Sanctuary Cities, an Invitation for Criminals

Sanctuary Cities, an Invitation for Criminals
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

On July 1, 2015, 32-year-old Kathryn “Kate” Steinle died from a bullet wound in her back. She had been enjoying a pleasant stroll with her father along one of the piers in San Francisco’s Embarcadero district. The bullet killing her came from a gun used by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez who claimed he was aiming at sea lions. One of the bullets he fired ricocheted off the pavement and struck Steinle. She died two hours later.

Are United States sanctuary cities an invitation for criminals? (Image from Wikimedia Commons by Burzum CC BY-SA 3.0)

An illegal immigrant from Mexico, Lopez-Sanchez had previously been deported from the U.S. five times. Loose control of the Mexico-U.S. border certainly invited his return for a sixth time. But something else figured into the tragedy that claimed a completely innocent victim. Lopez-Sanchez was in San Francisco because the city had declared itself a “sanctuary city,” one where cooperation with federal immigration laws has been declared practically null.

Once a city declares itself a “sanctuary” for immigrants, local policy prohibits police or city employees from questioning detainees about their immigration status, or even cooperating with federal immigration authorities in dealing with illegal entrants. Sanchez-Lopez was a known drug dealer who had been convicted three times in the state of Washington of felony heroin possession. He had amassed seven felony convictions total, but was still free to roam the country after his latest illegal entry. Deported to Mexico time after time, his return had become a certainty. And the gun he fired when Kate Steinle died had been stolen from a federal agent’s parked auto four days earlier. Not what anyone should call a good candidate for citizenship!

The killing of Kate Steinle and the entire matter of sanctuary cities became an issue in the 2016 presidential race. GOP candidate Donald Trump mentioned Lopez-Sanchez as an example of the need to deport foreign nationals living illegally in the U.S. At first, Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton relied on the same term she used when questions were raised about her cavalier use of unsecured computers to conduct sensitive U.S. business. She said San Francisco had made a “mistake” in not deporting someone the federal government strongly felt should be sent back to Mexico. Clinton loves that word. Exactly one day later, the Clinton campaign effectively reversed what she had stated, claiming that Mrs. Clinton “believes sanctuary cities can help further public safety.” Choose which of those two positions you wish.

But what about sanctuary cities themselves? In effect, they constitute a thumbing of the nose at legitimate laws designed to thwart unlawful immigration. If the entire nation adopted sanctuary policy, there would soon be no nation, because, as history has shown, a nation without control of its borders soon ceases to be independent.

Arguments favoring the sanctuary declaration like to point to a seemingly related policy known as nullification, the refusal of a city or state to obey a law they claim has no legal basis. But there is a huge difference in these two ways of dealing with laws one doesn’t like. Sanctuary cities – sometimes even counties – choose to ignore federal mandates while still accepting federal aid of various kinds. Nullifiers are willing to accept the consequence of losing federal aid because of their refusal to abide by a mandate they find onerous, even abusive of higher law.

The death of Kate Steinle raised national awareness about declaring sanctuary city status. Their very existence indicates a breakdown in the essential rule of law that is the hallmark of any free country. But there has been minor reversal regarding their use. There should be consequences wherever sanctuary cities have been proclaimed. Imposing them would be one small way of honoring the memory of Kate Steinle. Doing so would also help keep our nation free and independent.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


Ford Builds in Mexico

Ford Builds in Mexico
by JBS President Emeritus John F. McManus

Last October, the Ford Motor Company announced that it will transfer the building of small cars to its new plant in Mexico. But, as the headline on page one of the October 19, 2016 New York Times insisted, “Yes, Ford Is Building in Mexico. No, It’s Not Cutting U.S. Jobs.” Read the online version here.

Ford isn’t cutting its U.S. work force. but the company is definitely not expanding that work force (Image from Wikimedia Commons).

Ford isn’t cutting its U.S. work force, but the company is definitely not expanding that work force (photo by Marcin Mincer [Public domain, GFDL or CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons).

The seeming contradiction drew an explanation from Ford’s chief executive, Mark Fields. The production of the company’s small Focus auto will indeed be moved from Wayne, Michigan to Ford’s new plant in Mexico. But, the company will convert its plant in Wayne to building highly profitable very popular trucks and sport utility vehicles. The 3,700 jobs in Wayne will not be lost. Credit Donald Trump who made Ford’s initial plans an issue during his successful run for the presidency.

So Ford isn’t cutting its U.S. work force, but the company is definitely not expanding that work force. There are plenty of Americans who would love to be making the Ford Focus in Michigan or some other location within our nation. But those jobs now belong to Mexicans who can be hired at about one-third the cost of a worker based in the U.S.

