Sanctuary City Mayor: Trump Trying to Make Us ‘Fugitive Slave Catchers’
Repellent metaphor
An Al Sharpton guest has the early lead for today’s most simultaneously inflammatory and nonsensical statement.
Ras Baraka, mayor of Newark, NJ, said that in clamping down on sanctuary cities such as his, the Trump administration is “trying to intimidate us into being what I’ve called fugitive slave catchers.”
Not only is the image abhorrent, it is utterly illogical. By enforcing the immigration laws, the Trump admin is not seeking to force illegal immigrants into uncompensated labor. To the contrary, the goal is to deport them.
Far from challenging Baraka over his repellent metaphor, Sharpton adopted it, asking Baraka what will happen if the Trump admin starts cutting federal funds “because you won’t break rank and do what you said, [be] a fugitive slave kind of” catcher.
Note Baraka’s smile as he says “what I’ve called” fugitive slave catchers. So Baraka has used this vile phrase before and is well-pleased with himself about it.
AL SHARPTON: Newark, New Jersey’s Mayor Ras Baraka . . . The president has gone out of his way, the attorney general Jeff sessions actually threatened mayors like you of sanctuary cities turning off certain funding. Why are they targeting you?
RAS BARAKA: I think them targeting sanctuary cities a way for them to tell mayors and folks around the country that they’re sticking to what I think is an un-American and unconstitutional policy and trying to intimidate us into being what I’ve called fugitive slave catchers.
. . .
SHARPTON: What happens if they start cutting your federal funds because you won’t break rank and do what you said, [be] a fugitive slave kind of” [catcher]?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I pity the poor person who has to watch Al Sharpy’s show.
We watch so you don’t have to. 😉
Even for this fool, this is about the dumbest statement I’ve heard lately. Really beyond the pale.
Illegal aliens = slaves?
Really only that applies only to H-1 visa holders who are indentured to High Tech employers. They only become “illegal” if they attempt to run away.
I doubt there are many illegals named Toby.
This is what happens when you allow others to determine the narrative in any discussion. It become filled with inaccuracies.
Local authorities are not empowered to enforce federal laws or exercise federal warrants, unless they are granted such powers under federal law. And, local authorities do not have to enforce federal law, unless they choose to do so. But, to listen to all the pro-illegal immigrant supporters, you would think that the local officials are legally obligated to enforce federal law. This allows them to make outrageous statements such as the above, without wide spread criticism.
What the law of the land DOES prohibit is the willful obstruction of the federal government and its agents in their ability to enforce federal law. And, that is exactly what sanctuary cities, counties and states are doing. No one is asking local authorities to investigate the legal residence status of anyone or to enforce the federal laws applicable to that status. However, local authorities do have a both a moral and legal obligation to assist federal authorities in the enforcement of such laws by notifying the federal authorities when they gain knowledge that a person is violating federal law and to honor lawful orders of detainer.
Let’s look at this from the other side. Say a man murders the Mayor of San Francisco and flees to Los Angeles. A state warrant is issued for his arrest. He is encountered in LA by a member of the FBI, USMO or other federal agency. He has not committed any actions which are arrestable under federal law, but the federal agents become aware of the existence of the state warrant. What would the City of San Francisco, the State of California and the rest of the country say if the federal agents simply rel;eased this person because he had not violated a federal law? Would they applaud that actions? substitute Al Sharpton for the Mayor of San Francisco and allow this to all take place in Newark. Would Mayor Baraka applaud the actions of the federal authorities in that case? Highly unlikely.
Once one applies even a smidgen of common sense to this issue, all of the arguments for granting sanctuary to law breakers evaporates.
He’s not presenting an honest or rational argument, so there’s no honest or rational response which will work.
It’s one of those “have you stopped beating your House Negros yet?” statements.
The only responses are none at all, or to fight outrageous and illogical fire with more outrageous and illogical fire. Something along the lines, say, that apparently we can’t count on AfroAmericans to help defend the country from foreign invasion. Maybe even throw in something like, “Mayor Baraka tells me that for the first time in American history, we can’t count on …” etc. A statement of this sort must be tied to the original offender, else the Press will try to treat it as a new outrage from out of the blue.
I can’t agree with this statement.
I agree that comparing assisting the federal government in the enforcement of immigration laws to assisting in the detention of runaway slaves is ludicrous. However, if this is not pointed out, in a logical and cogent manner, it will simply stand as truth in the minds of others. You can not simply ignore the Big Lie and expect it to go away.
I presented two cases, that are fundamentally identical to what the mayor is arguing, which clearly illustrate that his argument is illogical and irrational. Now ALL of us can see that. And, this argument collapses.
However, local authorities do have a both a moral and legal obligation to assist federal authorities in the enforcement of such laws by notifying the federal authorities when they gain knowledge that a person is violating federal law and to honor lawful orders of detainer.
No, they don’t. That would be commandeering, and the tenth amendment protects them from it.
Wrong, Milhouse, as far as the moral obligation goes. Mayor Koch established a sanctuary city policy that prohibited any police officer from voluntarily communicating a prisoner’s immigration status to federal immigration authorities. In City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999) the court ruled Koch’s directive illegal since the federal government had not compelled the local police to do anything. The SCOTUS denied the city’s petition for review of the lower court’s decision.
