Response to SAPD Chief’s position on “sanctuary city” law enforcement

Response to SAPD Chief’s position on “sanctuary city” law enforcement

Ed. Note: Three respected friends and associates responded to the SAPD Chief’s rationale for supporting and implementing “sanctuary city” styled law enforcement in San Antonio. We’re grateful to George Rodriguez, Richard “Doc” Owen, and Nathan Morgan for allowing us to share their views with all of you. We’re on the same page with these critical thinkers.

At least NOW we know, friends.  The truth has come out in the wash: SAPD has adopted the sanctuary city law enforcement model.

Click the title to jump to the article!

  1. Regarding Local Law Enforcement, Illegal Immigration, & Sanctuary Cities – by George Rodriguez

  2.  What if your Chief of Police says “No! You’re Wrong!” – by Richard “Doc” Owen

  3.  Are we going to allow law enforcement to blackmail the citizens this way?– by Nathan Morgan

  4.  Major Cities Chiefs Police Association position paper.

Regarding Local Law Enforcement, Illegal Immigration, & Sanctuary Cities


George Rodriguez, El Conservador –

This article followed the San Antonio Tea Party meeting with Chief McManus, by George Rodriguez, El Consevador. Hear Mr. Rodriguez on Raging Elephants Radio and read El Conservador Blog.

It is the nature of life that people who hide usually have done something wrong. Illegal aliens hide from law enforcement because they have done something wrong, i.e. entered the country illegally, without permission, “sin papels”.

If someone has broken the law, however minor it may seem to some people, they have broken the law and should face the consequences. If a person has entered the country illegally, they have broken the law…that is logical.

Supporters of “Sanctuary Cities” justified the ignoring of one crime to solve another crime. Local law enforcement often claims that illegal aliens help solve crimes, and therefore are not turned over to federal immigration officials. They often claim immigration laws are not in their jurisdiction and therefore do not turn over illegal aliens when they detect them.

However, if one law enforcement agency that does not have enforcement jurisdiction over a given law finds a violation, that law enforcement agency should alert or inform the appropriate agency that has jurisdiction…because all law enforcement agents should be interested in enforcing all laws.

Claiming that illegal aliens help to solve crimes is like saying criminals should be given a pass because they help solve crimes. Criminals are criminals, and law breakers are law breakers, whether the offense is major or not.santuary city

Furthermore, the sheer number of illegal aliens in the U.S. today is overwhelming enough without providing safe havens in communities where local law enforcement does not cooperate or support federal immigration law enforcement. Local law enforcement should NOT have the right to pick and choose which laws they will enforce or support.

Illegal aliens are hiding because they did something wrong and all law enforcement agents, whether local, state or federal, should be interested in any law that has been broken.  Law enforcement agents should NOT be political in determining which law to enforce, or with which law enforcement agencies they will cooperate.

If a segment of society does not like a given law, they should change it through the proper process rather than encourage lawlessness. However, it is of the greatest importance that all law enforcement agents be above politics and not select which laws to obey or ignore.  The law and order of our nation depends on that fact.

What part of the word ILLEGAL don’t they understand?

El Conservador


What if your Chief of Police says “No! You’re Wrong!”


By Richard Mays Owen, PMP, PhD

Republished from The Doc Owen Show, by Richard Mays Owen, 

I recently attended an event sponsored by the local Tea Party organization that hosted the Chief of Police for a discussion on “sanctuary cities”. The premise was to answer the question…”is our city a sanctuary city, or not?” Nothing had ever been published to confirm either way.

However, numerous concerns put the question on the table. Not the least of which was the publicized change to the police department operations manual stating that police personnel are not responsible for enforcing Federal immigration laws. As such, the officers were prohibited from asking for proof of citizenship when engaging with local residents.

The support for their decision, as stated by the Chief, was a position paper published by the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association. An original copy may be found right here. Item #1 states as follows: “It undermines the trust and cooperation with immigrant communities which are essential elements of community oriented policing.”

As you might imagine, the discussion was lively. As soon as the Chief finished a three-minute overview of the position paper as his explanation for a lack of immigration enforcement, the audience erupted with a disciplined approach to questioning his direction.

The Chief’s evasiveness in responding to questions only added fuel to a fire of concern coming from a well-informed, educated group of citizens with no fear of reprisal and certainly not being intimidated by his uniform. The more he tried to circumvent the challenges to his position, the more the audience attacked it.

The bottom line, to keep this post brief, was that the Chief finally ended with “look, folks, you’re not gonna’ change my mind, and I’m not gonna’ change yours. So, we will just have to agree to disagree”. Actually, the audience was not trying to change his mind, that’s the frustrating part to the meeting. He has no “mind” in the game. All he has done is hide beyond some nationally concocted “position paper” put together by his national union bosses.

There are numerous remedies already in the law that would allow local police to better “protect and serve” the citizens of their assigned territory, work with county and federal officials, and to keep our communities safe. All this without offending, but actually protecting, any non-citizen residents.

