Patterico's Pontifications

5/8/2011

San Francisco: Letting Arrested Illegals Go While Spending Millions on an iPhone App to Help People Find Parking Spaces

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 2:19 pm

These stories might seem unrelated at first — but I think they are indeed related. They go to the mindset of government officials: what they consider important and what they don’t.

First, reader AD-RtR/OS! forwards me this story:

San Francisco, one of the first sanctuary cities in the nation, plans to end its cooperation with federal immigration officials and start releasing illegal immigrants arrested for minor offenses before they can be picked up for deportation.

The city’s decision is the latest development in a tug of war between several communities and the federal government over its controversial national program that automatically checks the immigration status of arrestees.

AD-RtR/OS! comments :”You can’t deport them first if they are never detained and reported.”

“Minor” offenses no doubt includes DUIs. Never mind all the stories I have told you about people killed by illegal aliens with past histories of driving drunk and not being deported. Remember: they have no right to be here to begin with — so it’s not like we’re deporting them for committing a DUI. It’s that they are deportable anyway, but we are focusing our limited deportation resources on them because they are committing crimes that put our communities at risk.

FEDERAL PREEMPTION IRONY: I thought local communities weren’t supposed to pass policies regarding federal immigration. At least that’s what we’re always told when states pass laws trying to help enforce our immigration laws. I guess it’s different when they’re trying to undermine federal immigration laws. That’s just hunky-dory.

So if detaining illegal alien criminals for deportation isn’t a worthwhile government function, what is? Why, spending $20 million to develop a parking app for the iPhone! Once again, let’s go to San Francisco:

In this city, it is also a vexing traffic problem. Drivers cruising for parking spots generate 30 percent of all downtown congestion, city officials estimate.

Now San Francisco professes to have found a solution — a phone app for spot-seekers that displays information about areas with available spaces.

The system, introduced last month, relies on wireless sensors embedded in streets and city garages that can tell within seconds if a spot has opened up.

At first I thought: how enterprising! Someone went out and developed a potentially useful app! How nice! Then I kept reading, and realized that the “someone” is the government:

The $20 million parking project here, called SFpark, is backed by the Transportation Department and the Federal Highway Administration, which are looking into how to ease congestion and driver angst by making the most of limited parking.

San Francisco has put sensors into 7,000 metered parking spots and 12,250 spots in city garages. If spaces in an area open up, the sensors communicate wirelessly with computers that in turn make the information available to app users within a minute, said Mr. Ford, of the transportation agency. On the app, a map shows which blocks have lots of places (blue) and which are full (red).

San Francisco’s is by far the most widespread approach that several cities, universities and private parking garages are experimenting with.

Sure, it’s “only” $20 million — but you know, I get tired of amounts like $20 million being referred to as if they’re nothing. If it’s nothing, give it to me. Or heck, just don’t take taxes from me, all my friends, and all my family for the rest of our lives.

Anyway, like any government program, they’re planning to expand it if it works:

Donald Shoup, a professor of urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles, who studies parking issues and is serving as an adviser on the San Francisco project, said cities and traffic experts were closely watching the federally funded experiments in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

So, of course, “only” $20 million will turn into much, much more.

Good thing we don’t have a federal budget crisis, or stuff like this would seem insanely wasteful.

Far better to spend millions on this than on protecting us from illegal alien criminals.

Maybe some day a drunk illegal alien with three DUIs on his record will be looking at his iPhone as he looks for a parking space in San Francisco, and will hit some pedestrians walking across the street. Your taxpayer dollars at work!

95 Comments

  1. Wouldn’t deporting the illegals help ease congestion?

    Comment by ∅butthead (e7577d) — 5/8/2011 @ 2:35 pm

  2. Are you sure DUI is included as a minor offense? The linked story cites speeding violations as an example of a “minor” arrest included under the policy.

    Comment by Big Median (066d74) — 5/8/2011 @ 2:36 pm

  3. The government is going to have to install warning devices at intersections to warn potential victims that a crazed rush of parking spot seekers is coming at them like bats from hell.

    Pedestrians better be quick to keep clear or else.

    Comment by ropelight (a48c62) — 5/8/2011 @ 2:52 pm

  4. Murder over a parking space search results.

    Comment by ∅butthead (e7577d) — 5/8/2011 @ 2:57 pm

  5. Are you sure DUI is included as a minor offense?

    The onus of proof is on the city of SF, BM. How do they define minor offense? A couple of years back SF released an MS-13 gang-banger on numerous occasions so as not to have to turn him over to ICE. they even went so far as to “hide” him in a $7k/month state (taxpayer) funded juvenile rehab. this taxpayer-funded minor criminal went on to slaughter Tony Bologna and two of his kids in the city streets a few months after being released.

