Patterico's Pontifications

7/24/2007

Judge to State of California: It’s *Your* Fault the Federal Government Is Screwing You So badly

Filed under: Court Decisions,Crime,General,Immigration — Patterico @ 12:10 am



A couple of liberal federal judges have control of the state’s prison system, and they’re considering a plan that could release thousands of prisoners upon society all at once:

Federal judges who have been trying for more than a decade to improve medical care in California’s overcrowded prisons called Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s latest plans insufficient and cleared the way Monday for a three-judge panel to cap the state’s prison population.

The rare move has the potential to trigger the release of inmates, though experts say less drastic measures also might appease the judges, who years ago found medical and mental care in California’s 33 prisons unconstitutional.

I love this oh-so-ironic line penned by Judge Lawrence Karlton:

“The court wishes to observe again that overcrowding is the state’s problem, and in the interim, the court again urges the state to find its own solution to the crisis,” he wrote.

Why is it ironic? Because it’s the federal government’s fault that we’re in this mess, of course. Yet the judge is right: somehow, it’s still our problem.

How is it the federal government’s fault? I’m so glad you asked.

You see, were it not for the thousands of illegals that California is paying to incarcerate in state prison — illegals that the federal government should be keeping out and deporting — we wouldn’t be in this mess at all. We’d be well within safe and reasonable capacity for the prisons.

Here’s how the math works. Let’s look at a revealing passage from Judge Karlton’s opinion yesterday. Skim it if you have to; it’s deadly dull. Don’t worry, I’ll summarize it after the block quote:

Defendants plan to add 12,000 prison “in-fill” beds by 2009. . . . It is not at all clear, however, that an additional 12,000 beds, even if timely completed, will alleviate the population crisis. As noted above, in June 2004 the independent panel on corrections found that a male inmate population of approximately 141,000 exceeded by 4,000 the “safe and reasonable” capacity of the California prison system . . . The male prison population projected for March 2009 is over 162,000 inmates and exceeds the population analyzed in the 2004 report by approximately 21,000 inmates, or 9,000 more inmates than new beds planned.

This is a long-winded and judicial way of saying that in 2009, there will be 13,000 too many inmates.

But here’s the thing: the Washington Post says: “More than 10 percent of California’s prison population is in the United States illegally.” Calculating 10% is easy math; even an English major like me can do it. You chop off the last zero and you’re done. So: more than 10% of 162,000 (the number of male inmates projected in 2009) is more than 16,200.

So in 2009, there will be 13,000 too many male inmates . . . and more than 16,000 illegal inmates.

Do the math. If none of those illegals were here, we’d be within the “safe and reasonable” capacity of the system by about 3,000 inmates.

But the state can’t monitor the border. That’s a federal function. The state can’t deport illegals. That’s a federal function.

Why, if the people of the state even try to restrict benefits to illegals, a la Proposition 187, some federal judge will tell us that we’re stepping on exclusively federal domain.

Meanwhile, illegals overrun our society, including our prison system, and another federal judge tells us that “overcrowding is the state’s problem.”

Are you getting the irony yet?

It’s like one cop cuffing your hands behind your back, and his partner slapping you around because you won’t raise your hands above your head.

Irony.

Or, I would call it, a pure outrage.

P.S. Where did I get this analysis? Why, from the L.A. Times, of course!

I’m kidding! Jeez, calm down. I hope I didn’t cause anybody to stroke out.

No, of course, despite the fact that illegal immigration is a huge and obvious factor in our prison overpopulation problem, the L.A. Times doesn’t breathe a word of it. Never will.

You’ll have to come here for that.

59 Responses to “Judge to State of California: It’s *Your* Fault the Federal Government Is Screwing You So badly”

  1. If you get rid of the illegals in our prisons, do you even realize how many guards, cafeteria workers and support staff employed in our prison system will be OUT OF WORK?? Just who is going to feed the families of those soon-to-be-unemployed state workers?

