually registered as 501c3 institutions which means they are tax exempt). These type of institutions have a long history of encouraging individuals to seek temporary shelter with them regardless of their immigration status. These institutions often assist in aiding individuals with obtaining healthcare, completing official forms, permanent residence, helping to get children enrolled in school (along with taxpayer paid tutors and/or translators. In some cases, volunteer tutors or translators can be used) and employment through networking with other groups and individuals who will protect their immigration status. In some states, these tax exempt institutions will also assist individuals in obtaining a driver's license (including translations for the written portion of the test), and as a "ride along" to aid in translating instructions from the testing officer.

The status of being a "sanctuary city" also provides a cover whereby government officials and police officers are prohibited from ascertaining an individual's immigration status regardless of the circumstances. Nevertheless, should they learn that, for instance, an individual detained for whatever reason is here illegally, they are not required to report the incident to the appropriate federal authorities. Additionally, it's hoped that these individuals will report any and all crimes they witness. However, in the countries these individuals come form are known for having corrupt government officials and law enforcement; where brutal treatment of anyone who speaks out is common place. There is little trust or faith in law enforcement and an obvious reluctance in going to the police. In the case of health issues, the immigration status of the individual or family member, need not be reported to authorities. However, health related issues, such as a drug addiction or communal illness like TB, measles, small pox, etc, must still be reported to the appropriate health agencies--local, state, or federal irrespective of the immigration status, which is not reported.

At present, there are approximately 300 "sanctuary cities" now in the U.S. Proponents claim that it's not the responsibility of local cities and towns to aid in the enforcement of federal laws. While opponents argue that federal laws supersede any and all state or local statutes and ordinances. Certainly, the willingness of local municipalities to accept federal money in exchange for enforcement of various laws pertaining to housing, education, healthcare, and so forth would support the opponent's argument. Many supporters of "sanctuary" status and amnesty for illegal immigrants like use the phrase "No One is Illegal" during demonstrations and protests, while opponents often point out that, while technically correct, and individual's action(s) can be illegal, especially when there is intent in addition to action in committing the crime. A common argument used by proponents of "sanctuary cities" and/or amnesty for illegal immigrants is the involuntary separation of family members.

People immigrate for various reasons, but mostly it's to avoid some form of persecution or for economic gain. Every nation has its own established immigration laws and the procedures one must follow in order to legally enter the country; most also have quotas as to how many of what immigrant status it can accept, such as student, professional or skilled, refugee, etc. Illegal immigrants are those who knowingly decide to ignore the various laws of a given country and simply enter, hopefully, under the radar. Some manage to avoid detection for years or even decades, while most are discovered much more quickly. These individuals are usually quickly deported after a quick health checkup to confirm they aren't carrying some virus, along with a criminal background check to confirm no outstanding warrants. What's a serious concern to every nation, is that individuals with untreated or undiagnosed diseases are entering their country, which might cause a health crisis. The other concern is, of course, the criminal element. Illegal entry is a necessity for many criminals, especially those who belong to gangs and/or drug cartels.

Of course, this isn't to suggest that every illegal immigrant is carrying some deadly disease or belongs to some criminal outfit. Most are coming to simply seek employment; some even send money back home to help support their family. Nevertheless, they have chosen not to obtain a work visa or "green card" for some reason. Therefore, their decision and their decision only is the sole reason for any family separation or hardship. Had they obtained a green card instead of take trying to take a shortcut, they wouldn't be faced with the problems they brought on themselves and their family.

While few illegal immigrants have any serious criminal records, that's not to say that there are those here illegally who do. In 2016, a study performed by the University of California (Riverside) and Highline College in Des Moines, Washington, confirmed what many have suspected, namely that there is a relationship between an increase in violent crime and sanctuary cities. The researchers looked at 54 cities in 19 states, plus the District of Columbia, from 2000 through 2014. They then compared the data gathered between sanctuary cities and non-sanctuary cities. The results showed "significant" increases in not just violent crimes, but also property crime, child abuse, as well as aggravated rape. In some cases, according to the report, these increases showed double compared to non-sanctuary cities.

Part of the reason for the increase is that word travels fast. Criminal gangs, which often have significant percentages of illegal aliens (up to 80% according to a 2013 FBI "National Gang Report"), tend to gather in cities where they don't have to worry about local police holding individuals for ICE, not to mention that basic economics dictate that criminal gangs follow the immigrant, legal or not. However, there are some reports which differ from data gathered by ICE and other federal law enforcement agencies, which claim that there is no relationship between increased crime and sanctuary status. Nevertheless, these are often based on studies taken from reported crimes at the local level, which, admittedly, are often underreported by the police. Of course, none of this is to imply that every illegal immigrant is violent; however, their illegal status does make them by definition a criminal.

So, what are to make of this? Frankly, I don't know. Certainly Louisville's Metro Council could have used the local media more vigorously in announcing that the topic of Louisville becoming a "sanctuary city" would be on the agenda at its upcoming meeting. It's failure to do so speaks volumes of its intent. With almost half of the Metro Council as well as the Office of Mayor are coming up for reelection; this will definitely be an issue. Lastly, I think the residents of Jefferson County can legitimately hold the existing Mayor, Greg Fischer, and the Metro Council entirely accountable for any increase in crime as result of this little power play. Until such time as federal laws concerning immigration and the disposition of illegal aliens are changed, state and local governments have a Constitutional duty to abide by federal laws, especially so long as they continue to accept federal money to pay for various domestic programs. Remember, one of the chief outcomes of the Civil War supposedly established the supremacy of federal jurisdiction over state or local . I think the state and local governments who have or are considering "sanctuary city" status should recall the old say, "Who pays the piper calls the tune". You can't have it both ways.



Data In! Sanctuary Cities Have Higher Crime Rates


'Sanctuary City' crime wave in 43 states


Crime drops in Phoenix after city drops sanctuary city status former cops say


The Truth About Sanctuary Cities and Crime Rates


FBI Data Backs Up Trumps Claims on Illegals and Crime