    That you even have the balls to ask such a question points up your rank disingenuousness here.

    Comment by Chris (eafa5f) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:02 pm

  6. So, who has standing to sue?

    Comment by Kevin M (298030) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:05 pm

  7. B-but it’s in the constitution.

    /Crrlenin

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:05 pm

  8. Given it is a known sanctuary city, can you imagine it not being included, big MFM median?

    Racists.

    Comment by JD (b98cae) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:06 pm

  9. Good thing California’s new attorney general won’t stand for this kind of stuff.

    Comment by Kevin M (298030) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:08 pm

  10. The point about the Federal preemption irony was well taken. That scale lady justice is carrying has been rigged.

    On the issue of DUI’s and injury to legal citizens by illegals; until local officials are held personally liable, nothing will happen to change it.
    The City of Bell was all over the news due to the (alleged) abuse of that city’s finances.
    Injury to a legal citizen by a DUI illegal with a prior DUI? Nothing.
    For what it is worth, the cost to treat victims probably vastly exceeds the amount reported in Bell.

    On the iPhone app and $20M…. isn’t this just an opportunity to start Deathrace 2000 to an open space? Using the phone hands free and with eyes on the road? Huh.
    I guess it could happen

    Comment by SteveG (cc5dc9) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:09 pm

  11. The widow sued. ISTR the suit was thrown out. Patterico no doubt knows the details.

    By the way, the young illegal in question was apprehended for drug dealing and illegal weapons prior to the slaughter. But at least the city of SF was able to speak truth to power to the immoral Bush_ICE junta. to the Bologna family, not so much.

    Comment by Chris (eafa5f) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:10 pm

  12. Yeah, our new attorney general makes Eric Holder look like a constitutional genius

    Comment by SteveG (cc5dc9) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:13 pm

  13. I thought the new thing was to make a gutsy call and put a bullet in their head as opposed to capturing them

    Comment by happyfeet (9bcfed) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:14 pm

  14. Just to let you know according to Chuckles deporting illegals is heartless unless Obama orders the deportation of an illegal israeli.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:21 pm

  15. I cannot imagine that the concept of “minor offenses” includes DUIs, which have mandatory three days jail time these days in California.

    But, I guess to ask the question means I am disingenuous, right Chris?

    Comment by Stephen Kaus (7640c5) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:32 pm

  16. One year from now we will be reading about how this iPhone program turns out to have a very small effect on downtown congestion. It’s a supply and demand issue — there is a limited supply of parking in San Francisco and a pretty substantial demand. Let’s say I am at 5th and Mission and suddenly my iPhone tells me there is a space at 6th and Folsom. Don’t you think that by the time I drive the four blocks to get there that there is a good chance that someone else with an iPhone will have beaten me to it? I would anticipate a lot of people following their iPhones around and aggressively zig-zaging through the city and tying up traffic even more than if they were just circling around hoping a space opens up.

    Comment by JVW (fb14f8) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:32 pm

  17. Dumb question do they release all individuals or just those that are illegal? If they are only releasing the illegals then that’s a violation of the equal protection clause of both the California and federal constitutions.

    Comment by airedale (492f1f) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:33 pm

  18. The people’s republic of SF also has managed to ruin its housing rental market. San Francisco’s strong renter protections are a big reason why the city has the region’s highest vacancy rate.

    “Vacancy rates are going up because owners have decided to take their units off the market,” said Ross Mirkarimi, a progressive member of the Board of Supervisors. He attributes that response to “peaking frustrations in dealing with the range of laws that protect tenants in San Francisco that make it difficult for small property owners to thrive.”
    Source: The Bay Citizen

    http://www.baycitizen.org/columns/elizabeth-lesly-stevens/small-time-landlord-vs-big-time-tenants/

    Comment by elissa (f6983d) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:34 pm

  19. Runaway warming put us into an iceage?

    That is like saying torturing terrorists is what terrorists do.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:37 pm

  20. SK, are you asking the question? In reality, it doesn’t matter what they say but what they do. When SF was engaged in the earlier catch and release, they weren’t formally releasing suspected/convicted felons.

    But the facts on the ground proved otherwise. If AZ cannot codify federal immigration law into a state statute, why can SF unilaterally ignore the (Federal) laws? Because they’ve given their word that they won’t release any dangerous criminals? Their word is meaningless.

    Comment by Chris (eafa5f) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:39 pm

  21. And if we are causing gorebull warming put up or shut up lefties and stop killing trees to print your rags.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:40 pm

  22. Tony Bennett just called, he wants his heart back.

    Comment by JP (c4988c) — 5/8/2011 @ 3:50 pm

  23. B-but if we don’t release illegal alien thugs from prison it will lead to gorebull warming.

    /Leftys

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 4:28 pm

  24. Heartless badge licking authoritarians.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 4:48 pm

  25. Eh?

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 4:52 pm

  26. The 20 million might be recouped if more people are willing to go downtown to buy stuff on which there’s a sales tax, or employers can retain employees who prefer not to use public transportation, etc.

