Why aren't Democrats asked if they agree with sanctuary cities who refuse to enforce immigration laws?

Why does the administration sue states like Arizona who want to enforce federal immigration laws and essentially reward sanctuary cities like San Francisco who refuse to enforce the laws of the land?

Since sanctuary cities are acceptable to the administration, I believe the concept of sanctuary businesses should be set up nationwide.  These businesses could choose to not comply with federal immigration laws.  They would get the double benefit of not having to cover illegal immigrants for Obamacare, since that is not required.  I am sure the Justice Department, the Obama administrations, all Democrats, the compliant media, the ACLU, and others would be major supporters of these sanctuary businesses, since they are just trying to help out their fellow man, and we all know that the U.S. became the greatest economic power in the world because of illegal immigration.

Anyone who opposes these commonsense sanctuary businesses should be called hostile to all immigrants.

I actually think the concept of sanctuary cities and businesses should be expanded so they can pick and choose the federal laws they want to comply with.  After all, some laws just aren’t working, and the legislative process is just too cumbersome.  What could go wrong?

Most of the media essentially portrays Republicans who want to enforce existing immigration laws as far-right extremists and portrays Democrats who willingly ignore existing laws as commonsense politicians.

I guess laws of the land have to be obeyed only if Democrats and the media agree with those laws.  Ignoring the oath of office and the Constitution is obviously fine when the media agrees.

Where are the protests, and where is the outrage by the media that San Francisco politicians and the Obama administration willingly look the other way as they let a criminal illegal alien who had already been deported five times out on the street to kill an innocent woman?  We have been told that the borders are more secure than ever, and that is obviously true, because the murderer has only been deported five times.  Now we learn that he killed the woman with a gun stolen from a federal agent.  That shows that we have to get all guns out of the hands of federal agents, because one death like this is one too many.

I am also shocked that President Obama is not giving the eulogy for the murdered woman and that there is not continuous coverage of her funeral.

And we all must remember that, according to Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, even though this murder occurred in the Democrat sanctuary city of San Francisco, who released this known criminal, it is the Republicans’ fault, because they didn’t pass the immigration bill.

The bias in the media is truly hard to spot.

Why does the administration sue states like Arizona who want to enforce federal immigration laws and essentially reward sanctuary cities like San Francisco who refuse to enforce the laws of the land?

Since sanctuary cities are acceptable to the administration, I believe the concept of sanctuary businesses should be set up nationwide.  These businesses could choose to not comply with federal immigration laws.  They would get the double benefit of not having to cover illegal immigrants for Obamacare, since that is not required.  I am sure the Justice Department, the Obama administrations, all Democrats, the compliant media, the ACLU, and others would be major supporters of these sanctuary businesses, since they are just trying to help out their fellow man, and we all know that the U.S. became the greatest economic power in the world because of illegal immigration.

Anyone who opposes these commonsense sanctuary businesses should be called hostile to all immigrants.

I actually think the concept of sanctuary cities and businesses should be expanded so they can pick and choose the federal laws they want to comply with.  After all, some laws just aren’t working, and the legislative process is just too cumbersome.  What could go wrong?

Most of the media essentially portrays Republicans who want to enforce existing immigration laws as far-right extremists and portrays Democrats who willingly ignore existing laws as commonsense politicians.

I guess laws of the land have to be obeyed only if Democrats and the media agree with those laws.  Ignoring the oath of office and the Constitution is obviously fine when the media agrees.

Where are the protests, and where is the outrage by the media that San Francisco politicians and the Obama administration willingly look the other way as they let a criminal illegal alien who had already been deported five times out on the street to kill an innocent woman?  We have been told that the borders are more secure than ever, and that is obviously true, because the murderer has only been deported five times.  Now we learn that he killed the woman with a gun stolen from a federal agent.  That shows that we have to get all guns out of the hands of federal agents, because one death like this is one too many.

I am also shocked that President Obama is not giving the eulogy for the murdered woman and that there is not continuous coverage of her funeral.

And we all must remember that, according to Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, even though this murder occurred in the Democrat sanctuary city of San Francisco, who released this known criminal, it is the Republicans’ fault, because they didn’t pass the immigration bill.

The bias in the media is truly hard to spot.