Patterico's Pontifications

1/29/2019

Previously Deported Sexual Predator Sentenced To 401 Years For Crimes Against Young Girls

Filed under: General — Dana @ 3:52 pm



[guest post by Dana]

As ongoing border wall negotiations continue, some Democrats have broken with Nancy Pelosi’s claim that a border wall is immoral, and have publicly stated that some sort of barrier is necessary at the Southern border. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer weighed in with Bret Baier:

“Obviously, they [walls] work some places,” Hoyer responded, when asked if he favored removing border walls. “But the president wanted to first build a wall apparently 1,954 miles of — and he changed that very substantially. ”

He added: “A wall is — that protects people is not immoral. I think the issue is whether it works. … And the debate ought to be not on morality or racism, I will — I will say that we’re not pleased with some rhetoric that has come about dealing with those — coming across the border, and we think some of the rhetoric was in fact racist. We think some of that rhetoric was to inflame and was not based upon facts.”

Newly-elected Democrats, especially those from battleground states, also didn’t judge a wall on the border as immoral, but rather voiced support to varying degrees for a physical barrier at the border.

Rep. Katie Hill (D-CA) expressed her support for a physical barrier while arguing that the disagreement has become a matter of semantics:

Rep. Katie Hill said she’s fine with a wall: The conflict between congressional leaders and the president is over semantics.

“For many of us, there’s not really doubt that some kind of physical barrier is necessary,” she said said in a Fox News appearance on Saturday. “I think the challenge is that we’ve gotten so hung up on the semantics, really on both sides. Gosh, I can’t tell you how much I’ve come to hate the word ‘wall,’ and many of us have.”

She maintained that she, like some of her cohorts, is in favor of a physical wall.

“Democrats are for border security, too, and part of that is physical barriers,” she said.

Rep. Anthony Brindisi, (D-New York) also spoke about the need for a physical barrier:

Brindisi — who narrowly defeated a first-term Republican incumbent last year and declined to support Nancy Pelosi for speaker of the House — scorned President Donald Trump for the shutdown but expressed agreement that some sort of physical barrier should exist at the border, WBNG reported.

The 22nd District Democrat and chair of the Blue Dog Caucus also argued for “immigration reforms” more broadly.

“Investments in technology at the border, you have to have more border agents and if we can throw in there some other immigration reforms that have been hampering us for the last couple years we should try and get that done too,” Brindisi said.

Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minnesota) was also open to increased barriers:

But Craig — a former executive for a Minnesota medical device manufacturer who unseated a freshman Republican to represent the 2nd District last year — agreed the U.S. “should be investing in advanced technology on our border and yes, there may be places where we need additional barriers.”

The semantics of a “wall” are also being addressed today by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA):

A border security compromise that Congress hopes to produce doesn’t have to include the word “wall,” the top House Republican said Tuesday, signaling a rhetorical retreat from a term that President Donald Trump made a keystone of his presidential campaign.

“It could be barrier. It doesn’t have to be a wall,” McCarthy told reporters.

In recent weeks, Trump has veered between using the terms “wall” or “barrier.” He’s retreated increasingly from “wall” as it became apparent that he lacked the votes in Congress to win taxpayer financing for the project, which he initially said would be financed by Mexico.

McCarthy said wall and barrier mean the same thing to him and Trump.

“Inside the meetings we’ve had, he’s said it could be a barrier, it could be a wall,” said McCarthy. “Because what a barrier does, it’s still the same thing. It’s the 30-foot steel slat, that’s a barrier.”

Whether one calls it a “wall” or a “barrier,” it’s obvious that something needs to be done to enhance security at our porous Southern border because it’s far too easy for illegal aliens deported for a prior conviction to cross back into the U.S. and commit even more heinous crimes. You may say: Well, heinous crimes committed by illegal aliens don’t happen that often. To which I would say to you: Even one crime that is heinous in nature is one too many, and we should not have to put up with it and we should be doing everything possible to prevent that criminal illegal alien from re-entering the U.S. at all costs. And if erecting more walls or barriers is part of that prevention, how can it be argued against and called immoral? Or is the devastation wrought by one deported criminal alien not enough to budge a political heart of stone? :

A California judge sentenced a man to serve 401 years to life in prison for numerous violent sex crimes.

