Tag Archives: sanctuary cities

Mark Caserta: Huntington, WV. is becoming a sanctuary for everything bad in the U.S.

29 Dec

crime

(City-Data.com shows Huntington, WV. crime index higher than 97.2% of other U.S. cities)


me

Mark Caserta is an opinion columnist and editor of Free State Patriot

December 29, 2018


It’s imperative to remember “fake news”, or “news designed to influence, rather than inform,” is real.  And it’s alive and well in Huntington, WV.

Now, fake news targeting political differences is one thing. But, when “fake news” begins to compromise the safety of citizens…it’s time to hold media accountable.

It became a “red flag” when various local news media began reporting certain aspects of crime were down in Huntington. Any intellectually honest person with a pulse and a TV, radio or mobile device can certainly see the apparent level of criminal activity within the city of Huntington does not support those conclusions.

Those engaged individuals monitoring Norm Miller’s Huntington City Watch and its “real time” reporting would be the first to challenge the validity of these media claims.

Free State Patriot, Huntington City Watch and concerned citizens decided to investigate the actual numbers.

First, understand, numbers can be manipulated. When dealing with double or even triple digits, percentages are easily impacted and skewed to influence rather than inform.

Some percentages may show a decrease, but when dealing with double or even triple digits, percentages are easily impacted. For example, if a city had 20 homicides in 2017, and incurred 3 less in 2018, the media could accurately report homicides were down 15 percent.

But for all intents and purposes, is there really much difference between 20 and 17 lives taken in a year? “15 percent” is just ambiguous enough to sound more impactful for the story and support a desired agenda. It simply cannot be construed as a trend, as some would have you believe.

Many engaged citizens are very concerned that our local media, both print and television, are in the back pocket of the local deep state and want you to believe our city leaders have Huntington headed in the right direction.

I submit nothing could be further from the truth.

Having lived in this area my entire life, I know we’ve prided ourselves in the Tri-State as having comparatively low crime rates compared to cities across the country. Contrary to reports, those days have passed us by. I’m going to offer some specific numbers relative to Huntington, WV. as compared to national averages.

According to City-Data.com, a website that tracks all things “crime-related” across the nation, Huntington, West Virginia has achieved, yet, another dubious recognition.

It has become one of the most dangerous cities in the country. In fact, per the website, Huntington’s crime index is higher than 97.2 percent of other cities in our nation!

There are currently 177 registered sex offenders living in Huntington, as of December 29, 2018. That’s a ratio of one sex offender per every 273 citizens.

The fact that in 2016, the violent crime rate in Huntington was exactly “double” that of the U.S. average should be extremely concerning for all of us.

The following are criminal statistics per 100,000 in population and have been mathematically adjusted to align with our current, reported city population:

    • Murders per 100,000 population – Huntington 6.2 vs. U.S. 5.7
    • Rapes per 100,000 population – Huntington 68 vs. U.S. 32
    • Robberies per 100,000 population – Huntington 258 vs. U.S. 110
    • Assaults per 100,000 population – Huntington 447 vs. U.S. 266
    • Thefts per 100,000 population – Huntington 3084 vs. U.S. 1869
    • Auto thefts per 100,000 population – Huntington 237 vs. U.S. 254
    • Arson per 100,000 population – Huntington 41.2 vs. U.S. 15.2
    • City-data.com crime index – Huntington 559 vs. U.S. 236

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Huntington-West-Virginia.html#ixzz5b61qKjuw

Now, the role of mayor can vary significantly depending on the city in which they were elected. In the city of Huntington, the mayor and the city council work together on developing and approving legislation within the boundaries of our city charter. Both entities have their prescribed veto power and generally share responsibility of city business.

So, if you were responsible for a city facing this mounting criminal presence, how would you address it? How important would the peace and prosperity of your constituents be? How inclined would you be to reduce law enforcement simply to accommodate a budget?

Who is worthy to decide it was worth putting our citizens at risk?

Well, in 2017, as reported in a January, WSAZ News Channel 3 news release, Huntington Mayor Steve Williams authorized reductions reducing police department staffing by 17 officers and fire department staffing by seven. In a statement in the release by Mayor Williams, the cuts were made to reduce the city’s budget deficit which was apparently poorly managed.

