Opinion: Taking action against sanctuary state
To the community,
The State of Jefferson joins the California Sheriff’s Association and National Sheriff’s Association, in their call for Congress to “take action and pass sensible legislation that doesn’t hamstring law enforcement.”
The citizens of the 21 counties that encompass the State of Jefferson have long supported their county sheriff’s who have declared they will comply with federal immigration law, should the Governor sign SB54. The Jefferson leadership has been outspoken about Brown and his administration, putting the needs of illegal aliens (criminals) before that of the health and safety of American citizens.
They stated that SB54 not only bars sheriff’s and police from asking people about their immigration status or participation in most federal immigration enforcement activities, but also would largely prohibit school and security officers, from using money or staff to investigate, question, hold or arrest people for immigration violations.
State of Jefferson also supports efforts by Republican Congressman Tom McClintock and others who are looking at ways to intervene, to include; that cities and counties who are within a sanctuary state would be able to file and be awarded federal grant monies. The counties of Tehama, Siskiyou and cities of Anderson and Lincoln, have already adopted resolutions, declaring they will comply with federal immigration laws.
Efforts continue by residents in many of the northern rural counties, requesting that their county supervisors also take a stand, adopting similar resolutions, and also officially support their county sheriffs who have taken a vow to uphold the laws of our U.S. Constitution.
Those of Jefferson are not alone in their opposition of sanctuary counties and cities. In a recent poll by the University of California, Berkeley, 74 percent of Californian’s opposed sanctuary jurisdiction.
The passage of SB54, is just another example of Brown and his cohorts ignoring the voice of the people, just as with the passage of the recent gas tax increase, along with the lack of representation that exists for rural residents in the California Legislature. It is time that Brown and his administration, start respecting California citizens and our law enforcement officers, who everyday risk their lives, diligently doing their jobs to protect their communities.
Terry Gherardi, State of Jefferson
By any measure, our local law-enforcement does not have sufficient resources to pursue the crime that we already have. Because of this, the expectation that law-enforcement will have to spend their valuable resources enforcing other laws bothers me. Imagine the scenario where an intruder is attempting to gain access to my home. I call 911 and ask for an officer to come. Meanwhile, the officer is involved in a car stop where he suspects that the driver may not be here legally. The officer then starts the process to verify the driver’s immigration status. Now, the intruder has opened the window to my house with a crowbar and is entering my home. Back to the officer, he is now transporting the suspected illegal immigrant to the county jail. It turns out that the illegal immigrant isn’t illegal but doesn’t have the required documents with him. My family is dead.
Although this is an exaggerated scenario, the point is that the law-enforcement that we pay for may be used to provide service to another agency without proper compensation and the limited resources that we already know about will be diluted and diverted from the uses that we need.
I am not aware of how the Federal Government plans to augment local law enforcement or to compensate us for the use of our scarce and already overtaxed law enforcement resources.
Further, the Federal Government has significant resources that should be brought to bear on enforcement of Federal law which are rarely used to help us locally.
This issue should not be acted on without considering the consequences of adding more responsibility to our local law enforcement without compensation and adding resources. At this point, the discussion is largely knee-jerk and emotional rather than well-considered policy.