Patterico's Pontifications

7/4/2015

San Francisco “Sanctuary City” Policy Leads to Young Woman’s Murder

Filed under: Deport the Criminals First,General — Patterico @ 10:40 am

The murder of 31-year-old Kate Steinle at Pier 14 in San Francisco could have been prevented. Before the murder, authorities had the confessed killer in custody, and knew he was an illegal alien. ICE had told them. But, thanks to San Francisco’s “sanctuary city” policy, police knowingly let him go.

Screen Shot 2015-07-04 at 9.43.32 AM
Above: Kate Steinle, whose murder resulted from San Francisco’s “sanctuary city” policy

Police were required to let the illegal alien go — under San Francisco’s glorious and progressive “sanctuary city” policy:

The man accused of gunning down a 32-year-old Pleasanton woman while she was out strolling San Francisco’s Embarcadero with her father was in a Bay Area jail less than four months ago and should have been turned over to federal immigration officials upon his release, instead of being set free, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

But that’s not the way the San Francisco County Sheriff’s Legal Counsel Freya Horne sees it. In an interview Friday with NBC Bay Area, she said the city and county of San Francisco are sanctuaries for immigrants, and they do not turn over undocumented people – if they don’t have active warrants out for them – simply because immigration officials want them to.

. . . .

San Francisco Police Officer Grace Gatpandan Gatpandan added that San Francisco is a “sanctuary city, so we do not hand over people to ICE.” She also said that the police are “not responsible” for Sanchez once he is booked into county jail, “meaning we do not have control over his release.”

The suspect, Francisco Sanchez, has confessed to the murder.

The policy that caused Sanchez to be released, Ordinance 130764, was passed by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors and signed by San Francisco’s mayor in the fall of 2013. Its sponsors were San Francisco Supervisors John Avalos; London Breed, David Campos, David Chiu (now a former supervisor), Malia Cohen, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, and Norman Yee. It was signed by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee.

Everybody in this story is pointing the finger at someone else, but everyone is complicit. The police complain that they were required to release Sanchez. But ICE notes that, actually, police could simply have notified ICE that they were going to release him: “The federal law enforcement source told CNN the sheriff’s department ‘didn’t even need to hold him. They simply could have notified that they were going to release him and we would have gotten him.'”

Obama and the feds (ICE) are not off the hook here, either.

ICE is pointing its finger at the San Francisco policy and the police, but consider: ICE had this guy first, and released him to a sanctuary city, knowing they would probably let him go. According to CNN, “ICE said it turned Lopez-Sanchez over to San Francisco authorities on March 26 for an outstanding drug warrant.” NBC tells us that this case was “a marijuana case that was about 20 years old.”

So: ICE officials knew Sanchez had been deported 5 times before. They knew that, after his last deportation, he was convicted of illegal re-entry and served several years in federal prison. But, upon his release from federal prison, rather than deport him, they turned him over to San Francisco officials for a 20-year-old marijuana case, knowing that San Francisco has this sanctuary policy. Shockingly, the D.A. declined to pursue the case, leading to his release (rather than being returned to ICE custody).

Federal officials should refuse to turn over illegal aliens to sanctuary cities for state prosecutions, unless the state prosecutions are for crimes of violence, or crimes in which the alien is facing several years in prison. Turning over aliens to sanctuary cities, for potential prosecution for low-level non-violent crimes for which they face little time in custody, is tantamount to releasing them outright. Federal officials have the right to say: “if you want to prosecute this guy, you sign a document saying you will return him to us. Otherwise you don’t get him at all. We will deport him.”

The failure to implement this policy is squarely on Obama. And the refusal to secure the border, allowing this guy to come back again and again and again, is also on Obama and the Democrats.

P.S. L.A. Times coverage of this naturally does not even mention the “sanctuary city” angle.

60 Responses to “San Francisco “Sanctuary City” Policy Leads to Young Woman’s Murder”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  2. Seriously, every single progressive politician in San Francisco who enthusiastically supports the concept of a sanctuary city ought to be required to write a letter to the Steinle family in which they explain that her death is acceptable collateral damage in the larger scheme of making sure that illegal immigrants have a lessened risk of deportation.

    JVW (8278a3)

  3. Everybody in this story is pointing the finger at someone else, but everyone is complicit.

    Since the US is presumably still a representative democracy (or, to the purists, a republic), the blame has to spread around to all the millions of people of this nation who’ve allowed or been enablers to the current crop of contemptible liberals (and amoral, greedy Republicans, squishy centrists) to occupy huge portions of local, state and federal governments, not to mention other major institutions of the media, education, religion, etc.