“We have made every effort to save as many jobs as possible and continue providing essential services,” Williams said. “These actions will not resolve all of our budget issues. We know we will be managing our way out of this for the next 18 months with the primary objective of avoiding further reductions in force. Our residents expect and deserve world-class service, and as we continue to address these financial constraints, we will implement procedures to ensure this cannot happen again.”

“The fact is when we came down through the end of the fiscal year and knew that some things were tight, we asked for budgets as we were preparing for the coming year,” Mayor Steve Williams said Thursday on First Look at Four. “and the next thing, we look at where we are right now, and that’s when the overages in each department became extremely clear. This should’ve been seen sooner. This is nobody’s fault but mine.”

At the time, WSAZ spoke with members of the police and fire departments.

“For the first time in 23 years, this mayor came in and handed our chief a budget,” said Sgt. Brian Lucas, the president of the local Fraternal Order of Police. “Not a number to form a budget around – he said here’s your budget. That budget included 111 officers, but he only allowed enough money for 102 and we were mandated to hire up to 113 at one point.”

“This is just a horrible decision on the mayor’s part,” said Lucas. “I’m not a numbers guy, but there has to be a better way. I think this situation’s been totally mismanaged and he’s absolutely laid it on the backs of employees at this point, throwing those cuts out there and he’s putting the citizens at risk.”

And putting the citizens of Huntington at risk is EXACTLY what has happened.

We now face an overwhelming crisis of crime to the degree I’ve not witnessed in my lifetime in the area. Our crime rate is even much higher than any of our nearest cities, some exponentially! And adding “insult to injury” we have a local media that is attempting to convince us our city is headed in the right direction.

Is that the Huntington, WV you want for your family? Are we going to support local media that apparently has more concern for the perceived success of this administration than it does your safety?

We are 6 months away from the end of “18 month” period during which Mayor Williams said, “we would be managing our way out of this…” We should demand an increase in our city’s police presence, certainly by then or even sooner!

I highly recommend everyone visit Huntington City Watch on Facebook and submit your application for membership. It currently has over 20,000 members in a city hovering around 40,000 members. As we all know, there is strength in numbers.  It’s truly a great way to see through the fake news.

The city of Huntington is becoming a sanctuary for all that’s bad in our nation.

Intentionally?  You decide.  Nevertheless, it’s true.

Get informed, engaged and involved – before it’s too late.

 

More California Cities Seek to Defy ‘Sanctuary State’ as Revolt Spreads

21 Mar

sanct

Bill Wechter / AFP / Getty

by JOEL B. POLLAK

21 Mar 2018

More California cities may consider defying the state’s “sanctuary state” laws, after the city council of Los Alamitos passed an ordinance defying the state’s controversial new legislation preventing cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Leaders of Los Alamitos, in Orange County, passed the ordinance 4-1 and instructed the city attorney to file an amicus brief in the ongoing Department of Justice lawsuit against the State of California. The lawsuit challenges the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (HB 450), the Inspection and Review of Facilities Housing Federal Detainees law (AB 103); and the California Values Act (SB 54).

The Orange County Register reports that other cities — and even Orange County itself — are now thinking of following suit (original links):

The County of Orange and several cities in Southern California soon might join Los Alamitos in its bid to opt out of a controversial state law that limits cooperation with federal immigration officials.

Officials with the county as well as leaders in Aliso Viejo and Buena Park said Tuesday they plan to push for various versions of the anti-sanctuary ordinance approved in Los Alamitos late Monday by a 4-1 vote of that city council.

Immigration advocates said Los Alamitos and cities and counties that follow its opt-out ordinance will be violating state law and at risk of litigation.

But Los Alamitos’ anti-sanctuary push also received wide attention in conservative media, and gained support from those who don’t agree with California’s protective stance on all immigrants, regardless of legal status.

Orange County is a key battleground in 2018, both at the state and federal levels. Democrats are hoping to pick up several U.S. House seats in the county, which voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 — the first time in decades that the traditionally conservative county had backed a Democrat.

But Republicans are backing a recall of State Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton) for voting to raise the gas tax. A ballot initiative to repeal the gas tax hike could also bring Republicans out to vote. And the immigration issue is likely to fuel turnout even more.