There are other factors dictating where a company like Ford decides where to produce its autos. One is the 1994 NAFTA agreement that inspired maverick presidential candidate Ross Perot to characterize the effect of NAFTA as “a giant sucking sound” swallowing up American jobs. He was correct. NAFTA did lead companies in numerous industries to pack up and move away from the U.S. Another ingredient in the slowdown of American manufacturing is the combination of heavy taxation and the shrinking value of the U.S. dollar, brought on by federal deficits and paper dollars that have nothing backing them. A third is the demands of labor unions that force the cost of labor here to far exceed similar costs in places like Mexico.

While producing automobiles in America has become more difficult, consider the startling revelations about the virtually non-existent U.S. clothing industry. According to the American Apparel & Footwear Association, 97 percent of clothing sold in the United States is imported. Take a look at what you buy and you’ll see “Made in” tags naming China, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Thailand, and other low-wage nations. And the automobile and clothing industries aren’t alone in having their products made outside the United States.

Why all this is happening isn’t just protection of the bottom line by corporate America. Our nation is being targeted by the hidden designs of world planners who want to level the lot of all mankind and then merge all into their grasp. If a nation like the U.S. has a high standard of living, it has to be brought down so it can be merged into a “new world order” with poor and poorly run nations. Bring the so-called backward nations up and bring the prosperous nations down is the overall plan. In the process, every country will find itself beholden to a power structure likely located at the United Nations.

For decades, America’s leaders haven’t been pro-American. They have been doing everything possible to build the “new world order.” And Donald Trump, with all his idiosyncrasies and bluster, seems to be posing a threat to the world planners. That is why the dishonest media find fault with virtually every decision and every utterance from the rookie president. If he continues on his plan to “Make America Great Again,” he’s surely got a tough road ahead. We wish him great success.

Are you receiving our free weekly e-newsletter? Sign up today! Be sure to also get our free Top Daily Headlines from The New American.


McManus_2Mr. McManus served in the U.S. Marine Corps in the late 1950s and joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966. He has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and President. Mr. McManus has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs and is also author of a number of educational DVDs and books. Now President Emeritus, he continues his involvement with the Society through public speaking and writing for this blog, the JBS Bulletin, and The New American.


Say No to the North American Union

Say No to the North American Union
by JBS President John F. McManus

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) won congressional approval in late 1993. Signed by then-President Clinton, the pact, has contributed to one million manufacturing jobs lost and many hundreds of closed factories.

But the loss of jobs and factories hasn’t been the only casualty. When NAFTA was being considered, both Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller, two eager proponents of eventual world government, made clear in their published statements that the pact was only a stepping stone toward the larger goal of uniting Canada, the United States, and Mexico into a North American Union (NAU). And creation of a formal NAU would be a step toward the “new world order” that each desires. Effective work by The John Birch Society and some allies prevented realization of the plan to sacrifice national independence in favor of the NAU.

But the enemies of national independence never sleep. At a recent gathering of the Texas-Chihuahua-New Mexico Regional Economic Competitiveness Forum held in El Paso, Texas, Congressmen Beto O’Rourke, Joaquin Castro and Henry Cuellar – all Democrats from Texas – stated their hopes to create more ties with Mexico. And Congressman Bill Owens (D-N.Y.) who represents a district bordering Canada added his hope that a similar expansion of ties can be made with Canada.

Mr. Cuellar pointed to energy production in the three North American countries. He wants to “put Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. [into a relationship] that will be the new Middle East of the world.” Energy production, of course, can continue and grow without sacrificing the independence of each of the countries. Simply stated, there is no need to give up national sovereignty in order to produce energy.

A report about the El Paso meeting provided by Newspaper Tree stated: “But with regional economies and markets across the planet becoming increasingly competitive in a globalizing and urbanizing world, the notion of building upon a stronger North America in a post-NAFTA hemisphere was clearly on the lawmakers’ minds.”

The American people must be made aware that the NAFTA pact, as costly as it was regarding jobs, also contained in its 1,700 pages numerous additional entanglements such as NAFTA judicial panels whose decisions supersede the rulings of our nation’s state and federal courts. There can be little doubt that the intention of the globalists includes having a newly created North American Union crush independence here in the same manner that it has been crushed for 28 European nations by the European Union. Members of Congress must be told by constituents that keeping our nation away from entanglements such as the proposed NAU is imperative.

For more on the agenda behind free trade agreements, read “International Merger by Foreign Entanglements” by JBS CEO Arthur Thompson. Check out a review of it here.


