By Chris Powell
Describing Connecticut as a “sanctuary” state and its cities as “sanctuary” cities isn’t helping illegal immigrants anymore, Attorney General William Tong told a forum at the University of Bridgeport last week. “Sanctuary” has no particular meaning in law, the attorney general said, and has started to “inflame” the public. He would prefer some other term, something meaning that “we’re going to look out for each other.”
Connecticut’s prosperity depends on more housing
Connecticut’s social promotion makes public education a costly fraud
Hartford schools obstruct investigation of graduate’s illiteracy
But while it may not be a legal term, “sanctuary” is a simple word plainly understood. It means a place of safety or refuge, so its connotation is favorable, which is why advocates of disregarding federal immigration law long have used it to identify jurisdictions they control.
The problem is that most people at last seem to have realized that in regard to immigration “sanctuary” is a euphemism, a word that disguises and misleads, and that “sanctuary” states like Connecticut and “sanctuary” cities like New Haven are actually engaged in subversion of federal law and national security. They forbid their police from assisting federal immigration officers and even issue driver’s licenses and other identification documents to illegal immigrants to facilitate their lawbreaking.
More accurate terms would be “nullification” or “insurrectionary” states and cities, though the attorney general’s remarks in Bridgeport suggested that he would prefer still another euphemism: “welcoming.” This euphemism would try to disguise the same subversion, by “welcoming” everyone — not just harmless, unoffending people but also criminals, terrorists, and spies — without any inquiry into their background, intentions, ability to support themselves, and desire to contribute to the country and maintain it as a secular democracy.
Tong contends that such “welcoming” is OK because federal law does not require state and municipal police to help enforce immigration law. Even so, Connecticut’s “TRUST Act,” driver’s licenses and identification cards for illegal immigrants, and Tong’s euphemizing still subvert immigration law and national security and, as the nullifying Southern segregationist governors did in the last century, they devalue citizenship.
Of course the attorney general isn’t the only one engaged in strategic euphemizing. Many other government officials do it as well, and most news organizations join them with their own propaganda.
It began a half century ago when stinky racial preferences in hiring and college admissions were perfumed as “affirmative action.” It continues today as “illegal” immigrants are whitewashed as “undocumented,” as if they merely misplaced their visas, and as “sex-change therapy” is hailed as “gender-affirming care.”
“Shills” have become “influencers.” And now that the federal government is insolvent and state government isn’t far behind, what used to be “spending” is called “investment,” though the actual gains and losses from “investment” are seldom calculated.
Indeed, as shown by the recent investigative reporting of the Connecticut Mirror and the Yankee Institute’s Connecticut Inside Investigator, education itself now is pretty much a euphemism, since nearly all public school students in the state are promoted from grade to grade and given high school diplomas without ever having to show that they have learned anything or even attended school much.
If state legislators weren’t already dedicated “influencers” for the teacher unions, they could have a little fun in debate on the next budget by demanding more “investment” in social promotion.
ANOTHER EXCESSIVE PAID LEAVE: State government lately has seemed full of exceedingly long paid leaves, and another was disclosed last week.
The director of diversity, equity, and inclusion for the state Public Defender Services Commission, Daryl McGraw, was demoted on account of a vulgar and misogynistic posting he made on social media in 2023 — after more than a year of paid leave with salary and benefits totaling more than $180,000.
The commission itself was already a laughingstock last June upon the firing of the chief public defender after insubordination played out in public for months. Not surprisingly in light of his title, McGraw doesn’t seem to have been missed during his leave, but it would be nice if someone in authority in state government noticed all the money he was paid for not working.
Chris Powell has written about Connecticut government and politics for many years. (CPowell@cox.net)
Chris Powell column 