Sanctuary cities are a bad idea, and here’s why (letter) |

Sanctuary cities are a bad idea, and here’s why (letter)

When I read the story about an illegal immigrant being charged in Denver with vehicular homicide the other day, and that his bail was set at $25,000 (one fourth the average bail for this offense), my interest in the case was piqued.

When I read that ICE was not notified of the arrest, which is a legal requirement, I began to suspect this case wasn’t being handled properly, particularly since we know that Denver’s objective is to be a sanctuary city.

When I read today that someone paid this low bail and the man charged for this serious offence was set free, my blood began to boil. Knowing that Denver desires to be recognized by the federal government as a sanctuary city caused me to be suspicious that this case might represent this objective.

Sanctuary cities hurt two ways. 1. Colorado is negatively affected when we confront our federal government by refusing to cooperate with ICE. Watch closely as to how the president punishes California because that’s what we could experience in the future if this nonsense continues. When the sheriff determined that this man was an illegal immigrant, ICE should have immediately been notified. The sheriff said he finally did notify them, but by then, the defendant had already been released on bail. As he left the building, the illegal immigrant might have even screamed, “I love this country!”

No. 2: The defendant has been set free on bail. As an illegal immigrant, he is not likely to show up at his scheduled hearing and will remain free until he commits his next crime because criminals tend to keep doing that, and of course, he still remains an illegal immigrant, safe for now from the clutches of the evil ICE. If he commits another crime (and criminals tend to do that), Coloradans could obviously be negatively impacted by his release and the blood would be on the hands of those liberal sanctuary city supporters who collaborated to effect his release.

The defendant is probably back in Mexico anyway, making consequence No. 2 a moot point. Nonetheless, he can always return, and guess where he’ll go: some sanctuary city, I’m betting. These sanctuary cities are a bad idea, an obvious example of liberal “mud-think.” Of course, liberals would rather be recognized as having good hearts (see my post on website) and resent the label of “mud-thinkers,” but this obvious support of such a bad idea certainly lends support to that label.

Liberals may showcase their compassion by supporting such nonsense, but in ignoring the negative impact on the rest of our law-abiding citizenry, their compassion is proved to be selective. Focusing on the pain of the illegal immigrant over the pain that is inflicted in cases like this defines “mud-think.” It usually doesn’t make sense to ignore serving the greater good, and ignoring the greater good is what sanctuary cities do best.

John Bartholomew


Support Local Journalism

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User

Trending - Opinion

Letter: Let’s not lose this ski season, too


I keep wondering how it is that the cases in Eagle County are rising so dramatically when I read so much about how everyone is being so careful. But I had some experiences recently that…

See more