Mr. McManus joined the staff of The John Birch Society in August 1966 and has served various roles for the organization including Field Coordinator, Director of Public Affairs, and now President. He remains the Society’s chief media representative throughout the nation and has appeared on hundreds of radio and television programs. Mr. McManus is also Publisher of The New American magazine and author of a number of educational DVDs and books.


Drug Kingpin Arrest Won’t Stop Drug Trade

Drug Kingpin Arrest Won’t Stop Drug Trade
by JBS President John F. McManus

Two weeks ago, authorities from Mexico and the U.S. arrested the leader of the Sinaloa drug cartel during a pre-dawn raid in the Mexican city of Mazatlan. Joaquin Guzman Loera and four members of the well-known worldwide drug operation surrendered without a fight.

The Sinaloa cartel operated not only in Mexico and neighboring United States but had cooperative efforts with several European criminal elements including the Cosa Nostra in Sicily. While many hoped that the apprehension of Guzman would lead to a slowdown or termination of drug trafficking, a more realistic assessment expected little change. Sadly, we note that Sinaloa is not alone, only the largest international drug provider.

Samuel Logan has earned a reputation as one of the more astute analysts of worldwide criminal activity. An official of the investment firm Southern Pulse, he cautioned against expecting that the arrest of Guzman would have much of an effect on the drug trade. “The entire Mexican state could fall,” he commented, “and the drug trade will continue.” As reported by The New York Times, Logan compared the loss of a key member of the cartel with the effect a similar takedown of the leader of McDonald’s would cause. “If the C.E.O. of McDonald’s was arrested today,” he believes, “you could still buy a hamburger in Tokyo tomorrow.” That is the reality of the worldwide drug business. No one has risen to deny that.

According to some experts who study the problem, the drug trade will continue as long as there is a demand. And the demand will continue, even grow, as long as there is no alternative to the thrill-seeking initially provided by drugs and the life of dependency on pills, needles and rootlessness that follows.

Though they will try, law enforcement and medical experts won’t solve the drug problem. Neither will sociologists or the federal War on Drugs (another no-win war?). The need is for a strengthening of families and the associated religious and academic training that stable families always provide. Joaquin Guzman Loera may now be behind bars and that’s where he belongs. But we will soon learn the name of his successor in the very lucrative and very harmful drug business. And drug trafficking will continue to grow as the family structure, heavily under attack, continues to deteriorate.


Open Border Now Attracting Syrian Refugees

Open Border Now Attracting Syrian Refugees
by JBS President John F. McManus

A report in a recent issue of the Wall Street Journal notes that refugees from the three-year-old conflict in Syria are now arriving in the United States. While we can surely sympathize with them, we do not sympathize with the way they are gaining entry. Tourist visas to Mexico start their procedure enabling them to cross into the U.S. and present themselves as asylum seekers. All they need do when turning themselves in to a customs official is claim “credible fear” of reappearing in their homeland.

The Journal article noted that, during 2013, more than 36,000 individuals from a variety of countries have credibly claimed such fear and 84 percent (not all Syrians) have been awarded entry. The number is expected to increase. From his San Diego office, immigration attorney Alan Anzarouth has been helping Syrian refugees and expects that “many more Syrians” will enter the U.S. through our southern border.

The obvious reason a Syrian refugee will travel to Mexico when his ultimate goal is to get to the United States is his knowledge that millions have already entered the U.S. illegally through the porous border. The U.S. government has never met its responsibility to stop the huge, almost totally illegal, migration. That responsibility appears in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution which grants power to Congress to “repel invasions.” Also, in Article IV, Section 4 there is mentioned the duty of the federal government that it “protect each of them [the states] from invasion.” This doesn’t specify “military” invasion. Somewhere between 11 and 20 million have entered our nation illegally in recent years. The costs to individual states for welfare, medical care, criminal activity, and even threats of revolution have been enormous. Though not in the numbers previously seen, border crossers are still coming. America has indeed been invaded and federal responsibility to stop it has been sorely lacking.

Since 2011, more than two million Syrians have left their home country and fled elsewhere. Some restrictions have made it more difficult to obtain a U.S. visa, hence starting the trek by entering Mexico where “tourist” visas are far more easily obtained. These displaced people obviously don’t want to stay in Mexico and they regularly head for the U.S. border.

Failure to deal with any responsibility usually leads to greater problems. Such is the case with the failure of the federal government to meet its constitutional obligations regarding illegal immigration. How many more Syrians will take advantage of such laxity remains to be seen. But we can be sure the number will grow. Our federal government does a lot that it shouldn’t do while frequently failing to do what it is supposed to do.