Simi's Immigration Silliness
Remember the tumultuous anti-immigration rally in Simi Valley over the weekend, where protesters marched on a church that was housing an illegal immigrant and her infant son, hoping to perform a citizens' arrest? Well Simi officials think it only fair that those responsible for the brouhaha pay for it. So they're billing the church. Really.
From the AP's account:
Mayor Paul Miller, who called United Church of Christ congregants irresponsible for "harboring an illegal immigrant," told the City Council Monday that he was ready to issue the $39,306 invoice right away.Officials said that the church's public announcement that it would shelter an illegal immigrant provoked protesters to come and create a possible disturbance, which required the police presence.
"This City Council has the obligation to protect all citizens in the community against any potential violence as a result of these ill-conceived actions," Miller said.
So wait, the church is responsible for the actions of the people protesting against it? Apparently so, according to Mayor Miller, because it should have known that folks might get angry.
Wow, what a precedent! Were this to stick -- and I can't imagine it will -- people would be able to start bankrupting their political opponents by staging riots outside their headquarters. Hey, if you don't want to be protested, don't do anything controversial!
Of course, if the church is responsible for attracting protesters, what culpability does the city itself have? Couldn't Simi police have arrested the "sanctuary"-seeking illegal immigrant themselves, thus sparing the need for a protest? Or might that have spurred an even costlier counter-protest?
The immigration debate keeps getting sillier and sillier ...
Comments
The mayor has this all wrong. He should sue God, who created both the illegal immigrant, the protesters, and the unguarded Mexican border!
Posted by: Greg | September 19, 2007 8:19 PM
Simi's Mayor said he wanted to send a message that he and his fellow city leaders didn't want their city to become a "sanctuary city," so if those offering illegals sanctuary know they'll be billed/pay in the literal sense, they will be unlikely to continue to violate federal law and harbor immigrants.
That's the Mayor's/ City's choice, just as it was a choice for L. A.'s Mayor and Hispanic (and other liberal) leaders to declare L A a sacntuary city, allow marches on May 1st, and stick US taxpayers will the bill for their protection from the cops and now, for millions in lawsuits from the pro-illegal marchers.
There are many people who don't think Simi's policy is unwise given the alternative.
Posted by: jill | September 20, 2007 12:52 PM