The President of Princeton University may find himself in hot water with the left very soon. He dared to question the validity of sanctuary campuses.
The Daily Caller reports:
Fancypants College President: The Term ‘Sanctuary Campus’ ‘Has No Basis In Law’
n the wake of last month’s presidential election, petitions have cropped up at countless U.S. colleges and universities demanding that the campuses flout federal law and become ill-defined sanctuaries for illegal immigrants.
The presidents of at least three schools — Wesleyan University, Reed College and Portland State University — have announced that they will do all they can to defy U.S. government efforts to enforce immigration law, and will forthwith do all they can to become “sanctuary campuses” for students who are illegal immigrants, according to Inside Higher Ed.
The president of Princeton University, Christopher L. Eisgruber, has taken a different tack, observing in a campus-wide letter in recent days that the concept of the “sanctuary campus” “has no basis in law, and that colleges and universities have no authority to exempt any part of their campuses from the nation’s immigration laws.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Bravo, sir!
The age of PCisms has been cracked.
People are going to be more and more inclined to speak truth.
Finally!
Nobody ever claimed or imagined that the term “sanctuary city” or “campus” had some legal meaning. It’s made-up term that simply means a city or campus (or any other entity) that stands on its undoubted right not to voluntarily do the federal government’s work for it.
Nothing has ever prevented federal authorities from using their own resources to enforce the law in “sanctuary cities”, and they routinely do so. But obviously this makes their work harder and slower than it would be if the city were to choose to cooperate.
The same is true of campuses, churches, or any other entities that declare themsemves “sanctuaries”. None of them can or propose to prevent federal law enforcement, they simply choose not to lift a finger to help it.
The situation is different in cities and state universities that are in R-controlled states, since (unless state law forbids it) the state can order them to cooperate with federal authorities.
Like, say, Juan Lopez-Sanchez, who ICE turned over to San Francisco deputies for a drug warrant, but with an immigration detainer. That way SF wouldn’t set him free when done with him, but instead turn him back over to ICE. But San Francisco released him anyway, claiming there was “no legal reason” (that San Francisco recognized) to detain him. Then while free he murdered Kate Steinle.
You mean that kind of “not lifting a finger to help”?
Made that very same point elsewhere. Just claiming it doesn’t make it so. Just snowflakes…with the emphasis on flake.