Cold feet: Charlottesville Mayor Signer backpedals Sanctuary City scheme

| February 1, 2017 | 6 Comments

Two days after the Schilling Show broke the news that Mayor Mike Signer was secretly scheming to declare Charlottesville a “Sanctuary City,” Signer has completely abandoned the idea.

Mayor Signer’s original statement listed four specific “initiatives,” including:

  • Direct Charlottesville’s City Manager to advise City Council on becoming a Sanctuary City

In multiple media interviews following the Schilling Show’s revelation, Signer downplayed the “Sanctuary City” aspect.

Speaking with Newsplex, the Mayor stated:

“This question of a Sanctuary City, I don’t know whether that’s the right idea for Charlottesville.”

And talking with WINA’s Morning News, Signer directly contradicted his own press release initiative:

“Sanctuary City is a very vague term that means different things to different cities. Um, I haven’t asked for that; that may not be a good idea here.” [emphasis added]

Instead, Mayor Signer has taken to using softer language. In a written response to the Schilling Show, Signer offered new, “Sanctuary-City-free” talking points:

“I plan on asking Charlottesville’s City Manager to advise City Council on all our legal options to protect immigrants and refugees—particularly if the administration’s approach becomes even more draconian.”

The abrupt turnaround came after Signer’s planned designation made national news, and internal blowback from staff and his fellow City Councilors—who reportedly were not notified of Signer’s premeditated stunt—became intense.

About the Author:

Rob Schilling is founder of The Schilling Show Blog and News; host of WINA's The Schilling Show, heard weekdays from noon to 2 PM; husband; father; and community watchdog.
×

6 Comments on "Cold feet: Charlottesville Mayor Signer backpedals Sanctuary City scheme"

Trackback | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Roger Schweikert says:

    If Charlottesville is now the center of the Left’s “resistance” movement to the current administration it is and for several years has also been also ground zero of the rights resistance to the left. Thank God for Radio free Charlottesville, the Jefferson Area Tea Party, and conservative churches that still know what an “inalienable right” really is much less truly stand up for what is right, noble and of good repute, than what liberal churches and politicians decry as “hate.” What is more loving to do praise a brother or sister for living a sinful life that feels good to them, even though it has destructive consequences or reproving, rebuking, correcting, and training them in righteousness as defined by God and Virginia Statute of Rights?

  2. Dana Durham says:

    I Truly Believe Mike Signor jumped on the Bandwagon to draw attention away from his Sad City Council! Specifically Wes Bellamy, Bob Fenwick and Kristin Szakos!

  3. Ken says:

    There was no abrupt turnaround. “Sanctuary City” is an official designation, and for whatever reason, Signer is no longer seeking it. But to offer sanctuary is to protect refugees and immigrants, which is exactly what he has asked the City for advice on doing.

    What is more loving to do praise a brother or sister for living a sinful life that feels good to them, even though it has destructive consequences or reproving, rebuking, correcting, and training them in righteousness as defined by God and Virginia Statute of Rights?

    It’s loving to rebuke a family from fleeing war and persecution? That’s what Jesus would do?

  4. John Heyden says:

    I have often told them “they are stewards of our tax money and it is not a piggybank to use to further their socialist agenda”. My question is…if they use our tax dollars in furtherance of a crime (providing sanctuary to illegal aliens thereby attracting more and more to the city and spend it on providing services to them for which they are not entitled) couldn’t that be construed as a malfeasense of office and grounds for removal? We may not stop with getting wes bellamy booted, he may be next?

  5. Kenneth Martin says:

    Signer used the emotions of the moment to add to his foundation for future elections. Some people will remember the rally 3 years from now but forget the back tracking. It may have shown more political savvy though to have held it a 3 PM when more students could have attended and the crowd would be larger for the cameras and bandwagon types will be more impressed.

  6. Not a Lib says:

    Ken, you know very well about the separation of church and state. But yet you make an argument with biblical references that you claim should guide or local government on this issue. You can’t have it both ways Ken.

Post a Comment