The Center for Immigration Studies has published an analysis of Senate Bill 2146, the “Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect American Act” introduced by Senator David Vitter. This sanctuary legislation is designed to block state or local governments from enacting or continuing sanctuary laws or policies that protect aliens from the reach of federal immigration authorities, most especially with regard to aliens arrested and convicted for criminal offenses.
Recent data reveals an estimated 1,000 criminal aliens a month are being released due to sanctuary policies, making congressional action imperative. The bill seeks to incentivize state and local governments to cooperate with federal authorities by continuing existing grants to those which exchange information and comply with detainers; cutting federal funding to sanctuary governments which refuse to cooperate, that is then distributed to jurisdictions that do cooperate; and by providing immunity to officers when engaging in cooperative efforts, including complying with detainers or providing information.
View the entire report here.
“The Obama Administration refuses to deal with the sanctuary problem, which has led to crimes such as the murder of Kate Steinle by a five-times-deported illegal-alien felon,” said Dan Cadman, a Center fellow and author of the report. “This bill addresses the sanctuary policies which result in thousands of criminal aliens being released into our communities to reoffend. Unfortunately, it is not as comprehensive as the Davis-Oliver Act, which would deal with the sanctuary policies and the administration’s deliberate suppression of enforcement.”
Our experience with so-called human rights boards in Arizona is that they are made up of some genuine citizens, but also some with biases, an axe to grind, and questionable agendas.
The City of Mesa Human Relations Advisory Board (HRAB) is now under scrutiny for pushing the homosexual agenda on a city rated one of the most conservative and family-oriented communities in America. The board is now pushing city councilmen to serve as the directors of “feelings.” And to deliver a damaging blow to religious freedom in the community.
Here’s how it came about. The Mesa Human Relations Advisory Board conducted a study of attitudes of different demographic groups in the community: the “Mesa Speaks, Mesa Listens: Inclusion & Diversity Report.” It was approved last October.
Among the more noteworthy results were that people with disabilities and those with same-sex attraction and gender confusion reported the lowest levels of satisfaction with the city. More findings:
- Only 29 survey participants identified themselves as “LGBT”
- 5 percent said they have experienced discrimination based on their sexual orientation
- the board reported this sample is too small to draw broad conclusions about the community as a whole
- the board then nevertheless drew a conclusion that the disparity is large enough to warrant further consideration by policymakers.
In conclusion, a large majority of Mesa residents enjoy living in Mesa and feel valued and accepted as residents of the community. However, this is not the case for all segments of the population. While it is true that you can never please everyone, City leaders should be concerned by the disparity between the experiences of the community as a whole and specific subpopulations.
The HRAB envisions Mesa as a community that not only includes and respects its diversity, but is enriched by it. The results suggest that although there is much satisfaction with Mesa, more could be done not only to be more welcoming and inclusive, but to also be enriched by the diversity of the community.
Here are valid conclusions for you to draw:
- This solution in search of a problem is driving the city council’s intention to pass a resolution adding same-sex attraction and gender confusion to Mesa’s nondiscrimination policy.
- Bureaucrats have too much time on their hands and ought to focus on real problems like drug abuse and crime in Mesa.
- The proposed resolution will seriously damage religious freedom for individuals, businesses, and ministries in this community.
Write to the mayor and city councilmen and urge them to defeat this unneeded resolution and to get busy focusing on the concerns that matter most to the city:
email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com