Editorial LiveJournalists rage at Culberson, sanctuary-policy critics
The Chronicle editorial board really likes Houston's sanctuary directive, issued by HPD's police chief in 1992 (even if they don't like it being called what it is), and they don't much care for criticism of that directive.
It took them longer than anticipated (maybe the spittle fried a keyboard or two, or maybe they were just waiting to see Charles Kuffner's opinion before offering their own), but the Editorial LiveJournalists came out raging today about Rep. John Culberson's amendment aimed at sanctuary-city policies, which won approval in the House several days ago.
The editorial is heavy on name-calling, and takes special aim at Culberson and "local activists" who oppose Houston's sanctuary directive. But the editorial doesn't take up our ongoing questions: If the sanctuary policy is such a good one, then why are Mayor White and Council hiding behind a 1992 directive issued by the police chief (who is not an elected official at all)? Why not have a public debate on the policy, and let our elected officials reaffirm, reformulate, or rescind it?
If the Chronicle is going to shriek about the alleged "boredom with authentic representation" of U.S. House members debating immigration policy, then shouldn't they also criticize local elected officials who refuse to hold a public debate on this subject, but instead hide behind a 1992 directive issued by the police chief? Why are Sam Nuchia's views on this topic in 1992 more relevant than Rep. Culberson's in 2006 (other than the fact that Culberson is a favorite Chron editorial board "bad guy")?