    The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

    Mark (e584c3)

  4. Federal officials should refuse to turn over illegal aliens to sanctuary cities for state prosecutions, unless the state prosecutions are for crimes of violence, or crimes in which the alien is facing several years in prison.

    Better yet, Patterico, non-sanctuary cities ought to band together and pay for a campaign encouraging all illegal immigrants in their communities to relocate to sanctuary cities where they will be protected. Perhaps even start a community fund to help with relocation expenses. Let the preening, sanctimonious open borders crowd deal with the lion’s share of the fallout.

    JVW (8278a3)

  5. This post is the most thorough I’ve read on this story, and I’ve read several on this. So kudos to you. It’s a sad time when people care more about race than they care about protecting innocent lives, but that’s where we are as a society. History teaches us that societies like this do not end well.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  6. Heartbreaking, and maddening.

    And then the news crew was robbed by youths.

    California is a shameful place, and I include the liberals along with the criminals.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  7. Tragedy. Note, however, that both Perry and Rubio assailed the poltroon Trump yesterday for being “divisive” on illegal immigration. They both should instead have said we have no idea who is crossing our borders at all. Certainly MS13 are not coming here to mow my lawn. Rubio said we need to fix our broken immigration system. We don’t. We need to enforce the law. That poor girl prolly voted for all those losers that allowed this to happen. Perhaps that is the bigger tragedy.

    Gazzer (ee3742)

  8. I read that the murderer was caught across the street from the victim’s apartment. Could this be a stalking situation??

    Patricia (5fc097)

  9. The road to hell is paved …….

    AZ Bob (34bb80)

  10. The victim looks almost exactly like my youngest sister.

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  11. The only way SF will change its ways will be for the decent people of this country to exercise one of their remaining freedoms and to choose not to go their. Not for business, and not for pleasure. The city will sink lower, but once property values begin to slip, the money behind the clowns that pretend to run the place will disappear. And then reform becomes possible. Until then, the visitors and workers are just grist for the mill, providing further events that can be twisted to reinforce the prevailing fantasies that underlie progressive tyranny.

    The same remedy would work for NYC and the District of Columbia.

    bobathome (5b5810)

  12. History teaches us that societies like this do not end well.

    As recently as 10 years ago, I never thought this nation would fall apart so quickly.

    I used to wonder how sensible, practical citizens of a country like Mexico (or, for that matter, cities like Detroit, Michigan), or how rational people in France or Greece, etc, tried to deal with the society around them. And now they can tell me: Welcome to the club.

    Mark (e584c3)

  13. This is sadly reminiscent of the murder of Tony Bologna and his sons in San Francisco when they were heading home from a barbeque. He, too, was an illegal alien and had also murdered once before.

    The illegal alien who murdered a father and two sons in San Francisco in 2008 not only evaded deportation with the city’s help but also had murdered before, the San Francisco Chronicle has revealed. Even worse, the FBI knew it and did nothing.

    According to the Chronicle, an informant from the Salvadoran MS-13 gang told the FBI that Edwin Ramos, convicted on July 30 for murdering 49-year-old Tony Bologna and his sons, Michael and Matthew, had murdered a gang foe before he cut down the three Bolognas in a hail of gunfire. Another son, Andrew, survived the attack.


    Unfortunately, San Francisco still consistently elects the same utterly reprehensible people who seek to keep it a sanctuary city. Nothing has changed. Not even with these horrific crimes.

    Dana (86e864)

  14. It’s interesting, Dana, in a sick way.

    These folks are perfectly okay with this kind of mayhem, because it is “rare” and “the greater good” is more important.

    Yet they also think that every single criminal trial should be put under a microscope for rare errors.

    It’s all Narrative.

    Simon Jester (6c4043)

  15. I often stress ideology/politics — of left, right and center — above and beyond anything else, which is why I need to pinch myself and always remember there are two other dynamics that can help or hinder a community or society: Capitalism and demographics, and the way the two can work in tandem.

    Leftwing loony San Franciscans, nurtured by a new version of the dot-com craze/bubble of the late 1990s, had better thank their lucky stars they’re under-girded by the power of economics (or capitalism) and its power to affect a place’s population—although not entirely, based on the illegal immigrant from Mexico who easily managed to barge into pricy SF and murder that young woman:

    sfgate.com, July 2, 2015: Bloomberg recently wrote an article asserting San Francisco — by an enormous margin — now has the most expensive hotel rooms in the world. According to their study, San Francisco leapfrogged Geneva, Switzerland for the top spot at a staggering $397 a night average hotel rate. Geneva paled in comparison, with an average hotel room cost of $292 a night.

