Boyles fostered "sanctuary city" myth again, this time with city council candidate
Summary: During a discussion with Denver City Council candidate Waldo Benavidez, 630 KHOW-AM host Peter Boyles again raised the false claim that Denver is a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants. Colorado Media Matters repeatedly has noted city orders, Colorado law, and federal policies to the contrary.
During the April 4 broadcast of his 630 KHOW-AM show, Peter Boyles again promoted the falsehood that Denver is a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants. In fact, as Colorado Media Matters repeatedly has noted, Denver is not a sanctuary city, according to former Denver City Attorney Cole Finegan, Colorado statute, and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.
While discussing Denver City Council candidate Waldo Benavidez's campaign for the District 9 seat held by Judy Montero, Boyles asked Benavidez, "Do you think Denver, Colorado, is a sanctuary city?" Benavidez replied, "It is a sanctuary city." He then went on to claim falsely that former Mayor Wellington Webb's administration "passed an ordinance regarding that." After Benavidez said he would try to pass an ordinance banning Denver's purported "sanctuary city" status, Boyles told Benavidez, "I'd love to see you get the seat."
However, as Colorado Media Matters has noted, a May 13, 2005, Denver Post article (accessed through the Nexis database) reported that, during a debate on the issue with U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) on The Peter Boyles Show, Finegan denied that any official Webb administration orders made Denver a sanctuary city:
During the radio show, Tancredo and Finegan sparred over two executive orders signed by former Mayor Wellington Webb that Tancredo points to as evidence Denver has a sanctuary policy. One, signed in 1998, prohibits discrimination against foreign nationals in delivering city services. The other, signed in 2002, established Denver's policy for accepting some forms of foreign ID cards.
Those orders do not discourage cooperation with immigration authorities and, therefore, do not represent a sanctuary policy, Finegan said.
Though Boyles and Tancredo argued at the time that "comments Webb made while signing the executive order in 1998 amounted to a de facto sanctuary policy," the Post made clear that regardless of the legal effects of Webb's oral proclamations accompanying his signing of the orders, his "prepared remarks from the event refer[ed] only to legal immigrants."
Further, as Colorado Media Matters has noted, a Colorado statute enacted May 1, 2006, prohibiting so-called sanctuary policies defines such policies as "local government ordinances or policies that prohibit local officials, including peace officers, from communicating or cooperating with federal officials with regard to the immigration status of any person within the state." In contrast to Benavidez's assertion that Denver "is a sanctuary city," a June 11, 2006, Rocky Mountain News article quoted Carl Rusnok, an ICE spokesman for Colorado, saying, "There aren't any cities in Colorado that refuse to call us. ... I know of no Colorado city that has a policy against calling ICE."
A 2004 report by the nonpartisan U.S. Congressional Research Service identified "sanctuary cities" as those that have adopted "a 'don't ask-don't tell' policy where they don't require their employees, including law enforcement officers, to report to federal officials aliens who may be illegally present in the country."
Boyles encouraged Benavidez to run for city council because, as Boyles claimed, questions about so-called sanctuary city policies "never get asked." But Boyles did not mention that he failed to ask Webb about such policies when he interviewed him on March 28 on KBDI Channel 12's Colorado Inside Out Live -- even though Boyles had attacked Webb during his radio show about so-called sanctuary cities when Webb was not present.
From the April 4 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Peter Boyles Show:
BOYLES: Waldo, Waldo do you think at this time -- serious question, because you're going to get heat for this. Do you think Denver, Colorado, is a sanctuary city?
BENAVIDEZ: It is a sanctuary city. I remember back during the Webb administration when they had a -- the city council met and passed an ordinance regarding that. I don't remember the ordinance number now, but there is an ordinance number.
BOYLES: All right, having said that, what kind of, do you think -- well. Continue; I'm sorry.
BENAVIDEZ: Well, one of the things I'm going to do when I get elected, because we have a lay-down city council. All they do is rubber-stamp whatever the mayor wants to do. And, and all he's doing is passing nanny-type ordinances and, and getting things like that going. You know, the, the last issue that they vote -- had the people vote on was to set up day care. Day care for, I don't know who, you know, but about 1,600 people will be getting the city help for day care. Well, you know, that's more enabling. See, that's continued labeling, and that's the kind of legislation -- the Road Home [Denver's 10-year plan to end homelessness] -- that's more, more enabling, and more pandering, and -- but anyway. What I'm going to do is, I'm going to call them on it when I get elected, because it is looking good. Since I've put my literature out, my loose paper, I've had calls from people saying, do you really believe this -- that the, that the Italians should have their holiday too? Yes, I do. They should have their holiday without any, any, any interference from anybody. Just like everybody else has. And, and, and -- I'm getting calls about that. And the Road Home and all the things I talk about in the newspaper that I'm passing out. But, what I'm going to do when I get in there, I'm going to call them on it. I'm going to say, is this a sanctuary city or not? If it's not, then I want an ordinance passed saying it isn't.
BOYLES: Sure.
BENAVIDEZ: Plain and simple.
BOYLES: Believe me, believe me, the last --
BENAVIDEZ: I'm going to catch heat for that, I know. I know.
BOYLES: No, no, no. I -- listen. If you're -- you're not making 'em mad, you're not doing your job.
BENAVIDEZ: Yeah. Well --
BOYLES: But, again, the other side of that is, I mean. I'd love to see you get the seat, more so just to ask those questions, because they -- they never get asked.
—T.S.P.
to listen to this audio clip
Comments (11) Show
1 - 11 |
Peter Boyles' incessant repetition of this "sanctuary city" talking point proves one thing. That he is one of those people who believes on Wednesday precisely what he believed on Monday, regardless of what happened on Tuesday.