    Stolpman (b3f6e4)

  2. Nothing is said about where these people will be released. California could charter flights and release them in Massachusetts, Maine, & especially Washington DC. Let them ‘share’ in the problem and see what happens.

    Jerry in Detroit (2e364c)

  3. One of my pet peeves is when people blame others for problems that are their own responsibility. We want to blame the federal government for not stopping the flow of illegal immigrants, and evil companies for hiring them, but we never assume any responsibility ourselves for buying the goods and services produced by the illegal immigrants.

    As smart consumers, we look for lower prices — and the lower priced products are produced by companies which can, in general, reduce labor costs, and we all know how that is done.

    Pat, you are privileged to live in a fairly new house, with splendid views; was your home constructed using illegal immigrant labor? Or do you even know?

    Perhaps you’ll remember this comment by Dwilkers:

    I just finished having a new house built a year ago. While it was being built I was at the site every day. Throughout the process, the excavation, laying drains, building the concrete forms, pouring the slab, framing, roofing, installation of windows, electrical, interior plumbing, gas, insulation, sheetrock, alarm system, painting, flooring, landscaping – the entire house was built by people that didn’t speak English (hispanics).

    The odds are pretty good that, if your house in the Golden State was built within the last thirty years, there was illegal immigrant labor involved in its construction. The respectfully-intended, but serious question is: are you, personally, benefitting from the products of illegal immigrants? Have you taken measures to insure that you, personally, do not buy any products which use illegals in the production chain?

    Because the equally serious answer is: if you have not taken measures to insure that you aren’t patronizing the labor of the illegals, you are just as much of the problem as anyone else!

    Companies use illegal immigrant labor because it is profitable, but companies are profitable only if people actually buy their products. To combitch about the federal government not stopping the flow of illegals or companies using illegal immigrant labor while buying the goods and services that the illegals produce is like a drug user complaining about drug dealers.

    Dana (3e4784)

  4. Patterico and Dana,
    I share your general perspective and frustration on such things.

    If you can’t release them on the “South Side” of San Diego (on the other side of the fence, it is [Baja] California, is it not), Jerry’s idea opens some possibilities.

    Serious ideas-
    -send them to another state for incarceration, especially if the cost is lower, and Calif. picks up the tab. (Montana, N.D., S.D., AK.)

    Less serious-
    -Can Calif. pass a law that mandates if the justices force the release, the justices have a responsibility to bear for the consequences, like new crimes?

    How serious?
    When the first crime is committed by someone released early, is there grounds for action against the Feds for not dealing with the illegals, setting up the situation for Federal judges to force the states to compromise the safety of its citizens? If you can manage to get the feds to foot the bill for the cost of illegals to the states, maybe a little more movement will happen in DC. (I know, I’m dreaming- it’s still early in the morning).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  5. Uh, Dana, my house was built in 1969.

    You must be from the “Clarence Thomas may not oppose affirmative action if we can argue that he ever benefitted from it” school of logic.

    I’m not.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  6. 1. Dana: several years ago I was having extensive remodeling done to my condo. I hired a contractor who had only illegals—who by the way, did a very good job, who did the job in the rear of the residence. However, I allowed my political opinions to triumph and hired a gringo and his gringo workers for phase two. Holy shit, Dana. All those white guys did was bitch about everything: they demanded water, beer, an improvement in their environment (meaning coooler weather in the San Fernando Valley), and oh by the way they did a mediocre job that took at least a third longer than the illegals did for the same work in the back of my condo. AND THEY LEFT A MESS. Last time I insist on a citizen work force.

    2. I assume complete responsibility for hiring illegals. They are there. They are willing to work their asses off. And nobody—including me–
    pays any taxes to the hated government.

