Killings heating up illegal immigration issues

November 22, 2017

The issue of illegal immigration into the United States is heating up with the latest brutal murder near the U.S.-Mexico border and with the latest court ruling about San Francisco’s status as a “sanctuary city.”

An immigration reform activist argues that the murder of a United States Border Patrol agent by Mexican nationals illustrates the importance of erecting a border wall.

The National Border Patrol Council announced that illegal aliens appeared to have "ambushed" two U.S. Border Patrol agents several miles inside the U.S. and bashed their heads with blunt objects – possibly rocks – killing one agent and sending another to a hospital in serious condition Sunday.

A spokesman told the Fox News Channel that 36-year Rogelio Martinez died of blunt force trauma to the head, indicating that the attackers most likely used a rock or rocks during the assault.

The second agent also suffered blunt force trauma to the head.
Art Arthur, who serves as a Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, maintains that a border wall could have prevented these illegals from penetrating so deep into the U.S.

"The one was killed, the other was attacked on I-10 near Van Horn, Texas, which, of course, is a major route for both drugs and alien smuggling though Texas on to the United States,” Arthur informed. “Plainly, a wall would have prevented either drugs or aliens from entering this country.”

He insists that the center of the problem lies on the border.

“The distance from the border indicates the danger our agents face,” Arthur added. “If we're going to tackle this problem, it's a lot easier to tactically control it very close to the border so that individuals can be apprehended and if appropriate returned quickly."

President Donald Trump responded to the incident with a tweet.

"Border Patrol Officer killed at Southern Border, another badly hurt,” Trump posted on Twitter. “We will seek out and bring to justice those responsible. We will, and must, build the Wall!"

Sanctuary cities only safe for criminals?

Meanwhile, more problems with illegal aliens are surfacing in California.

An immigration reform activist expects that the United States Justice Department will vigorously appeal the decision by a federal judge to prevent the Trump administration from cutting off federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions.

William Orrick – a judge appointed by former President Barack Obama in California – has ruled against the Trump's anti-sanctuary city executive order that would stop all federal grant money from flowing to jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with deportation officers.

More specifically, Trump’s order would cut off federal money to cities, counties and states that refused to provide information on dangerous illegal aliens to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Arthur contends that the decision should be appealed.

"Quite frankly, none of these cities exist in a bubble,” Arthur pointed out. “Their sanctuary policies touch on what goes on on the border because, quite frankly, if a city is a sanctuary, it makes it more likely that people are going to enter the United States and attempt to get to those cities. We saw that in the case of Kate Steinle's killer, [who] deliberately went to San Francisco because he knew once he was in San Francisco, he would be safe – largely from immigration enforcement."

The legal expert also asserts that these are arguments that the Justice Department will make in the appeal.

"Cities can't have their immigration policies because, quite frankly, we don't have internal passports in the United States,” Arthur concluded. “And what California does and what Philadelphia does and what Chicago does."

Arthur expects Orrick's ruling will be overturned.”