Sanctuary Policies May Shield Terrorists
[Guest post by DRJ]
Via Free Republic, Judicial Watch reports Massachusetts authorities knew an accomplice of the Times Square bomber was in the U.S. illegally but did nothing because of sanctuary policies:
“Khan was recently arrested in an FBI terror sweep for his involvement in the Time Square bombing earlier this month. The Boston cab driver is one of three men who funneled money to the fellow Pakistani terrorist (Faisal Shahzad) who tried to blow up New York’s Time Square with a series of bombs hidden in a sports utility vehicle.
When Khan applied for a license to drive a taxi, he admitted in writing that he had come to the United States illegally in 1991. The application was submitted to Boston Police but no action was ever taken. Khan easily obtained the cabbie license and regularly drove around one of the nation’s busiest airports with few restrictions. In fact the Boston Police Hackney Division approved Khan’s license to drive a taxi 13 times since he first applied in 1997.
There’s more alarming information about Khan that was disregarded by Boston authorities. As a gas-station employee he somehow had enough cash to buy $190,000 worth of shares in Boston taxi medallions, according to one news report, that points out no red flags were raised. Khan doubled his money just a few years later when he sold the shares, but no one bothered to look into the matter.”
The United States has dozens of sanctuary cities.
— DRJ
Let’s ask our AG if he’s read the AZ law yet – but he still hasn’t, doesn’t like it, and this incident has nothing to do with enforcement of our immigration laws.
Dmac (3d61d9) — 5/22/2010 @ 12:40 pmSanctuary cities plus government benefits for illegals such as Obama’s aunt and one wonders why there aren’t more terrorists in our country.
But then again who’s to say there aren’t when Obama is more worried about people getting carded when they take their kids to get ice cream? The priorities of our government officials are truly whacked out.
MU789 (aad8cf) — 5/22/2010 @ 1:24 pmThe public debate may hinge on which perspective wins out:
Grandmas being arrested getting ice cream by big racist meanies
MD in Philly (cb8efe) — 5/22/2010 @ 2:07 pmor
Criminals and terrorists getting a free pass because of incompetence and a warped sense of “what’s fair”
I can’t read the law well, but in my reading of SB 1070 In Article 8 G on page 2 it seems that an individual could bring an action against “any official or agency of this State or a County, City, Town or other political subdivision…”
That individual can get court costs, attorney fees and in addition no more than $5000 and no less than $1000 per day will go to the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Fund.
So am I right in thinking that being a sanctuary city in AZ is going to get expensive?
Steve G (7d4c78) — 5/22/2010 @ 4:35 pm‘Despite a 1996 federal law [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA )] that requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities (and some small) have adopted so-called “sanctuary policies.”‘
So…arrest the members of the city governments, charge them, toss them in jail.
That’ll cool their ardor a tad.
Dave Surls (989db9) — 5/22/2010 @ 4:58 pmGreetings:
I live in the San Francisco Bay area. Currently, a local woman is suing the CIty of San Francisco over its “sanctuary” policy under which a minor illegal immigrant, who was arrested a number of times, was not deported or referred to the Federal government. The illegal minor subsequently murdered the woman’s husband and her two sons. The Mayor of San Francisco is currently a candidate for Lieutenant Governor of California.
11B40 (4dcf0b) — 5/22/2010 @ 5:57 pmIt is amazing how Leftists are always saying how Federal Law pre-empts local law except when it comes to cooperating with Federal authorities on immigration matters.
AD - RtR/OS! (3c862f) — 5/22/2010 @ 7:50 pmAnd, the same applies in CA, where we have a statute that has most of the same language as the AZ law, that requires local entities to inquire of, and report to the Feds, the immigration status of those they come into contact with. And, CA law has a pre-emption clause, so that it would seem to this observer, that a sanctuary policy, or L.A.’s Special Order 40, would be a violation of CA law, and make those agencies of government liable for sanction.
more immigration…
AD - RtR/OS! (3c862f) — 5/22/2010 @ 7:53 pmIf the Left is not careful, this immigration dust-up could lead to the trimming-back, if not the elimination, of the qualified immunity enjoyed by government employees. It is well past time that our “public servants” be held accountable, to us, for their actions.
If the Left is not careful, this immigration dust-up could lead to the trimming-back, if not the elimination, of the qualified immunity enjoyed by government employees. It is well past time that our “public servants” be held accountable, to us, for their actions.
AD, that’s why one of the provisions of the new AZ law is that citizens can sue the government if they don’t enforce it. I’m not sure if it involves eliminating the qualified immunity or not but it sounds like someone in AZ figured the police and cities just might decide to do their own thing.
MU789 (aad8cf) — 5/22/2010 @ 9:27 pmhttp://www.king5.com/news/local/Investigators-Edmonds-rape-suspect-deported-nine-times-94637479.html
SteveG (11baba) — 5/23/2010 @ 7:28 am