    Howard Veit (4ba8d4)

  7. […] You’ll have to come here for that. (Or to my blog, where this item was originally posted.) […]

    Hot Air » Blog Archive » Outrage: Federal Judge Blames California for Its Illegal Immigration Problem (d4224a)

  8. Serious ideas-
    -send them to another state for incarceration, especially if the cost is lower, and Calif. picks up the tab. (Montana, N.D., S.D., AK.)

    They had a plan to do it but it was blocked by court order this year.

    sam (e84bbc)

  9. Patterico,

    Not that it undermines the point you’re making here, but I’m curious: What percentage of California’s prison population is incarcerated for pure drug war offenses (i.e., no violence, no theft; just possession, or possession with intent, etc)?

    Paul (8cbb16)

  10. As far back as 1969, our host’s estate might not have been built by illegals, though the few pictures I have seen of it made it look more modern.

    But the other questions still apply: Have you taken measures to insure that you, personally, do not buy any products which use illegals in the production chain? From where does your food come? Do you check out the staff at the restaurants you patronize?

    I think your Clarance Thomas illustration falls apart for one simple reason: unless you are taking steps, with every purchase, to insure that the oranges Mrs Patterico buys today at the supermarket weren’t the fruit of illegal labor (pun intended), you would be benefitting from illegal immigration today.

    I am perfectly aware that I’m setting up an impossible test: very few of us have the time or resources to check our purchases down the production chain to see if and where and by how much we have benefitted from illegal immigrant labor. But because we can’t check such things, we have grown complacent and accepting of them. Producers are simply supplying what we say we want: high quality goods at the lowest price.

    Illegal immigration occurs for one reason and one reason only: we pay the illegals to come here. In the end, those payments are made by the end consumers of the goods and services the immigrants produce.

    Dana (3e4784)

  11. What percentage of California’s prison population is incarcerated for pure drug war offenses (i.e., no violence, no theft; just possession, or possession with intent, etc)?

    Zero. Except for possession with intent to sell. The courts do recognize that addicts will sell in order to afford their habits. But when you get a guy who is repeatedly selling drugs, or selling large quantities, or refusing to enter rehab, then, yes, they tend to wind up in prison. Defendants get a lot of breaks before the hammer falls.

    sam (e84bbc)

  12. Paul, for our esteemed host to answer that, he’d also need to know what percentage of people incarcerated for simple possession had been allowed to plead down from selling drugs.

    Dana (3e4784)

  13. Dana,

    Why can’t one be against illegal immigration even if one benefits from it today?

    I am personally opposed to the three-point shot in principle. But I benefit (indirectly) when my team makes a trey. In fact I often root for my team to shoot a three-pointer in the right situation in spite of the fact that I think it’s a stupid rule. Does that make me a hypocrite?

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  14. That there are illegal aliens in the US doing work cheaper than citizens is not a surprising fact.

    Having these illegals go home will cause disruption, but having them here is causing disruption. Which disruption do we prefer, the disruption of a culture and political environment, or the disruption of market supply?

    I’d wager the disruption of the market supply would be far easier to work with than with an invasion of a competing culture, especially since the current culture seems unwilling to resist.

    steve miller (be6a74)

  15. Locking up Lindsey Lohan will only make the problem worse… not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    V the K (07425b)

  16. The state should unload all of it’s illegals at the federal courthouse, then surround the building.

    Neo (cba5df)

  17. Thanks for not making me read every word of that portion of the opinion….the tinfoil hatted leftist loons (that include every “protest” group”) will begin to actually personally experience the results of their policies for the past forty years….then let’s see what their solutions are. Eek!! What am I saying!!! They don’t have solutions for anything that makes sense, they just increase the tax burden. We’re turning into a Third World County even as I type!

    Sue (5a6a66)

  18. Aunursa asked:

    Why can’t one be against illegal immigration even if one benefits from it today?

    Well, most people would call it rather hypocritical.

    One very simple fact is that we, we meaning our host and you and I and almost certainly every other reader of this fine site, are going out and paying the illegals to come here. That’s what we do, every time we buy something produced by illegal immigrant labor, and that’s a responsibility we cannot deny.