OR, he could be exactly right:
“...officers will not detain, arrest, or take enforcement action against a person solely because he/she is suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. If enforcement action is deemed necessary under these circumstances, the approval of an on duty supervisor or commander is required...” ( DENVER (Colorado) POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS MANUAL, 100 – 90).
Doncha just hate it when pesky facts get in the way of your retoric?
And changing your beliefs on a daily basis only proves you have no beliefs of your own...
So, would the "pesky fact" that gets in the way of my "retoric" (sic) be that an officer MAY "detain, arrest, or take enforcement action" with the "approval of an on duty supervisor or commander"? Sounds to me that the DPD Ops Manual states that an undocumented immigrant can be arrested. So much for "sanctuary city". And for someone who takes umbrage at other posters who make personal or insulting remarks, you seem to get in your fair share as well. To imply that I "have no beliefs of my own" is completely missing the point of my comment. Being able to change one's mind requires an open mind. Not one that is blinded by demagoguery. The constant bickering between liberals and conservatives is becoming a cacophony. No one is listening anymore. My posts are generally born of a desire to be sarcastic and facetious, to inject a little levity into the boiling cauldron. You take things too seriously. <{:-)
My posts are generally born of a desire to inject facts into the baseless retoric that permeates these pages. It astounds me how people post comments on the target of a Media Matters article without commenting on the article itself.
You basically called Boyles close-minded and offered no facts to back it up. I think Boyles makes a good case that Sanctuary policies exist here because of the facts he presents to prove his arguement. Don't confuse "close-mindedness" with reasoned principles. And, perhaps I should have been more clear: My use of the word "you" was meant generally. I'm sure RNF, that you have values and principles that you hold dear. So does Peter Boyles.
I'm not sure how you can turn the words "will not" into "may." Why MANDATE that you call a supervisor? It's clear as it can be: Officers "WILL NOT... take enforcement action.." In other words: Officers will not enforce the law. And, unless they call a supervisor? What the hell is that? It should be the other way around. A supervisor should be called if the officer wants permission to NOT enforce the law!
What other thinking at the City Council / Police Command level would produce this "rule" if not a Sanctuary City policy? Why put this rule in the book?
And, to be clear, I'm not a big fan of the "deport them all" position. It's impractical and reminicent of using a 20-pound sledge hammer to kill a fly. Cops SHOULD NOT go out and arrest illegals for simply being illegals, but this policy says they WILL NOT. And you'll have a hard time convincing me that this dosen't tie their hands while they attempt to deal with the criminal element among illegal aliens.
All you have to do is look at the chain of events that happened in Virginia Beach this week to see what Sanctuary policies, both at the law enforcement and judicial levels, have wrought: Two teenage girls, American citizens, killed by a four-time illegal alien DUI offender who WAS NOT deported and barely served any time for his previous crimes. The police chief himself stated on national television that it's not his job to enforce Federal Law or even pick up a phone to call I.C.E.
If that illegal alien didn't have sanctuary in Virginia Beach, then the sun won't be coming up tommorow. If you want a Denver example, two words: Donny Young.
I'm sorry, but you don't get to make the guidelines for posting on this site. If you want to "inject facts" into your posts, fine. If I want to use sarcasm and facetiousness, that is my prerogative. If other people choose to use "baseless retoric" (sic), then so what? I, as well as others, are not interested in flaming (well, maybe just this once). We'll just have to agree to disagree. But you have not convinced me that Denver is a "sanctuary city" through the use of the Denver Police Department statute. If the "will not" is qualified by an exception, as in seeking "approval" from a superior, then "will not" ceases to be an absolute. Police officers and their superiors have to deal with the rhetoric in these statutes on a daily basis. Many are poorly written. And the statute doesn't have to "tie their hands". It merely puts the final decision, in what may be complicated arrests and detentions, into the hands of superior officers who may be better qualified to make a final decision. There are, of course, examples of illegals not being detained on immigration status only. The argument, as laid out by Peter Boyles, me, and yourself, is whether it is the law. And it appears that nobody wll be changing their minds as a result.
Agree to disagree: No problem. But you'd have to at least agree that all some people here do is viciously flame others for no stated reason. I simply think that kind of methodology in a discussion, either verbal or electronic like this, is a waste of energy, both electrical and bio-chemical...
But I digress...
Just answer this question: Why is the specific policy referenced above even in the manual? If not the outgrowth of some kind of Sanctuary-based thinking, why qualify procedures dealing with illegals at all? Why would they get consideration above you or I in the eyes of a Denver Police officer?
OK, so that's three questions...
People do things for varied and personal reasons. I agree that some posts on this thread are inflammatory. Not as bad as Huffington, but I can find amusement in all types of posts. It's a free forum. Don't get exasperated, just ignore them and move on to a response that catches your interest. YOU don't have to waste your kinetics and gray matter. As for the policy in the ops manual, I have no idea why or when it was written. But don't just assume that it is an "outgrowth of some kind of Sanctuary-based thinking". That simply posits a viewpoint without enough facts to validate it. Kind of like an opinion. There is much more than meets the eye when it comes to immigration law. I'm not a lawyer. Illegal immigrants may appear to "get consideration above you or I", but in the minds of Denver law enforcement, the cops I know do not have a higher regard for illegals. I am not a cop, so I won't try to second guess them. So, can we move on? Tomorrow is Monday. A whole new week of itches to scratch and scabs to pick. Hope you had a pleasant Easter.
Very good. Hope your was pleasant as well.
Thanks!
Spongerobert: I hope you soiled your pants while hunting Easter eggs, you neocon stooge!
Case in point...
Why don't you two just meet at the bike rack after school and, you know, just see what happens? <{:-o
1 - 20 |