Share
Commentary

First 'Super Sanctuary' Created in San Diego, Would Literally Protect Jailed Rapists from Deportation

Share

Every once in a while, Americans need a reminder of what really matters to leftists and why.

On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors for San Diego County, California, voted 3-1 to adopt what dissenting Supervisor Jim Desmond called a “super” sanctuary policy.

As Desmond noted in a clip posted Tuesday to the social media platform X, the board’s new policy, in practical terms, would mean protection not only for illegal immigrants who have broken the law simply by virtue of entering the country illegally, but also, shockingly, for those who have committed violent crimes, including “torture, rape and kidnapping.”

Specifically, the new policy would prohibit local law enforcement from notifying Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials about violent illegals. And that prohibition would apply even if law enforcement already has those illegals in custody.

“I think this policy goes beyond California’s existing sanctuary laws,” Desmond said at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting.

Desmond, a Republican, then outlined a list of offenses illegal aliens could commit and still receive “super” sanctuary protection.

“And they have committed heinous crimes,” Desmond said of illegals currently in San Diego County jails, “including child abuse or endangerment, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs but only if this conviction is for a felony, possession of an unlawful deadly weapon, gang-related offenses, a crime resulting in death or involving personal affliction or great bodily injury, possession or use of a firearm in the commission of an offense, torture, rape, and kidnapping.”

Three San Diego County supervisors voted to protect those criminals from ICE.

In an accompanying post, Desmond pledged to work with President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration “to undo this disastrous policy.”

Meanwhile, the new “super” sanctuary policy already looks like a dead letter.

In a statement late Tuesday, San Diego County Sheriff Kelly A. Martinez announced that she “will continue to follow state law.” And that law, she wrote, includes “no loophole” for shielding violent criminals from ICE.

Martinez’s statement also included the usual nauseating paeans to “undocumented individuals” and the “diversity of the community.” Yet even she regarded the Board of Supervisors’ new policy as unacceptable.

Likewise, in a strongly-worded news release, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Office amplified Martinez’s rejection of the “super” sanctuary policy.

Related:
'I've Got a Billion Dollars in My Pocket' - TX Official Snaps Up Auctioned Border Wall Materials to Give to Trump

“The Sheriff’s Office will not change its practices based on the Board resolution,” the news release read.

“The Board of Supervisors does not set policy for the Sheriff’s Office. The Sheriff, as an independently elected official, sets the policy for the Sheriff’s Office. California law prohibits the Board of Supervisors from interfering with the independent, constitutionally and statutorily designated investigative functions of the Sheriff, and is clear that the Sheriff has the sole and exclusive authority to operate the county jails,” the news release concluded.

Of course, if Sheriff Martinez refuses to enforce the new “super” sanctuary policy, then it means nothing.

Still, one should not overlook the broader meaning of that policy.

On one hand, some liberals simply want to virtue signal over illegal immigration. Those people may be safely ignored or mocked.

On the other hand, deranged leftists really do prefer criminal aliens to law-abiding Americans.

In fact, as they have shown this week, deranged leftists celebrate murderers while condemning actual heroes.

Should each commissioner who voted for this policy be removed from office?

If they could, and if it meant acquiring power, those leftists would create an army of illegals. Then, they might even force Americans to house those illegals. Deranged leftists, after all, care nothing for the First or Second Amendment, so why would they care about the Third?

In sum, the new “super” sanctuary policy probably amounts to mere virtue signaling.

That does not mean, however, that we should underestimate the hostile and deranged leftists who support such things.

Truth and Accuracy

Submit a Correction →



We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Share
Michael Schwarz holds a Ph.D. in History and has taught at multiple colleges and universities. He has published one book and numerous essays on Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the Early U.S. Republic. He loves dogs, baseball, and freedom. After meandering spiritually through most of early adulthood, he has rediscovered his faith in midlife and is eager to continue learning about it from the great Christian thinkers.
Michael Schwarz holds a Ph.D. in History and has taught at multiple colleges and universities. He has published one book and numerous essays on Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the Early U.S. Republic. He loves dogs, baseball, and freedom. After meandering spiritually through most of early adulthood, he has rediscovered his faith in midlife and is eager to continue learning about it from the great Christian thinkers.




Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.

Conversation