    Dana (3e4784)

  19. How quickly the comments at HA started leaning toward “shooting hogs” and which firearms are best.

    voiceofreason63 (7df17c)

  20. maybe its time to start thinking of doing away with immunity for federal judges and prosecutors. has a feeling that sending a few judges to prison would do wonders for the judicial system. theres nothing like being held accountable for ones actions to get ones attention.

    james conrad (7cd809)

  21. Why can’t one be against illegal immigration even if one benefits from it today?

    Well, most people would call it rather hypocritical.

    With all due respect Dana, I can almost guarantee that you have eaten a fruit,vegetable, or nuts that have been produced in part by an illegal.

    Is recognizing that there is a problem with the system our governments, (state and federal) have allowed make it hypocritical to those who admit change is needed? Are you positive the fuel in your vehicle has not been produced by Chavez?

    If this is the case, I would submit there are millions of hypcrites out there that still know and complain about the current system of delivering goods to the consumer. Myself included.

    Rovin (7f64b8)

  22. One very simple fact is that we, we meaning our host and you and I and almost certainly every other reader of this fine site, are going out and paying the illegals to come here. That’s what we do, every time we buy something produced by illegal immigrant labor, and that’s a responsibility we cannot deny.

    Nonsense. “We,” in this case meaning I, sure as hell DO deny that it is “our” (my) responsibility to police the hiring practices not only of the stores that I shop at, but of every manufacturer and every subcontractor of any company they purchase goods from. How the hell am I as a consumer even supposed to know which products were made by illegal aliens and which ones were not?

    If “we” (meaning society as a whole) are serious about controlling illegal immigration, “we” have to tell the government to start enforcing its border and cracking down on employers who they, not “we,” have jurisdiction over. They, not “we,” are the only ones with the means to make it unprofitable to hire illegals.

    Xrlq (9aea6d)

  23. Dana,

    I’m not sure that most people would call it hypocritical. Have you asked most people?

    It’s one thing for Patterico not to hire illegal workers to perform jobs for him. You want to require him to boycott any employer that hires them as well. Should Patterico never stay in a major hotel because every hotel chain employs illegals?

    What it sounds like you’re saying is that no one can have an opinion against illegal immigration because it’s almost impossible for a member of our society not to be connected to illegal workers in some way. That is an unreasonable demand of your opponent.

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  24. What are you talking about, aunursa? Three-point shots are awesome!

    Guy Who Doesn't Watch Very Much Basketball (add49f)

  25. Have you asked most people?

    What I meant to say: How many people have you asked?

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  26. back at you!maybe if the larger cities of california didn’t provide sanctuary to the illegal immigrants and the population in general supported enforcing our immigration laws,then perhaps we wouldn’t have the problem period. i think most of the california house members voted in favor of the recent kennedy/mccain “amnesty” bill so they won’t mind if these murderers,molesters,rapists etc are unleased on san fran and la.

    colin mcdonald (bc3e72)

  27. These federal judges wouldn’t be Carter appointees, would they?

    Anthony Ragan (6aeeda)

  28. James Conrad #20,

    I’m all for accountability but that’s why we have elected officials and elections. The premise behind immunity isn’t to prevent accountability. It’s to prevent waste of government resources that result from officials who can’t do their jobs because they are constantly defending themselves in court and because the government would needlessly spend its resources on lawyers and lawsuits.

    Government has waived immunity in certain areas – such as automobile accidents and other torts involving government employees – and it could waive immunity in the case of judges and prosecutors, too. But be prepared to significantly expand court budgets so they can hire dozens of lawyers to defend lawsuits from countless criminal defendants and disgruntled litigants.

    DRJ (bea74b)

  29. “One very simple fact is that we, we meaning our host and you and I and almost certainly every other reader of this fine site, are going out and paying the illegals to come here. That’s what we do, every time we buy something produced by illegal immigrant labor, and that’s a responsibility we cannot deny.”