    Bloomberg attributed the 88% year-over-year increase in San Francisco hotel rates to “the region’s technology-industry boom, a soaring job market and a dearth of hotel construction.”

    Anecdotally, I wouldn’t be surprised if San Francisco really does hold the top spot globally. Looking at hotel rates overseas, they never seem to be as high as the Bay Area. But $100 full dollars more than the next most-expensive location does seem excessive. Those looking for the five-star experience in San Francisco will be relieved, however. According to Bloomberg, S.F. didn’t crack the top ten of most expensive five-star hotels in the world. Geneva, Los Angeles and Miami topped that particular list.

    Pride goeth before the fall?

    Mark (e584c3)

  16. There’s a substantial likelihood that I will be moving back to the SF Bay Area (from the Bronx, where I live now) in a few months. The housing prices are astronomical, and I’m genuinely baffled as to how to find a place to live that is (a) convenient to my husband’s workplace, (b) allows us to get by without owning two cars (meaning having easy access to reliable public transit that runs at reasonable frequency and doesn’t end at 8pm), (c) has a little bit of density so I feel like i can walk to do things like go grocery shopping and go out for coffee, etc, and (d) fits within the budget of a software engineer/lawyer and a statistician.

    It’s *way easier* to do this in NYC than it is in the Bay Area. :{

    aphrael (69b4f7)

  17. aphrael. you couldn’t drag me back to CA at gunpoint. Even if they were allowed. I so loved LA in the 80s, but now…

    Gazzer (ee3742)

  18. I think that’s another interesting aspect to this whole sanctuary city stuff. San Franciscans know that it is ridiculously expensive to live there, which substantially lessens the prospect that illegal immigrants will be able to reside within the city limits. So they can grandstand about being welcoming to the (illegal) immigrant knowing that most of them will be forced to live somewhere else in the Bay Area. Must be nice to have it both ways. I wish some rich people would buy homes in Jackson Heights and near where Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein have their mansions and turn them into flop houses for multiple illegal immigrant families.

    JVW (8278a3)

  19. JVW – I think the voters of San Francisco believe it to be very likely that the people who was the dishes in the restaurants where they eat are illegal immigrants, and that the same could be said for many of the people who clean their houses.

    aphrael (69b4f7)

  20. I think the voters of San Francisco believe it to be very likely that the people who was the dishes in the restaurants where they eat are illegal immigrants, and that the same could be said for many of the people who clean their houses.

    Oh, no doubt they are. But they are probably also living somewhere outside of San Francisco, taking BART home to Oakland or Hayward after their shift is over. It’s great that San Francisco gets that cheap immigrant labor, as long as they don’t have to pay for housing and schooling it, right?

    JVW (8278a3)

  21. Sanctuary cities have not been properly understood for the dangers they are to law abiding citizens (and also to the vulnerable paying tourists on whom several of these large sanctuary cities heavily rely). Of course, that’s because the media’s only stories about sanctuary cities are usually sob stories about simple, decent and scared immigrant families who’re being warmly protected from “the man”.

    Kate Steinle’s name and what happened to her, along with an awareness of the complicity and direct responsibility of several law enforcement agencies in her murder, needs to be heard by all Americans. This is a great post, Patterico and I hope it gets picked up and linked across the blogisphere.

    elissa (ef926b)

  22. They commit the crimes Americans don’t want to.

    nk (dbc370)

  23. Make no mistake — this tragedy (and, countless others like it) are the result of an unrepentant and wilfully-made policy choice made by neo-communist-Dumb-o-Crat party elders and pols — to wit, that pandering to the Hispanic voting bloc and undertaking what is essentially a massive voter registration/indoctrination campaign funded by all taxpayers, is of vastly greater importance than protecting American citizens from homicides, robberies, rapes and drunk driving accidents committed by illegal aliens.

    And, after all, as a political calculus, why not? Historically, there has been nothing but upside here for the Left, at least until the outrage from all of these deaths reaches a critical mass (which simply won’t occur, because the deaths happen in an isolation that renders them socially tolerable and statistically muted background noise). Furthermore, it certainly won’t be Obozo’s, Warren’s or Pelosi’s precious offspring paying with their lives for this idiotic politically-motivated conceit — no, it will be the innocent sons and daughters of faceless, politically powerless people in American society, like the grieving mother, father and brother in San Francisco, who now will experience a lifetime of incalculable grief, frustration and anger arising from the unanswerable question of why their luminous young daughter’s killer was free to roam the “sanctuary city” of San Francisco, when he had was known to local authorities and had been marked by the feds for deportation.

