One of the more troubling exchanges in Hillary Clinton’s interview with CNN’s Brianna Keilar yesterday was when Clinton dodged a question on her past support of sanctuary cities in light of the horrific murder of Kate Steinle, allegedly at the hands of a 7-time felon, 5-time deported illegal immigrant.
But it’s not just that Clinton dodged on her answer. Her answer was confusing and has us wondering if she understands how a sanctuary city like San Francisco actually works.
Here’s the exchange:
KEILAR: Last week an undocumented immigrant who had been deported five times killed a 32-year-old woman, Kate Steinle, in San Francisco, a sanctuary city where local law enforcement does not enforce federal immigration laws.
When you last ran for president you supported sanctuary cities.
In light of this terrible incident, does that change anything about your view on this?
CLINTON: Well, what should be done is any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, which as I understand it, urged them to deport this man again after he got out of prison another time. Here’s a case where we’ve deported, we’ve deported, we’ve deported. He ends back up in our country and I think the city made a mistake. The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported.
So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.
However, there are – like if it were a first-time traffic citation, if it were something minor, a misdemeanor, that’s entirely different. This man had already been deported five times. And he should have been deported at the request of the federal government.
A couple of things. One, the whole point of a sanctuary city is for local law enforcement officials to limit how much information they share with ICE. In San Francisco specifically, this means the city “flat out ignores” immigration orders. From the Washington Post:
As a matter of policy, San Francisco limits its communication with ICE officials and flat out ignores immigration detention orders, city and county officials reiterated earlier this year.
Clinton said, “I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.” Well, San Francisco “flat out ignores” ICE. A sanctuary city can’t work without ignoring ICE. That’s the whole point! Does Clinton still support this? We don’t know.
Also of note, Clinton says three times that it is the responsibility of San Francisco to deport illegal immigrants. First here:
Well, what should be done is any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, which as I understand it, urged them to deport this man again after he got out of prison another time.
The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported.
And finally, here:
And he should have been deported at the request of the federal government.
A slip of the tongue or does Clinton think San Francisco deports illegal immigrants? The only way for an illegal immigrant to get deported is for the city to hand that individual over to ICE, which San Francisco won’t do.
Clinton’s answer is confusing, to say the least, but Keilar never followed up and we still don’t know where Clinton stands on sanctuary cities:
We know she’s pandering and CNN shouldn’t have let her get away with it.