On December 4, a jury found Macario Cerda, 39, guilty of three counts of forcible rape, one count of kidnapping to commit rape, one count of criminal threats, and seven counts of lewd acts upon a child under the age of fourteen.

According to court records, Cerda, while in a relationship with the victim’s mother, forced the girl into his van, drove her to a remote location and raped her in 2013. When Cerda temporarily exited the van, documents say the victim jumped into the driver’s seat and drove away.

Cerda was later arrested by Tulare County Sheriff’s deputies.

During an investigation, it was discovered the victim had also been raped by Cerda when she was a minor in 2010, which resulted in the pregnancy and birth of a baby.

The victim’s younger sister also stated that Cerda had raped and abused her when she was a child.

According to court documents, Cerda has been deported before and returned within five months where he committed these crimes soon after.

For Godsake, what does it say about our immigration system and lack of border security that one of the young rape victims was compelled to plead to the court that which is so painfully obvious and to our great shame:

“[N]ever grant him any possibility at being deported because he has crawled his way back into the States illegally way too many times.”

Yet another criminal alien unlawfully entered the U.S. shortly after having been deported and wreaked vile havoc on two young sisters, doing untold damage to them and forever changing the course of their lives. Crimes, particularly those which are so unspeakable, are crimes that should never have happened because illegal aliens like Macario Cerda should not have been here in the first place.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

31 Responses to “Previously Deported Sexual Predator Sentenced To 401 Years For Crimes Against Young Girls”

  1. I suppose Pelosi would say this was such an unfortunate incident…

    Dana (023079)

  2. Even if Marcario Cerda targeted only specific individuals, so that you’re not sending him away to rape somewhere else (which is no more admirable than a church getting rid of a pedophile by sending him to another institution – maybe good for religious institution involved, but not good overall) sending him out of the country may not be very effective, and not because there’s not enough wall. (a wall may work against amateurs, but not so much professionals.)

    Does deporting him make any more sense than to do, what some southern states used to do to criminals, tell them to get out of the state?

    The victim quoted in the story doesn’t want him to be deported. The victim wants him to remain locked up.

    https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/crime/article224906785.html

    During one of the victim’s impact statements, the victim said Cerda held a knife to her sister’s throat and cautioned the judge:

    “Never grant him any possibility at being deported because he has crawled his way back into the States illegally way too many times.”

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  3. Now here you know nothing of how he came back, and whether anything that President Trump proposes to do would have any effect, but the fact that he came back indicates he has real ties to the United States and maybe no ties where he was sent.

    And you know nothing about what age he came, or was brought to, the United States, (most criminal aliens, it is fair to say, came to the United States as minors), or when and where he committed his first serious crime.)

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  4. Yes, Sammy, I included that portion of her victim statement in the post. The point is, of course she doesn’t want him deported because she knows he will just continue to come back over the border because he is able to do so. That he is able to do so is the overall thrust of the post.

    Dana (023079)

  5. I suppose Pelosi would say this was such an unfortunate incident…

    Pelosi is not agood arguer. Now actually, she’d be quite willing to go along with deporting criminals, real criminals. The state of California is. He was deported.

    About the wall, you coukd argue (as George W. Bush in effect did) that if you destroy the market for illegal entries, the few people left you want to keep out will be effectively kept out; but if you try to keep enormous numbers of people out, an illegal market will develop, just as it did for alcohol during Prohibiton, and some of twh worst people will get in.

    Border security raises the price for illegal entry, but to effectively keep out really bad people, there must be a way for most people who want to enough to pay $2,000 or $3,000 to come in. George W. Bush tried to make that point, but he didn’t make it strenuously enough. He went along with fencing because other people wanted it as acondition for amnesty and more legal immigration, and because it raised the price of illegal entry. That’s all you can do: raise the price, and mostly stop people who try on their own.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  6. Trump wants a wall, not to stop people from coming in and not getting caught, because that’s largely working, but to prevvent people from coming in and claiming asylum (which starts a process that now lasts years, unless a case is prioritized.)