    If you want tragicomic proof of the Kafkaesque levels of illogical and delusional apparatchik retrospective self-justification that we’ve reached, please read the following, from a news article on this story:

    “ICE issued a detainer for Sanchez in March, requesting notification of his release and that he stay in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. The detainer was not honored, she said. Freya Horne, counsel for the sheriff’s office, said Friday that federal detention orders are not a legal basis to hold someone, so Sanchez was released April 15. San Francisco is a sanctuary city, and local money cannot be spent to cooperate with federal immigration law. The city does not turn over people who are in the country illegally unless there’s an active warrant for their arrest, she said. Horne said they checked and found none. ICE could have issued an active warrant if they wanted the city to keep him, she said.” “It’s not legal to hold someone on a request to detain. This is not just us. This is a widely adopted position,” Horne said.

    This is torture and totalitarianism, “progressive”-style — killing people with transparently idiotic policy schemes that defy all reason and common sense, for crass political gain.

    Guy Jones (173efd)

  24. I’m sure the bien pensant file this murder under the rubric that in order to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs. In order to correct the national sin of whatever, a few wonderful loved ones must go.

    But as one pundit asked, where is the omelet?

    Patricia (5fc097)

  25. Not only is there no omelette, Patricia, the “chefs” (and, I use that word extremely loosely, as it generally implies a modicum of training/professional competence which is utterly alien to parasitic career pols ensconced in their multi-decade sinecures) making the omelette are not using their own “eggs” — those are provided by innocent American families across the country, losing loved ones to homicides, robberies and drunk driving accidents committed by illegal aliens. As with so many other ill-conceived Leftist policies, the elites who conjure up these idiotic schemes have no “skin” in the game (other than achieving their own re-elections) and thus do not bear the brunt of their deleterious societal impacts — that burden is for the poor rubes in the proletariat to shoulder, as they suffer in anonymity and silence.

    Guy Jones (173efd)

  26. This POS has a criminal record of 7 felony convictions!

    Why was he walking the street? OK after one felony conviction you’re entitled to parole (assuming it was not a murder conviction) but 7 convictions?

    This person should have been locked up for life around conviction #3 at minimum.

    John (a289ed)

  27. This should be filed under:

    http://patterico.com/category/deport-the-criminals-first/

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  28. I’m thinking that if this happened at a workplace of a major company (i.e., deep pockets) where both were employees, there would be a good chance at some kind of wrongful death action against the employer for allowing such a threat to be in the workplace, am I correct?
    But since we are talking about the government, no similar action is possible, correct?

    We could use some Ceaușescu “you-lie” events.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  29. I would agree that SF is an extreme case of pernicious government and be portrayed as exceptional but Orange County.

    DNF (208255)

  30. Greetings:

    Several months ago, another illegal alien of the Hispanic persuasion killed two Sheriff’s Deputies in Northern California but President Obama was elsewhere busied and the Deputies didn’t look much like the imaginary son his “Y” chromosome couldn’t produce.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  31. Give me one good reason why people who support illegal immigration should not be charged witgh treason.

    Michael Ejercito (d9a893)

  32. We need to punish pro-illegal-alien speech as it provides comfort to our country’s enemies.

    Under traditional notions of freedom of speech, even pro-illegal-alien speech falls under this freedom. Under a straightforward analysis set forth under Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 at 710-719 (1997) , such a law would be unconstitutional.

    But that was then. Times can blind. New dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations,often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere
    and the judicial process. The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions,and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. And the Supreme Court just abandoned the Glucksberg analysis.

    What we are dealing here is a concerted effort to destroy America. The authors of the Bill of Rights could have never envisioned an anti-American media. They could have never envisioned open support of illegal immigration. They never could have imagined what happened to Kate Steinle.

    Time did blind us in this case. Those who wrote the First Amendment never had the perspective of a treasonous media, setting out to undermine our country in every manner. Pro-illegal-immigration speech is an injustice, an injustice we did not see until the murder of Kate Steinle. We have a right to be free of the threat of illegal aliens, a right to be free of the threat of an anti-American media hostile to our values and our country. We need to protect these rights. And we must do so by classifying pro-illegal immigration speech as treason, and punishing it as such. We must regulate the media to ensure that it does not promote anything hostile to America. For freedom of speech goes too far, as we have learned, when it protects anti-American speech.

