The Statue of Liberty
The Statue of Liberty ()

As another illegal immigrant defied a deportation order and sequestered himself in a church in New Haven the other day, Mayor Toni Harp welcomed him and proclaimed: “New Haven will remain a sanctuary city. We are not going to engage in helping to report our law-abiding citizens.”

But, of course, by definition illegal immigrants are not law-abiding, and the latest one seeking sanctuary in New Haven, like the last one, received a deportation order years ago and then some temporary stays before he was denied another. While he seems harmless enough, terrorists and other ne’er-do-wells might be cheered by the mayor’s assurance that anyone who breaks into the country illegally and makes his way to New Haven should be exempt from law enforcement because New Haven substitutes its own immigration policy for that of the United States. No foreigners need to be vetted before arriving in New Haven.

Having declined to pursue New Haven’s previous sanctuary seeker into the church to enforce her deportation order, the federal immigration enforcement agency invited illegal immigrants everywhere to consider churches to be enforcement-free zones. Now, with the second sanctuary seeker, a spokesman for the agency has proclaimed as much — that the agency won’t try to arrest him and enforce his deportation order as long as he stays inside, churches being considered “sensitive” locations.

This doesn’t mean that the deportation of these particular illegal immigrants is compelling. Indeed, the government shares with them the responsibility for the heartbreak that deportation would cause, since in repeatedly postponing its deportation orders the government gave the illegal immigrants more time to build family connections here in the hope of winning exemption from the law.

Rather, it means that both sides in the immigration controversy are destroying the law in their own way, even as impartial and conscientious law enforcement is largely what makes this country worth immigrating to and its borders worth defending.

Thought Crime at Google

By getting fired from the hip and liberal internet leader Google, computer programmer James Damore has struck a blow against political correctness that is resonating around the world.

The company says Damore was fired for writing a memo “advancing harmful gender stereotypes in the workplace.” A better way of putting it would be “thought crime.”

Damore argued that the low representation of women in technical jobs in the internet and computer fields was more likely to be caused by biological differences between the sexes than by discrimination in hiring. The differences he identified may be arguable but some were favorable to women, and it cannot be denied that there are differences between the sexes. (At least there is as yet no clamor to merge the men’s and women’s divisions in athletic events.)

Damore was generalizing about the sexes. He did not argue that women should be denied any opportunity, nor that women could not succeed in technical jobs. He wrote that he favored diversity. The main policy conclusion that might be drawn from his memo was that in certain occupations efforts for gender diversity may be impaired by factors largely beyond human control.

But by the standard Google has set by firing Damore, anyone who acknowledges any differences between the sexes is “advancing harmful gender stereotypes.” God help any Google employee who notes that women tend to bear children and men tend not to.