    Or maybe the ap can include little icons showing the location of the nearest Arby’s, for ad dollars.

    Comment by Brian (b7286d) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:13 pm

  27. San Francisco is just in the leading edge of the Californian obsession with making the state as unlivable for ordinary, middle-class folk as possible while making it a paradise for illegal immigrants, criminals and the odd left-wing billionaire.

    And its a great success.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:18 pm

  28. Strangely, I visited SF a couple of years ago. I rode the train and walked across almost the entire city… for whatever reason, it never struck me as the sort of city you’d NEED a car to get around in.

    That said, parking and traffic was pretty gnarly.

    Comment by Spike (4573c4) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:23 pm

  29. If traffic is so congested in The City, perhaps the PTB should reconsider allowing cars to cross the bridges inbound free-of-charge, and charge for crossings in both directions – it certainly would help with their deficit problem(?).

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (e7a3cf) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:24 pm

  30. Comment by elissa — 5/8/2011 @ 3:34 pm

    There are 31000 unoccupied dwellings in The City
    http://nalert.blogspot.com/2011/05/due-to-rent-control-sf-has-31000-vacant.html
    as landlords have taken units off the market rather than deal with the city’s rent-control bureaucracy.
    I live in a fairly typical L.A. suburb of just about 110K people. ATBE, you could house my entire town in SF’s off-market dwellings.

    Also, you should consider this from VDH:
    http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/thoughts-on-a-surreal-depression/

    CA is on a slow spiral into a Black-Hole, and “The City” is leading the way!

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (e7a3cf) — 5/8/2011 @ 5:35 pm

  31. Other pending San Francisco apps:

    iHookup: Helps local gay men looking for their nearest “date”.

    iPanhandler: Helps people find the nearest panhandler to harass them.

    iNeedle: Helps junkies find the nearest city needle exchange center.

    Comment by MarkJ (5cbdfb) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:31 pm

  32. California will be a sharia state in 15 years with the way they are going.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 6:42 pm

  33. Hah! Can you say “Attorney General Kamala Harris”?

    Comment by mojo (4e4a98) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:14 pm

  34. Just happend to be watching WGN News from Chicago when I saw this story Anti-deportation rally held at jail which then led to this story Illinois withdraws from federal immigration program. It turn out Illinois is also setting up its own DREAM Act.


    Quinn’s office on Wednesday sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security declaring the state’s formal withdrawal from Secure Communities, a federal deportation program that targets hardened criminals but has also been used against illegal immigrants arrested for misdemeanor crimes.

    Comment by SaintGeorgeGentile (0f7448) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:20 pm

  35. THANK YOU for posting this! We’ve been all over this topic on Common Cents…

    http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

    Comment by Steve (88e6e2) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:26 pm

  36. Why in the world would I care what the people of San Francisco do?

    There is an obvious answer, but I won’t invoke it.

    Comment by Ag80 (6134b7) — 5/8/2011 @ 7:58 pm

  37. By the way, the young illegal in question was apprehended for drug dealing and illegal weapons prior to the slaughter. But at least the city of SF was able to speak truth to power to the immoral Bush_ICE junta. to the Bologna family, not so much.

    What we need is vigilante justice!

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:06 pm

  38. Is Kamala Harris a ugandan female wrestler?

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:07 pm

  39. Why in the world would I care what the people of San Francisco do?

    Without the people of San Francisco, we would have responsible leadership in Sacramento.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:10 pm

  40. Michael, there a still a lot of fools in Beverly Hills, the West-Side of L.A., and the San Fernando Valley – all of which are the heart of the Waxman-Berman Machine that pretty much rules the roost.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (e7a3cf) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:44 pm

  41. “are”, not “a”…sorry.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (e7a3cf) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:45 pm

  42. What we need is vigilante justice!

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — 5/8/2011 @ 8:06 pm

    Is that supposed to be cute? Tell it to the widows of people like Bologna or dead border patrol agents? Who said anything about vigilante anything? The vigilantes are the PTB in sanctuary cities like SF deciding that law abiding citizens aren’t worthy of protection.

    Comment by Chris (eafa5f) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:53 pm

  43. Why, sir, don’t you know that this will GENERATE Revenue?

    By keeping all those metered spaces FULL, the progran will pay for itself!! By collecting extra taxes from those parking garages, the program will provide EXTRA revenue for the city! By making sure people are in those spots when their meters run out, this program will generate an absolute WINDFALL of profits for the city of SF!!!

