Sanctuary Cities Were Always Anti-American

New York City, Chicago and Boston are among the sanctuary cities collapsing after waves of migrants stormed across the open borders. Even cities that once boasted of providing sanctuary to illegal aliens from federal immigration enforcement are now running away from the name.

Sanctuary cities were always intended to be destructive. They were not, as many Democrats now wrongly claim, about providing safe harbor to refugees, but about bringing down America.

The sanctuary cities did not emerge in response to the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide or any actual genocide, but to provide support and sanctuary for Marxists fleeing the civil wars they had started in Latin America, and then later for Islamic terrorists after September 11.

Sanctuary cities were not about helping refugees, but about harboring America’s enemies.

The sanctuary city movement emerged in the first years of the Reagan administration as Quakers, Catholic Liberation Theology and other leftist churches allied with the Soviet bloc intervened to protect leftist radicals fleeing El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua from deportation. That’s why the original announcement of the sanctuary movement was timed to the anniversary of the killing of Archbishop Oscar Romero, an El Salvadoran leftist activist whose death was used to campaign against U.S. aid to the country’s anti-Communist government.

The leftist churches did not offer to defy the law for all refugees, but focused specifically on the Reagan administration’s policy of deporting refugees from “El Salvador and Guatemala” as “illegal and immoral”. Their real complaint was that the Reagan administration was taking in the ‘wrong sort’ of refugees from Communist countries, instead of those from south of the border who were fleeing government crackdowns on Marxist revolutionary movements.

The sanctuary city movement described Reagan’s policy of deporting Latin American Marxist revolutionaries as “illegal” because the administration continued to favor refugees from Communist countries. Carter’s 1980 Refugee Act, which opened the door to the current border crisis, had been meant to shift the flow of refugees away from Communist countries by putting the UN in charge of defining who a refugee was. And that definition would favor leftists.

The larger agenda had less to do with refugees and more to do with aiding Marxist revolutions.

“I am looking for a confrontation,” Jack Elder, the activist who headed up Casa Oscar Romero, named after the archbishop, admitted. “There’s a moral force behind what we’re doing that has the potential to focus some light on foreign policy… There are bombing raids financed by the U.S. government.”

The sanctuary movement was smuggling migrants and then publicly announcing it to undermine the Reagan administration’s foreign policy and challenge American opposition to Communism.

At the Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson, one of the founding places of the sanctuary movement, Rev. John Fife, who would later be arrested and convicted, had put up a sign reading “This is a sanctuary for the oppressed from Central America”. Key figures in the sanctuary city movement did not just harbor illegal aliens, they helped them cross the border, leading to deliberate confrontations with the government that allowed them to play martyrs.

Even though the sanctuary movement had been initially cloaked in the religious guise of misplaced scripture and radical churches, the next stage depended on recruiting radical and not especially religious cities to create zones where immigration law would not apply. And radicals and migrants from south of the border then headed to those cities to overrun America.

When San Francisco announced that it would become the first sanctuary city, it did not open itself to all the refugees in the world, but focused on those coming from Central America.

The sanctuary city movement was meant to create a crisis that would force the Reagan administration to stop supporting anti-Communist movements south of the border by bringing the chaos and violence to the United States. This was in keeping with what had become the larger leftist mission to “bring the war home” in order to forcibly alter American foreign policy.

Much as the ‘Weathermen’ and their radical successors had carried out bombings to bring the Vietnam War home to Americans, the sanctuary city movement sought to bring the civil war in El Salvador to this country in order to dissuade Americans from fighting against Communism.

A year after the sanctuary city movement was announced, the number of illegal aliens rose 40% and hit 1.4 million by the end of 1983. Crime rates rose alongside the migrant invasion.

The sanctuary city movement led to the first manufactured border crisis. By acting as ‘magnets’ for migrants, sanctuary cities attracted large numbers of illegal aliens leading to the 1986 amnesty and eventually to the demographic shift of California to a Democrat majority state.

The number of illegals rose from 3 million before amnesty into the tens of millions. ...

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam and leftism.

President Trump’s second term will be the ultimate test of the sanctuary city movement. Its defenders claim that they are only protecting refugees, women and children, but the real story is that it is a movement at war with America that came into existence to aid our enemies.

The sanctuary city movement was always anti-American. Its core motivations were countering America’s defense against Communism and Islamism. It rejected U.S. law, not just because it thought any one part of it was wrong, but because it rejected the existence of America.

Long article, but Mr Greenfield strikes again into the real reason behind sanctuary cities - they hate the America of our fathers,

Ping out to the Daniel Greenfield Ping! list.

As always, please FReepmail me if you want on or off the esteemed Daniel Greenfield ping list.

Daniel Greenfield's website: The Sultan Knish blog

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.