    If you argue that this is unconstitutional, under a Glucksberg analysis,I agree. But Glucksberg is no longer the test. And unless Glucksberg is restored, my arguments for regulating the anti-American media and banning speech in favor of illegal immigration should withstand constitutional challenge.

    Michael Ejercito (d9a893)

  33. “The city does not turn over people who are in the country illegally unless there’s an active warrant for their arrest”

    A question for the lawyers here: since being in the country illegally is already a crime (that’s what that word “illegal” means), isn’t his mere presence grounds for arrest, a sort of de facto warrant prima facie? If I’m robbing a liquor store and a cop tells me to halt, he doesn’t need a warrant to arrest me. I understand this is all political theater, but is there any valid legal reasoning to this clown’s assertion?

    grumpy the grump (944707)

  34. What irritates me to no end are comfortable, cushy, well-off liberals or Republicans like Jeb Bush, etc, living in a bubble — for example, in a nice, snug part of some urban or suburban area, perhaps in the marina district of San Francisco, the upper east side of Manhattan, the walled compounds of West Los Angeles — telling others what should or shouldn’t be said about the border, immigration and the “undocumented.”

    Humans, when faced with an intractable dilemma, often ultimately have no choice but to vote with their feet and the moving van. If that privilege could somehow be altered so it were no longer available to the do-gooders in the world of politics, the media, academia, corporate America, etc, I wouldn’t be quite so annoyed with such people.

    Mark (e584c3)

  35. Give me one good reason why people who support illegal immigration should not be charged with treason.

    Becuase “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  36. We need to punish pro-illegal-alien speech as it provides comfort to our country’s enemies.

    1. To which enemy does it provide comfort, and how? Be specific.

    2. Providing an enemy with aid and comfort is only treason if the accused did it because he adheres to the enemy. Doing it for any other reason is not treason. That was the crux of the Haupt case; there was never any question that Haupt’s parents aided him, but to convict them of treason the jury had to find that they did so not because he was their son but because they were dedicated Nazis and would have done the same for any German spy.

    3. Even providing aid and comfort to an actual legal enemy, out of adherence to that enemy, is only punishable if it’s an overt act. Speech is not an overt act.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  37. The authors of the Bill of Rights could have never envisioned an anti-American media.

    Of course they could. They’d just been through a civil war in which many people, including journalists, were on the other side.

    They could have never envisioned open support of illegal immigration.

    On the contrary, they would not have understood the concept of illegal immigration. It never occurred to them that Congress would one day make laws requiring people to enter the USA only at certain points and only with permission, which might be refused for arbitrary reasons. If they had known that, I don’t know whether they would have forbidden Congress to make such laws or allowed it, but I’m 100% certain that they could envision opposition to such laws.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  38. If you argue that this is unconstitutional, under a Glucksberg analysis,I agree. But Glucksberg is no longer the test. And unless Glucksberg is restored, my arguments for regulating the anti-American media and banning speech in favor of illegal immigration should withstand constitutional challenge.

    On the contrary, without Glucksberg the court can simply declare an unenumerated right of all people to enter the USA freely. But either way, speech for and against immigration laws is protected by the first amendment, and Glucksberg neither helps nor hinders that.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  39. “The city does not turn over people who are in the country illegally unless there’s an active warrant for their arrest”

    A question for the lawyers here: since being in the country illegally is already a crime

    No, it isn’t

    (that’s what that word “illegal” means),

    No, it doesn’t. Illegal immigrants are people who immigrated illegally. With some exceptions (such as minors) that immigration was a crime, which they committed at some point in the past. But their current presence in the USA is not a crime. About 10 years ago there was an attempt to make it a crime, but it failed.

    isn’t his mere presence grounds for arrest,

    Only by ICE

    a sort of de facto warrant prima facie? If I’m robbing a liquor store and a cop tells me to halt, he doesn’t need a warrant to arrest me.

    Indeed, anyone observing a felony may arrest the felon without a warrant. A person who immigrated illegally is not committing any sort of crime simply by breathing American air.

    I understand this is all political theater, but is there any valid legal reasoning to this clown’s assertion?