    While we do share a noble name, I couldn’t disagree more as you assume ‘we’ are responsible -it is the feds responsbility to block the damn border and insure our safety. Do you not think there are those of us who have opined, written letters, met with officials, written editorials, etc. stridently expressing our views? Do you realize that the powers-that-be Do Not Care?

    That it has come to this is the result of abdicated responsibility, period. The latest immigration bill’s demise evidences people are not in favor of becoming a third world. But to a great extent, our hands are tied.

    Oh and btw, I shop at a little local market with locally grown produce, eggs from local ranches, and do the best I can – and that is limited. But I am more than willing to pay more for produce and anything else to have this exacerbated problem severely stemmed.

    Dana (5c5b1e)

  30. Communities can do more to rein in illegal immigration. For instance: Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

    DRJ (bea74b)

  31. Are these some of the imperial muttonheads that the liberals want on the bench? we dont need these idiots at all

    krazy kagu (044dd0)

  32. Applying the three point shot to football: a 20 yard field goal would be worth 2 points, a 30 yarder 3 points, a 40 yarder 4 points, etc.

    Now the situation is that Indianapolis is down by five points in the final minute. Peyton Manning drives them down to the 25 yard line, but there’s only 12 seconds left. A 42 yard kick is worth only 4 points, so the Colts intentionally take an 8 yard loss in order to set up a 50 yard field goal.

    Does that make any sense? No, and neither does rewarding a team for making a lower percentage shot.

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  33. We need to build more prisons.

    We need fences on the border.

    Prisons have fences.

    Get it?

    Stuart Pendous (43d058)

  34. unless you are taking steps, with every purchase, to insure that the oranges Mrs Patterico buys today at the supermarket weren’t the fruit of illegal labor

    I don’t know where you shop, but at my supermarket all the oranges are put into a pile. It’s impossible to tell where an individual orange came from.

    If I were to ask my grocer whether his products came from illegal immigrants, and he told me that all of his wares came from legal labor, is that enough of an investigation? Or must I go to the farms and watch the produce being picked to insure that I’m not buying something produced by an illegal?

    Steverino (cbc220)

  35. No, and neither does rewarding a team for making a lower percentage shot.

    (Completley off-topic) Rewarding a team for making a more difficult shot makes perfect sense. That works in life as well as sports: the greatest returns on investments go to the riskiest ones (the ones with the lowest percentages of success).

    It’s still okay to oppose the three-point shot, but this line of reasoning doesn’t hold up.

    Steverino (cbc220)

  36. Steverino,

    Then you would favor field goal scoring on a sliding scale? How about an scoring hockey and soccer goals by distance?

    aunursa (1b5bad)

  37. aunursa, it’s not about rewarding lower-percentage shots, it’s about what rules make a better game. Tight zone defenses make for boring basketball and the three-point shot makes the zone defense less attractive. It’s much better to give teams an incentive to open up the defense than it is to just make a stupid rule “no zone defense”. Heck, if it were up to me, I’d have a four-point shot too.

    And your proposed changes to football sound like fun: third and long on the thirty and they haven’t been able to complete a pass in their last ten attempts. Are they going to go for it or rush in their field-goal team at the last second when the defense isn’t prepared for it, hoping for a 5-point field goal? I don’t know, Bob, the fans like that kind of risky play but most coaches think it’s a low-probability…

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  38. I don’t think we have a problem with the illegal aliens who are working at building houses and condos.
    We have a problem with the hardened convicted criminal aliens, who if Judge Karlton gets his way, will soon be back on the street, robbing, mugging, breaking and entering, raping, murdering, abducting kids, or or maybe just smuggling more illegals or drugs into our state.

    From what I heard Judge Karlton made this ruling on a class action suite brought by convicts against the state. Couldn’t the people of California bring a simular class action against the Federal , to force them to deport these convicted prisoner aliens?

    papertiger (ab2f41)

  39. Then you would favor field goal scoring on a sliding scale? How about an scoring hockey and soccer goals by distance?

