ShareThis Page
‘Sanctuary’s’ price: Close this dangerous loophole |

‘Sanctuary’s’ price: Close this dangerous loophole

| Monday, August 22, 2016 9:00 p.m

It shouldn’t take a child rape charge against an illegal Honduran alien, who rightfully should have been deported last year, for Philadelphia to realize the danger of its irresponsible sanctuary policy.

Philly ignored a 2015 federal detainer request against Ramon Aguirre-Ochoa, 45, after the dismissal of domestic aggravated assault charges, according to federal authorities. A detainer asks local jurisdictions to hold suspected illegal aliens for up to 48 hours after their scheduled release.

Instead, Aguirre-Ochoa remained free until his July 26 arrest in a child rape case, The Daily Signal reports.

Under Democrat Mayor Jim Kenney’s sanctuary policy, the city in most cases doesn’t respond to requests from the feds to be notified of an illegal alien’s release unless that person is convicted of a first- or second-degree felony involving violence. That’s because, under a 2014 federal appeals court ruling, so-called sanctuary cities aren’t required to comply with federal detainers or to provide notices of release. Cooperation is optional.

But “sanctuary” doesn’t help deportation dodgers, whose lawbreaking begins when they enter the country. It only exposes citizens to alien lawbreakers. Where’s the “sanctuary” for crime victims?

State legislation that would hold sanctuary cities accountable for illegals’ crimes doesn’t prevent crime. What’s lacking in Philadelphia and 30 other sanctuary cities is federal law that closes the sanctuary loophole.

Categories: Editorials
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.