On Saturday January 24th, The Washington Post Editorial Board published an editorial entitled “The meaning of sanctuary” and nowhere in it did they actually define “sanctuary.” There are several different ways a place can be a “sanctuary” — and the left has corrupted all of them. You’ll be unsurprised to hear WaPo’s Editorial Board didn’t address that either — but we will.
Let’s start with the Merriam Webster definition of “sanctuary.” (screenshot via fair use):
It looks like Merriam Webster got it right, but the last definition in the image, 2.b., is the one I’d like to draw your attention to. “The immunity from law attached to a sanctuary.”
That’s a big, fat no — with one notable exception. You are not “immune from law” in a “sanctuary,” at least the way Democrats define “sanctuary” which is, basically, “any jurisdiction we proclaim.” No. Not in a Republic; that’s not how it works. Unless that Republic’s elected representatives vote you the kind of sanctuary that comes, let’s say, in embassy space (which diplomats have been known to abuse). That’s one kind of legal “sanctuary” that’s real, and maybe that’s what Merriam-Webster meant by 2.b. It surely doesn’t mean the proclamation type.
Another kind of sanctuary is the first definition, that of “a consecrated place” such as a “church.” Churches have traditionally been “sanctuaries” for safety, as in a safe place to worship — unless a lefty shoots it up, like one did just last summer at Annunciation Church in Minneapolis. Is it any wonder the Cities Church parishioners were terrified at the Don Lemon mob a week ago Sunday? They didn’t know what to expect. How terrifying for them, truly.
The First Amendment gives Americans the rights to protest and freely exercise their faith. One does not supersede the other.
To their credit, The Post, concluded their editorial with that line, and did draw a nice picture around the violation that took place at Cities Church, but it wasn’t enough. Not by a long way.
Sixties burnouts seem to be a heavy contingent among the protestors. And sixties burnouts used to be what’s called “conscientious objectors.” A half century ago they sought sanctuary in churches during the Vietnam era, either to avoid the draft or later having walked off the line AWOL. Given the amount of gray hair we’ve seen in the protest crowds in Minneapolis, it’s not unreasonable to suspect at least one of them might have been one of those very men from back then. Now imagine if an angry mob of civilians infiltrated the church he was hiding in back then, demanding he be handed over, like the civilian mob infiltrated Cities Church demanding the pastor who they thought was ICE be handed over. There used to be certain lines you didn’t cross. That was one of them.
Not anymore.
The piece also didn’t mention the other use of “sanctuary” — that of illegal aliens hiding from ICE inside churches. That was a thing the last time Trump was president, but not so much now. You’ll be unsurprised to learn that during the 4 year Biden-led invasion, ICE had been instructed to avoid “sensitive” areas like churches. But just as the military police were able to go in arrest draft-dodgers a half century ago, so too can ICE enter a church and arrest illegal aliens. There is absolutely no law preventing them from doing so — though, notably, it hasn’t happened yet.
From WaPo’s Editorial:
Nekima Levy Armstrong, a lawyer and ordained minister who faces federal criminal charges for organizing Sunday’s demonstration, says it was nonviolent, lawful and morally necessary. She argues that it’s hypocritical to criticize her when “the Trump administration has removed guard rails around ICE being able to come into churches.”
It was wrong for the Trump administration to issue guidance last year that federal immigration agencies can now make arrests inside churches, which had been off limits. Yet no such raids have been reported. If any happen, they will deserve to be condemned.
No, they should not be condemned. One can certainly feel a bit squeamish at the thought of church services being interrupted for an arrest, but these are the fruits of sanctuary policy. If a jurisdiction will not honor retainers, ICE has every right and obligation to arrest their targets wherever they are.
One cannot simply declare a spot on U.S. soil off-limits or sovereign from U.S. law. It takes an act of congress to do that (embassies, etc.), i.e., the will of the people. And the will of 77 million says that “ordained ministers” (like Nekima Levy Armstrong) should neither protest inside of a church nor harbor illegal aliens inside of one, and the sovereign territory of the United States is just that, sovereign.
And finally, we’re at the point now where even Fox News seems to be mocking Pam Bondi with this headline. “Strongly worded letters” is the complaint the base makes all the time with her, and now even her favorite venue seems to notice the weak sauce being thrown at Minneapolis. From www.foxnews.com (screen grab via fair use):
None of this — none of it — would be happening were it not for the sanctuary policies both Minnesota Governor Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey espouse. Were local law enforcement honoring ICE’s detainer requests, it’s very likely both Renee Good and Alex Pretti would be alive today. Neither of them would have made the series of lethally bad decisions that brought them both to their ends. As many have pointed out, the way to avoid getting shot by ICE is to not threaten them with a weapon, in the form of a car or a gun (respectively). It’s pretty simple, really.
It’s time for Trump to trigger the Insurrection Act and get ICE the law enforcement help they desperately need before more “stern” letters get sent and more people get themselves killed.