Nearly all of these sanctuary cities and states have exactly that illegal policy. Police officers can under certain circumstances question an individual regarding their immigration status and if they determine the individual is in the US illegally they can inform ICE. Sanctuary cities are acting unconstitutionally when they prohibit that communication under threat of disciplinary action. Which, again, sanctuary localities do.
I call your City of New York and raise Prigg v Pennsylvania, in which the Supreme Court said the states have precisely the authority that the 2nd Circuit said they don’t. To the best of my knowledge it’s never been overruled.
“As to the authority so conferred on state magistrates […] state magistrates may, if they choose, exercise the authority unless prohibited by state legislation“.
That’s funny. You think that 1842 decision hasn’t been overturned. I’d say that the 1999 decision, which the SCOTUS let stand, says it has been overturned. Perhaps something has changed in the last 175 years that maybe you haven’t noticed. Perhaps many things have changed.
Trump wants sanctuary cities to stop pushing legal immigrants, American citizens, and unPlanned Posterity to the back of he bus. He wants the foreign and domestic anti-native factions to stop forcing catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform to cover up collateral damage from social justice adventurism including wars of aggression (e.g. elective regime changes), to exploit for labor arbitrage and Democratic leverage.
Seems like you are desperately trying to make a point by copying more erudite language you found somewhere else. But your version, sadly, is awful. It is a collection of adjectives that don’t convey your message very wall at all.
Can you put it into everyday language?
On thing a person learns is that when you communicate it is very important to get your message across clearly and precisely. If not then your entire effort is wasted. Your comment is an example of a completely wasted effort.
All the left has to draw attention and attempt to plead their case to the public is inflammatory rhetoric. That, and the overuse of slander, such as the “R” word. Clearly this mayor knows that he will get immensely greater news coverage and viral social media traction by using slave analogies. Perhaps progressives are tested this new narrative in light of the failure of the Hitler and fascism themes?
Well, the Racism card has served them well for the last eight years, but it’s getting tired and worn, and the Sexism card they tried to play last November crashed and burned, so they’re left going back to the first card and seeing if they can crank it up to eleven. Oh, and Russians. And the world turning into a sewer because of cancelling various regulations rammed through in the last few months.
Heck, they’d use space aliens if they thought it would work.
I used Microsoft translator on the mayor’s name, but Ras Baraka doesn’t mean race baiter in some other language.
Back in the 80s when I was a co-pilot for a major airline, we had layovers in downtown Newark that were almost 20 hours long. When we checked in at the front desk of the nicest hotel in the downtown area we were handed written notes telling us, mostly white crew, to NOT go out after dark. Not alone but simply do not go out. Period. This was in the 80’s. This entire city is a streaming POS! If this moron is the mayor then he is thriving in this cesspool. We all know what lives in cesspools. If it weren’t for the illegal immigrants there would be no one for the locals to rob, rape and kill.
Let me ask all the sanctuary folks a question about an economic fairy tale. Lets say their local bank was robbed. This is a federal crime investigated by the FBI. During the robbery committed by a pair of illegal aliens they killed someone. They made a successful getaway but several hours later were stopped for a minor traffic infraction by the local police. Upon investigation the local police find out they are in this country illegally. The cop discovers visible evidence that they may have been involved in the recent bank robbery. They committed their crime in a sanctuary city.
What should the cop do?
A) Give them a warning regarding the minor traffic violation and send them on their way.
B) Ignore the suspected bank robbery and murder and send them on their way.
C) Notify his superior officers or Mayor or Governor and ask for advice and maybe lose his job.
D) Ignore everything he suspects, tell them to enjoy their stay in America and wish them “Good Luck”. and then send them on their way.
E) Perhaps just pick and chose the laws he agrees with and cite them for minor infractions.
F) Or how about he just performs his job according to the oath he swore to during his graduation and swearing-in ceremony. An oath similar to what the political folks in charge took as well to uphold the laws of our land.
Far from challenging Baraka over his repellent metaphor, Sharpton adopted it, asking Baraka what will happen if the Trump admin starts cutting federal funds “because you won’t break rank and do what you said, [be] a fugitive slave kind of” catcher.
It’s probably working perfectly for their audience.
Publicly educated drop outs.
Baraka is actually completely correct, not that there’s a moral euivalence between deporting illegal residents and catching fugitive slaves, but on the legal principle involved. Sanctuary cities and states rely on the exact same anti-commandeering doctrine that cities and states have used throughout US history to refuse to help the feds catch slaves, bust bootleggers, or run background checks on would-be gun owners.
Baracka is not correct and you have an overly broad definition of commandeering. When a sanctuary jurisdiction adopts an informal or formal policy that police officers may not cooperate with ICE to the extent they may not even communicate with them, then it’s the sanctuary jurisdiction that is acting unconstitutionally.
Prior to these cities, counties, and states adopting these sanctuary policies, police officers routinely and voluntarily provided this information to federal law enforcement. It is unconstitutional for these sanctuary jurisdictions to demand that police officers must not voluntarily cooperate with ICE. And the vast majority of police officers would voluntarily do so today if they weren’t being illegally threatened by the likes of this incoherent mayor.
I should add that when I mentioned that police officers can question suspects about their immigration status “under certain circumstances,” generally speaking as long as the original detention is lawful it’s extremely easy for a police officer to establish an independent reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal alien. Especially now, with the Mexican embassy and consulates handing out consular IDs like candy. If a police officer searches a suspect detained for another crime and one of the forms of ID they have is a consular ID, bingo!
“Rad Baraka”. I wonder what it used to be?