    Trump calls that “Catch and release.”

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  7. Regarding Cerda, the questions I have are: How did he cross? Ports of entry? Jump a fence? Cross a barrier? Cross an un-barriered part of the border? Tunnel? Was it by coyotes or was he solo? It seems like knowing how and where these felons entered the country would serve as a basis for a prescription.

    Paul Montagu (bfc68f)

  8. Deport him to an island south of Argentina.

    Build a wall. Get border guards and other enforcement mechanisms. Increase penalties for illegal entry and overstaying visas.

    NJRob (b87b19)

  9. Apparently us’ns out here in Caliunicornia want these kinds of low-lifes roaming the countryside because we don’t do anything to stop it.

    Colonel Haiku (61b436)

  10. Paul Montague, good questions. Given the myriad of ways possible to enter the country aside from legal ports of entry, it would seem that anything to deter and discourage would be viable. Also, if he came through a legal port of entry, then that speaks to a bigger problem, don’t you think?

    Dana (91ea33)

  11. As I understand it, the basic Democratic position (which of course differs from that of our favorite faux-niece) is that we should build physical barriers in some places, and they are entirely appropriate in some places, but inappropriate in others, so a sea to shining sea Wall is not good.
    Most contraband, and a lot of illegal aliens, come through ports of entry, but are not detected. Which means that intensifying detection would actually be better for border security than physical barriers in places that are not used for smuggling.

    NJRob
    Increase penalties for illegal entry and overstaying visas.
    Simply enforcing existing laws about overstayed visas would have an immediate impact on illegal immigration. We seem to do a bad job of it now.

    Kishnevi (61bde2)

  12. One step to a Wall:
    A program to build a standardized physical barrier along the border on private land abutting the border if the landowner requests it.
    Would sidestep eminent domain and help those on the border who find their property to be a popular transit point for smuggling of whatever kind.

    Kishnevi (61bde2)

  13. …so a sea to shining sea Wall is not good.

    Reminds me of the stand-up comedian who had a sure-fire way to solve illegal entries at the southern border: A flaming river of gas, from Imperial Beach CA to the mouth of the Rio Grande.

    Paul Montagu (bfc68f)

  14. 12… yes, it would.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  15. “As I understand it, the basic Democratic position (which of course differs from that of our favorite faux-niece) is that we should build physical barriers in some places, and they are entirely appropriate in some places, but inappropriate in others, so a sea to shining sea Wall is not good.”

    The Dem position and the Donald position are basically the same now. If they really wanted to they could sort this out.

    JRH (fe281f)

  16. The Dem position and the Donald position are basically the same now.

    That’s scary. Impeach the wimp!

    nk (dbc370)

  17. Donald’s position seems to change more often than a stripper doing lap dances. That was his position last week, however.

    Real problem is that neither side wants a real solution. They both want an issue to stir up their partisans.

    Kishnevi (61bde2)

  18. “The victim quoted in the story doesn’t want him to be deported. The victim wants him to remain locked up.”
    Sammy Finkelman (102c75) — 1/29/2019 @ 4:15 pm

    Someone needs to inform the victim that (prison) walls don’t work — and if the (prison) wall is ten feet high, all that’s needed is an eleven foot ladder.

    Munroe (e8478c)

  19. “Donald’s position seems to change more often than a stripper doing lap dances”

    How often does a stripper doing lap dances change….I’m asking for a friend…

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  20. Well that would be callous, much like the state of California did with Kate steinles killer.

    Narciso (01c02f)

  21. “Someone needs to inform the victim that (prison) walls don’t work”

    Or maybe it’s the guys with guns pointed at the prisoner as he tries to take his make-shift ladder made of sheets over to said wall….some analogies just kinda suck

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  22. Well if he committed a felony, he should have been blocked from reentry, this isn’t expired visas this is a violent criminal, now the 9/11 hijackers were on expired visas yet they had false documentation provided by illegal document mills.