Preeminent among those remedies is a Type U Visa from the Department of State. You will find the exact wording and intent of a Type U Visa right here. However, to help you understand, this is the opening paragraph on the Department of Homeland Security website:

“The U nonimmigrant status (U visa) is set aside for victims of certain crimes who have suffered mental or physical abuse and are helpful to law enforcement or government officials in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity. Congress created the U nonimmigrant visa with the passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (including the Battered Immigrant Women’s Protection Act) in October 2000. The legislation was intended to strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, trafficking of aliens and other crimes, while also protecting victims of crimes who have suffered substantial mental or physical abuse due to the crime and are willing to help law enforcement authorities in the investigation or prosecution of the criminal activity. (Emphasis added). The legislation also helps law enforcement agencies to better serve victims of crimes.”

In other words, this law was passed by Congress in 2000 to specifically address the interaction between local police forces and their residents. If you study the Type U Visa closely, you will see it is not only protection for the non-immigrant individual working with the authorities, it also protects their family members as well. And, one additional encouragement for their cooperation, it is a guaranteed fast track to a Permanent Resident status “green card” at the end of just three years. The next step would be Naturalized Citizen. This is what I would call “assimilation”.

So, why does a police chief of a major metropolitan area refuse to follow the law? Frankly, I can find no excuse for it. The only explanation is from his closing statement of “you’re not gonna’ change my mind” as if his personal feelings on the matter are more important than that of the citizens he has a sworn duty to protect and serve.

The appearance is an individual standing behind the collective socialism of his union rather than doing the right thing on his own. Weak, very weak indeed.

One final note for you to ponder…within 12 hours of his presentation to us, there were two shootings in his jurisdiction. Guess what, neither victim was willing to cooperate with the police. I wonder why?


Are we going to allow law enforcement to blackmail the citizens this way?

Nathan Morgan

by Nathan Morgan

I pressed the Chief for the authority he used to justify his (and the SAPD’s) position on illegal immigration. His response was to point to the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association and their position paper.  See Attached [shown below].

I find it (at least) intellectually dishonest for the Chiefs of Police around the state (and country, no doubt) to gather and conspire to subvert or ignore the laws they swore before God and country to uphold. And, it is even more dishonest that they would regard our laws (the ones we hired these people to uphold) as their own to do with as they see fit. Who do they think they are?

These people knew what the job paid and what the responsibilities were when they took the job. Their position paper on illegal immigration all but says we don’t pay them enough to do the job we hired them to do. Really? Are we going to allow law enforcement to blackmail the citizens this way? Not enough money to honor the oath of office and uphold the law? Really?

As I said to the Chief in the meeting, it doesn’t take much imagination to figure out the remedy for that problem. Hire an honest cop.

I have a theory about the spike in social unrest we have witnessed of late. The epidemic of systemic corruption by public servants has society increasingly thinking laws are little more than flexible guidelines for behavior. Citizens wonder why they get prosecuted for petty crimes while public officials, and those who can afford a silk-tongue lawyer, skate on major offenses against society. The public outrage is played out by attacking the very people who are suppose to be enforcing the laws. Some would say there are no champions of law enforcement. My pet peeve is election fraud, which happens to be closely associated with illegal immigration.

That’s my 2¢.  Buy a piece of gum and chew on it.


Major Cities Chiefs Police Association Position Paper



This content is published under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. Please honor attribution.

5 Responses to "Response to SAPD Chief’s position on “sanctuary city” law enforcement"

  1. M. McDonald  October 2, 2016 at 5:13 pm

    The excuse that it would intimidate illegals that are here already makes no sense. Are we to be held hostage to this kind of thinking. The whole thing is up side down, just like what is happening in this country. Who benefits from this Sanctuary City business– just follow the money as always.

  2. GomeznSA  September 28, 2016 at 11:01 am

    So apparently McManus is of the opinion that since immigration is a ‘federal’ law it is a federal ‘problem’. Does that mean he will NOT enforce any other federal law as well – like say the Mann Act? Seems to me that such ‘selective’ enforcement abrogates the duties he and any other who have sworn an oath to enforce.

  3. Dave Ramos  September 28, 2016 at 10:30 am

    Indeed, it is regretful that our mayor, city council have turned this city into a virtual “sanctuary city”. I think the police chief could only adopt this stance based on city council/mayoral directives.

    I strongly believe most citizens would be appalled at this stance. But once again, we must take action if sanity and common sense are to prevail. The opinions I read on the SATP site accurately describe the risks and consequences. But unless we have a significant number of people approaching our city leaders and demanding change, nothing will happen. I urge us collectively to come up with a plan – otherwise, we can all continue whining and watch nothing get done.

  4. Alan  September 28, 2016 at 10:25 am

    Since the Chief of Police in SA does not appear to believe in the rule of law then he should resign his position. He obviously is not living up to his oath of office to serve and protect. It seems to me the people of SA should put pressure on the liberal mayor and city council members to fire the Chief. I don’t live in SA or Bexar Co. but it seems like showing public servants actions have consequences might start turning this country around.

  5. Linda Wentworth  September 21, 2016 at 1:31 pm

    Chief McManus’ response to the question “Is Bexar County a Sanctuary City” is Orwellian double-speak coming top down from the Obama Administration. If a person is here “illegally,” he/she is already breaking the law and one would think that there should be consequences for that alone. The weak excuse that it would intimidate the illegal immigration community that we rely on to acquire access to other criminal individuals is purely just that..another weak and unsubstantiated excuse. I have heard these exact words spoken by Obama himself and McManus is just another “lock-step” individual. While I don’t live in San Antonio proper, what does go on in San Antonio/Bexar County can and very likely will impact outlying areas as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.