    Again, this is off-topic. Nothing I wrote could be construed as supporing a sliding scale for field goals in football. I just said your claim that it didn’t make sense to reward low-percentage shots wasn’t right. Don’t assume a position I never stated.

    For the record, the only professional sport I give a hoot about is horseracing, so I just don’t care about the scoring systems in other sports.

    Steverino (40460a)

  40. Well, almost any change in the rules would only help soccer. Damned if I can think of one that would make it entertaining though.

    buzz (9e5c44)

  41. One thing’s for sure — if we ever successfully manage to get all of the illegals back into Mexico, I’m going to spend every free dime I have investing in Mexico.

    Sure, I think it’s bad economics to close the border. But if the U.S. is going to hold a labor workforce captive down there, just waiting for any investment money I can throw there way, I’m darn well going to take advantage of it.

    What, you thought I’d invest my money in paying top dollar for spoiled, expensive American workers? You gotta be kidding me.

    Phil (427875)

  42. What, you thought I’d invest my money in paying top dollar for spoiled, expensive American workers?

    Phil, the union thugs will be looking for you. Avoid dark alleys.

    Paul (0544fc)

  43. I feel so sorry for the state of California. They try so hard to responsibly run the state but the big mean Federal Government keeps screwing things up. Worse, Texas, another hugely populous border state, won’t stop laughing at the poor, beleaguered Californians. It just makes me so mad.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  44. RE: drj@10.42 gee wiz, spare me the sky will fall routine, absolute immunity has outlived its usefullness as regards court officers as well as tenure for professors at american universities.indeed, as the nation watched in north carolina this past year, not even the govenor could fire mike nifong for criminal acts he committed in trying to win an election. abolish immunity and tenure NOW!!! posner on tenure

    james conrad (7cd809)

  45. And nobody—including me–pays any taxes to the hated government.

    (Comment by Howard Veit)

    Oh, but yes, you DO indeed pay taxes. I pay taxes for your illegal workers. Everyone does. That’s the attractive thing about illegal labor: it’s subsidized by ALL taxpayers, but the BENEFIT from the labor is directed specifically to those, such as yourself, who use it.

    Barney (b3f6e4)

  46. You’re so judgey, Barney. I think you should treat yourself to Baskin Robbins today. Two scoops, buddy. You deserve it!

    happyfeet (86a576)

  47. James Conrad,

    My point was that governmental immunity isn’t about accountability, it’s about economics. Immunity laws can be changed but let’s at least understand why we have them in the first place.

    DRJ (bea74b)

  48. Patterico, you said the state can’t deport illegals–but are you sure of that.

    Here’s the idea I have: whenever an illegal immigrant is convicted of a crime, the sentence should include a proviso that the convicted person be immediately escorted by law enforcement officers to the Mexican border, and released there, with the prison sentence suspended on condition that the convicted person not return to California. Same with any releases on parole.

    It’s a brainstorm idea, so there are probably negatives I’m not seeing at the moment. It may require legislation–which is probably a political dead end; it won’t keep the illegal from re-entering under another identity or to another state; it will probably increase the number of defendants who go to trial instead of pleading. It won’t work for every state–for instance, here in Florida, whose “international” borders are ocean beaches we can’t simply take every convicted illegal to the nearest dock, put them in a canoe, and tell them to row themselves all the way home–even if that’s the way many of them got here. But I don’t think it’s something which can be automatically ruled out of court. It will certainly reduce the number of illegals in your prisons, and hopefully dissuade some illegals from either committing crime in the first place, or re-entering the US afterwards, because the stakes are higher. And (I apologize if this comes across as being impertinent) it’s something I think someone in your position–that is, a prosecutor in an area where illegal immigrant crime is a serious problem–would seriously look into. (Or has the idea been floated somewhere and rejected?)

    kishnevi (c5514e)

  49. happyfeet, the last time I went to Baskin Robbins there was an illegal behind the counter trying to sell me Jalapeno Splash® Sherbet. I couldn’t bear it.