    Narciso (01c02f)

  23. 17… now we know what kishnevi’s been doing on those long lunch hours…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  24. 23 democratic senators voted against the anti bds bell, that’s the same stance as Cortez tlaib and omar

    Narciso (01c02f)

  25. They may not be against illegal immigration, open borders, sanctuary cities or anchor babies, but they’re still against something:

    Orange Muppet Energy
    @sunnyright
    “Why is this jackass running a third-party bid” they asked while one of their frontrunners called for eliminating private insurance and banning all guns
    __ _

    Conservadawg
    @davidingram68
    And cars
    __ _

    Tuco Salamanca
    @JdCowtown
    And 16 oz sodas.
    __ _

    rebel millennial
    @patriotic_giant
    And straws
    __ _

    Poor Substitute for Publius
    @psforpublius
    So far, it seems likely that the D nominee will support giving you VA quality health care, seizing assets from the wealthy and people who might be guilty of something, conviction by accusation, and abortion up until birth. What could go wrong?

    __ _

    harkin (97db13)

  26. “Or maybe it’s the guys with guns pointed at the prisoner as he tries to take his make-shift ladder made of sheets over to said wall….some analogies just kinda suck”
    AJ_Liberty (165d19) — 1/29/2019 @ 8:15 pm

    Gee, if only border patrol agents were armed the anology wouldn’t suck so bad.

    Munroe (ec7ddb)

  27. i imagine the bullet companies are against the wall.
    More ammo, please. No wall, more ammo.

    mg (8cbc69)

  28. when all immigrants are blamed for a few serious criminals watch out! that works both ways as democrats will blame gun crimes on all gun owners. what goes around comes around. kamala harris wants anyone owning an assault rifle convicted of a felony..aoc wants to convict the n.r.a. of conspiracy to murder in school shootings.

    lany (9d036d)

  29. Simply enforcing existing laws about overstayed visas would have an immediate impact on illegal immigration. We seem to do a bad job of it now.

    Kishnevi (61bde2) — 1/29/2019 @ 6:53 pm

    So you support going after sanctuary cities and states that shelter visa criminals?

    NJRob (4d595c)

  30. sea to shining sea Wall is not good.

    Trump argued that’s not what he wants in his last speech January 19, 2019, when he made his proposal that failed in the Senate:

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-humanitarian-crisis-southern-border-shutdown

    To physically secure our border, the plan includes $5.7 billion for a strategic deployment of physical barriers, or a wall. This is not a 2,000-mile concrete structure from sea to sea. These are steel barriers in high-priority locations. Much of the border is already protected by natural barriers such as mountains and water. We already have many miles of barrier, including 115 miles that we are currently building or under contract. It will be done quickly. Our request will add another 230 miles this year in the areas our border agents most urgently need. It will have an unbelievable impact.

    The Democratic Party position was:

    First, we won’t talk about anythng while any part of the government is shut down.

    Second, that no one needs it. And even they’re willing to spend the same amount of money, just so long as none of it is spent for putting a barrier in any place where there is not one already – but if there is a barrier, it can be replaced by a different one, even if a 2-foot fence is replaced by 20 foot high one.

    Trump is for whatever he is for because it is symbol of more enforcement, and, for that very reason, Democrats are against it – or won’t vote for it, but they won’t say that.

    They will say they are for more border control, and in fact will appropriate more money for reinforcing fencing, but not for building any more miles of barrier. They talk only in terms of smuggling goods, but not of stopping people. That’s what Trump does.

    Letting sections of wall be built only where landowners want it might be a compromise, (after all they ahvve a right to buid one themselves, and may be having aproblem with peoplle or goods going through their property) but for it to pass, there might also need to be a component of tearng down a barrier where landowners don’t want it.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  31. 18. Prison walls don’t always work.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3399 secs.