Proponents of the Los Alamitos legislation argued that the state was forcing local officials to defy their oath to the Constitution, and that the new ordinance was faithful to the rule of law.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named to Forward’s 50 “most influential” Jews in 2017. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, which is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Read More Stories About:

Big GovernmentBreitbart CaliforniaImmigrationConstitutionIllegal AliensLos AlamitosOrange CountySanctuary State

 

Mark Caserta: Sanctuary cities are not above the law

16 Mar

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

Mark 16, 2018

 

sanctuary pic

March 16, 2018

 

Illegal immigration is one of the most politically charged topics of our time, and rightfully so. Dealing with it is one of the promises that helped Donald Trump win the presidency. So true to form, President Trump is honoring his commitment to the American people.

Last week, Attorney General, Jeff Sessions announced he was suing California over “sanctuary” laws for illegal immigrants. While the definition is vague, sanctuary cities place themselves above the law by imposing local or state laws prohibiting city employees, funds or resources from assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in enforcing federal immigration law.

Understand, Sessions isn’t asking California to “enforce” any immigration law – simply to get out of the way and allow ICE to do its job!

This reckless disregard for federal law endangers the lives of U.S. citizens, as well as the lives of law enforcement working to protect Americans. Two weeks ago, Oakland, California, Mayor Libby Schaaf audaciously notified residents of an imminent raid by ICE, preparing criminals in advance.

This should be outrageous to any sensible human being, but understand these are liberals, and the term “sensible” doesn’t apply to liberals from a conservative perspective.

In fact, in stark comparison, look at what the ultra-liberal Obama administration did in 2010, when they sued Arizona over the state’s efforts to “enforce” federal law by cracking down on illegal immigrants. The Arizona law, signed by then Gov. Jan Brewer, gave police the power to question anyone who they had a “reasonable suspicion” was an illegal immigrant. While the U.S. Supreme Court struck down parts of the law (5-3), it let stand a provision allowing police to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.

So, why are we at risk by not enforcing border security?

The U.S. Department of Justice documents “that in 2014, 19 percent, or over 12,000 criminal cases filed by prosecutors in the U.S., were for violent crimes, and over 22 percent, or 13,300 cases were for drug related felonies.” The same year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that “75 percent of all criminal defendants who were convicted and sentenced for federal drug offenses” and “one-third of all federal prison sentences” involved illegal immigrants, as reported in a 2017 column by Roy Martinelli, a columnist for “The Hill.”

This liberal fight for open borders isn’t about civil rights or compassion. It’s about progressive Democrats building a dependable voter base. And frankly, “damned” be the rights of U.S. citizens and our nation’s sovereignty. Liberal Democrats seem more passionate about protecting the rights of illegal immigrants in the U.S. than they do for protecting lawful U.S. citizens.

And liberals never discuss crimes committed by illegal immigrants related to procuring fraudulent Social Security numbers, obtaining false drivers licenses, using fake green cards and flooding our social welfare system on your nickel!

The radical, liberal desire for open borders spells danger for every American.

We are a nation of laws. There must be consequences for states, cities, jurisdictions and people who harbor illegal immigrants. California, hopefully, will be the first of many.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Mark Caserta: Sanctuary cities affect sovereignty, safety

5 Nov

me

Mark Caserta:  Free State Patriot editor

Nov 3, 2017

kate

 

 

Opening statements began last week in the case of Katie Steinle, 32, who was killed as she strolled along the San Francisco waterfront with her father. Steinle was fatally shot by a homeless illegal immigrant who had returned to the U.S. multiple times illegally.

Per multiple news sources, including Fox News, Steinle’s father delivered an emotional testimony, sharing Katie’s ardent plea, “Help me, dad,” as her last words.

Two days after Steinle was killed, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump unleashed a scathing statement on the shooting.

“This senseless and totally preventable act of violence committed by an illegal immigrant is yet another example of why we must secure our border immediately,” he said. “This is an absolutely disgraceful situation, and I am the only one that can fix it. Nobody else has the guts to even talk about it. This won’t happen if I become president.”

Trump was, no doubt, referencing the role of “so-called” sanctuary cities, ignoring federal immigration law and providing aid and protection for illegals entering our country.