    Absolutely. He’s 100% correct. The police could hold illegal immigrants for the ICE to take them into custody, but they are under no obligation to do so. That’s fundamental to federalism; the federal government cannot commandeer the states to enforce its laws. That’s why the states don’t have to expand Medicaid if they don’t want to. It’s why state and local police didn’t have to enforce prohibition.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  40. Humans, when faced with an intractable dilemma, often ultimately have no choice but to vote with their feet and the moving van.

    Um, which is precisely what most of those people coming across the border are doing. No matter what you think we should be doing about it, you can’t condemn them for what they’re doing.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  41. Becuase “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

    Seems like a good reason to change the definition of treason then. Either Obummer or the SC can do that with a pen or a phone. Or we could just make undocumented criminals subject to the death penalty.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  42. MD in Philly — I think that some families of past victims of illegal alien criminality have actually brought wrongful death suits against San Francisco, in the past:

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Family-blames-sanctuary-policy-in-3-slayings-3272118.php

    I don’t know the outcome of this action; I assume a settlement of some sort was reached. I expect the same thing will happen here. But, ultimately, as long as this “sanctuary” lunacy has the backing and blessing of the city pols, nothing will change, and there will be future victims. Do the Leftists of San Francisco have the collective gumption and outrage to demand an end to this craziness? Color me skeptical on that score.

    Guy Jones (173efd)

  43. Guy Jones, I don’t think it’s the “city pols” whats the problem here. If the federal government would cut all funds to these so-called sanctuary cities and to the states they are in it would all be over by 9am tomorrow.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  44. Is there an actual motive for this crime, or was it just fiendish hatefulness?

    ropelight (1a3617)

  45. Thanks, Guy, for that info.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  46. ropelight, the news reported the illegal was “shooting at a seal”. Which I believe is also illegal?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  47. Hoagie, that reminds me of Warnher von Braun’s famous statement, I aim for the stars. He failed to include that regardless of where he aimed, he most often hit London.

    ropelight (1a3617)

  48. These are the “immigrants” Tillman hearts.

    JD (3b5483)

  49. Guy, the suit was dismissed in 2010.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  50. Good Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie, the immigration problem is obviously rooted in actions (or, inaction) both federal and local. There is no question that idiotic policies and non-enforcement/cooperation promulgated on both of those fronts has led to the current immigration mess. I wasn’t suggesting that federal policy isn’t to blame. But, given that ICE had a “hold and detain” request (or, whatever they call it) issued on the culprit, which San Francisco law enforcement received and completely ignored, I think it’s fair to say that a city whose leaders weren’t enthusiastically embracing “sanctuary” status might have sent the culprit to the feds to deport.

    Guy Jones (173efd)

  51. Thanks for that info, Milhouse. So, there is basically no civil recourse for families of the victims of illegal alien criminality. A depressing state of affairs, indeed.

    Guy Jones (173efd)

  52. Thanks for that info, Milhouse. So, there is basically no civil recourse for families of the victims of illegal alien criminality. A depressing state of affairs, indeed.

    No more than for victims of crimes committed by anyone else.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  53. The only recourse is vigilantism.

    Michael Ejercito (d9a893)

  54. On the contrary, without Glucksberg the court can simply declare an unenumerated right of all people to enter the USA freely. But either way, speech for and against immigration laws is protected by the first amendment, and Glucksberg neither helps nor hinders that.

    The Supreme Court threw out Glucksberg; we are no longer held to traditional notions of freedom.

    Becuase “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

    that is the historic understanding of treason. But new dimensions of treason can become apparent to new generations. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of treason in all of its dimensions.

    Michael Ejercito (d9a893)

  55. Um, yeah, they did, and they said so.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  56. And then we get this nonsense from Arizona. I don’t think that they understand the purpose of a fence.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/05/shock-arizona-paper-decries-border-fence-as-too-high-for-mexicans-to-safely-jump/

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  57. Insanity. I know most of you think I’m a bleeding-heart lefty on immigration, but I think someone who is in the act of climbing a border fence is fair game to be shot down.

    Milhouse (a04cc3)

  58. Um, yeah, they did, and they said so.

    Do you really think constituitional interpretation relies on history and tradition?

    Michael Ejercito (d9a893)

  59. The message neds to be both clearer and more forceful: the “people” who govern San Francisco have blood on their hands.

    That needs to be repeated, loudly and often.

    The very direct Dana (1b79fa)

  60. Did you hear what (my!) California state representatives, Sens. Feinstein and Boxer, both who support ‘sanctuary cities’, have said about this unimaginable tragedy, and the complete and utter lack of competence on the part of anyone?

    Me neither.

    You go, girls!

    Tru (0a6bf4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5591 secs.