Great Time To Be a Sanctuary State

The disaster that is New York City under Mayor Eric Adams and District Attorney Alvin Bragg continues to unfold. One current scourge is a scooter gang that, among other things, dragged a 62-year-old woman down the street:

The two suspects — Cleyber Andrade, 19, and Juan Uzcatgui, 23 — are allegedly part of a wider ring whose members are connected to 62 different instances of grand larceny throughout the Big Apple – including a shocking caught-on-video heist where a 62-year-old woman was brutally dragged down a street, police sources told The Post.

But cops are still searching for the main man, a migrant named Victor Parra, who was cut loose by a judge in December after getting picked up for grand larceny, sources said.

62 instances of grand larceny? You would think that would be worth prosecuting. Video of the woman being dragged behind the scooter at the link.

You might think that the experience of states like New York, California, Texas and Arizona would motivate other states to do anything possible to deter an influx of illegal immigrants. (I take it that “migrants” is now code for illegal immigrants.) But no: per legislation that has been introduced in the upcoming legislative session, Minnesota is contemplating becoming America’s 13th sanctuary state. American Experiment’s Bill Glahn reports:

The bill would prohibit state and local law enforcement and judicial authorities from cooperating with Federal immigration agencies.

In Minnesota, Hennepin and Nobles are already sanctuary counties. The bill would extend the practice statewide. Hennepin County includes the state’s largest city, Minneapolis.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune is reporting that officials from the already sanctuary areas of Minneapolis and Hennepin County are backing the extension of sanctuary status to the rest of the state.

Spread the misery, I suppose. Tim Walz, likely the most far-left governor in the U.S., is reported to be behind the proposal.

In fact, the bill extends well beyond ICE to ban cooperation with Homeland Security, U.S. Marshals, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, and other Federal agencies. (Lines 1.15-1.19)

Under the bill “state and local agencies” covers any employee of state or local government, including teachers. (Lines 1.20-2.8)

Under the bill (Line 2.25), no state or local employee could “stop, question, investigate, detain, detect, report, or arrest a person.”

It further would not allow (Line 2.26) any employee to

respond to a hold, notification, civil immigration warrant, or transfer request from federal immigration authorities, including but not limited to a detainer request made by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

All great ideas if you want your community to be destroyed by criminal illegal aliens, as so many have been.

Bill Glahn cites several instances of how this legislation, if passed, would work. This is one of them:

It’s been widely reported that a known middle-eastern terrorist slipped through the border near San Diego and roamed America for a year before being apprehended last month in Minneapolis. Law enforcement in Minneapolis and Hennepin County are already prohibited from cooperating with ICE. The sanctuary bill would extend this to all state officials.

Under the bill, no person in Minnesota could assist in capturing a known international terrorist.

Why would anyone even consider voting for a bill that is intended to attract illegal immigrants to a state, and to make it more difficult for the violent criminals among them to be apprehended, deported or punished? There is no plausible answer to that question, other than the fact that liberals want to destroy America, including their own communities. That conclusion may be shocking, but it is true: liberalism is perverse, to put it politely. The ultimate question is, do voters care?

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.