    Yeah!

    Yeah!!

    That’s the…. ticket!!

    Comment by Smock Puppet (c9dcd8) — 5/8/2011 @ 8:54 pm

  44. How about an app that detects illegal aliens? Not only would the money be better spent assisting in the enforcement our laws, it would also free up some parking by removing illegal alien drivers from the streets. A twofer!

    I now denounce myself for having such a racist thought as enforcing the law.

    Comment by navyvet (db5856) — 5/8/2011 @ 9:20 pm

  45. If immigration quotes weren’t artificially low, there would be no illegal immigrant problem. Yet I never hear conservatives arguing in favor of letting the market set immigration levels.

    Comment by Big Median (2f532a) — 5/8/2011 @ 9:30 pm

  46. _________________________________________

    San Francisco, one of the first sanctuary cities in the nation.

    I’d like to see good ol’ capitalism, referring to real estate (and housing prices), altered in SF so that the following can be more quickly and easily foisted onto the land of latte liberalism gone berserk. Along with its intractable problem of aggressive homeless folks and panhandlers, Frisco deserves the one-two punch of the following…

    city-journal.org, Heather Mac Donald, October 2008:

    The Latino Education Crisis: The Consequences of Failed Social Policies, by Patricia Gandara and Frances Contreras, offers an unflinching portrait of Hispanics’ educational problems and reaches a scary conclusion about those problems’ costs. The book’s analysis is all the more surprising given that its authors are liberals committed to bilingual education, affirmative action, and the usual slate of left-wing social programs.

    Hispanics are underachieving academically at an alarming rate, the authors report. Though second- and third-generation Hispanics make some progress over their first-generation parents, that progress starts from an extremely low base and stalls out at high school completion. High school drop-out rates — around 50 percent — remain steady across generations. Latinos’ grades and test scores are at the bottom of the bell curve. The very low share of college degrees earned by Latinos has not changed for more than two decades. Currently only one in ten Latinos has a college degree.

    By 2025, one in four students nationally will be Latino; in many Southwest cities, Latinos are already about 70 percent of the school population. For the first time in history, the authors observe, the ethnic group with the lowest academic achievement will become the majority in significant parts of the country.

    California provides a glimpse of what such changes might mean for America’s economic future. The Center for Public Policy and Higher Education predicts that unless the rate of college matriculation among “underrepresented” minorities (that is, Hispanics) immediately rises, the state will face an 11 percent drop in per capita income by 2020.

    Federal, state, and local governments have already spent billions trying to overcome the Latino education gap, with little success. That gap persists in part because of the stigma against academic achievement among many Latino males. Contreras and Gandara recount a typical classroom episode: a boy correctly answered a math question, only to be greeted by chants of “schoolboy, schoolboy” from the other male children, followed by the comment: “Now you think you are smart.”

    The Latino Education Crisis pulls no punches in its conclusions: “With no evidence of an imminent turnaround in the rate at which Latino students are either graduating from high school or obtaining college degrees, it appears that both a regional and national catastrophe are at hand.”

    ^ And all the money imaginable, and all the do-gooder programs and policies from A to Z probably won’t change such trends.
    _________________________________________

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 5/8/2011 @ 9:38 pm

  47. airedale at 17 – Actually (IIRC) there is an equal protection clause problem already in California. In several municipalities traffic violations, specifically driving with out a license or with out registration, which ordinarily may result in the impoundment of the vehicle are treated as “catch and release” by officers if the driver is hispanic. They will write a ticket but without ID there is little to no guarantee that the information provided is legitimate. The rationale was, at least at one time, was that by not providing for Drivers Licenses for illegals the state was discriminating against them and this policy was intended to mitigate that.

    Comment by Have Blue (854a6e) — 5/8/2011 @ 9:51 pm

  48. San Francisco has put sensors into 7,000 metered parking spots and 12,250 spots in city garages.

    There’s one weak link in the plan. What makes people think that those sensors will keep working?

    Hell, if I wanted to make some money, I’d set up a separate, paid-subscription-based iPhone app that alerted participating drivers when a space with a malfunctioning sensor had become vacant.

    Extra credit: Make sure that lots of sensors malfunction.

    Even better: Sabotage the sensors in such a way as to make occupied spaces seem vacant, and piss off The City’s app users.

    Sabotaging sensors is illegal? Yeah, and so is “undocumented” immigration.

    Comment by Murgatroyd (fd5fcd) — 5/8/2011 @ 9:55 pm

  49. “If immigration quotes weren’t artificially low, there would be no illegal immigrant problem.”

    Big Median – If my aunt had nuts she’d be my uncle.

    That is some blazingly stupid young argument from you.

    Yes, with an open borders policy, there is no illegal immigration problem by definition. Doh!

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 10:14 pm

  50. If they want to solve the traffic and parking problem they should give carpool tax incentives to companies that allow their employees to work at home. Also, instead of releasing illegal aliens they should fast track them for deportation.

    I’m not sure but I think it was 4 or 5 years ago that there was a big May day rally in support of illegal aliens downtown Los Angeles. When they had the rally it took less than half the time to get to work (I didn’t work in LA). The story here is less illegal aliens, less traffic. Also, maybe teenagers would find it easier to get an entry level job. Unemployment would go down. Welfare payments would go down. Minimum pay would go up without the government because of supply and demand.

    I was rear-ended by an illegal alien who did not have insurance. Lucky I had uninsured motorist’s insurance. The loss of my car for a month was not a happy experience. Maybe if he wasn’t here I wouldn’t have been hit and the cost of uninsured motorist’s insurance would be less expensive. Maybe my regular insurance would be less expensive because the risk of getting in an accident would be lower.

    Fast track deportation of illegal aliens is not a panacea for all of society’s ills, but it’s a good start.

    Comment by Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 5/8/2011 @ 10:33 pm

  51. Yes, with an open borders policy, there is no illegal immigration problem by definition. Doh!

    We seem to be effective in keeping North Koreansout of South Korea.

    Maybe we should remodel our borders after the Korean DMZ.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 5/8/2011 @ 10:47 pm

  52. I think the mine-fields would be especially effective against “coyotes”.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (e7a3cf) — 5/8/2011 @ 11:01 pm

  53. “I think the mine-fields would be especially effective against “coyotes”.”

    AD – I think Big Median is probably to young to remember that only 22% of the public supported the last comprehensive immigration bill in Congress, overwhelmingly preferring to secure the border before attempting to deal with comprehensive reform measures.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/8/2011 @ 11:06 pm

  54. Yes, with an open borders policy, there is no illegal immigration problem by definition. Doh!

    We seem to be effective in keeping North Koreansout of South Korea.

    Maybe we should remodel our borders after the Korean DMZ.

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — 5/8/2011 @ 10:47 pm

    How about just building the fence they said they would build. Let me put it this way, all our problems are not caused by illegal aliens. It is just one of many places to start. It might make the law something to take seriously and to be obeyed if we start enforcing existing immigration law.

    Comment by Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 5/8/2011 @ 11:12 pm

  55. Here in SoCal, I think it would be wonderful if the Coppers would enforce turn-signal usage laws, and coming to a full stop at a stop sign – the current version of a “California Stop” seems to be “not less than 25mph”.
    But, that would be opening Pandora’s Box, wouldn’t it, involving the Constabulary’s interaction with possibly undocumented drivers and all?
    Why, they might discover someone who had a Bench-Warrant or something worse that they might have to deal with. Then where would they be?
    Anyway, wouldn’t want to inconvenience our valiant boys in khaki/green/blue while they’re building up their credits for their 3/30 retirement where they will draw 90% of their last years’ – probably spiked – salary for more years than they were on the job, all at the taxpayer’s expense; a taxpayer who most likely never will make as much money as that cop draws in retirement.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (e7a3cf) — 5/8/2011 @ 11:32 pm

  56. 36.Why in the world would I care what the people of San Francisco do?

    Five words: Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein.

    SF is a national disaster, not just a local one. And as it sits on the “tip of the spear” driving the state down the toilet, it can only get worse when they demand a bailout.

    In any case, their $20M app is wasted on me. I have family in the East Bay. I have friends on the peninsula. As far as I’m concerned, SF is only the gauntlet I have to run between the two. Not a destination. I don’t care if all their parking spaces are vacant.

    No, I take that back. I care very much. I hope they are all vacant.

    Comment by Steve (266b4d) — 5/9/2011 @ 1:31 am

  57. Mean while over at Ace’s we have this from the AP.

    Are Tougher U.S. Immigration Policies Responsible for Mass Murder Along the Mexican Border? http://minx.cc/?post=315886

    Comment by Have Blue (854a6e) — 5/9/2011 @ 2:45 am

  58. I still think conservatives, save for a libertarian fringe, oppose immigration. Conservatives opposed the Dream Act and proposals involving amnesty vehemently.
    But if you support market-based immigration, ie immigration limits based on what the market will bear, then there should be no reason to oppose amnesty. People oppose amnesty say they don’t want to encourage illegal immigration, but if immigration quotas are changed to market levels, there will be zero incentive to immigrate illegally, since doing so legally will be simple and self-evidently more attractive than doing so illegally.
    The reality is that most conservatives oppose high levels of immigration, period, be it legal or illegal, because they don’t like the changes it brings to communities and they feel that an influx of non-whites is a threat to the political interests of whites.
    Conservatives would be a lot better off if they were honest about that. Instead, they cling fast that that position while insisting that they are “for” immigration, as long as it doesn’t result in more Mexicans or other non-white groups actually immigrating.

    Comment by Big Median (066d74) — 5/9/2011 @ 4:38 am

  59. iToilet?

    Comment by notsomsm (696de0) — 5/9/2011 @ 5:02 am

  60. ” I still think …” You are all racists. There is not one. Thing that would ever change this clown’s mind. He exists to claim some faux superiority and unearned moral high ground over those that do not share his fringe leftist political views. He is a lying cretin, an a pock mark on the bunghole of humanity.

    Comment by JD (b98cae) — 5/9/2011 @ 5:36 am

  61. if immigration quotas are changed to market levels, there will be zero incentive to immigrate illegally, since doing so legally will be simple

    Huh? As long as unemployment is high, market levels will be low.

    Right now, illegals are competing for low-level job opportunities… illegally. My friends who immigrated legally are really pissed. Why bother following the law, when the law is ignored by the government itself?

    The real issue is our unwillingness to deal with lawbreakers at every level. If you’re going to have a law, it needs to mean something. It needs to be enforced.

    Read The Tipping Point.

    Comment by MrPete (dba897) — 5/9/2011 @ 5:46 am

  62. So.. it make our task easier.. But they are making us lazy, we are too dependent on technology.

    Comment by Rosy (e84f1b) — 5/9/2011 @ 6:11 am

  63. Shorter big MFM median – if you oppose amensty, unlimited immigration, or any of my other silly positions, you are a racist.

    Comment by JD (306f5d) — 5/9/2011 @ 6:51 am

  64. I’m pretty sure that this can be attacked in court under the 14th Amendment, in that it grants summary amnesty to one group (illegal aliens) while continuing to prosecute all others (citizens and legal aliens). I cannot see how this discrimination could pass any kind of test, including the laugh test.

    Any legal resident who has been charged with any of these “minor crimes” while this policy is in effect certainly has standing here, and a class action might even be possible. Sue not to overturn the rule, but to make it apply to all.

    SF might be willing to protect illegal aliens, but all drunk drivers? Probably not.

    Comment by Kevin M (298030) — 5/9/2011 @ 7:40 am

  65. Big Median, why do you hate the working poor?

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/9/2011 @ 8:09 am

  66. I went into an LA college parking lot recently because the automatic board in front said there were 672 empty spots. I drove through each level to discover, quel surprise, there were actually zero empty spots.

    I would guess they were using this super duper sensor system.

    Comment by Patricia (f8db02) — 5/9/2011 @ 9:00 am

  67. Comment by Tanny O’Haley — 5/8/2011 @ 10:33 pm

    I have been rear-ended on the streets of So Cal 14 times over the past 28 years and almost 750,000 miles. Only once was the other driver an American or legally in the U.S. She was also the only one who was insured. Three of the people were Asian, two were European while the other 9 were Hispanic of unknown origin.

    The police only bothered to respond twice. Once because the accident caused a major traffic incident. The other was because of the severe injuries to the other driver. He was transported to the hospital, ticketed but never even interviewed by ICE, let alone deported. The hospital bill was never paid.

    Meanwhile, I paid over $4000 in deductibles before I started paying for Zero deductible insurance. I don’t even want to know how much extra I have paid in rates because of this.

    Yeah, I want the borders closed to all who do not have a visa, legal entry, etc.

    Comment by Jay H Curtis (8f6541) — 5/9/2011 @ 10:05 am

  68. Spike:

    generally speaking, people who both live and work in San Francisco don’t drive much. The traffic is generated by (a) people who live in San Francisco and work elsewhere in the bay area, or (b) people who don’t live in San Francisco coming to the city to work/eat out/see live shows/visit friends who live in SF/shop/etc.

    [I don't live or work in San Francisco, but I visit friends there regularly and I go to school there, meaning I drive in 4-5 times a week. Since i've been going to school for four years and visiting my friends for longer, and since I'm happy to walk a mile if I need to, I know where to find parking easily. But if I didn't know the city well, and/or wasn't willing to walk for a mile, finding parking in certain neighborhoods is just impossible.]

    Comment by aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/9/2011 @ 11:11 am

  69. I used to love riding the white line through the traffic jams going into Frisco. Those roads were inevitably a parking lot, and if you were comfortable enough on your motorcycle, you could just zip right up the dotted line.

    Comment by JD (d48c3b) — 5/9/2011 @ 11:17 am

  70. Big Median is a racist POS.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/9/2011 @ 11:27 am

  71. Opponents of affirmative action are racist……….But what about those lefturds who said Bush got where he was because he was white?

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/9/2011 @ 12:36 pm

  72. Parking is not going to be a problem in the future.
    Black Flight from SF:

    San Francisco’s black population has dropped faster than that of any other large U.S. city’s. It went from 13.4 percent in 1970 to an estimated 6.5 percent in 2005, according to the census. Nationally, African Americans make up 12.1 percent of the population.

    Much of the blame has been placed on the Redevelopment Agency, which intentionally drove black families and businesses from the Fillmore district in the 1960s and 1970s.

    …In San Francisco, the number of African Americans in very-low-income households has increased, the number of black-owned businesses has declined, and African Americans have the lowest home ownership rates, according to the report.

    About 24 percent of black people in the city are living in homes that need severe or moderate repairs, and African Americans make up nearly half of the residents in public housing.

    The report suggests such statistics contribute to why African Americans are leaving San Francisco and also explain why black families do not want to move here.

    Comment by LarryD (feb78b) — 5/9/2011 @ 2:17 pm

  73. “I have been rear-ended on the streets of So Cal 14 times over the past 28 years and almost 750,000 miles. Only once was the other driver an American or legally in the U.S. She was also the only one who was insured. Three of the people were Asian, two were European while the other 9 were Hispanic of unknown origin.

    Well, Jay, you might want to try not riding your brake so hard. On the other hand, you might also try getting your story a little straighter. Firstly, I wonder how you went about determining the immigration status of each person who hit you. Did they confess it to you? Secondly, what do you mean when you say the Hispanics were “of unknown origin?” Do you mean they didn’t tell you where they were born? Why would you even ask them that?
    I’m guessing you’re either making this stuff up or exaggerating a lot. Try as I might, I’m having trouble imagining how your post-accident conversations went, with you insisting on knowing where the person is from and whether they have a green card and them telling you they don’t have insurance and to sod off…
    And then there’s your conclusion: because a bunch of uninsured drivers — almost half of which were Asian or European, so wouldn’t have entered via the border — slammed into your car, you think the border needs sealing. Sorry, but that wouldn’t matter one bit. Sealing the border would do exactly zero to make drivers get auto insurance. The way to make drivers get auto insurance is make registering a vehicle and obtaining a drivers licence contingent on obtaining auto insurance. Immigration paperwork has zero to do with it.
    Sorry Jay, but your tale of woe doesn’t wash…

    Comment by Big Median (066d74) — 5/9/2011 @ 3:11 pm

  74. And the best part is Metamucil not “getting” that he was being pranked. After all, Bowel Movement was recently telling us all what all conservatives think.

    You aren’t anywhere near as smart as you believe yourself to be. There is nothing funnier than mimicking a troll and hearing the troll critique its own behavior.

    Nice.

    Comment by Simon Jester (534617) — 5/9/2011 @ 3:17 pm

  75. Kind of like how your infantile screams of racisisms doesn’t wash, big MFM median.

    Comment by JD (d56362) — 5/9/2011 @ 3:19 pm

  76. “The way to make drivers get auto insurance is make registering a vehicle and obtaining a drivers licence contingent on obtaining auto insurance. Immigration paperwork has zero to do with it.”

    Big Median – You are a moron. Remember how issuing or not issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens became a point of debate between Clinton and Obama during the last election? I guess not.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/9/2011 @ 3:20 pm

  77. LarryD – I don’t see why black flight implies that there won’t be parking problems. The black population of San Francisco county is miniscule, and the dynamics of the SF housing market is such that someone will buy the housing and move in. (Note that during the housing collapse of 2008-2011, housing prices in San Francisco and on the peninsula have been stable, while housing prices in the outlying suburbs have cratered – the demand is still high for SF property).

    Comment by aphrael (e0cdc9) — 5/9/2011 @ 3:29 pm

  78. I ahve no problem with driver’s licenses for illegals — as long as the license states their illegal status.

    Comment by M Atta's father (73dcc9) — 5/9/2011 @ 5:09 pm

  79. Only sob stories about how jihadists are being opressed makes Big MFM Mediatard cry.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/9/2011 @ 5:16 pm

  80. Shorter Big Moron – Whaddaya mean illegal aliens are not supposed to have U.S. drivers licenses?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/9/2011 @ 5:19 pm

  81. Big Media’s idiocy is a big f*cking deal :wink:

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/9/2011 @ 5:42 pm

  82. Firstly, I wonder how you went about determining the immigration status of each person who hit you. Did they confess it to you?

    In my case the person spoke Spanish and not English, did not have a driver’s license nor auto insurance. Not all people who speak Spanish come from Mexico, that would be the reason they were of “unknown origin”.

    The way to make drivers get auto insurance is make registering a vehicle and obtaining a drivers licence contingent on obtaining auto insurance. Immigration paperwork has zero to do with it.

    In California I’ve had to provide proof of insurance to register my car. You don’t have to own a car to drive. When I was 21 my car had been totaled by a drunk from Russia (a legal immigrant) who was not insured. I no longer owned a car, yet I drove a truck while attending bible college to pay my way though school. In California the vehicle is insured. I don’t believe it’s the driver.

    My only problem with taking the time to explain this to you is that from other comments you’ve left on this site, I have a feeling that you really aren’t interested in a reasoned response, but only in ad hominem attacks like your comment to Jay. Do you realize you just called him a liar? Maybe it’s not important to you, but I was raised (in California) to believe a man’s word was his bond.

    Comment by Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 5/9/2011 @ 7:32 pm

  83. Tanny, are you sock puppeting as Jay? I’m sure no one cares, since the rules are only enforced on lefties, but, just to avoid further confusion, you should fess up…
    And I don’t see how you determined the individual’s immigration status. Did you ask? Did they offer the information unbidden?

    Comment by Big Median (2f532a) — 5/9/2011 @ 8:00 pm

  84. The tsunami of stupidity from “big median” is always so cute.

    Comment by JD (318f81) — 5/9/2011 @ 8:01 pm

  85. Big Moron – What other names have you commented under?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/9/2011 @ 8:07 pm

  86. Thanks JD! I can always count on you to read.

    Comment by Big Median (2f532a) — 5/9/2011 @ 8:30 pm

  87. Big Moron – What other names have you commented under?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/9/2011 @ 8:35 pm

  88. We are starting to see your pattern here, big MFM median.

    Comment by JD (85b089) — 5/9/2011 @ 8:36 pm

  89. I love how lefties complain about sockpuppets.

    And notice how he is trying to get those who disagree with him banned.

    Thank god Patterico isn’t like that

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/9/2011 @ 8:44 pm

  90. Tanny, are you sock puppeting as Jay? I’m sure no one cares, since the rules are only enforced on lefties, but, just to avoid further confusion, you should fess up…
    And I don’t see how you determined the individual’s immigration status. Did you ask? Did they offer the information unbidden?

    Comment by Big Median — 5/9/2011 @ 8:00 pm

    Wow! If you had taken the time to read comments I’ve left on the same threads where you’ve left comments you would no that I’m not Jay. A simple check to my web site? There is a link to it on my name. It looks like I did waste my time giving you a reasoned answer. That’s so sad.

    Comment by Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 5/9/2011 @ 9:11 pm

  91. No worries, Tanny. Question remains, though: how did you discover the people who hit you lacked the proper bureaucratic permission to be in the country?
    Did they just offer that information, or did you see fit to quiz them?

    Comment by Big Median (2f532a) — 5/9/2011 @ 9:48 pm

  92. Tanny: Given that you are using language as proxy for “origin,” love to hear how your determined the others were “Asian” and “European.”

    Comment by Big Median (2f532a) — 5/9/2011 @ 9:51 pm

  93. Tanny: Given that you are using language as proxy for “origin,” love to hear how your determined the others were “Asian” and “European.”

    Comment by Big Median — 5/9/2011 @ 9:51 pm

    You will have to ask Jay that question since I related only the one incident where I was rear ended by a mid 20s Spanish speaking male who did not speak English, have a driver’s license nor auto insurance. I did call the police who did not come because nobody was injured. I took his insurance information which turned out to be false. I also took pictures of the cars. The registration information was also incorrect. Jay wrote about his 14 accidents. It appears to me that you aren’t reading the comments or maybe you just made a mistake.

    Well, Jay, you might want to try not riding your brake so hard. On the other hand, you might also try getting your story a little straighter.

    First you chide Jay as being a bad driver, then imply that Jay is lying. How do you know Jay needs to get his “story a little straighter”? How do you know Jay was “riding your brake so hard”? Well? When I was wrong in a comment I made and was corrected, I thanked the person who corrected me as my information was wrong. Why not take a little time to peruse the many posts Patterico has made under the Deport the Criminals First category to get a better background on the subject? Why not apologize to those you have mischaracterized and try to be more accurate in your comments?

    Comment by Tanny O'Haley (12193c) — 5/9/2011 @ 11:52 pm

  94. I know they’re illegal when they’re driving a box model old toyota and going 60 in the fast lane on the freeway, simple as that.

    Comment by Dank_tank (7f3d23) — 5/10/2011 @ 12:45 pm

  95. Opposing illegal immigration is racist I heard it on an episode of law and order so it must be true

    /Sarcasm off.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/15/2011 @ 7:16 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4626 secs.