    Barney (b3f6e4)

  50. Just making sure here. You’re not saying that undocumented immigrants that commit crime should be deported instead of being in jail, are you?

    amarc (1d90ec)

  51. Nope, amarc.

    I’d like them to have been deported before they commit the crimes, so we don’t have to deal with them at all.

    Mainly, I’m noting yet another cost of illegal immigration. Big Media doesn’t highlight these costs, so bloggers like me will.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  52. kish,

    If 187 trampled on federal supremacy over immigration, I’m sure your idea would too.

    Good luck getting that one past the federal bench.

    Patterico (2a65a5)

  53. RE: DRJ i respectfully disagree. immunity is really about protecting court officers from political influence. this notion in todays world is almost quaint. just as in academia tenure is granted to protect academic freedom. this may have made sense once upon a time however, those days are long gone.

    james conrad (7cd809)

  54. I’m getting really tired of all this off-topic meandering. Please stick to the topic: rules changes to makes sports more interesting.

    Doc Rampage (ebfd7a)

  55. How about a little Baseball rule tinkering?

    Old boring rule – A homer only counts for one run (unless the bases are occupied) and the ball is out of play once it is in the seats.

    New exciting rule – Ball is still in play even if it is in seats and the hitter can continue to round the bases indefinitely until an opposing player retreves the ball to stop him. This will encourage more fan participation and increase demand for bleacher seats, leading to increased revenue.

    papertiger (8349ff)

  56. A similar thing happened in Philadelphia in the ’80s. The courts forced the release of convicted criminals for years. It was a disaster. Crime skyrocketed. Criminals quickly learned that only the most vicious crimes would be punished.

    But the prisoners who were jailed were more comfortable.

    Amphipolis (fb9e95)

  57. There are things that California could do about Illegals.

    a. The most famous is revoking LA’s “Special Order 40″ which forbids police from asking about illegal status.
    b. deny medical attention to illegal aliens.
    c. forbid state funds for prosecution of crimes against illegal aliens. That would make illegal aliens legally the outlaws which they are.
    d. Tickets to illegal aliens for unlawful assembly at job centers, or locations where illegal’s congregate for day labor.
    e. forbid state funding for children of illegal aliens. Such children should return, with their parents, to their home countries, and be considered to not be US Citizens as in their home countries they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US.
    f. Forbid state, county, or city funding of public defenders, or translators, for illegal aliens convicted of crime.
    g. Set up special illegal alien jails in tents right on the southern borders, within sight of Mexico. That way the prison would show the special place we have in our society for illegal aliens.

    Harsh? Not me. I support amnesty, which means: I would not charge any illegal alien if they make it back to their home country, and they then apply from their home country for legal entry to the Us, so long as they have no criminal record. Of course there is a long line for legal entry, in part because ICE is so diverted with charging agents which attempt to stop drug smuggling illegals.

    Don Meaker (999e4b)

  58. Patrick–

    As fun as Dana’s red herring is, the fact is that we are NOT talking about illegal immigrants. We’re talking about illegal immigrant felons. I believe this is a distinction you’ve tried to make a few times. It really doesn’t matter who mows your grass, as it pretty much isn’t a San Quentin inmate.

    So here’s my proposal for Karlton and Henderson:

    1. The state will immediately identify all foreign nationals within its prison system and note the immigration status of each.

    2. Within the illegal/undocumented status group, prisoners shall be given a retention factor based on time left and the severity of their crime.

    3. Should the Federal courts order a release of prisoners, such illegals with the lowest retention factor, as are necessary, shall be delivered to the appropriate federal immigration authorities, with all evidence of status.

    Then, you see, its a federal problem again.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5231 secs.