In a mid-February letter published in The Gazette, I described the importance of all levels of law enforcement within the US. A recent case from Chicago highlights the necessity for the structure of law, and how intentionally undermining that structure by fostering so-called ‘sanctuary cities’ can have vicious consequences.
18 year-old Loyola College student Sheridan Gorman, originally from Yorktown, was shot dead outside the Loyola campus in Chicago while attempting to run away from an assailant, an illegal immigrant named Jose Medina. Following her murder, Democrat leadership in the area of the college (49th ward alderwoman Maria Hadden) had the audacity to make the bizarre claim that Gorman was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Perhaps we are to believe that the threat of murder is simply a ‘condition’ of living in the US, as certain as threat of wind blowing or sun shining. Perhaps this is an everyday part of the sanctuary city environment, though a lengthy and poignant late-March statement issued by Gorman’s family begs that it would not be, writing “… if we allow ourselves to accept this as inevitable-as something that simply happens-then we are accepting a world where young people cannot safely live their lives in the most ordinary ways. That is a standard no family should be asked to accept.” One would think the timeworn anti-ICE protestors could briefly re-tool to demand justice for Sheridan Gorman, but ‘outrage’ seems to be very carefully circumstantial in this day and age. Seemingly as an attempt to skew the gravity of the tragedy, the very newspaper of Loyola College generated a histrionic apology for referring to her killer as ‘illegal,’ despite that being Medina’s actual technical status relative to the current laws of the US.
The path by which Medina, age 25, arrived in Chicago is complex: originating in Venezuela; fleeing to Colombia with his terrified mother (a victim of rape); suffering brain trauma from a gunshot to the head in Colombia; Medina went on to enter Texas illegally, and after turning himself in and requesting return to Colombia he was ushered along to Chicago (some say by Texas’ bussing mission at the time, though absence of any record of Medina therein suggests it was an independent non-government organization that transported him).
How he wound up armed and poised to make the decision to kill on March 19 is unknown, but the acceptance of Medina into the US made the scenario possible. The Pew Research Center explained that President Biden’s allowances for border-entry during his presidential term fostered two-years of record-growth of both legal and ‘unauthorized’ entry of people into the US. Criticism of the sanctuary city concept (for it is a concept and not an actual legal arrangement) does not intend to exonerate anyone: Statistically, native-born US citizens commit more crimes than legal and illegal immigrants combined, but the sanctuary city model extends the possibilities of illegal activity and reduces safety for all people in the ‘sanctuary’ areas, wherein Homeland Security cannot enforce federal border laws and apprehend those in the US illegally. Likewise, the discontinuation of sanctuary city-practices does not preclude anyone’s or any organization’s ability to assist, aid, and guide people of any origin or situation. It would simply no longer condone and create the dangerous conditions that exist when the protection of criminals becomes a politicized institution.
It’s time for elected leaders to act responsibly on behalf of their constituents and do away with sanctuary cities; to recognize the practical placement for empathetic understanding; to stop circuitously praising criminals and to prioritize the safety of citizens. Sheridan Gorman’s family made clear their perspective when they wrote, “We do not reject the idea that people deserve to be seen in full. But there is a line that must be respected.”
Sincerely,
Jessica Dieckman
No comments:
Post a Comment