There is an ideological divide in the country. Some say that we should be tough on illegal immigrants while others hold the position that tough immigration laws keep good people from coming forward to report crimes. There are anectodal accounts to support both cases. The question that should be debated is how does it effect the society at large.

Cities across the nation have taken different tracks. San Francisco has not only allowed illegal immigrants a sanctuary, policies are publicly announced with total disregard for national and state laws. Great…now lets get down to the debate.

Is San Francisco safer because of these policies? The question is not easily answered. I would submit that the burden of proof falls to those who support breaking the law. Supporters of sanctuary cities must show that their policies have actually reduced crime. If they cannot, then there whole argument falls apart. The sancuary policy is a failure even if crime is not appreciably changed.

Law abiding citizens need not prove that following the law is the better course of action. The burden of proof falls to the open border crowd.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.