San Francisco, for example, passed an ordinance in 1989 prohibiting city employees, funds or resources from assisting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in enforcing federal immigration law. If an illegal was identified through contact such as an arrest, ICE was not to be notified, protecting them from possible deportation.

Since becoming president, Trump has been delivering on his promise to the American people by helping enforce current immigration law. National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd reports a “miraculous” drop in illegal immigration under the Trump administration, per Fox Business.

Within a week following being sworn into office, President Trump ignited a firestorm when he signed an executive order designed to crack down on sanctuary cities and “jurisdictions” that harbor illegal immigrants by stripping them of federal grant money. The order, by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, directs the Office of Management and Budget to compile federal grant money going to the sanctuary districts.

Aside from cities, at least five states, California, Oregon, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Vermont, have “enacted laws that limit how much police can contribute assistance to federal immigration agents,” according to the New York Times. The Times also noted it’s difficult to determine just how many cities offer sanctuary for illegals, since some do not have an official ordinance or policy in place.

“Unfortunately, over the last several decades, respect for the rule of law has broken down and immigration enforcement has been sacrificed for the sake of political expediency,” said Attorney Jeff Sessions in a statement released by the White House this month.

There is no “up side” for protecting illegal immigrants in our country, beyond the Democrats’ political ambition for creating a dependable voter base. And frankly, they’re willing to do so at the expense of our nation’s sovereignty and our citizens’ safety.

Any sanctuary states, cities and/or jurisdictions found guilty of breaking federal law should be held accountable, financially, and the leaders responsible should face criminal charges. Anything less compromises the rule of law.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

 

 

 

 

Mark Caserta: Sanctuary cities aren’t above the law

16 Jul

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot editor

Jul. 16, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

Why would our government permit any U.S. city to knowingly and willingly harbor illegal aliens?

Cities around the country, known as “sanctuary cities,” are literally incentivizing illegal immigration by adopting policies which essentially nullify federal immigration law. And it’s no surprise that these are some of the most liberal cities in the United States.

So are these cities within their right to circumvent federal law and endanger the sovereignty of our nation, aid in crippling our economy, and put innocent lives at risk? How does one justify such an abominable progressive policy?

mc 3

Liberals justify the need for creating sanctuary policies under the guise of “protecting immigrant rights.” But clearly these are not immigrants, but illegal aliens who should be subject to deportation under federal law.

Sanctuary policies are generally passed by a local governing body in the form of a resolution, ordinance or administrative action. They usually instruct city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens living in their communities. Since there is vague distinction between legal and illegal aliens, these individuals typically benefit from taxpayer-funded government services and programs.

In protecting these illegals, many with criminal backgrounds are allowed to remain in the country. While policies differ, if an illegal is arrested for a crime in a sanctuary city, they may serve jail time, but will not be turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation. Many are repeat offenders and when released, lurk as an ongoing danger to a community.

According to a July column written by Jessica Vaughn for the Center for Immigration Studies, 276 jurisdictions, both state and local, have caused the release of more than 8,000 criminal alien offenders across the country over an eight-month period. Vaughn cites ICE records obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request.

According to the records, 63 percent of the individuals freed by local authorities had prior criminal histories or were labeled a “public safety concern.” Nearly 1,900 of the released offenders subsequently were arrested for another crime within the eight-month period.

kate

One such offender was Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien who had been deported five times and had racked up seven felony convictions. While in the midst of yet another deportation, the city of San Francisco asked for custody of Sanchez to pursue prior drug charges. Unremarkably, these charges were dropped, but in accordance to the city’s long standing sanctuary policies, Sanchez was not returned to ICE for deportation. Less than three months later, Sanchez was accused of shooting and killing Kathryn Steinle, a 32-year-old out for an evening stroll with her father along the waterfront.

Progressive policies like this are destroying our nation, not flags, guns or otherwise. But while liberal Democrats continue down this debilitating road, the GOP continues to lack the intestinal fortitude to address politically volatile issues.

It’s time for impotent politicians to make way for patriots willing to stand up and be heard.

When it comes to illegal immigration, no city is above the law.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

%d bloggers like this: