Patterico's Pontifications

4/14/2019

Trump Does Not Actually Care About the Dangers Posed by Illegal Immigrants

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:59 pm



Donald Trump has finally revealed that he does not actually care about the dangers posed to Americans by illegal immigrants. He has revealed that his talk about sanctuary cities — one of the few points on which I agreed with him — was insincere.

How do I know this? I’ll tell you. Watch this.

Mexico is now apprehending and bringing back to the various countries that we’re talking about — Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador — they’re bringing people back to those countries; Colombia, to a certain extent — and they’re going back to those countries.

But we could fix that and so fast if the Democrats would agree. But if they don’t agree, we might as well do what they always say they want: We’ll bring the illegal — really, you call them the “illegals.” I call them the “illegals.” They came across the border illegally. We’ll bring them to sanctuary city areas and let that particular area take care of it, whether it’s a state or whatever it might be. California certainly is always saying, “Oh, we want more people.” And they want more people in their sanctuary cities.

Well, we’ll give them more people. We can give them a lot. We can give them an unlimited supply. And let’s see if they’re so happy. They say, “We have open arms.” They’re always saying they have open arms. Let’s see if they have open arms.

The reflex reaction on the right to this is: ha ha! You stupid people in sanctuary cities! We’re gonna stick you with these problem illegals! Let’s see how you like it!

I understand that reaction. If you don’t think about it, it’s sort of an automatic reaction for people frustated with the illegal immigration issue to have. You guys think illegals are so great? Here, have some more!

And plenty of those places — not all, but some — are saying: sure, we’ll do that. And the knee-jerk partisan claptrap takes up all the oxygen.

And nobody stops to think.

But here’s the thing.

Do that. Stop, for just one moment, to think. Take one moment to step back and ask yourself: what is the problem with sanctuary cities? I’m serious. Pause, stop reading this, and answer that question. Say the answer to yourself. Whatever you think the answer to that question is, say it out loud. I’ll help in a moment by stating what I think the problem is.

Once you say it out loud, and then realize that the President is suggesting that we send more illegal immigrants to these places, you’ll see why I am so contemptuous of this plan.

For my take on what the problem is with sanctuary cities, I’ll give you the short version and the long version. Here’s the short version:

For the long version, I’m going to quote at length from a post I wrote in the summer of 2015 about the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco, California:

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.

The problem with sanctuary cities is that criminal illegal aliens in sanctuary cities are more likely to successfully evade the reach of the federal immigration authorities, because the local police refuse to cooperate with ICE. That puts society at risk. The more illegals are sent to sanctuary cities, the more danger is created.

If you think that’s hilarious, because everyone walking around a sanctuary city has it coming, then tell that to the family of the beautiful young girl shown above — and then go take a long walk off a short pier. She was a resident of a sanctuary city, so I guess it was her fault, huh?

If Trump actually carries through with this policy, he will be endangering people, to make a cheap political point. Like a chump sucker, I thought that Donald J. Trump actually cared about this issue — as much of a cretin as he is otherwise. But he doesn’t, really. Donald Trump is willing and indeed very happy to put American citizens at greater risk — as long as they live (or vacation) in cities whose policies he doesn’t like.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

453 Responses to “Trump Does Not Actually Care About the Dangers Posed by Illegal Immigrants”

  1. I would suggest that you are being too harsh on Trump. I doubt he has thought it through to anything like that level. He instantiates the reflexive reaction. Own the libs!
    Nothing deeper, I think.

    Kishnevi (35d300)

  2. I’m pretty sure Trump is trolling. As I read the story develop, it seems to me that somebody low on the White House totem pole suggested it; intelligent people shot it down almost immediately because of legality and logistics; and Trump picked it up when Nancy Pelosi went and got her knockers in a twist anyway.

    Although, you know, Malibu should not present much of a logistical problem. It’s less than three hours driving from the Tijuana crossing. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  3. *knickers* in a twist. Sorry.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. He lives in and for the now.

    That was then.

    There’s no doubt a clinical diagnosis for personalities like that; bet it goes good w/strawberries, too.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  5. I was trying to be civil, because of everything your family underwent but it seems that repeating every leftwing trope will spare you from that nazgul,

    Narciso (c31c88)

  6. But civility doesn’t pay in the end or you would have apologize for touting avenattis droppings as the golden fleece.

    Narciso (c31c88)

  7. After the 9th circus blocked the steinle’s family lawsuit, can one have any hope there will be any justice

    Narciso (c31c88)

  8. He understands that there are buses, right? We have unobstructed travel in the US, they can still go anywhere. No one would stay in SF, there’s no place they could afford to live and it’s a cheap trip to anywhere in the central valley. All he’d be doing is giving them easier access to the rest of the country.

    Nic (896fdf)

  9. Cher
    @cher
    I Understand Helping struggling Immigrants,but MY CITY (Los Angeles) ISNT TAKING CARE OF ITS OWN.WHAT ABOUT THE 50,000+🇺🇸Citizens WHO LIVE ON THE STREETS.PPL WHO LIVE BELOW POVERTY LINE,& HUNGRY? If My State Can’t Take Care of Its Own(Many Are VETS)How Can it Take Care Of More
    __ _

    Ben Shapiro
    @benshapiro
    Wow Trump made Cher into a Republican

    __

    harkin (0e8c36)

  10. I dunno. I wouldn’t be very adverse to a Pilot Program, for families not suspected of being criminals, say maybe 100 busloads, being taken to Malibu and promised that they will never be detained and deported by ICE, not ever, ever, ever, as long as they stayed within the city limits. Just to try it out and see if it eases the burden on border communities, you know. It’s not like Malibu is a poor place with an inimical climate like Fort Dearborn, Michigan, you know. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  11. The way I took the sanctuary city release news was that Trump was saying that since Dems will not support border enforcement and illegals are now overwhelming enforcement attempts and judges are ordering releases by the thousands, that releasing them in sanctuary cities would result in howls of protest by the libs, highlighting their hypocrisy.

    May be giving the guy too much credit but that’s how I saw it. Don’t remember this sort of outrage when the city governments were actually voting to ignore federal laws and endanger their communities far more than Trump ever will.

    Btw – is San Francisco still putting criminal illegals on busses to rural and desert areas with a one-way ticket?

    Also food for thought. Why should the border areas suffer the most if the government refuses to enforce immigration law?

    harkin (0e8c36)

  12. It helps if you realize Trump is the Andy Kaufman president.

    But your argument has a flaw. One of the great beauties of our great experiment is federalism. It’s possible for different states, counties, or cities to have different views on how to solve a problem. We’ve abandoned that, the why of which is a different question. The people in these sanctuary areas also agree with these policies. They’ve shown that by voting for these politicians which is another of the beauties of our system. I applaud Trump’s willingness to embrace two of the things that make America great. Hopefully, this will be a return to, some might say to embrace again, federalism and listening to voters. I also applaud Trump for being willing to consider an issue and to listen to people who disagree with him.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  13. But civility doesn’t pay in the end or you would have apologize for touting avenattis droppings as the golden fleece.

    Are you talking to me?

    Because, even more than usual, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  14. May be giving the guy too much credit but that’s how I saw it. Don’t remember this sort of outrage when the city governments were actually voting to ignore federal laws and endanger their communities far more than Trump ever will.

    Huh. How about you read the post quoted extensively above, written in 2015. Seems your memory needs refreshing.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  15. I’m pretty sure Trump is trolling.

    Right. Trolling, by playing with people’s lives.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  16. Patterico, this is the scary appeal of DJT: when the Left does something dumb, then DJT wants to hit back…without thinking.

    It’s reflexive and bumper sticker in depth.

    You are absolutely correct that implementing that policy would harm citizens. But I believe that, to be delicate, DJT doesn’t think very deeply.

    He is always about the slapping back.

    It’s like the mantra “He fights.” That’s actually not a great mantra for the real world.

    It ought to be “He evaluates, plans, comes up with and sells better policies.”

    But that doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker.

    Both the Left and Right are about bumper sticker politics. Narrative sentence fragments as proposed policies.

    And here we are, sadly.

    Simon Jester (9d3cf3)

  17. A true chicken and egg dilemma. But just about anything Trump attempts vis-a-vis immigration is immediately stopped by a judge. I am more upset by the cities and states that choose to ignore the law and make things more difficult for border/law enforcement. These politicians have made their choice to disregard the safety and well-being of citizens living within their city limits and/or state borders and have also made plain where their priorities lie.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  18. Colonel, I agree with you that the cities who “feel like” not following the law are in the wrong.

    Simon Jester (9d3cf3)

  19. Kacey Musgraves is the new Cher anyhow.

    urbanleftbehind (6a358f)

  20. As a political move, it was brilliant: it exposed the NIMBY attitude of the left. Whether President Trump was serious or not, who knows?

    There are many things he’d like to do that he cannot, due to the recalcitrance of Congress and existing law.

    But while his statement was a snark, if there is no choice but to release the illegals into the country, rather than sending them south of the border immediately, why not to the oh-so-welcoming sanctuary cities?

    The best recourse is to not allow them in at all, with the next best option putting them on the bus immediately and sending them back. What we are dealing with now is a great reluctance among the Democrats to barring their initial entry, and laws which create problems for the second option.

    The natural born citizen Dana (10ea9e)

  21. Trump has pretty much lost me on judges blocking his policies. He had the Congress for two years. What did he do to change the Judiciary Act and the Code of Civil Procedure so that “some so-called judge in the Ninth Circuit” could not issue a nationwide injunction to anybody who asked? By something as simple as making the DC District the only place to bring those actions? And he would have been the one appointing the new DC judges if it was necessary to increase the size of the Court to handle the additional caseload.

    nk (dbc370)

  22. You think Ryan was going to introduce ant of that he just did more ‘this is not who we are’ than guy pierce in memento, I guess he is whatever lobbyist gif he cadged onto.

    Now one thought the latest decision affirming the stay in Mexico might have been of interest, but how can we blame trump for that.

    Narciso (96cbba)

  23. Oh, and let us not forget the most important thing of all. Trump is now competing with the new TV season. The new Game of Thrones was on tonight I understand. He’s got to work hard to maintain his ratings.

    nk (dbc370)

  24. “The more illegals are sent to sanctuary cities, the more danger is created.”

    So Trump should do the opposite, send more illegals to cities that cooperate with ICE.

    This would incentivize more cities to become sanctuaries, and not cooperate with ICE. How does this not create even more danger?

    Maybe just maybe Trump’s got the logic down on this.

    Munroe (67b0fc)

  25. The Administration is releasing thousands of illegal immigrants in the El Paso-Las Cruces vicinity. No supervision. No idea where they will go next. Guess what is nearby?

    Las Cruces lies in the vicinity of three massive military bases, covering an array of military missions. Fort Bliss, Texas, is a large army post and airfield that spreads [from El Paso] into New Mexico southeast of Las Cruces. Troops are trained in heavy armor maneuvers and in supply and support missions. Fort Bliss borders America’s test facility, White Sands Missile Range, where numerous companies develop and test missiles and their components. Just beyond White Sands is the 60,000 acre Holloman Air Force Base.

    Nothing to see here.

    DRJ (15874d)

  26. Well if one ignores the flores settlement that Stephen reinhardts was crafting like Mozarts last breath in amadeus, that might not make sense. But it’s like that stupid overcrowding ruling by the Florida supreme court.

    Narciso (96cbba)

  27. What ARE the problems with sanctuary cities:
    1. They encourage more illegal immigration.
    2. They encourage disrespect for the law. E.g., some cities are declaring themselves sanctuaries against gun control laws that they don’t like
    3. They put citizens of their cities at greater risk, because police are more hesitant to arrest and prosecute illegal immigrants who commit other crimes.
    4. They encourage other harmful policies, such as laws treating illegal immigrants as well as or better than legal residents. E.g., “the Dream Act was Approved in N.Y. to Aid Undocumented Students”
    5. Sanctuary cities promote the idea that it’s morally good to treat illegal immigrants generously, even though their presence harms American blacks and American Hispanics.

    Now, Trump’s plan doesn’t solve any of these problems. What it does do is call attention to the fact that illegal immigrants are a burden, not a blessing.

    David in Cal (0d5a1d)

  28. send them to sanctuary cities. thats more votes for the democrats if you believe illegal aliens have been voting in our elections.

    lany (89edbc)

  29. Trump employed undocumented foreign nationals for years — as recently as 2019. He defended the practice as recently as 2016 by saying “It’s very, very hard to get people.” But sure, tell yourselves Trump cares about illegal immigration

    JRH (8f59ea)

  30. So Trump should do the opposite, send more illegals to cities that cooperate with ICE.

    This would incentivize more cities to become sanctuaries, and not cooperate with ICE. How does this not create even more danger?

    The cities cooperate with ICE for a reason, either because they believe it is good policy or because they already have issues presented by illegal immigrants, or both. Bringing more illegal immigrants in will make them value ICE’s presence more, not less.

    The reason Trump’s idea (to relocate illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities) resonates with people is because it makes sense they may decide it is not such a good idea to be a sanctuary city. But that doesn’t mean the converse is true and cities that cooperate with ICE will stop to avoid a short-term influx of migrants.

    DRJ (15874d)

  31. It overwhelms the system, until one finds a way to get around the Flores settlement which will likely be reinforced.

    Narciso (96cbba)

  32. Sanctuary city is a name given to a city in the United States that follows certain police procedures that shelters illegal immigrants. These procedures can be by law (de jure) or they can be by action (de facto). The term most commonly is used for cities that do not permit municipal funds or resources to be applied in furtherance of enforcement of federal immigration laws. These cities normally do not permit police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status. The designation of Sanctuary City” has no legal meaning.

    However, anti-immigrant groups are constantly rallying around Sanctuary Cities, claiming that they breed a host of problems caused by undocumented immigrants. Donald Trump, spearheads this anti-immigrant sentiments and Attorney General Jeff Sessions supports it. Donald Trump signed the executive order that proclaimed that cities and states would only be eligible for certain grants from the Department of Justice if they obeyed federal immigration laws.

    On Wednesday, August8, 2017, the 9th Circuit ruled against a provision of the executive order that limited funding to jurisdictions that don’t collaborate with federal immigration enforcement. This executive order was aimed directly at sanctuary cities.

    The Court ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order curbing federal funding to “sanctuary cities” was unconstitutional.

    The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that federal funding could be suppressed through congressional authorization. The appeals court also noticed that the U.S. District Court went too far by obstructing the policy nationwide, and sent back the case for “reconsideration and further findings.”

    “We conclude that, under the principle of Separation of Powers and in consideration of the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants, the Executive Branch may not refuse to disperse the federal grants in question without congressional authorization,” a three-member panel of the 9th Circuit held in its 2-to-1 ruling.

    A current list of Sanctuary Cities obtained from The Center for Immigration Studies dated July 27, 2017 follows:

    Sanctuary Cities List

    States

    California
    Colorado
    Illinois
    Massachusetts
    New Mexico
    Oregon
    Vermont

    Cities and Counties

    California

    Alameda County
    Berkley
    Contra Costa County
    Los Angeles County
    Los Angeles
    Monterey County
    Napa County
    Oakland
    Riverside County
    Sacramento County
    San Bernardino County
    San Diego County

    San Francisco
    San Francisco County
    San Mateo County
    Santa Ana
    Santa Clara County
    Santa Cruz County
    Sonoma County
    Watsonville

    Colorado

    Arapahoe County
    Aurora
    Boulder County
    Denver
    Denver County
    Garfield County
    Grand County
    Jefferson County
    Larimer County
    Mesa County
    Pitkin County
    Pueblo County
    Routt County
    San Miguel County
    Weld County

    Connecticut

    East Haven
    Hartford

    Florida

    Alachua County
    Clay County

    Georgia

    Clayton County
    DeKalb County

    Iowa

    Benton County
    Cass County
    Franklin County
    Fremont County
    Greene County
    Ida County
    Iowa City
    Iowa City, Johnson County
    Jefferson County
    Marion County
    Monona County
    Montgomery County
    Pottawattamie County
    Sioux County

    Illinois

    Chicago
    Cook County

    Kansas

    Butler County
    Harvey County

    Louisiana

    New Orleans

    Massachusetts

    Amherst
    Boston
    Cambridge
    Concord
    Lawrence
    Newton
    Northhampton
    Somerville

    Maryland

    Baltimore
    Montgomery County
    Prince George’s County

    Minnesota

    Hennepin County

    Mississippi

    Jackson

    Nebraska

    Hall County
    Sarpy County

    New Jersey

    Middlesex County
    Newark
    Ocean County
    Union County

    New Mexico

    Bernalillo County
    New Mexico County Jails
    San Miguel

    Nevada

    Washoe County

    New York

    Albany
    Franklin County
    Ithaca
    Nassau County
    New York City
    Omondaga County
    St. Lawrence County
    Wayne County

    Oregon

    Baker County
    Clackamas County
    Clatsop County
    Coos County
    Crook County
    Curry County
    Deschutes County
    Douglas County
    Gilliam County
    Grant County
    Hood River County
    Jackson County
    Jefferson County
    Josephine County
    Lane Countyn
    Lincoln County
    Linn County
    Malheur County
    Marion County
    Marlon County
    Multnomah County
    Polk County
    Sherman County
    Springfield
    Tillamok County
    Umatilla County
    Union County
    Wallowa County
    Wasco County
    Washington County
    Wheeler County
    Yamhill County

    Pennsylvania

    Bradford County
    Bucks County
    Butler County
    Chester County
    Clarion County
    Delaware County
    Eerie County
    Franklin County
    Lebanon County
    Lehigh County
    Lycoming County
    Montgomery County
    Montour County
    Perry County
    Philadelphia
    Pike County
    Westmoreland County

    Rhode Island

    Providence, Rhode Island
    Rhode Island Department of Corrections

    Virginia

    Arlington County
    Chesterfield County
    Fairfax County

    Vermont

    Burlington
    Montpelier
    Winooski

    Washington

    Chelan County
    Clallam County
    Clark County
    Cowlitz County
    Franklin County
    Jefferson County
    King County
    Kitsap County
    Pierce County
    San Juan County
    Skagit County
    Snohomish County
    Spokane County
    Seattle
    Thurston County
    Walla Walla County
    Wallowa County
    Whatcom County
    Yakima County

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  33. That list may be dated… if anything, the list has grown longer.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  34. It’s the tax overlay; punish blue cities and states; favor red stadtstaaten und flachenlander.

    ‘Torpedo los,’ eh, mein Captain?!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  35. As a political move, it was brilliant: it exposed the NIMBY attitude of the left. Whether President Trump was serious or not, who knows?

    There are many things he’d like to do that he cannot, due to the recalcitrance of Congress and existing law.

    But while his statement was a snark, if there is no choice but to release the illegals into the country, rather than sending them south of the border immediately, why not to the oh-so-welcoming sanctuary cities?

    If only someone had written a post explaining why.

    But of course virtually everyone is treating the post as an open thread about the Trump policy, while acting as though the post made no point about it at all.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  36. Patterico (115b1f)

  37. I would suggest that you are being too harsh on Trump. I doubt he has thought it through to anything like that level. He instantiates the reflexive reaction.

    I disagree. Not thinking through a decision is all the more reason to be harsh on Trump. Doubly harsh, even. The People should expect more than the guy who makes immigration decisions on the basis of “owning the libs” or vindictiveness, because that’s pretty much what this is.

    Paul Montagu (7968e9)

  38. As a political move, it was brilliant: it exposed the NIMBY attitude of the left.

    I think you’re misreading the Left, Dana. The Seattle mayor isn’t the only liberal who would welcome illegals but, to be fair, I don’t believe Ms. Durkan thought it all the way through either.

    Paul Montagu (7968e9)

  39. I don’t care what trump thinks I only care how he acts. fredrick burrus skinner.

    lany (89edbc)

  40. Ah king county where they kept counting till they got the proper result

    Narciso (96cbba)

  41. Basically, it’s Trump saying: “I am announcing a policy that will make ICE’s job far more difficult but is also a troll on the left” and the Trumpers are saying: “Hur hur look he’s trolling the left.”

    Pavlovian conditioning. Expect plenty more over the next 18 months.

    Dave (1bb933)

  42. I think this shows Trump only cares about his immigration headlines, not his policies. And I doubt he cares whether he makes ICE’s job harder. Does he even want to deport people who are already here? Those aren’t the headlines he wants or the court cases he wins.

    DRJ (15874d)

  43. Our host wrote:

    Like a chump sucker, I thought that Donald J. Trump actually cared about this issue — as much of a cretin as he is otherwise. But he doesn’t, really.

    That surprises me. The Trump Universal Solvent — the one principle which universally predicts and explains everything about Donald J. Trump — is that he cares about nothing and no one but himself, “Trump” (in the third person, even in his head), period, end of story, no exceptions ever.

    “Is __ good or bad?” Doesn’t matter what you fill in the blank with, to answer that and every question, Trump amends the question to read: “Is __ good or bad for Trump?”

    Note well: He’s often wildly wrong in his assessments; he has countless real enemies, almost as many as he imagines he has, but he remains, always, his own worst one over time and on balance.

    This is why I defend Trump against charges that he’s a racist — as opposed to charges that he deliberately shapes his messaging to appeal to other racists. The latter, obviously, he does, and it’s equally obviously explainable using the Trump Universal Solvent (he wants their support, because that’s good for Trump). But to be a racist, Trump would have to have enough empathy and awareness of the rest of humanity to actually self-identify with other white people. He doesn’t care if someone’s white or black or polka-dotted because he doesn’t care about anything but what’s good for Trump.

    I commend to your future use, Patterico, the Trump Universal Solvent. It’s foolproof.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  44. Frankly, I didn’t think about the adverse incentives created by Trump’s sanctuary city idea until you posted on it. I have become like Pavlov’s dog. I respond to his tweets/treats on command.

    DRJ (15874d)

  45. Patterico, I accepted your challenge to think more deeply about Trump’s statement, and ended up fisking you as a result.

    David Gudeman (fd21bc)

  46. I really hope he cares about something more than himself, Beldar. For his sake and for ours.

    DRJ (15874d)

  47. TL/DR version: It’s not Orange Man Bad.

    It’s Orange Man Baby.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  48. DRJ, I think the best we can hope for is that on some continuing number of issues and occasions, what he perceives as good for Trump is actually good for America.

    He figured out even before Inauguration Day that outsourcing his judicial nominations was good for Trump. He got huge positive reinforcement beginning with Gorsuch, and continuing thereafter. So I think it’s entirely reasonable to hope, even expect, that he’ll continue on that particular path.

    But on immigration, I fear that he learned a different, less constructive lesson: That big talk and controversy can get him elected — good for Trump! — whereas actually solving the problems would be very difficult and necessarily politically risky, even if he were the kind of problem-solver and deal-maker he claims to be (which he of course isn’t).

    Beldar (fa637a)

  49. Probably so. But I don’t think his gut or ego serve him well on foreign affairs or the military.

    DRJ (15874d)

  50. He bombards us with so much everyday that we don’t have time to think about substance.

    DRJ (15874d)

  51. Let’s assume your theory is true. How does identifying with and flattering dictators help Trump? Is he so insecure that he craves what they have, even though being President (despite separation of powers) gives him so much more?

    DRJ (15874d)

  52. Haven’t we had enough pop psychologizing from the boy who cried wolff and Woodward and bandy Lee, more garbage allegations from fusion and Dan Jones silicone valley fountain

    Narciso (a4c9e9)

  53. As I have further pointed out trumps opinion about the middle kingdom is what constitutes policy since Tian an men, which was an afternoon day in Mao’s neigborhood.

    Narciso (a4c9e9)

  54. The Europeans trust Huawei which is like a facehugger in their chest and they hate America who has bailed them out how many times
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-eu-idUSKCN1RR0OZ?utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_content=5cb44e0de6dfda0001dd583c&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

    Narciso (a4c9e9)

  55. Reagan preferred Marcos over the npa, yet supported Duarte over d’arbuisson and the fmln. The former party with an fmln dissident is now actually in charge over there.

    Narciso (a4c9e9)

  56. Patterico is, as usual, right about this. It’s as if scoring debating points is more important than protecting people. In spite of the occasional good thing Trump does, one thing I’ve always found unforgivable about him is the damage he has inflicted, perhaps permanently, on what was once known as “conservatism.” As one tweet recent tweet has it, “conservatism” is now whatever happens to trigger the libs, no matter what that might be. This idea of dumping illegal aliens in sanctuary cities is a perfect example of that.

    Roger (2a5c36)

  57. 50. When I hear Trumpists (and I’m not accusing you of being one, Beldar) use the word “Hope” in terms of Trump’s policy, it brings me back to the Obama era of “hope and change.” Not very reassuring.

    Gryph (08c844)

  58. DRJ: “How does identifying with and flattering dictators help Trump?”

    Dictators inspire compliance out of fear. Trump is trying to project that he wishes he could act like these dictators and enforce what he thinks needs to be done (you see, he would be more successful if he wasn’t being held back). By extension, some of his supporters feel that they are backing the Alpha….and that Trump will do whatever it takes. If you hate the media, Trump will get them. If you hate Muslims, Trump will do the unthinkable. Trump admiring someone who is powerful makes Trump look ambitious and powerful himself….and a fighter. This is targeted at people who believe that desperate times require desperate measures….and that rules our holding us back. These are ends justifies the means people….and there is more of them out there than I would have thought.

    AJ_Liberty (165d19)

  59. He can’t be all bad if Ilhan Omar, Jeff Bezos, and Charlie Sheen hate him.

    nk (dbc370)

  60. You mean the way Tom Friedman and Fareed zakaria look longingly at China, I think theres a bout of projection there, the way they both trust the Iranian regime and Michael manns wurlitzer.

    Narciso (a4c9e9)

  61. David Gudeman: Excellent post! As usual, this controversy offers another example of how Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally, and his opponents take him literally but not seriously.

    NYLawyer (373428)

  62. Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally

    For the record, I, personally, have never denied that Trump is smarter than all the people who voted for him.

    nk (dbc370)

  63. For the record, I, personally, have never denied that Trump is smarter than all the people who voted for him.

    nk (dbc370) — 4/15/2019 @ 6:02 am

    DRJ voted for Trump.

    BuDuh (bc7703)

  64. I voted for Dukakis.

    nk (dbc370)

  65. Ok we give you one mulligan.

    Narciso (a4c9e9)

  66. I know the feeling, nk, I voted for Dole, mittens, juanny mac, and both booooshes.

    mg (8cbc69)

  67. At 24, I wrote:

    Oh, and let us not forget the most important thing of all. Trump is now competing with the new TV season. The new Game of Thrones was on tonight I understand. He’s got to work hard to maintain his ratings.

    Ha, ha, ha! https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/438865-trump-rips-into-pelosi-after-puff-piece-60-minutes-interview
    The dude is upset at Pelosi getting TV time.

    nk (dbc370)

  68. Narciso justifies Trump’s tendencies to authoritarianism by discussing … Tom Friedman and Fareed Zakaria.

    Leviticus (43ada9)

  69. I had thought Farabundo was a Salvadoran colloquialism for a party of either the political or celebratory kind, kind of has that same ring as pachanga.

    And my hard core conservative work friend who also happens to be Greek also voted for Dukakis.

    urbanleftbehind (6a358f)

  70. Since the list of sanctuary areas is so large (and growing), this exercise seems to be analogous to watching your house burn down and arguing over which room is best to store the gasoline.

    ___

    Regardless, Trump’s words have resonated:

    Face The Nation
    @FaceTheNation
    NEWS:
    @CoryBooker
    said
    @realDonaldTrump
    is “trying to pit Americans against each other and make us less safe” by threatening to release undocumented immigrants from the border into sanctuary cities in an exclusive interview with moderator
    @margbrennan

    __

    harkin (0e8c36)

  71. Week of 4/15/19: Hyperventilation Week!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  72. “For the record, I, personally, have never denied that Trump is smarter than all the people who voted for him.”

    Lots of smart people voted for Trump, for all sorts of reasons, some that he would be less awful than his opponent.

    I didn’t vote for him because I considered him unfit for the office.

    harkin (0e8c36)

  73. Patterico, I accepted your challenge to think more deeply about Trump’s statement, and ended up fisking you as a result.

    I read the piece. To me, it was incoherent and internally contradictory. It was consistent in saying Trump is right, and all over the map on any other issue. It will appeal to the Always Trump crowd, because it makes the argument “Always Trump,” but I don’t see how it can appeal to anyone actually grappling with the problem I articulated in this post.

    Let me take two passages:

    Sanctuary cities bad:

    The real problem with sanctuary cities is that they are defying the rule of law itself.

    Sanctuary cities good:

    Furthermore, it is not at all obvious that there are more individual tragedies because criminal aliens are allowed to roam San Francisco than there would be if they were sent home to victimize people who are generally poorer (so that there are fewer resources to deal with tragedy) and generally have less trustworthy law enforcement. One could argue that it is our responsibility to protect our citizens, not the citizens of other countries, but if Patterico makes that argument, it will come back to bite him in a few paragraphs.

    Because Trump’s proposed policy essentially reinforces what is bad about sanctuary cities, by making *more* illegals subject to their protections, you’re actually reduced to arguing (whether you realize it or not) that *Trump is right* because why is it better that the the home country should be forced to deal with the criminals?

    Isn’t that what that passage says?

    So Trump says sanctuary cities are bad. Hooray, he’s right! Criminal illegals harm our citizens!! Then he says, hey, I’m thinking about instituting a policy that makes MORE illegals subject to their laws protecting criminal illegals. Hooray, he’s right, says Gudeman! Criminal illegals should be harming our citizens to protect the home country which can’t deal with the problems as well as we can!!!

    The “Trump is right!” message is consistent, but otherwise, this is garbled and (to me) incomprehensible.

    Let me return to this:

    The real problem with sanctuary cities is that they are defying the rule of law itself.

    OK. I notice you didn’t say HOW.

    1. Can you express HOW, exactly? and then answer 2. why it makes sense to send more potential criminals to them?

    If a city made murder legal, and you had a population of people who (by dint of not having been legally processed) had uncertain criminal backgrounds, would you dump MORE of those people in that city, so that MORE of them could get away with murder?

    You probably would, if doing so somehow vindicated Donald Trump in some way. Because that seems to be the only factor in the world that matters to you.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  74. That was too long. I encourage people to simply read this quote from the post “fisking” this post:

    Furthermore, it is not at all obvious that there are more individual tragedies because criminal aliens are allowed to roam San Francisco than there would be if they were sent home to victimize people who are generally poorer (so that there are fewer resources to deal with tragedy) and generally have less trustworthy law enforcement.

    It’s good to send criminal aliens to San Francisco, this guy actually argues, because they are less likely to be deported, and their home countries are too poor to deal with them. Isn’t that what that says??

    The piece refutes itself. All you have to do is read that quote a couple of times to see that.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  75. The quoted passage could come out of the mouth of any mayor of any sanctuary city as an explanation for why they have a sanctuary city policy.

    To defend Trump, Trumpers are now reduced to defending the logic behind sanctuary cities.

    And I shake my head in amazement.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  76. 77. I don’t have to read that quote a couple of times. Reading it once was enough for me. And as this blog has a no-personal-attacks policy, I won’t comment further on what I think of that quote…

    Gryph (08c844)

  77. AJ_Liberty,

    That makes perfect sense for why Trump might want his supporters to think he admires dictators and strongmen, and you answered the question I asked.

    But I guess my curiosity is also why Trump seems to actually admire and like strongmen and dictators, apart from any political or PR motives. He seems to crave raw power more than the kind of power and kniwledge it takes to lead a nation that believes in self-governance.

    DRJ (15874d)

  78. I do have stupid moments, BuDuh, as proven by my 2016 vote. I learned my lesson. What has Trump learned since then?

    DRJ (15874d)

  79. No, no, no, DRJ! That was entirely my personal assessment of Trump’s intelligence, and now I am reassessing in light of newly discovered evidence that he is not smarter than all the people who voted for him.

    nk (dbc370)

  80. nk, you are such a gentleman but I ignored my values and that is stupid. We all do things like that now and then. We’re human.

    DRJ (15874d)

  81. The illegals have to be released somewhere. So, for example, let’s choose between sanctuary state California and Texas. Sending them to California will not affect future national elections. California is forever a blue state. Putting them in Texas, however, will flip it eventually to blue.

    The reverse side of Patterico’s point is that Democrats say that Trump would be punishing them by sending them the illegals. Pelosi once said that they are “blessings.” But by complaining of Trump’s threat, they are now admitting that illegals are in fact a burden. So are Dems likewise hypocrites?

    AZ Bob (885937)

  82. Even Trump! I just wish he had more Texas values than New York values, but that won’t happen.

    DRJ (15874d)

  83. Putting them in Texas, however, will flip it eventually to blue.

    Only if we legalize them like Trump may do with the Dreamers. So, maybe true.

    DRJ (15874d)

  84. But if so, we might assimilate them in Texas. They can work and learn conservative values. Any chance of that in California?

    By the way, I still want a Wall.

    DRJ (15874d)

  85. Well, the only sanctuary city in Texas is San Antonio and the Texas Attorney General is already taking it to the woodshed over it. Besides, the ghosts of Buck Travis, Davy Crockett, and Jim Bowie would rise up and declare war against the United Stated if Trump actually started shipping invaders there.

    nk (dbc370)

  86. Putting them in Texas, however, will flip it eventually to blue.

    Their children are automatically citizens. So we are looking at a process of about 20 years.

    AZ Bob (885937)

  87. It’s a leap to proclaim that sanctuary cities are illegal. They’ve been challenged at various times in the courts without avail, in part because this concept of federalism keeps coming up (link).

    Paul Montagu (7968e9)

  88. “Only if we legalize them like Trump may do with the Dreamers. So, maybe true.”
    DRJ (15874d) — 4/15/2019 @ 7:47 am

    If only we had a principled president with “Texas values” we might finally take a hard stance on dreamers, and we wouldn’t have enacted the MS-13 Welcome Wagon Act.

    Munroe (e821f7)

  89. Where do you guys think the illegal immigrants are being released right now and for the past year? They are crossing in record numbers on the Texas border and are being released in South and West Texas. I doubt many will go back for their hearings.

    DRJ (15874d)

  90. Per the map, the sickness is pervasive in the PNW.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  91. I think the border communities have a right to complain and very bitterly, too. They are in crisis because of catch and release.

    nk (dbc370)

  92. How is that different than Trump, Monroe? Both Presidents welcome illegal immigrants to work for their donors or themselves. Those are GOPe values, not Texas values.

    DRJ (15874d)

  93. Meanwhile:


    .💀.Badaisè
    @DanBadaise
    Lmaaaaaaaao. I love the NYT now.

    “To a large degree, the gap between perception and reality on the tax cuts appears to flow from a sustained — and misleading — effort by liberal opponents of the law to brand it as a broad middle-class tax increase. “

    https://mobile.twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1117764575099748352

    harkin (0e8c36)

  94. They are walking up and knocking on our doors in places a hundred miles from the border.

    DRJ (15874d)

  95. My guess is that, in Texas, many illegals end up in San Antonio and Houston because they have family or friends living there that help them. The sanctuary policies take hold because the police would spend a lot of time dealing with illegals AND it would create unrest in the areas where they live. I don’t support it but I understand they don’t want to create war zones because of laws they don’t control.

    I don’t know about places like Northern California and the Northwest, but it seems like their sanctuary policies have more to do with ideals. But maybe they have lots of illegals, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  96. 87:

    Not much. But its not like the Catch and Release masses are going to be deported anytime soon.

    Risk and Danger? Some to be sure: but what will impel the “sanctuary” states and cities to come to terms with reality? Insulating them from the masses coming over the border–being “dumped” in Texas, NM and Arizona for example–is not fair either. If Cher can see the problem from a homeless perspective, so can other voters from a safety perspective.

    And let’s face something else: a “sharing” of the economic/social burden of today’s immigration waves is fair–it might also shift perceptions and voting in LA, SF, and Seattle, and their states. The fiscal and social reality will be a dash of cold water for the posers. Neither LA nor SF can handle what they urge everyone else to take–more poor, unskilled, people with social, educational, housing and medical needs. Ask Cher.

    Ask Seattle’s KOMO TV: it just did a special on the homeless there, (“Seattle is dying”), and the people in Seattle are waking up to what it means to subsidize the violent and drug addicted homeless.

    Last, I don’t see carrying on as we are–insulating some states from the burdens they urge everyone else to assume– as fair or sensible.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (5e0a82)

  97. I am curious about where the new arrivals will go. Most illegals that settled in Texas came from Mexico. They go back and forth across the border to work and visit family. The recent migrants are from places like Guatemala and Honduras. Where do the people they will reach out to live? Wiki shows they live all over.

    DRJ (15874d)

  98. We can talk about this but the illegals are getting released within days. They aren’t taking them anywhere, just opening the doors and pointing out the bus stations. The illegals are deciding where they go and mostly they call friends and family in the US and figure out how to join them.

    DRJ (15874d)

  99. I am a broken record, but build the Wall.

    DRJ (15874d)

  100. whereas actually solving the problems would be very difficult and necessarily politically risky, even if he were the kind of problem-solver and deal-maker he claims to be (which he of course isn’t).

    It’s even worse. Actually solving a problem requires careful thought and serious engagement to formulate a successful policy and marshal support for it – in other words, hard work.

    That in turn means fewer hours of “executive time” to watch tee-vee (bad for Trump!), fewer rallies to bask in the adoration of his cultists (bad for Trump!), and fewer rounds of golf (bad for Trump!).

    While your theory is good as far as it goes, I think one can drill deeper into his twisted reptilian mind and ask: “What does ‘good for Trump’ actually mean?”

    Trump is like a dog with three tails, chasing all of them:

    1) Greed
    2) Gratification of his ego
    3) Laziness

    Dave (1bb933)

  101. I was uncharitable about what motivates Bush and Trump. I know well-to-do people who feel compassion for immigrants who come from poor places, and they want our wealthy nation to help them. I understand that feeling but often their compassion comes at the expense of Americans who aren’t wealthy. It is what gave us Trump and Trump won because he can articulate it, but I don’t think he really cares since he hires them.

    DRJ (15874d)

  102. And tighten the asylum rules so we don’t have to let in everyone who says the magic words.

    DRJ (15874d)

  103. 105:
    yes!

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (5e0a82)

  104. I listened to a program on NPR this morning about this very thing–the liberal attorney who had advised Obama in the past said that while he thought that this would be illegal, it wasn’t practical, because most illegal immigrants have a plan for where they want to go, and they’ll just go there anyway. So, it really doesn’t matter where we put them–they’ll go where they want–which is the real problem–and the reason we need to control the border, which the Democrats and Country Club Republicans refuse to do.

    If this gets their attention and causes them to take this seriously, them I’ll fine with it.

    Rochf (877dba)

  105. Roger (2a5c36) — 4/15/2019 @ 5:06 am

    It’s as if scoring debating points is more important than protecting people.

    As if?? As if??

    Now the thing is, Trump probably doesn’t believe all this rot about illegal immigrants being dangerous, so I think he doesn’t even really see any conflict. He just takes the position he does on immigration because he knows that no Democrat right now is willing to argue the contrary. And, for that matter, in the Republican primaries no one was willing to argue that Mexico should not pay for a wall and the United States shouldn’t even try to get Mexico to pay for a wall, or that a wall wouldn’t change very much.

    No one’s willing to argue illegal immigration is not a big problem, yet they have no solutions for that not to happen. So he’s got them.

    It’s ALL debating points with Donald. That’s why many of the policies he argues for are impractical; have legal problems he doesn’t acknowledge (let Democrats say there are legal barriers and then say they don’t want to change the laws); cost money, and all other things being equal would make other things not work, or are unethical or immoral.

    They’re impractical, but that is not obvious. They’re illegal, but many people may not know it. They bust the budget, but nobody is talking about a budget. They are unethical or immoral and violate basic principles of good and evil, but that requires some familiarity with the details. He’ll patch up the problems with lies or statiscal distortions or strong assertoions.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  106. ICE has been very busy in most “sanctuary cities,” leading to the question of what the term actually means and how much power local municipalities really have to stop arrests and deportations (imo very little). This chart shows the increase in ICE arrests in different field offices between fiscal year 2016 and FY 2018.

    NYC, for example, saw a 150% increase in arrests between the final year of Obama admin and end of the first FY of the Trump admin.

    Chart: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Chart-1-Increase-in-Deportations-by-ICE-Field-Office-FY-2016-FY-2018.jpg

    Related report: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/the-demographics-of-detention-immigration-enforcement-in-nyc-under-trump/?utm_source=Media-All&utm_campaign=e1b84f4a39-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_12_08_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7cd514b03e-e1b84f4a39-141571729

    JRH (8f59ea)

  107. And looking at the chart again — most field offices saw a big increase in ICE arrests, but El Paso and San Antonio saw decreases. That’s very interesting.

    JRH (8f59ea)

  108. That puts society at risk.

    A slight overlap in the Venn diagram between illegal immigrants criminals not deported and people who ae responsible for crimes or accidents does?

    Trump’s idea doesn’t put society at risk, It;s onl;y <i< according to his arguments , which m bear in mind, that he doesn’t believe, that it does. But it’s not reality and he knows it. He may think it will cost the sanctuary cities money.

    What does put society at risk is this campaign against “mass incarceration” where no other ideas to deter serious crimes are proposed as alternatives (like intensive probation where violations get a person a few days in jail or letting people out of jail once they’ve reconciled with their victims by offering some sort of compensation – could be 1% of their wages or income, or somebody else’s income, for a period of time)

    But it is talked about like it is not necessary for law enforcement to exist.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  109. Yes, build the wall, tighten up the asylum laws and break the chain migration crap!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  110. DRJ: “why Trump seems to actually admire and like strongmen and dictators”

    He wants you to buy into that notion….marketing and sales is what he and his people do. If you are talking about his reactions to dictators, you are not talking about his knowledge of policy. It is just more distraction…to allow him to spin up the media and his most vocal opponents.

    AJ_Liberty (ec7f74)

  111. Why exactly are you blaming Trump for doing what Congress forced him to do: release detainees that they specifically and spitefully reduced ICE’s capability to hold in both previous budget bills, on what appears to be the correct assumption that people would just blame Trump for it, like you just did?

    Yes it is dangerous to release criminals into the US.

    If you have to do it anyway, though, do it to the districts and people who deserve it most. Busing poor people away from themselves while yelling loudly about how much they care about them is an urban liberal tradition, now it’s time to do it right back to them.

    Johnny Law (9ce670)

  112. OT- Breaking: “Frying Buttresses” – Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris on fire.

    Incredible images on CNN.

    So sad.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  113. History going up in smoke before our eyes.

    Sure hope they manage to save as much as possible

    harkin (0e8c36)

  114. In sanctuary states like Cantafordya Locks on doors should be a jail sentence. And do you really need hinges on your doors? Open borders, open house.

    mg (8cbc69)

  115. Presbyterian Trump tweets suggestion: ‘perhaps use flying water tankers.’

    Yes, let’s make this about you: so many of them at the ready at Le Bourget, Donald. Perhaps you could sell them a few hundred feet of garden hose from Mar-A-Lago.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  116. @21

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/28/senate-confirmed-eric-miller-ninth-circuit-court-appeals-despite-feinsteins-objection-thats-new/

    The Judiciary Act of 1789, officially titled “An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States,” was signed into law by President George Washington on September 24, 1789. Article III of the Constitution established a Supreme Court, but left to Congress the authority to create lower federal courts as needed. Principally authored by Senator Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the structure and jurisdiction of the federal court system and created the position of attorney general. Although amended throughout the years by Congress, the basic outline of the federal court system established by the First Congress remains largely intact today.

    The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (eff. Dec. 1, 2018) govern civil proceedings in the United States district courts. Their purpose is “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. The rules were first adopted by order of the Supreme Court on December 20, 1937, transmitted to Congress on January 3, 1938, and effective September 16, 1938. See also; 28 USC 2072 and 2073.

    frosty48 (74e286)

  117. Our esteemed host assumed that I hadn’t read his post:

    As a political move, it was brilliant: it exposed the NIMBY attitude of the left. Whether President Trump was serious or not, who knows?

    There are many things he’d like to do that he cannot, due to the recalcitrance of Congress and existing law.

    But while his statement was a snark, if there is no choice but to release the illegals into the country, rather than sending them south of the border immediately, why not to the oh-so-welcoming sanctuary cities?

    If only someone had written a post explaining why.

    But of course virtually everyone is treating the post as an open thread about the Trump policy, while acting as though the post made no point about it at all.

    The problem is that the law currently protects illegal immigrants to some extent, by not only allowing but encouraging their release into the country to ‘await’ court action to determine whether they can claim some sort of acceptable status. They need to be released south of the border!

    Your point was that the illegals constitute a real danger, something with which I agree, but unless we have real action to get them out of the country, then why not send them places where the locals (supposedly) welcome them? If we are going to have no choice but to let them go, why not protect those people who are smart enough to want to get rid of them?

    The Dana who read it (10ea9e)

  118. @88. ‘… declare war against the United Stated[s]…’

    See 1861-65 for details.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  119. Yes, let’s make this about you: so many of them at the ready at Le Bourget, Donald. Perhaps you could sell them a few hundred feet of garden hose from Mar-A-Lago.”

    I think he’s making it about offering a suggestion. On CNN they are all wondering why it’s just burning with no apparent effort to put it out.

    harkin (0e8c36)

  120. French elected official relating how churches have been desecrated each and every week all over France and Shepard Smith has shut him down and is pontificating about how unfounded speculation is damaging and “has no place on the planet”.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  121. @124. In other words, he’s watching TeeVee– ‘executive time’ nothing better to do… besides, dropping tons and tons of water from the air on an 850 year old building in the center of Paris isn’t particularly practical and could do more harm than good. The Seine is close by and the fire brigades can source from there- as they did in London during the Blitz; a quick check on history on Wikipedia- they already have posted fire source blamed on renovation work gone awry. Not surprised the roof went up so fast. Been there a few times– truly a lovely landmark. Just so sad to see something that survived 800-plus years and the Nazis go up because some frog was careless w/a flame.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  122. Perhaps, just perhaps, releasing the illegals into sanctuary cities will change the political beliefs of the citizens therein, as more Kate Steinles are created. Yeah, it’s pretty bad for the people killed by the illegals, awful for their families, but sometimes it’s only when other people realize that it’s their lives on the line that they’ll take action, and throw out the corrupt officials who have put these sanctuary laws into effect in the first place.

    Let’s face facts: Miss Steinle was just collateral damage, and her legacy has been mostly flushed down the memory hole as far as the left are concerned.

    Steinle? Steinle? Isn’t that a Jooooo name?

    The Wikipedia page The Shooting of Kate Steinle has exactly two lines on the victim herself, but a whole bunch on her killer. There is no photo of Miss Steinle in the article.

    Maybe if she’d been a lesbian, or, even better, a transgender woman, the left would have cared. But right now? Without more victims, without a lot more victims, the politicians who promote these stupid sanctuary ideas aren’t going to get tossed out.

    Am I an [insert slang term for the rectum here] for saying that? Yup, sure am! But it doesn’t make it any less true.

    The [insert slang term for the rectum here] Dana (10ea9e)

  123. If we are going to have no choice but to let them go, why not protect those people who are smart enough to want to get rid of them?

    Because the voters supporting sanctuary areas, sending representatives to state and federal offices who favor the immigration status quo, and who may not, in fact, be under any burden from the existing policies have the moral authority to shift this burden to them. Or at least that’s the implication. And I’m not being sarcastic. We are consistently told that resistance to illegal immigration is racists, therefore immoral, and that acceptance of same is moral. We’re also told that pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation is also immoral.

    So, the short answer, those smart enough to not want them are racists and need to be re-educated.

    frosty48 (74e286)

  124. “Just so sad to see something that survived 800-plus years and the Nazis go up because some frog was careless w/a flame.”

    Lol forgot who I was talking to. Stay classy.

    harkin (0e8c36)

  125. 118. The Catherdral of Notre Dame.

    There are probably a lot videos by now.

    They could actually build it back approximately the way it was before, like they did in Poland with many historic structures after World War II.. the Communist government was very interested in that, partly maybe because Stalin was responsible for a lot of the destruction in Warsaw. And of course money, or effort was no object. They actually rebuilt mistakes or bad design.)

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  126. At least they finally got some high powered hoses shooting big time water on the fire.

    On Fox, some guy said there was a reservoir of water built high into the cathedral for just this reason. Wonder if they were able to utilize it.

    harkin (0e8c36)

  127. You could look at this another way: Trump has seen the light!

    Trump has been castigated by the press for the terrible conditions that confront those held in Immigration facilities, particularly children wrapped in tinfoil, not to mention those waiting in dangerous, violent, gang-infested Mexico for asylum hearings. After deep reflection and soul-searching, Trump has decided to send them to the safest places possible: sanctuary cities.

    I mean, what could be a safer, more loving place than a sanctuary? Amiright!? How can you be so insensitive to lash out at a man who only wants the best for these tired, poor, wretched masses and wants to send them to those still holding open that golden door?

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  128. “It’s just obvious you can’t have [open borders] and a welfare state.”

    –Milton Freidman

    If it takes threatening to release large numbers of illegal aliens into overcrowded and financially-struggling “sanctuary cities” to get them to see the wisdom of the above, then it is a useful exercise.

    Then again, you would have thought CA would not issue over a million extra driver’s licenses to illegal aliens at a time when many citizens already drive 3 hours to get to work. But they did. ANd then they are perplexed why traffic is up and public transit ridership is down.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  129. Patterico–

    A question. If ICE is forced to release large numbers of immigrant families being held in detention, due to over-crowding, where should they release them? Into communities that are on record as being against illegal immigration? Or those that are on record as being in favor? Which would be safer for the immigrants? Would they not be more likely to find immigrant communities, public, religious and and private support in the sanctuary cities? Why send them to places where they are already the Other?

    Yes, I understand that not everyone in SF or LA feels that way, and it’s unfair to them, but if there MUST be releases, why not release into places with support?

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  130. Patterico, you are a trained lawyer, so I have a hard time believing that you really didn’t see the point of that paragraph; the argument form was not all that complex. Clearly–to anyone reading for comprehension rather than for attack–I wasn’t making that argument as an element of my position; I was proposing it as a difficulty for your position. Why else would I propose a counter-argument in the very next sentence and say that you can’t use that counter-argument?

    You do see the difficulty that argument poses for your position, because that was what you responded to, but instead of offering a rational counter, you resorted to the old Leftist tactic of saying, “we don’t have to confront his arguments because the fact that he said X shows that he’s a bad person”.

    David Gudeman (fd21bc)

  131. Do the “frogs” do their own construction work? That might depend on whether the government or the equivalent of the diocese oversees the work. And will PDJT end up tweeting an eyewitness report of local Muslims dancing in the Paris streets?

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  132. What a truly effective President would be doing is using this to educate people on the REASONS for limiting immigration. Massive immigration swamps infrastructure, overloads social welfare agencies, drains funds intended for the poor, drives up the cost of housing and increases homelessness, makes traffic unbearable, adds to crime and encourages more immigration.

    Los Angeles is a poster city for all of this.

    But Trump speaks only to his base, and for them the troll is enough.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  133. Pete Wilson with the help of more than a few tried, but all he ended up with as being the subject of perhaps one of the grittiest assassination porn songs of all time.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  134. Chinga la raza!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  135. DRJ (15874d) — 4/14/2019 @ 8:20 pm

    DRJ is right about Las Cruces. Except for I-25 and I-10, the area is surrounded by desert, and much of that is either military base, bomb range or Reservation land. Civilization is over 100 miles of desert in any direction, assuming that you don’t mind crossing the federal land that comprises more than half the state.

    There are very few illegals in the Albuquerque area, but quite a few Mexican-Americans, many of whom can trace their roots back to when the area was Old Mexico. It’s a lot different than Southern Cal.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  136. “On Thursday, the Justice Department is expected to release the redacted version of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report into possible collusion between Russia and the Donald Trump campaign in 2016. Attorney General Bill Barr has already reported that Mueller concluded there was no collusion, although reports have suggested the Mueller report presents arguments for and against claims that Trump obstructed justice.”

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  137. ¡Viva los americanos de todas las razas!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  138. @131. Yeah- lots of questions will be asked regarding procedures but the place really went up so incredibly fast– a tinder box by design; stone enclosure w/lots of airy space, dry old wood inside and the roof- a virtual chimney; like lighting your BBQ. All the wooden facade structure, leaded glass, art, statues and such – they’ll try to save as much as possible- especially the walls, which have to be structurally weakened now- but it’s really looking like a near total loss. Just such a sad loss of history.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  139. Alrighty then, Colonel, but both injectee AND injector count!!!

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  140. I retract post 144, it appears you thought it through.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  141. A truly effective President would put a lot of people in jail for conspiracy.

    Ingot9455 (82c9ce)

  142. Entonces…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  143. Referring back to our host’s original post (but ignoring the digression about ICE’s bureaucratic duplicity in dumping that guy on SF instead of deporting him to the Yucatan), he seems to be arguing that IF ICE must release some asylum-seekers due to crowding, they should send them anywhere BUT a sanctuary city, since those localities are more likely harbor criminals.

    This neglects several things.

    First, it suggests dumping them on communities that DO NOT WANT them, and will react badly to receiving them. Many of these communities support Trump and the Republicans, and this is one of the reasons why. So, under Patterico’s formula, Trump should order ICE to piss off his supporters. Never mind Trump; no politician would be this stupid.

    Second, only a handful of these prospective immigrants are criminals, and their proportion among immigrant families even smaller (most criminals are young single men). For the preponderance of the group, placing them into a hostile community harms everyone, and the fact that local police are more willing to call ICE on criminals is of small benefit.

    I see his reasoning in the case of a 5-time deported habitual criminal, but the answer there is to deport such people immediately and not let the issue rise in the first place.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  144. the place really went up so incredibly fast– a tinder box by design

    That somehow lasted almost 1000 years.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  145. I think the category “felonious or injurious criminal” which should DEFINITELY include DUI > .12 vs. “criminal”, which would be technically all, would be of great guidance in how ICE and localities move forward. It is like condemning the homeless, of which there are the hobos/gutter punks, the mentally disturbed, or the two-job working people living in their car.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  146. But if so, we might assimilate them in Texas. They can work and learn conservative values. Any chance of that in California?

    It happened to some degree after the Reagan amnesty, and had the border control (that were supposed to follow) followed it might have continued. But the onslaught of illegal immigration that hit CA in the late 80’s and 90’s led to Prop 187, its overturning by the courts, and polarization which the Democrats exploited.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  147. …yeah, I’m in total agreement with Patterico.

    Getting the NIMBY responses from much of the anti-Trumpers is delicious, but when you sit down and rationally think about it, it’s a huge mistake for things Patterico has already stated.

    Best thing for Trump is to keep the focus on the border issues itself and pressure Congress to act.

    whembly (51f28e)

  148. I don’t know about places like Northern California and the Northwest, but it seems like their sanctuary policies have more to do with ideals. But maybe they have lots of illegals, too.

    When I was living in Silicon Valley in the 90’s there were damn few Hispanics. Lots and lots of Asians, from Japan, both Chinas and India. So many minivans, driven badly.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  149. A question. If ICE is forced to release large numbers of immigrant families being held in detention, due to over-crowding, where should they release them? Into communities that are on record as being against illegal immigration? Or those that are on record as being in favor? Which would be safer for the immigrants? Would they not be more likely to find immigrant communities, public, religious and and private support in the sanctuary cities? Why send them to places where they are already the Other?

    Yes, I understand that not everyone in SF or LA feels that way, and it’s unfair to them, but if there MUST be releases, why not release into places with support?

    Interesting points. For a response, I suggest reading the post, where I explain exactly what I think the problem is.

    To your credit, you do get around to addressing my points in a later comment, which prevents this comment from being as infuriating as it would seem in isolation. Even given that you address my arguments elsewhere, surely you see how a person who says “I think this policy x is bad because reason y” might become annoyed when someone responds by asking: “but why do you think policy x is bad?”

    Patterico (574a19)

  150. This neglects several things.

    First, it suggests dumping them on communities that DO NOT WANT them, and will react badly to receiving them. Many of these communities support Trump and the Republicans, and this is one of the reasons why. So, under Patterico’s formula, Trump should order ICE to piss off his supporters. Never mind Trump; no politician would be this stupid.

    I think presidents should act in the best interests of all the people and not just their supporters. It’s a quaint notion, I realize, but that’s what I think.

    Second, only a handful of these prospective immigrants are criminals, and their proportion among immigrant families even smaller (most criminals are young single men). For the preponderance of the group, placing them into a hostile community harms everyone, and the fact that local police are more willing to call ICE on criminals is of small benefit.

    I see his reasoning in the case of a 5-time deported habitual criminal, but the answer there is to deport such people immediately and not let the issue rise in the first place.

    Sure, but if the law allowed them to be deported immediately then we wouldn’t be in this situation, would we?

    I don’t know that I accept your assertions about the rate of criminality in the illegal immigrant population, but the answer to that need not be relevant to the debate. Either way, the main difference I see between a sanctuary city and a city that isn’t, lies in how they treat criminals. Are they willing to refer them to ICE or not? Is that wrong? I think not.

    So the last place you want to set illegals free is a sanctuary city.

    If you could have sent Kate Steinle’s killer, before the shooting, to a sanctuary city or (everything else being equal) a non-sanctuary city, where would you have chosen to send him? Say he committed a crime that was multi-jurisdictional and he could be prosecuteed in an sanctuary city or one that is not. Would you send him to the community that would contact ICE when criminal proceedings were over? Or to the one that would not?

    Patterico (574a19)

  151. Basically, I think that you greatly exaggerate the violent element, particularly within families, and are willing to disadvantage the bulk of them to lessen the danger of a few.

    I also think that the idea that Trump would be directly pissing off his supporters, in a way that seems a betrayal, is a feature to you.

    Perhaps you have better numbers than I do on the percentage of violent criminals among these “asylum-seekers”, and the number is much higher than I’d suppose. Please share that. But if, say, 99% of the families “seeking asylum” are not violent criminals, why does sending them into a hostile situation increase ANYONE’s safety?

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  152. And yes, the law sucks, and I would change it, too. I’d get rid of putting grandmothers of legal immigrants ahead of working families, and I’d get rid of a quota system that things that immigrants from Botswana are as likely to show up as those from Mexico.

    Trump’s idea of giving asylum-seekers a number and having them wait in Mexico is probably his best idea so far, and makes OUR argument moot. Hopefully the courts will allow it.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  153. I think presidents should act in the best interests of all the people and not just their supporters. It’s a quaint notion, I realize, but that’s what I think.

    You misspelled a word there. Perhaps “unreasonable”, “naive” or “hopeless idealistic” would fit there. This is a world where the National Earthquake Center is in Maryland.

    Politicians don’t usually betray their supporters to please their opponents.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  154. #157: Trump’s idea of giving asylum-seekers a number and having them wait in Mexico is probably his best idea so far, and makes OUR argument moot. Hopefully the courts will allow it.

    Kevin M (21ca15) — 4/15/2019 @ 1:43 pm

    Honestly…I think this is a defensible policy (assuming we’re discussing asylum seekers coming up from the southern border).

    Simply busing illegals to sanctuary cities to overwhelm those cities is really a thing to do for all those involved.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  155. *it’s really a crappy thing to do…

    WordPress didn’t like me using “expletive” bracketed by “”.

    whembly (51f28e)

  156. lol… it’s the left/right arrow bracket WordPress doesn’t like.

    whembly (51f28e)

  157. OT: The results are in. The new tax law cost me $15K in deductions, due to most of the CA tax on the sale of my house being excluded by the SALT limitation. This translated to some $3-4K in additional federal taxes.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  158. There are a couple of different scenarios to unwind. In the case of Steinle’s killer he was ICE had this guy first, and released him to a sanctuary city, knowing they would probably let him go.

    Released is a questionable word here. I think remand would be more accurate.

    But, upon his release from federal prison, rather than deport him, they turned him over to San Francisco officials

    There are a lot of faults to find with the Steinle’s case but it isn’t a case of deciding what to do with a population of individuals who’ve done nothing more serious than illegally entering the country. The Steinle’s case is really about remanding known criminals to jurisdictions that won’t reciprocate.

    For the more general situation, being released in an ICE friendly city may not be a factor. The more serious the crime the less ICE will be a deterrent. ICE would only get involved at the end of that process. It’s unclear that releasing an illegal in an ICE friendly jurisdiction makes a difference at all until you start considering recidivism.

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  159. @149. Then came Clouseau.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  160. But, upon his release from federal prison, rather than deport him, they turned him over to San Francisco officials

    Correct me if I’m wrong, lawyers, but when there is a duly-issued warrant for someone’s arrest, complying with it isn’t optional, is it?

    As I understand it, the real problem is that ICE’s detention requests do not have the same force of law. And there is a good reason for that: they are a product of the dreaded, unaccountable “administrative state”.

    Unfortunately, and for very different reasons, the hopelessly flawed status quo suits both political parties better than the obvious solution.

    Dave (01b73e)

  161. Dave (01b73e) — 4/15/2019 @ 3:44 pm

    but when there is a duly-issued warrant for someone’s arrest, complying with it isn’t optional, is it?

    For the person named in the warrant, but nobosdy else, including any law enforcement authority, is obliged to help out.

    Article 4 Section 2 clause 2 deals woth arrest warrants by a state and only fr treason, felony or other crime.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  162. For the person named in the warrant, but nobosdy else, including any law enforcement authority, is obliged to help out.

    So if John Doe is wanted for murder in LA, and is in custody for some unrelated offense in Anaheim, and the Anaheim police are aware of the murder warrant, they can decide on their own whether to hand him over or release him?

    I find that quite surprising, but thanks for the clarification.

    Dave (01b73e)

  163. Mr M wrote:

    What a truly effective President would be doing is using this to educate people on the REASONS for limiting immigration. Massive immigration swamps infrastructure, overloads social welfare agencies, drains funds intended for the poor, drives up the cost of housing and increases homelessness, makes traffic unbearable, adds to crime and encourages more immigration.

    This is a legitimate criticism.

    Much of the verbiage has been about the real thugs who have crossed over, but the majority aren’t thugs, and people can see this. The real problem is that we have had a swarm of immigrants with few job skills which fit the American economy other than manual labor, and they contribute far less to our economy than they burden our public education, infrastructure and welfare systems. If they had the skills to support themselves, they’d have been reasonably well employed in their home countries and would feel the need to emigrate.

    We want the immigrants with the education and skills to contribute to our economy and who can support themselves and their families.

    The very reasonable Dana (10ea9e)

  164. Our esteemed host wrote:

    I don’t know that I accept your assertions about the rate of criminality in the illegal immigrant population, but the answer to that need not be relevant to the debate.

    The rate of criminality is 100%.

    It’s not just that they broke the law by crossing the border, but that they must continue to break the law, every day, to stay here. Unless they are wealthy, they have to work to support themselves, and without a green card, they cannot do that legally. To work at a standard job, they need a valid immigration or Social Security number, which an illegal can supply only through fraud and forgery. If they choose to work off the books, for cash, they are evading income and payroll taxes.

    One of the dirty little secrets about illegal immigration is that the federal government loves it! Many are paying taxes into Social Security and Medicare that they cannot ever collect on, because they were paid to an either fraudulent or someone else’s Social Security number. This helps the balance of Social Security and Medicare, collecting additional taxes which do not result in system obligations at the back end.

    And the Feds know where these illegals are. A sophomore could devise the program to recognize when taxes are paid to a non-existent number, and one which would recognize that payroll taxes being paid to the same number from jobs in California and Connecticut at the same time almost certainly cannot be happening legitimately. Perhaps it’s illegal to use data from the Infernal Revenue Service and Social Security to track such data, but if it is, the law could be changed, not that Uncle Sam’s tax collectors would ever want to do that.

    The clear-thinking Dana (10ea9e)

  165. #137 Dana of many names brought this one back:

    What a truly effective President would be doing is using this to educate people on the REASONS for limiting immigration. …

    But Trump speaks only to his base, and for them the troll is enough.

    And it made me think, there are many ways to teach. Sometimes you’ve got to adapt to kinesthetic and expeditionary learners.

    It sounds like he got the attention of more than just his base too. Do you think tomorrow we’ll hear people who last month were saying more is better, and who are now saying more isn’t better, go back to saying more is better? Do you think they’ll be taken seriously if they do?

    frosty48 (6226c1)

  166. If Trump had any sense whatsoever (to begin the counterfactual) he would think a little outside the box and less provincially. Ship the entrants up to the northern reaches of Washington State, New York State and Vermont out in the sticks, and see if alot of them don’t kind of drift over the border. Less provincial and more provincial at the same time, if you get my drift. Too subtle for The Grifter and Stephen Miller? — more likely than not. It’s not like the GOP has got any first stringers running things.

    Q! (86710c)

  167. @ DRJ, who asked me (#53):

    How does identifying with and flattering dictators help Trump? Is he so insecure that he craves what they have, even though being President (despite separation of powers) gives him so much more?

    He craves recognition and praise from all quarters, including the likes of Putin and Kim — and this being obvious, they play him like the proverbial fiddle. They hand him verbal praise and pump his hand and smile for the cameras, which he then in turn uses as an excuse to hold another pep rally among his faithful, at which he can peddle absolute falsehoods like: “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea” (capitalization his). And because his dupes are desperate to avoid recognition that they’ve been duped, they swallow this happily, continuing to applaud him, even when many or most among them will acknowledge, when pressed individually, that yes, this was a deliberate falsehood on Trump’s part.

    In other words, the dictators happily give him what he needs to sustain his — and his cult members’ — fantasies that Trump’s a big shot instead of a little pisher. Letting that fantasy explode would be awful for Trump; as he sees it, it’s a far better thing for Trump that we let North Korea continue to develop its nuclear program than for him to admit the obvious truth, which is that he’s been utterly played and outclassed by a fourth-rate dictator.

    As for DRJ’s related question (#80), as to “why Trump seems to actually admire and like strongmen and dictators, apart from any political or PR motives,” is that he doesn’t actually like them, but he does envy them: They don’t have to deal with pesky foes like, oh, Susan Collins or CNN. People who disagree with him, and especially people who frustrate his whims, are not good for Trump. Nowhere on his mental or emotional map is anything called leadership of a nation that believes in self-government — because what has any of that got to do with what’s good for Trump?

    Any conceivable fix to our immigration problems requires legislation, which in turn requires compromise and quid pro quo. But Trump on the one side, and the Dems on the other, are entirely happy with the current chaos and injury, the current costs in blood and treasure, from our thoroughly dysfunctional system: Trump and the Dems are both fundraising off the controversy every day, and Trump and the Dems both plan to make immigration the centerpiece of the 2020 presidential election. I very much regret to say that I expect things to get considerably worse before they get better, but alas, that is my truthful expectation — and on a wide range of topics in addition to immigration.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  168. I never watched “The Apprentice.” Someone who did, tell me: Did the basic format ever change? Or was it pretty much that each new season brought a new sub-cast of apprentices for the public to root for or against, with Trump playing the omnipotent and omniscient bigshot presiding over the whole shooting match and punctuating it with “You’re fired!” moments?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  169. Haven’t you figured out you dont need a law or a constitutional amendment, neither a referendum if you got the right judge, they can obfuscate a executive order, for 18 months if you get the right set.

    Narciso (c6ab85)

  170. In a move that will make our host happy, President Trump now has a Republican primary challenger! (Yes, that’s a shameless blog plug!)

    Too bad that Bill Weld and his campaign were so lazy that they couldn’t add an issues page to his campaign website. At least right now, ikt has only one page, and it’s just an appeal for campaign contributions.

    The shameless Dana (10ea9e)

  171. @175. The format migrated from young wannabes to celebrities in the ratings race over the years but the basic premise remained.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  172. For the person named in the warrant, but nobosdy else, including any law enforcement authority, is obliged to help out.

    So if John Doe is wanted for murder in LA, and is in custody for some unrelated offense in Anaheim, and the Anaheim police are aware of the murder warrant, they can decide on their own whether to hand him over or release him?

    Ay doan theenk so, senior. The jurisdiction for murder is in the State of California. A murder warrant would be addressed to every law enforcement officer in California. Maybe even a warrant for unpaid LA water bills, if California has a Uniform Water Bill Scofflaw Act.

    What the sanctuary cities are doing is refusing to honor ICE’s administrative requests which is a totally different thing from judicial warrants.

    nk (dbc370)

  173. “It’s not just that they broke the law by crossing the border, but that they must continue to break the law, every day, to stay here. Unless they are wealthy, they have to work to support themselves, and without a green card, they cannot do that legally. To work at a standard job, they need a valid immigration or Social Security number, which an illegal can supply only through fraud and forgery. If they choose to work off the books, for cash, they are evading income and payroll taxes.”

    There’s another party here that’s aiding and abetting them, and who gets no notice at all, as your post shows.

    Employers.

    Davethulhu (9847a2)

  174. What the sanctuary cities are doing is refusing to honor ICE’s administrative requests which is a totally different thing from judicial warrants.

    That was original point.

    You take potato. Is gift!

    Dave (3814ea)

  175. That makes sense, Beldar. Thank you for taking your time to think about and write that. I like to understand why people do what they do.

    DRJ (15874d)

  176. That is why this quote about Trump-s mother interests me:

    The people of Lewis were amused and proud of their American son, Donald, when they first learned he was a reality-TV celebrity. But after he strong-armed mainland Scots near Aberdeen into land concessions for his “best golf course in the world,” and as his political career swerved into scandal, many in his mother’s hometown grew ashamed of him. A Facebook page called Isle of Lewis Against Trump is decorated with a photograph of a Trump troll doll. “He is not proud of his mother’s humble beginnings,” said the novelist and poet Kevin MacNeil, who lives on the Isle of Lewis. “It is hard to understand how in a single generation the values of altruism, togetherness and sheer human decency were lost. Selflessness became selfishness. A supportive sense of community became a vain-glorious arrogance.”

    Trump has claimed his mother came to America on a holiday and decided to stay in the big city, a story which causes islanders roll their eyes. It’s not clear whether MacLeod told her family this fib or whether it’s just another Trumpian alternative fact—like his claim that his German-American father was actually Swedish.

    Trump’s older sister used to accompany their mother to Lewis, but Donald visited Tong only once while he was in Scotland while inspecting work on his golf course in 2008. Scottish journalists clocked his time on the island at 180 minutes, with just 97 seconds at the MacLeod cottage. “I feel Scottish,” he proclaimed on the tarmac, his blonde pompadour wafting vertical in the island breeze.

    DRJ (15874d)

  177. Any conceivable fix to our immigration problems requires legislation, which in turn requires compromise and quid pro quo.

    The Democrat position seems to be that immigration laws shouldn’t be enforced. OR that enforcing the law – in the future – is contingent upon our granting Amnesty. I don’t understand the moral equivalence between Trump who wants to enforce the law and the Democrats who don’t. Nor do I understand people like Mitt Romney and other Republican Senators , who pretend to stand for border security – but are against any actual proposal to do so.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  178. R.I.P. Georgia Engel

    Icy (bc856f)

  179. This chaos and “Mess on the Border” can be traced directly back to people like McCain and allies in the Senate. Never was their good-faith effort to secure the border or enforce the immigration laws. Even when the R’s controlled Congress and the Presidency in 2005-2006. Instead, the American people were presented with the some old Con-job we were given under Reagan. Amnesty first. Enforcement later, maybe.

    Had McCain and Bush enforced the law, secured the border, and drastically reduced illegal immigration then the American people would have supported a reasonable Amnesty. But that wasn’t the goal, as shown by McCain’s words before he died. The goal was unlimited immigration aka open borders and cheap labor forever.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  180. Georgia Engel dead. very sad – loved her in MTM.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  181. Perhaps you have better numbers than I do on the percentage of violent criminals among these “asylum-seekers”, and the number is much higher than I’d suppose. Please share that. But if, say, 99% of the families “seeking asylum” are not violent criminals, why does sending them into a hostile situation increase ANYONE’s safety?

    I’m looking at a few data points here regarding the criminality of illegals. I think the usual media reports you see on this, makibg them sound totally law-abiding, are misleading. This might be worth a separate post.

    But before I get typing a long thing, I pause to wonder whether I should bother. After all, Kevin M, I asked you a question:

    If you could have sent Kate Steinle’s killer, before the shooting, to a sanctuary city or (everything else being equal) a non-sanctuary city, where would you have chosen to send him? Say he committed a crime that was multi-jurisdictional and he could be prosecuteed in an sanctuary city or one that is not. Would you send him to the community that would contact ICE when criminal proceedings were over? Or to the one that would not?

    And you didn’t answer it. And it’s not the first time lately that I’ve asked you a question, only to see it ignored.

    I know a lot of things get lost in comments — and I certainly can’t respond to every single question asked of me — but at the risk of making myself sound self-important, I’m the host. That doesn’t mean that my comments are smarter than any other given person’s, but if you frequen the blog and like it, surely at the very least you think my points are no to be discounted out of hand.

    I feel like if I take the time to engage you, and ask you a fair question, that I deserve an answer. I shouldn’t have to ask more than once. It’s the same principle that makes me feel like, if I addressed an issue in the post, you shouldn’t be asking me in comments for the answer I already gave in the post.

    Similarly, in response to your initial posing of the question about the statistics of how many illegals are criminals, I said:

    I don’t know that I accept your assertions about the rate of criminality in the illegal immigrant population, but the answer to that need not be relevant to the debate. Either way, the main difference I see between a sanctuary city and a city that isn’t, lies in how they treat criminals. Are they willing to refer them to ICE or not? Is that wrong? I think not.

    So the last place you want to set illegals free is a sanctuary city.

    I feel like that point was ignored too.

    So, I have a response to the question about statistics, but first I’m asking: 1) what’s your answer to the question I posed? and 2) what’s your response to the point I made about WHY we have sanctuary cities?

    Now I’m considering typing up a long answer in response to your question, but at this point I think I’ll wait for your answers first. Just to ensure that this is not a one-sided conversation.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  182. @ DRJ (#183): You’re welcome. It’s just my theory, but I’m happy to share it, and I always take seriously, and usually benefit from, your observations.

    FWIW my extended family members back in west Texas are pretty much on the same page with you. And I agree that San Antonio & Houston are likely to be in-state magnets. My impression is that there’s a very tight labor market in the Permian Basin and its fringes now (including Martin County, where I still have a fractional interest in some family farmland on which there’s been recent drilling activity). Do you think any of those released in the area will end up in oilfield jobs — or, perhaps more likely, auxiliary jobs created by the continuing boom?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  183. I don’t understand the moral equivalence between Trump who wants to enforce the law and the Democrats who don’t. Nor do I understand people like Mitt Romney and other Republican Senators , who pretend to stand for border security – but are against any actual proposal to do so.

    “Sherman, set the Wayback Machine to November 2012!”

    “OK, Mr. Peabody!”

    Donald Trump: Mean-Spirited GOP Won’t Win Elections

    The Republican Party will continue to lose presidential elections if it comes across as mean-spirited and unwelcoming toward people of color, Donald Trump tells Newsmax.

    Whether intended or not, comments and policies of Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates during this election were seen by Hispanics and Asians as hostile to them, Trump says.

    “Republicans didn’t have anything going for them with respect to Latinos and with respect to Asians,” the billionaire developer says.

    “The Democrats didn’t have a policy for dealing with illegal immigrants, but what they did have going for them is they weren’t mean-spirited about it,” Trump says. “They didn’t know what the policy was, but what they were is they were kind.”

    Romney’s solution of “self deportation” for illegal aliens made no sense and suggested that Republicans do not care about Hispanics in general, Trump says.

    “He had a crazy policy of self deportation which was maniacal,” Trump says. “It sounded as bad as it was, and he lost all of the Latino vote,” Trump notes. “He lost the Asian vote. He lost everybody who is inspired to come into this country.”

    The GOP has to develop a comprehensive policy “to take care of this incredible problem that we have with respect to immigration, with respect to people wanting to be wonderful productive citizens of this country,” Trump says.

    Oh, and:

    Looking ahead, Trump says his top-rated NBC show “Celebrity Apprentice” is now shooting its 13th season.

    Dave (1bb933)

  184. Patterico, as much as I hate Twitter — Twitter delenda est! — I think your pithy tweet is exactly on target, and expressed so clearly that a reader has to work hard to misunderstand it.

    It does employ sarcasm, and appropriately so, even elsewhere than Twitter. Stripped of that, however, and stated in the affirmative, it’s still a very pithy and powerful argument:

    Sending more illegals to places where criminals can more easily evade federal law enforcement is a truly terrible idea because it’s likely to create more victims like Kate Steinle.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  185. Munroe quotes me and then immediately talks about moral equivalences, as if I’ve constructed one. Both Trump and the Dems are fanning flames for prospective political gain, rather than having even attempting to solve any problems. Neither is remotely “moral,” and condemning both as “immoral” is a defense of neither.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  186. Sorry, I don’t recall quoting you in this thread, but I could be mistaken. Care to remind me?

    Munroe (5cd716)

  187. Patterico, as much as I hate Twitter — Twitter delenda est! — I think your pithy tweet is exactly on target, and expressed so clearly that a reader has to work hard to misunderstand it.

    It does employ sarcasm, and appropriately so, even elsewhere than Twitter. Stripped of that, however, and stated in the affirmative, it’s still a very pithy and powerful argument:

    Sending more illegals to places where criminals can more easily evade federal law enforcement is a truly terrible idea because it’s likely to create more victims like Kate Steinle.

    It seems like a remarkably simple and easy to understand argument, and yet, look how many people are ignoring it or misunderstanding it.

    I understand being angry at sanctuary cities. You can’t fairly read this post and not see my anger. But it makes absolutely no sense to give MORE illegals the benefit of the protections that sanctuary cities offer.

    Yet if you characterize it as a punishment, people love it — even though the sanctuary cities seem to love it too. (I see a lot of people saying lefties are squawking but the stories I read seem to show them welcoming the illegals.) It’s like punishing a sadomasochist by saying you’ll spank them more — only worse, because in the real life example innocent people suffer.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  188. Trump is using Alinsky’s Rules. It’s all talk so far, actually doing it will be far more difficult.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  189. By the way, I forgot to answer two questions of yours:

    1. How are sanctuary cities endangering the rule of law?

    They are using the law-enforcement machinery of their cities to protect law breakers.

    2. “If a city made murder legal, and you had a population of people who (by dint of not having been legally processed) had uncertain criminal backgrounds, would you dump MORE of those people in that city, so that MORE of them could get away with murder?”

    It depends. Is the city that just made murder legal also responsible for the fact that you have to release a bunch of people with uncertain criminal backgrounds? If so, then, yes, you should release them in that city.

    How would you answer the question, Patterico? The democratically-elected rulers of City A have learned that murderers vote reliably for their party, so they are motivated to create more murderers. In this regard, they make murder legal in their city and force City B to release a bunch of murderers who would otherwise be kept locked up. If City B releases the murderers into City B, most of them will eventually be caught again–after murdering one or more B citizens–and be put back in prison. If City B releases the murders in City A, the murders will not be caught no matter how many City A citizens they murder. Is City B morally obligated to sacrifice a few of its own citizens to save the fools of City A because they expect the murderers to do less damage in City B?

    David Gudeman (fd21bc)

  190. R.I.P. Gene Wolfe, the greatest, most challenging science fiction & fantasy writer of the past 40 years

    Icy (bc856f)

  191. If you could have sent Kate Steinle’s killer, before the shooting, to a sanctuary city or (everything else being equal) a non-sanctuary city, where would you have chosen to send him? Say he committed a crime that was multi-jurisdictional and he could be prosecuteed in an sanctuary city or one that is not. Would you send him to the community that would contact ICE when criminal proceedings were over? Or to the one that would not?

    I didn’t answer because it’s a loaded hypothetical that offers two wrong choices for a known felon.

    Your own post suggests the actual answer: neither. Deport him. ICE should not have sent him anywhere but back home — he was a felon, and a 5-time deportee; there is no provision in law that would allow him to stay.

    What they did was a typical bureaucratic dodge: make it someone else’s problem. Why? Who knows? Maybe they were short on their deportation budget, or it was too much paperwork. But sending this guy, who had NO RIGHT to be here, anywhere in the USA was wrong.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  192. I didn’t answer because it’s a loaded hypothetical that offers two wrong choices for a known felon.

    Your own post suggests the actual answer: neither. Deport him. ICE should not have sent him anywhere but back home — he was a felon, and a 5-time deportee; there is no provision in law that would allow him to stay.

    So you think criminals should escape conviction and incarceration because they are illegals?

    I sure as hell don’t think that, and nothing in my post suggests that.

    ICE sent him to San Francisco to be prosecuted for a crime. That should be an option.

    Oh, by the way, this comment of yours:

    I also think that the idea that Trump would be directly pissing off his supporters, in a way that seems a betrayal, is a feature to you.

    Is both insulting and has zero basis in anything I have ever said.

    I have always sought to have government protect citizens from criminal illegals. And I hate sanctuary cities’ policies. The notion that I would want people who oppose illegal immigration to suffer at the hands of illegal immigrants is ludicrous, entirely wrong, and so at odds with everything I have ever said that I despair you have been here for years and could think it. I’m just truly astounded, amazed, and disgusted.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  193. 1. How are sanctuary cities endangering the rule of law?

    They are using the law-enforcement machinery of their cities to protect law breakers.

    Well, let’s protect more law breakers! Woo-hoo!

    2. “If a city made murder legal, and you had a population of people who (by dint of not having been legally processed) had uncertain criminal backgrounds, would you dump MORE of those people in that city, so that MORE of them could get away with murder?”

    It depends. Is the city that just made murder legal also responsible for the fact that you have to release a bunch of people with uncertain criminal backgrounds? If so, then, yes, you should release them in that city.

    Sanctuary cities are not “responsible for” the immigration crisis, although they worsen its effects.

    Which means the premise of your hypothetical is wrong.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  194. I feel like that point was ignored too.

    No, I accept that your analysis focuses on the danger that the bad guys will do, and your choices are then driven by the best way to minimize that. I just can’t agree with that focus.

    Instead, I focus on 1) the feelings of the host community and 2) what is best for the (I think vast) majority of these alleged asylum-seekers, particularly families, given that their release is somehow required. If you wanted to separate out unaccompanied men 13-29 and send them somewhere they’d be watched more closely, or make them last to be released, fine. That would probably be better than releasing them anywhere.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  195. ICE sent him to San Francisco to be prosecuted for a crime. That should be an option.

    Oh, c’mon. You mock ICE in your own post for this decision (“Shockingly, the D.A. declined to pursue the case”). A 20yo marijuana crime, likely with no witnesses, in a state that decriminalized possession over 40 years ago? It was an asinine decision by the INS. Sure SF should have handed him back, but ICE knew what SF was before ICE dumped him there.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  196. I apologize without reservation, Munroe (#194); that was rcocean (#185) instead.

    Mea culpa maxima; I ought to have double-checked, since that would have taken no more than a CTRL-F, and I am to blame for carelessness and misattribution. I will try to do better.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  197. And I hate sanctuary cities’ policies.

    Well, so do I. I also hate the insane immigration laws, the policies that allow “magic words” to prevent deportation, the process that takes so damn long to adjudicate simple questions, and all the courts that stick their nose in. If Prop 187 had become law this issue wouldn’t be an issue today, at least not in California.

    Our divergence is that, given the insane situation, I have different ways of dealing with the world that is, and while I can wish for the world that ought to be, I can’t make decisions based on that.

    Sorry about the Trump/feature crack.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  198. The notion that I would want people who oppose illegal immigration to suffer at the hands of illegal immigrants is ludicrous, entirely wrong, and so at odds with everything I have ever said that I despair you have been here for years and could think it. I’m just truly astounded, amazed, and disgusted.

    I didn’t say that. I was suggesting that TRUMP would be harmed politically. You sometimes act as if that would be OK.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  199. However, the AP agrees with you

    https://apnews.com/e991a0409f7c475ba48e827e232b6cfe

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  200. ICE sent him to San Francisco to be prosecuted for a crime. That should be an option.

    Oh, c’mon. You mock ICE in your own post for this decision (“Shockingly, the D.A. declined to pursue the case”). A 20yo marijuana crime, likely with no witnesses, in a state that decriminalized possession over 40 years ago? It was an asinine decision by the INS. Sure SF should have handed him back, but ICE knew what SF was before ICE dumped him there.

    Quite so. But that’s not the hypothetical I asked you. I asked you:

    If you could have sent Kate Steinle’s killer, before the shooting, to a sanctuary city or (everything else being equal) a non-sanctuary city, where would you have chosen to send him? Say he committed a crime that was multi-jurisdictional and he could be prosecuteed in an sanctuary city or one that is not. Would you send him to the community that would contact ICE when criminal proceedings were over? Or to the one that would not?

    Let’s assume it’s a real crime (marjuana possession is not usually multi-jurisdictional, so it’s clear I was not positing his marijuana case as an integral part of the hypothetical). Say it’s aggravated kidnapping, which could be prosecuted at the place of taking (a sanctuary city) or at the place of arrest (not a sanctuary city). You alone must choose which jurisidiction is most appropriate.

    Are you giving a kidnapper a pass because he’s an illegal? I hope not. So what’s your answer? Stop trying to wriggle out of answering it and just answer it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  201. However, the AP agrees with you

    https://apnews.com/e991a0409f7c475ba48e827e232b6cfe

    Indeed:

    An idea floated by President Donald Trump to send immigrants from the border to “sanctuary cities” to exact revenge on Democratic foes could end up doing the migrants a favor by placing them in locations that make it easier to put down roots and stay in the country.

    The plan would put thousands of immigrants in cities that are not only welcoming to them, but also more likely to rebuff federal officials carrying out deportation orders.

    Pretty f–king self-evident.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  202. I didn’t say that. I was suggesting that TRUMP would be harmed politically. You sometimes act as if that would be OK.

    Sure. I think he’s garbage. I don’t care if he’s harmed politically.

    But I get it: he does. And if he has to risk American lives to serve his political ends, he will.

    The question is: who will applaud him for it?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  203. Well, so do I. I also hate the insane immigration laws, the policies that allow “magic words” to prevent deportation, the process that takes so damn long to adjudicate simple questions, and all the courts that stick their nose in.

    We have found a lot to agree on there.

    I wish we could agree that protecting more illegals from deportation in sanctuary cities is also a thing to hate.

    Even if it’s a good troll and the libs get owned and Trump likes it. Just because it’s dumb.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  204. Beldar (fa637a) — 4/15/2019 @ 9:32 pm

    No problem, Beldar. Thank you.

    Munroe (c13e53)

  205. If you could have sent Kate Steinle’s killer, before the shooting, to a sanctuary city or (everything else being equal) a non-sanctuary city, where would you have chosen to send him? Say he committed a crime that was multi-jurisdictional and he could be prosecuteed in an sanctuary city or one that is not. Would you send him to the community that would contact ICE when criminal proceedings were over? Or to the one that would not?

    And again, you assume that I know that this guy is a really bad guy, and then ask “who should I put at risk?” Now, if (as was not the case here) it was a multi-jurisdictional crime (a trail of hold-ups, perhaps), sure, I’d send him to the place most likely to throw the book at him, which would not be San Francisco. Perhaps Modoc County, where if he gets away he’ll die of exposure or be shot by one of the many households with guns.

    But this question is so loaded that any answer (except “San Francisco”) isn’t informative.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  206. I missed the “kidnapping” thing. But my answer would be the same.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  207. I wish we could agree that protecting more illegals from deportation in sanctuary cities is also a thing to hate.

    Well, it is, but so is dumping people on “innocent” communities. This is one of the situations where there are no good answers because all the good answers are enjoined.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  208. Surely it’s been plainly stated earlier in the thread… but how likely are people who already jumped an international border to stay in a “sanctuary” city if they do not care for it.

    It’s almost like this is just provocation for its’ own sake. Trump par excellence.

    JP (d49613)

  209. I also want to correct someone on this thread. Historical revisionism is all very well and good in a society with evolving standards of decency, but Texas did not declare war against the United States in the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln declared war against Texas after some people did something at Fort Sumter.

    nk (dbc370)

  210. This is a case where Trump clearly picked the more confrontational path. I don’t know if it helps him or hurts him. In the video he seems to be somewhat happy to be causing discomfort to his political enemies. Also his plan undercuts his statements about the danger of asylum seekers to the general public.

    But this will fire up his base, which seems to be his 2020 strategy. A different approach could have been to make a public statement along the lines of

    1. The number of families crossing the boarder and turning themselves in for asylum has overwhelmed our existing infrastructure.
    2. It’s unfair to expect the communities by the boarder to bear all of this burden.
    3. Some locations have expressed a willingness to help immigrants in a variety of ways regardless of legal status.
    4. We will be reaching out to those communities to ask them to take help. We won’t ask anyone to take more than a fair share.

    But that would almost make sense.

    Time123 (66d88c)

  211. It’s almost like this is just provocation for its’ own sake. Trump par excellence.

    Remember when Trump revoked birthright citizenship by executive order, as he promised to do a couple weeks before the midterm elections?

    Yeah, neither do I.

    Dave (1bb933)

  212. If you could have sent Kate Steinle’s killer, before the shooting, to a sanctuary city or (everything else being equal) a non-sanctuary city, where would you have chosen to send him?

    Th person who accidently killed Kate Steinle wasn’t a particularly risky person before he fired off his illegal gun. And a lot of other things had to go wrong for that to happen.

    If he had been an American citizen or legal resident he would have been put on some form of parole, even if he was also put into some form of deportation proceedings. Because he was not, and, in theory, was supposed to be deported, so he could be a risk (if any) to people in Mexico, (including American citizens visiting Mexico) he was released totally unsupervised.

    Now what happened to the person who fired the bullet that killed Kate Steinle is similar to what Julian Assange is probably hoping happens to him. Sweden has re-opened its rape case against him and is asking for his extradition, and I wonder if Julian Assange’s lawyers were behind that request.

    Julian Assange’s hope must be that he gets extradited to Sweden, not the United States, AND THEN THE CASE GETS DROPPED or resolved with a small punishment (what he did could be called rape only in Sweden) and then Sweden does not extradite him to the United States (exactly the opposite of what he claimed he was afraid Sweden might do when he first went into the Ecuadorian embassy.)

    To escape prosecution, Sweden would probably also have to offer him asylum, unless Ecuador, which made him a citizen, is prepared to shield him.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  213. 218. Time123 (66d88c) — 4/16/2019 @ 5:24 am

    But that would almost make sense.

    Trump has to make it sound

    Now if these peole are such a bad thing, well then sending them where they want to go, will punish the cities and states involved. Actually, what he’s proposing is tosave heir families, or various chartiable organizations money. Now if drops them off where they are not interested in going that would be different.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  214. 195. Patterico (115b1f) — 4/15/2019 @ 7:40 pm

    But it makes absolutely no sense to give MORE illegals the benefit of the protections that sanctuary cities offer.

    The idea is that the elected officials are hypocrites – that they’re limosine liberals – so if more migrants get sent to them (Trump will pretend he is sending them there because he can’t really send anyone where they don’t want to stay) they’ll change their minds and vote to change the law to make it harder to apply for and to qualify for asylum.

    Not true, but consistent with his claims of the dangers or problems posed by migrants. Which are supposedly both obvious and huge. They’ve got to be both obvious and enormous to justify the cruel policies.

    So, it’s mug the liberals and mug them again to get them to change their minds. Or you can call it to make them live up to the principles so they’ll change their principles. It can make sense to his base. And maybe Stephen Miller believes that. And Trump knows he can do nothing further unless Congress changes the laws.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  215. Kevin M,

    Why do some illegals choose to live in sanctuary cities? One possible reason is obviously because they feel safer there than in places where local law enforcement cooperates with ICE, where it is more likely ICE may detain and deport them if they are stopped by local law enforcement.

    Your refusal to acknowledge this possibility is undermining your analysis.

    I understand that it is satisfying to expect people in sanctuary cities to deal with the consequences of their choices. It is similar to pro-choice people wanting more abandoned babies to prove pro-life folks won’t adopt them, to show they don’t really value all lives. But we should all acknowledge that it is not smart to want abandoned babies or to release illegal immigrants into places where local law enforcement won’t help deport them if they commit more crimes.

    DRJ (15874d)

  216. Transporting illegal immigrants will probably end up as only a great idea… one of the biggest tells that it’s a great idea is that we see Democrats and the MSM (BIRM) losing their minds over it.

    Blue states should be given the latitude to experiment with leftwing policies and that cities that don’t want to take part in those mad experiments should be exempt.

    The politicians from these so-called “sanctuary cities” and sanctuary states, and loud mouth media people have made it plain that they don’t want the policies that they want to force on all the rest of us to apply to them. Make ‘em live by their rules.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  217. You’re asking the wrong question, why are sanctuary cities allowed to exist, there is a difference between cultural affinity and a legal vacuum. Like James q Wilson’s broken windows hypothesis

    Narciso (24a849)

  218. Do we really want both Parties to govern by Alinsky’s Rules? It is bad enough that one does sometimes. Why not just admit you want to be like Lord of the Flies and be done with this self-government experiment?

    DRJ (15874d)

  219. And narciso joins the Lord of the Flies Party. Just outlaw what you don’t like.

    DRJ (15874d)

  220. No if there is a vacuum where federal law doesn’t apply that is exactly the state of nature, I remember Miami was nearly like this in 1980, people were afraid to go across town .

    Narciso (24a849)

  221. Beldar,

    The big companies won’t hire them because being oil-related in these times means they have to be very careful. But there are Hispanic sections in every town where they can live and earn livings helping other (native/legal) Hispanics. And they are here.

    DRJ (15874d)

  222. We all live with a kind of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell mentality, but if they get stopped they are typically deported.

    DRJ (15874d)

  223. 228. Narciso (24a849) — 4/16/2019 @ 7:21 am

    No if there is a vacuum where federal law doesn’t apply that is exactly the state of nature, I remember Miami was nearly like this in 1980, people were afraid to go across town .

    That was State of Florida law that wasn’t being enforced, and much more so in certain sections of town, and that’s been the case in many locations since the beginning of residential segregation.

    If you want to talk about Federal law being ignored (without even a serious move in Congress to change the law, except maybe for Rand Paul) it’s the laws against dealing in and possessing marijuana. And then also the laws against importing prescription drugs from Canada or Mexico. But you don’t hear a big outcry by anyone that the laws should be enfrced, and that the laws should be enforced before anybody thinks about changing them.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  224. And again, you assume that I know that this guy is a really bad guy, and then ask “who should I put at risk?” Now, if (as was not the case here) it was a multi-jurisdictional crime (a trail of hold-ups, perhaps), sure, I’d send him to the place most likely to throw the book at him, which would not be San Francisco.

    My original question included the phrase “everything else being equal” to keep you from making up new irrelevant factors to avoid answering the question.

    You literally quoted the question including the words “everything else being equal” and then added a factor to keep everything else from being equal.

    You are playing word games, and the reason is obvious: the obvious answer to my actual question supports my point and destroys yours.

    Of course you send the person to the non-sanctuary city. Because he’s a greater danger to the public in the sanctuary city.

    Right? This is the answer, correct?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  225. I think every time Trump is able to expose the left, and make the media, NeverTrump and those who parrot them lose their mud is a win and it can’t happen often enough.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  226. 228 – I bet the lawlessness of NE Miami in those times gave a lot of slack to the lawlessness that was to arrive on the shores and migrate over to W and SW Miami. Thats maybe the only value of Mayor-elect Lightfoot’s “Welcome, Migrants” statement IRT Trump – if you black youths dont start behave better (lots of wilding going on now here), I’m gonna bring in something even worse that happens to wear blue also.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  227. It’s not really complicated, except to people who take Trump seriously but not literally. If he cares about sanctuary cities protecting illegals from the immigration laws, he will not grant illegals de facto amnesty by sending them to sanctuary cities. It’s that simple.

    But, personally, I would like to see a 100 ICE buses unloading 100 “migrants” each in front of Martin Sheen’s house in Malibu. Yes, I know it’s mean. Did you know that his family name is Estevez?

    nk (dbc370)

  228. Hey people were being shot outside a major shopping center the perpetrator the black widow is now a folk hero in our clueless latino media.

    Narciso (24a849)

  229. 224. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/16/2019 @ 7:13 am

    Blue states should be given the latitude to experiment with leftwing policies and that cities that don’t want to take part in those mad experiments should be exempt.

    You have here now given the outlines of a compromise on immigration, but probably right now there’s too many people who would think that that would mean the United States was no longer a unified country, and no other country works that way.

    But if the agitation keeps up, and it shows no signs of abating back into “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” that’s the way to go and it’s a nice question as to how long it will take the politicians to hit on it.

    It’s also in line with the Constitution of the United States, which gives no power to Congress over immigration, but only over naturalization, in the same way that the power to make bankruptcy laws gives Congress no general right to write a uniform commercial code; but it could take some time for people to see clearly that the power of Congress over immigration is an hallucination.

    It is a power reserved to the states, and even specifically referenced in Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, with any power of Congress in this field being limited to, or derivative of, the power of Congress to regulate foreign commerce and things related to national defense, AND I DON’T THINK ANY SUPREME COURT DECISION HAS EVER HELD ANY DIFFERENTLY.

    And, of course, no post-Civil War amendments ever took the power to admit immigrants away from the states.

    And if somebody takes that argument to court, the Supreme Court of the United States will rule that way, 9-0 or possibly maybe 8-1 (Alito dissenting) with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the opinion.

    I think there still would be conflicts between some cities and states like in Texas, so it’s not a complete solution.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  230. Sigh. It’s not 1807, Sammy.

    “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person”.

    A fair reading of the clause is a limited restriction (of nine years) on Congress’s plenary power to control who strolls in and out of our national borders.

    This argument that you make is like the tax protesters who claim that “incomes” under the Sixteenth Amendment do not include wages and salaries since it’s an equivalent exchange of labor for cash, but only profits from investments and windfalls that people have not worked for. Kind of fanciful.

    nk (dbc370)

  231. Little bit off my math, there. 1789 to 1808 is 19 years.

    nk (dbc370)

  232. “Of course you send the person to the non-sanctuary city. Because he’s a greater danger to the public in the sanctuary city.”

    On the contrary: Sanctuary cities are rebel provinces that have effectively placed themselves outside the normal enforcement law, and it’s better to endanger the public in those cities than to endanger the public in loyal provinces with good citizens that are worth building a country out of. You vote for screwing over the public, you get what you voted for and more.

    “Oh I do so WISH people hated sanctuary cities more, too bad we have to endanger and overstress the FUNCTIONAL cities to do the right thing!”

    Though I do like this comment:


    @RyanGirdusky

    Instead of flooding deep blue sanctuary cities with illegal aliens, he should be placing them in suburban districts that elected Dems to the House. The impact would be felt much quicker, their members are more likely to flip on Nancy, and many are not in sanctuary cities.

    Straight to every ACELA suburb!

    Johnny Law (f81342)

  233. Johnny Law joins the Lord of the Flies community.

    DRJ (d18ca6)

  234. Well, yes, of course, a Fifth Avenue Orange Skinned Orangutan would do what Johnny Law suggests. A President of the United States would take care that the Laws of the United States are faithfully executed.

    nk (dbc370)

  235. but the officials and the judicial elements don’t give a farthing, so what is one to do,

    narciso (d1f714)

  236. Plenary power has to do with the right to do something without judicial review, but not with the rights of one of the political branches against the others. Not with which political branch has authority.

    There’a another kind of doctrine which is whether or not any specific authorization in the constitution is required to do certain things but whatever that is called that is not plenary power. (the constituion for instance, assumes that a power of impeachment would exist if it said nothing)

    This is plenary power:

    https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-US-Immigration-Policy

    It says nothong about the rights of the states but iss oley cncened with de=ue process and reasonableness.

    The question here is not whether government has a power, (it does and we see what could happen without a Bill of Rights) but whether that is a power granted to the federal government or, as per the 10th amendment, reserved to the states.

    All general powers of government by default belong to the states. Power over Immigration, and especially the power to expel or deport, is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress. Per Article I, section 8, that seems to be limited to naturalization, (with states abke to discriminate any way they want against aliens) and apparently the Know Nothing (or American) party of the 1850s thought so as well.

    Any power of Congress in this area has to be derivative of something else, like national defense or the power to regulate foreign commerce. That would gove Congress some power, mainly at the border.

    The power to forbid people to hire anyone – where does that come from? The necessary and proper clause? Necessary and proper to do what?

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  237. I’ve been thinking about this.
    Our law says that people seeking asylum are given an initial interview to see if they have a credible fear. If our process finds that they do they’re given an asylum hearing.
    From what I’ve read a large part of the current problem is that families are seeking asylum and overwhelming a system that was set up to deal with individual adults who came to our country looking for work.
    So if the Trump administration chooses to release these asylum seekers on their own recognizance pending their hearing are they still in the country illegally? They may break other laws while they wait if they work for cash etc. but once Trump chooses to release they is it still criminal for them to be here?
    If your goal is to reduce all immigration it seems like putting these families in locations where they will have an easier time getting legal assistance on their asylum claim would be counterproductive.
    Also if you do this as a way to help people; the American’s who live in border communities, the people claiming to be seeking asylum, it doesn’t look like a terrible idea. If you do it as a way to ‘own the libs’ and punish your political opponents, it sets a terrible precedent. As we’ll find when the next Democratic president chooses to find savings by cutting the staff that provide federal services to red states. I imagine they’ll justify it by saying “If you really want less government we’ll give you less government.”

    Time123 (52fb0e)

  238. Time123 (52fb0e) — 4/16/2019 @ 10:54 am

    So if the Trump administration chooses to release these asylum seekers on their own recognizance pending their hearing

    The Trump Administration did not choose to release these asylum seekers on their own recognizance pending their hearing, but it was forced to by a Catch-22 and by the limit on the number of prople they could hold.

    The Catch-22 is that minors under 18 cannot be held in detention for more than 20 days pending adetermination of their asylum or other claims, but they also can’t be separated from their parents or guardians. So if someone comes with their child, they must be released by 21 days.

    Yes, the asylum claim can be turned down immediately, but not arbitrarily.

    People can also voluntarily withdraw their asylum claim and then have to be sent back at no charge within a reasonable period of time. Mexicans can just go back across the border, but people from anywhere else have to go by plane.

    Also if someone comes without a child they can only be held if there is detention space to hold them. They get released in an unannounced and what the Trump Administation hopes is an unpredictable basis.

    If there is someone in a group of people being held whom for any reason they want to continue hold, whle releasing others held at the same detention place, and he or she doesn’t have a child with them, they can continue to detain them. They just have both a minimum actually and a maximum number of people they can hold.

    are they still in the country illegally?

    No, they are not illegally present in the United States, and, as far as I understand it, under thsse conditions they have the right to work which they continue to have as long as they stay in good standing with the immigration system. You see how nobody knows anything and nobody clarifies it? I think I read the record of going to these hearings is quite good. They don’t disappear.

    They may break other laws while they wait if they work for cash etc. but once Trump chooses to release they is it still criminal for them to be here?

    It is legal both for them to be here and for them to work.

    If your goal is to reduce all immigration

    Which seems to the case with Stephen Miller, but it is not so clear with President Trump. If your goal is to reduce all immigration then you don’t want to solve or minimize the problem by legalizing immigration, or legalize “good immigration” without at the same time reducing “bad immigration” and you only look at total numbers, legal and illegal.

    it seems like putting these families in locations where they will have an easier time getting legal assistance on their asylum claim would be counterproductive.

    Trump pretends that lawyers don’t matter. They matter very much. Democrats pretend lawyers are all that is needed to deal with all “hard cases.”

    Also if you do this as a way to help people; the American’s who live in border communities, the people claiming to be seeking asylum, it doesn’t look like a terrible idea.

    Of course not. In fact it could save money for the people trying to help them, families and charitable orgaanizations, as long a it is not done in a malicious manner. But to people who believe Trump and others’ immigration propaganda, it sounds really mean.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  239. 245… these asylum seekers are being coached on how and what to answer vis-a-vis template questions asked. We need to greatly tighten things up. Seeking jobs and/or more economic opportunity are not good enough reasons to be admitted in. With the number of skirmishes, civil wars and strife around the world, we do NOT have the capacity, much less the means to address the potential amount of people who wish to come here. We have more than enough social and resource challenges as it is without importing more.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  240. OT, and they wonder why Johnny can’t read… when the revolution comes, we’ll need many walls: https://www.city-journal.org/education-policy-whiteness

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  241. yes those are soviet designed educational templates, coronello, mainstreamed by the ford and other foundations,

    narciso (d1f714)

  242. Abraham Lincoln declared war against Texas after some people did something at Fort Sumter.

    Abe never declared war on anyone. You can only “To declare war” on another country, and secession was an illegal rebellion of people who had seized control of their state governments. Texas never left the USA, so Abe couldn’t declare war on it. Instead he put down an illegal rebellion by the State Officials who’d forgotten their constitutional oath.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  243. 252. Illegal? Said who? Our country was founded by a bunch of rabblerousing secessionists who refused to recognize the right of the British parliament to tax them. Do you really believe that our founding fathers didn’t believe in the right of individual states to secede? If so, defend your position.

    Gryph (08c844)

  244. OT…

    FINNEY: But why spying instead of surveillance if you know the difference.

    JAKE TAPPER: Yes.

    MARY KATHARINE HAM, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Because they’re synonyms. That’s why.

    HAM: Surveilling Americans is indeed a very large and scary deal… And it remains one now just as it was then.

    FINNEY: …again, in using the word spying, he was trying to throw a negative connotation on —

    HAM: There’s a negative connotation on spying on American citizens.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  245. the first settlers, were privately financed the Jamestown company, and the mayflower enterprise, states like Oglethorpe, (Georgia) came by royal charter, so that’s reading the story backwards,

    remember when a few bush staffers, tried to take a gander at where bill Clinton had hung at in 1968-70, what did they call it, and how did the msm behave?

    narciso (d1f714)

  246. Do you really believe that our founding fathers didn’t believe in the right of individual states to secede? If so, defend your position.

    Show the “right to secede” in the Constitution. Its not there. Show me the quotes from Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Jay, etc. supporting the right of any state to leave the Union whenever they wished. Show me the SCOTUS case, establishing the right to secession.

    And then there’s Texas. You’d joined the Union of your own free will. The USA then went to war with protect you, and then 14 years later you’re telling the USA “Thanks for that money and lives you spent to protect us from Mexico and establish the border at the Rio Grande, but we’re leaving. Bye”. Why in the world did you JOIN the USA in 1845, if you were going to leave in 1860? If everyone had believed in the right to secede, no one would have bothered.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  247. 256. The constitution specifically states that not all rights are enumerated, and those that are, do not limit those that aren’t. It was the anti-federalists who wanted the Bill of Rights; the federalists didn’t see the need to restrict the Federal Government from exercising power it didn’t have — like the power to prevent the states from seceding.

    The Declaration of Independence was clearly written and signed by individuals who believed in a right of secession. And while that has never had the force of law, one need only dig into the Federalist Papers to know what our framers’/founders’ intent really was — that no state would or could be forced into obeisance to the federal government against their will — Until Abraham Lincoln decided to make secession illegal, essentially because “I said so.” If he had to kill a few thousand Southerners to preserve the union against their will, oh well. Gotta break few eggs to make an omelet, no?

    There is little doubt in my mind that it was Abraham Lincoln’s prosecution of The Civil War that set the stage for the modern-day crumbling of subisdiarity and true republicanism that we are witness to today. I also believe that the reason it doesn’t bother people like I believe it should, is because our grandparents’ generation knew no different; why would it bother us now?

    Gryph (08c844)

  248. um, you’re ignoring the 70 year interlude between those periods, and how we had a de facto slavery type dichotomy under jim crow, so that doesn’t fit the template,

    narciso (d1f714)

  249. Our honored host wrote:

    Of course you send the person to the non-sanctuary city. Because he’s a greater danger to the public in the sanctuary city.

    Right? This is the answer, correct?

    The sanctuary cities were carried, overwhelmingly, by Hillary Rodham Clinton. Flood them with released but potentially deportable immigrants, and maybe, maybe! the citizens see the result of voting Democratic.

    What’s that you say?

    I think presidents should act in the best interests of all the people and not just their supporters. It’s a quaint notion, I realize, but that’s what I think.

    Every presidential policy, every governmental policy, helps some people and hurts others. If a policy is going to help his supporters and hurt his political opponents, wouldn’t you expect a president to choose that option rather than the one which helps his opponents and hurts his supporters?

    The argument that placing these released immigrants in areas which are not sanctuary cities, so that ICE will get more local cooperation when the time comes to pick them up does have merit, but we have to realize that such a policy simply preserves the status quo as far as the law is concerned, creating no pressure for citizens in the sanctuary cities to change their own governments.

    Further, putting them in non-sanctuary areas creates active harm for the people there. The problem with the illegal immigrants is not the ones like Francisco Sanchez, because there are relatively few like him; the problem is that the illegals are almost universally unskilled in anything which translates to the American economy other than basic manual labor. Since the non-sanctuary areas are generally less affluent, putting the illegals there has a greater impact in increasing economic competition with, and driving down wages for, low-skilled Americans.

    At some point, you have to weigh the good and the bad aspects of both sides of the argument. To me, the bad of doing things your way outweighs the good.

    The Dana in Kentucky (10ea9e)

  250. 255. narciso (d1f714) — 4/16/2019 @ 3:03 pm remember when a few bush staffers, tried to take a gander at where bill Clinton had hung at in 1968-70, what did they call it, and how did the msm behave? </blockquote. They didn't do that, or it was ginned up by Bill Clinton – where he gone was known – the soviet Uniopn and Czechoslavakia – and he didn't see any dissidents as far as is known – it was called Passportgate – and Bill Clinton wanted to inoculate anybody against ever looking at his passport file, because I have concluded, it would have revealed the date of borth he used in 1968. I think Bill Clinton changed his date of birth to avoid the draft.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  251. I bring that up, because spying was certainly what was being contemplated then, now john brennan’s company, was ‘running with scissors’ looking at everybody’s record, funny whatever happened to him, oh as director he hacked the senate intelligence committee’s computers,

    narciso (d1f714)

  252. There is little doubt in my mind that it was Abraham Lincoln’s prosecution of The Civil War that set the stage for the modern-day crumbling of subisdiarity and true republicanism that we are witness to today

    No, it was Jefferson Davis and his gang of Slave-holders that destroyed “States Rights” as a bulwark of the Republic. When did Davis – and his Confederate Government – ever show any love for “States Rights” when he established his Confederacy? All their bosh about “States Rights” only existed when it benefited them, and the Plantation Owners. Mysteriously, the South stopped croaking about “States Rights” when all those Yankee dollars starting flowing Southwards under FDR. Its a tragedy, because Federalism SHOULD be what the USA is all about.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  253. Remember when Trump revoked birthright citizenship by executive order, as he promised to do a couple weeks before the midterm elections?

    Probably because he can’t. At best he could issue an executive order “interpreting” the 14th Amendment to exclude transient births (aka citizenship tourism), claiming that casual international travel was never anticipated in 1866.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  254. And he still might lose.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  255. meanwhile In adventures in category error,

    https://twitter.com/alimhaider/status/1118207330875772928

    narciso (d1f714)

  256. My original question included the phrase “everything else being equal” to keep you from making up new irrelevant factors to avoid answering the question.

    Except for the kidnapping?

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  257. rocean wrote:

    And then there’s Texas. You’d joined the Union of your own free will. The USA then went to war with protect you, and then 14 years later you’re telling the USA “Thanks for that money and lives you spent to protect us from Mexico and establish the border at the Rio Grande, but we’re leaving. Bye”. Why in the world did you JOIN the USA in 1845, if you were going to leave in 1860? If everyone had believed in the right to secede, no one would have bothered.

    I am somewhat amused by United States policies which have supported the right of secession in so many other places: Half of the old Soviet Union, the Horn of Africa, and even some support of the Chechnyan rebels. But in the good ol’ US of A? Nope, not a word of it!

    The United Colonies believed that they had the right to secede from Great Britain, and fought a war to make it so. The Confederate States believed that they had a right to secede from the United States, and fought a war to make it so.

    The only real difference? The colonies won, and the Confederates lost. It’s not philosophy that wins, it’s military power.

    The Confederate Dana (10ea9e)

  258. Nah! Some people in Charleston did something and that racist hypocrite Abraham Lincoln used it as an excuse to incite violence against a whole religion, Southern Baptists. That’s all that happened.

    nk (dbc370)

  259. I said “the place more likely to throw the book at him.” Now, your theory suggests that the sanctuary city would be less likely to do that, but then say “everything else being equal” means they wouldn’t.

    I’m confused. If a sanctuary city is EXACTLY like a non-sanctuary city in the way they handle kidnapping suspects, they why should it matter where I send them? Do they let illegal alien kidnappers off as a matter of policy in a sanctuary city?

    I do know that SF is a place that is less likely to treat serious crime seriously than, say, Merced, and was that way long before it was a sanctuary city.

    I am really tired of this game. Asked and answered. You don’t like my answer and/or think it’s evasive, fine.

    As I told you my thinking on what to do with persons that the courts mandate be released and who are not known to be felonious is based on

    1) what is best for the community they are placed in, and
    2) after that what is safest for them.

    If there are people who ICE has that are actual or suspected felons, and they are to be released for trial, they should be released only to those places that guarantee a return to ICE custody. Failing that they can stay in ICE custody until such agreement is reached, or deported as ICE sees fit.

    This is, of course, not satisfactory, but there is no reason why the federal government should respect writs from a community that won’t respect federal writs. They should also not get any federal funds, but apparently than only works if you piss off the left.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  260. So they should be unloaded in Non-Sanctuary cities?

    DN (116571)

  261. If you’re going to invoke the Declaration of Independence to defend the treason of slave-holders, let’s remember all of:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    When you kill someone, and claim to have acted in self-defense, it matters whether you were actually acting in self-defense. Likewise, when you take up arms to destroy a democratic government, claiming it has violated your fundamental rights, it matters whether the government has actually violated your fundamental rights.

    It’s not complicated. The colonists had the facts on their side, the slave-holders did not.

    Indeed, far from any “long chain of abuses and usurpations … evinc[ing] a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism,” the slave-holders had firmly controlled all three branches of the government since the founding of the republic, and claimed the right to secede merely due to the fact that someone elected on the platform of limiting further expansion of their power was going to take office in a few months.

    If Lincoln had actually taken office and done anything untoward, the slave-holders would have at least had a colorable (no pun intended…) argument for rebellion. But that’s not how it went down.

    Dave (d2c4f2)

  262. The United Colonies believed that they had the right to secede from Great Britain, and fought a war to make it so. The Confederate States believed that they had a right to secede from the United States, and fought a war to make it so.

    The only real difference? The colonies won, and the Confederates lost.

    No, the real difference is that the colonies were right in their belief, and the so-called Confederate States were wrong.

    Dave (d2c4f2)

  263. Dave, the slave states had lost the House and the electoral college by 1824 (earliest I can find data). Out of 261 electoral votes they had 114 (and with an even Senate, the House was 123-90).

    https://uselectionatlas.org/ (wonderful site)

    They held the Senate by compromise only, 12 states out of 24. Every time a new state entered it was the same old crisis, and Lincoln’s election made it clear that no more compromises would happen.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  264. No, the real difference is that the colonies were right in their belief, and the so-called Confederate States were wrong.

    As was seen in Lincoln v Davis.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  265. 272: This is counting Maryland and Delaware as slave states.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  266. If a sanctuary city is EXACTLY like a non-sanctuary city in the way they handle kidnapping suspects, they why should it matter where I send them? Do they let illegal alien kidnappers off as a matter of policy in a sanctuary city?

    Sanctuary cities release them after they serve any sentence, so they are still in the US. Other places turn them over to ICE and they are usually deported, so they are no longer in the US. as a rule, people who remain in the US pose a greater threat to Americans than people who are not in the US.

    DRJ (15874d)

  267. Um so if they were slave states that was the nature of their regime, no Lincoln as you say posed a threat to their political order. One can rightly say he was supposed to, in light of the regime of Jim crow

    Narciso (1d2840)

  268. The United Colonies believed that they had the right to secede from Great Britain, and fought a war to make it so. The Confederate States believed that they had a right to secede from the United States, and fought a war to make it so.

    A small but important distinction. In 1775-82 the colonies were not exercising any supposed right to secede. They were exercising the right of revolution (the right the Second Amendment was meant to bolster). In 1861, the seceding states maintained their existing state governments. The 13 Colonies, on the other hand, wrote themselves constitutions and established completely new governments. The Declaration in Congress of July 2, 1776 was a document which detailed all the reasons which justified exercising the right of revolution.

    Kishnevi (dbdcc5)

  269. The Dana in Kentucky (10ea9e) — 4/16/2019 @ 3:20 pm

    You are merely giving the reasons for releasing these migrants in the locations which can best handle them. Which may or may not be “Sanctuary” cities.

    Kishnevi (dbdcc5)

  270. Um so if they were slave states that was the nature of their regime, no Lincoln as you say posed a threat to their political order. One can rightly say he was supposed to, in light of the regime of Jim crow

    Narciso (1d2840) — 4/16/2019 @ 6:31 pm

    This reads like it was written in Chinese, translated through multiple languages before ending up in English. It appears it was then read aloud to a Greek who had learned English in school as a boy but not tried to use it in many years.

    In short, although I know what every word you used means, I have no idea what you’re actually trying to say.

    Credit where Credit is due. All of your randomly chosen words are spelled correctly.

    Time123 (ca85c9)

  271. 272. The correctness of the South’s belief in slavery is not in question here. What is in question is whether they had a right to secede, which the founders of our nation and the framers of our constitution clearly believed they did. The idea that a state could be forced to belong to a constitutional compact against its will led down a dark path that we are still traveling today.

    Gryph (08c844)

  272. There is something twisted and deeply wrong with these Democrat politicians in New York: https://nypost.com/2019/04/16/dreamers-over-heroes-as-albany-did-reflects-the-new-norm/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  273. 262. So Jefferson Davis destroyed the foundation of our Republic by exercising a right that our founding fathers believed in. You might as well try to argue to me that it’s raining because the ground is wet. I think you have your cause-and-effect mixed up there.

    Gryph (08c844)

  274. Gryph, if what you’re saying is true then why did the articles of the confederacy specifically prohibit confederate states from succeeding from the confederacy?

    Time123 (d54166)

  275. Gryph, it is not actually clear what the Founders believed on the idea. A whole passel of people in the early 19th century (including that notorious Southern slaveholder Andrew Jackson) disputed the idea. T. Jefferson proposed nothing more radical than nullification, not secession.

    The real problem is that Southern use of States’ Rights to defend first slavery and then Jim Crow poisoned the well, so to speak.

    Kishnevi (dbdcc5)

  276. @262 and 284 Also, why call your document “Articles of confederation and perpetual union..”

    “Perpetual” indicates they didn’t see secession as an option, as perpetual is a mighty dang long time.

    JRH (8f59ea)

  277. 285. Read (or re-read) the Federalist Papers, Kish. It is quite clear to anyone who is willing to take the time to do the minimal amount of research that our founding fathers believed that the integrity of the republic was dependant on the willingness of its participants.

    The question of nullification was whether state legislatures could nullify individual acts of Congress. In that, you are correct to point out that issue was not so clear-cut. But the reason so little is said about secession in the constitution and in the Federalist Papers is because that right, much like the rights to self-defense and free speech, was seen as so self-evident that it didn’t need much in the way of discussion or debate.

    And yes, I also get that the issues of slavery and Jim Crow make the discussion of secession rather…unpalatable in the political sense. But tender emotion aside, on what legal basis does the Federal Government have the authority to force participation in and acceptance of its authority?

    Gryph (08c844)

  278. 284. I can sum that up in one word: Politics. And I think a large part of the politics of that particular clause was the fear of a slave revolt. That doesn’t change the fact that the founding fathers of the United States of America believed in the right of secession. Not all governments throughout history have recognized many of the natural rights that America does (or did).

    Gryph (08c844)

  279. “The Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever.” — James Madison.

    JRH (8f59ea)

  280. 286. Did they not see secession as an option, or is it more likely they did not see it as a likelihood?

    Let me put it to you this way:

    In the main body of the constitution, that is the five articles, the powers of the federal government are very carefully delineated and enumerated. Doing so was seen by the framers as a natural method of limiting those powers. FedGov could not act, accept according to the powers surrendered to it by the states.

    Conversely, the states are forbidden from doing certain things, thus reserving to the states those powers not expressly delegated to the Federal. Sound familiar? It should. That was the reasoning for the 9th and 10th amendments in the Bill of Rights. The anti-federalists, who fought against the ratification of the constitution, demanded a bill of rights because they wanted it explicitly spelled out what FedGov could not do. The federalists feared that enumerating rights would necessarily limit them, just as enumerating federal powers was supposed to.

    And so I ask again: What is the legal authority that makes secession illegal, outside of Abraham Lincoln’s personal fiat?

    Gryph (08c844)

  281. 289. Except the way you argue against secession, you make it sound like the constitution is written in stone and absolutely unchangeable — which it is not. What is the legal authority for declaring secession illegal, as someone upthread did?

    Gryph (08c844)

  282. What is in question is whether they had a right to secede, which the founders of our nation and the framers of our constitution clearly believed they did.

    The founders affirmed the right of rebellion “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism”.

    That situation did not exist vis-a-vis the southern states in December 1860. Not even close.

    To argue otherwise is abject sophistry.

    Dave (1bb933)

  283. BTW, I blame nk’s elite trolling skills for derailing what had been a perfectly good Trump-bashing thread.

    For shame, sir!

    Dave (1bb933)

  284. Not guilty:

    I also want to correct someone on this thread. Historical revisionism is all very well and good in a society with evolving standards of decency, but Texas did not declare war against the United States in the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln declared war against Texas after some people did something at Fort Sumter.
    nk (dbc370) — 4/16/2019 @ 5:13 am

    Nah! Some people in Charleston did something and that racist hypocrite Abraham Lincoln used it as an excuse to incite violence against a whole religion, Southern Baptists. That’s all that happened.

    nk (dbc370) — 4/16/2019 @ 4:09 pm

    That is all I said.

    nk (dbc370)

  285. @291. You said above “that the founding fathers of the United States of America believed in the right of secession.” Madison at least did not think the States should reserve the right to withdraw from the Union. Washington used the word “indissoluble” to refer to the union. So then it appears to be a mistake to refer to “the founders” as a monolith. It seems to me self-evident that a right to secede at any time is an existential threat to to the Union by definition.

    JRH (8f59ea)

  286. Like blood brothers, or marriage. You don’t just up and leave without consequences (well, you do, but you shouldn’t).

    JRH (8f59ea)

  287. “When any one state in the American Union refuses obedience to the Confederation by which they have bound themselves, the rest have a natural right to compel them to obedience. Congress would probably exercise long patience before they would recur to force; but if the case ultimately required it, they would use that recurrence.” – Thomas Jefferson, answers to Demeneunier’s First Queries, 24 January, 1786.

    JRH (8f59ea)

  288. Why do some illegals choose to live in sanctuary cities? One possible reason is obviously because they feel safer there than in places where local law enforcement cooperates with ICE, where it is more likely ICE may detain and deport them if they are stopped by local law enforcement.

    Of course that is part of it … but conversely ICE might be more active there, just for that reason. Yes, warrants might not be acted upon, but they might find themselves rounded up at the hiring hall instead. I’m told that Home Depot is no longer a safe space for illegals to find day work (haven’t been in SoCal lately though).

    There are other reasons, such as a existing community of fellow immigrants where they hope to find acceptance, a common language, and possibly help from churches or others in the community. I doubt there is a Catholic church in the US that will turn in an Hispanic illegal. The communities did not form because of the sanctuary status, but the other way around. CA politicians noted that the state is 40% Hispanic and realized there is no game left.

    In any event, no matter where ICE sends them, intercity buses aren’t expensive and they can always go to LA or SF, even if they are released in Des Moines.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  289. Lincoln was a threat to the established order, even though he was a moderate abolitionist If any. Unlike Seward or Fremont. What happens in a nation which is half serf and half free, we had 75 years of it.

    Narciso (f842ce)

  290. What part of that are persons with false documentation that is the key.

    Narciso (f842ce)

  291. Sanctuary cities release them after they serve any sentence, so they are still in the US. Other places turn them over to ICE and they are usually deported, so they are no longer in the US. as a rule, people who remain in the US pose a greater threat to Americans than people who are not in the US.

    This is a fairly reckless choice that the sanctuary cities make, and the possible consequences of their recklessness are obvious. Pretty sure that cities don’t have sovereign immunity. Why doesn’t someone sue for wrongful death, criminal endangerment,etc. Maybe the DoJ should file a civil rights case against the sheriff in federal court.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  292. And, never mind all the hypotheticals, in the actual case ICE should have deported the guy in the first place.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  293. What happens in a nation which is half serf and half free

    We may find out soon

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  294. Meanwhile, here in New Mexico, the majority of counties have voted themselves “2nd Amendment Sanctuaries” after the new Democrat governor pushed through some gun control laws, where there were almost none before (There is no gun registration, and the only rule is that you need a permit if you conceal a handgun. Keeping it loaded on the passenger seat of your car is no problem.)

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  295. If charged with possession of an illegal firearm in New Mexico just insist that it’s undocumented.

    Colonel Haiku (79c376)

  296. Given what you’ve described about loaded weapons on the car seat, Kevin, I would imagine cases of “road rage” are few and far between?

    Colonel Haiku (79c376)

  297. It’s not a problem, and most of us don’t do that.

    The new law that has everybody up in arms is a background check on private gun sales. It’s a bit different here than California.

    OTOH, they snuck through a bill joining the Electoral Vote Compact, which appears now to be a Democrat Party mandate on states Dems control.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  298. It is suggested, but not required, that if you get pulled over you do whatever you can to make the officer feel more comfortable. Picking the gun up and waving it around is not among the suggestions.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  299. The no-trumpers have their guy – Bill Weld. Cheers to the drunkard. 99 bottles of beer on the wall.

    mg (8cbc69)

  300. @297 –

    TJ also said this:

    “I will in the mean time give you my ideas to reflect on. That the principles already advanced by Virginia & Kentucky are not to be yielded in silence, I presume we all agree. I should propose a declaration or resolution by their legislatures on this plan. 1st. answer the reasonings of such of the states as have ventured into the field of reason, & that of the Committee of Congress. Here they have given us all the advantage we could wish. Take some notice of those states who have either not answered at all, or answered without reasoning. 2. Make a firm protestation against the principle & the precedent; and a reservation of the rights resulting to us from these palpable violations of the constitutional compact by the Federal government, and the approbation or acquiescence of the several co-states; so that we may hereafter do, what we might now rightfully do, whenever repetitions of these and other violations shall make it evident that the federal government, disregarding the limitations of the federal compact, mean to exercise powers over us to which we have never assented. 3. Express in affectionate & conciliatory language our warm attachment to union with our sister-states, and to the instrument & principles by which we are united; that we are willing to sacrifice to this every thing except those rights of self-government the securing of which was the object of that compact; that not at all disposed to make every measure of error or wrong a cause of scission [separation], we are willing to view with indulgence to wait with patience till those passions & delusions shall have passed over which the federal government have artfully & successfully excited to cover its own abuses & to conceal its designs; fully confident that the good sense of the American people and their attachment to those very rights which we are now vindicating will, before it shall be too late, rally with us round the true principles of our federal compact; but determined, were we to be disappointed in this, to sever ourselves from that union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, & in which alone we see liberty, safety & happiness.” (Letter from Jefferson to James Madison, August 23, 1799)​

    and, years later, this:

    “If any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation with the 1st alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, “Let us separate.” I would rather the states should withdraw, which are for unlimited commerce & war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace & agriculture. I know that every nation in Europe would join in sincere amity with the latter, & hold the former at arm’s length by jealousies, prohibitions, restrictions, vexations & war.” (Letter from Jefferson to William Crawford, June 20, 1816)​

    Matador (39e0cd)

  301. 307. Kevin M (21ca15) — 4/16/2019 @ 11:41 pm

    TOH, they snuck through a bill joining the Electoral Vote Compact, which appears now to be a Democrat Party mandate on states Dems control.

    Ths is snake oil, actually, like a lot of other things.

    Now sattes can do that, because they ahve plenary power to appoint Electors any way they want to, except that they must all be choden on the same day ( a day choden by Congress) in all the states.

    What makes this very interesting is what if a state mandates that no presidential candidate can appear on the ballot unless he releases his income tax returns. They can do that. Now, if that were alone, all that would have to happen is that – let us say the state Republican Party – would sbstitute anither name for that Donald Trump as the name of the candidae they are pledged to, and let everyone know hat if elected they’d vote for Donald Trump. e.g. Mike Oence for President and whoever for Vice President = Donald Trump for President and Mike Pence for Vice President.

    But now, who do you count the votes for according to the compact?

    This could deprive Donald Trump of a popular vote pluraity even though he really had it in thsi ituation. Now this is not going to affect California anytime soon, because if California is ever carried by anon-Democrat, the Democrat wouldn’t even come close to having a popular vote pluraity.

    But what if one of the states in the compact is carried by Donald Trump? *+(perhaos because theer was a shift in partisan sentiment in that state or because the Democratic nominee was particularly unpopulAR)

    The Democratic Electors would be chosen even though the Republican nominee had both a popular vote and standard Electoral College majority?

    And then, what if you don’t have this complication, but it is hard to tell who won the popular vote.

    And we’d certainly have more uncertainty as to whom various Electors would actually vote for. Trump lost 2 in 2016 (Hillary lost a few also. She lost 5 and 3 more were prevented. Two were replaced and one reverted back on a second ballot) They all voted for third names like Colin Powell, Bernie Sanders, John Kasich, Ron Paul or somebody they wanted to call attention to.

    An Electoral College vote total on Election Night of 306-232 Trump to Clinton, became 304-227-3-1-1-1-1.

    https://dqydj.com/how-many-faithless-electors-2016/

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  302. 292. What they are arguing is not a (natural) right of revolution or rebellion that can never be signed away; but that the Union carries with it a plenary right of secession, whether done for a good reason or a bad reason or a terrible reason.

    Lincoln didn’t immediately challenge it until South Carolina attempted to interfere with the provisioning and re-supply of the garrison at Fort Sumter.

    Because,,,even if you held there was a right of secession, you couldn’t hold there was a right to federal government property or to attack the armed forces of the United States.

    What had happened in the South (among white men of course) was that, just as in the previous 25 years it had become impossible to argue against slavery, it now became impossible to argue against the merits of secession. But the more moderate people did succeed in taking control of it away from the Fire Eaters.

    The reason for secession was that, with slavery held in disrepute and local abolition deemed impossible, no politician from that state could ever hope to hold national office, even in the Cabinet. So the Fire Eaters wanted to create a separate country as a field for their ambitions.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  303. Lincoln didn’t immediately challenge it until South Carolina attempted to interfere with the provisioning and re-supply of the garrison at Fort Sumter.

    The resupply was the challenge:

    Matador (39e0cd)

  304. I don’t think that there is much dispute among historians that Lincoln deliberately provoked the Fort Sumter incident in order to start a war with the Confederacy. He was not going to let them walk away, Renee.

    nk (dbc370)

  305. What we were all taught wrongly for 150 years was that the war was about slavery. The Supreme Court finally set us straight on that in 2015, in the case of Hodges v. Obergefell. It was so that Harriet Beecher Stowe could marry Harriet S. Tubman.

    nk (dbc370)

  306. Heh!

    Matador (39e0cd)

  307. And if there ever was an example of short-sighted zealotry …. When former altar boys in Massachusetts legalized Boston Marriages, some people tried to make it illegal by amending the U.S. Constitution to make the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman uniform in all the states. Well, Anthony Kennedy showed them how they would have been a lot better off with with an amendment that would very likely have been ratified — that the definition of marriage is exclusively the province of each state and it need to recognize only its own marriage laws and not those of any other state.

    nk (dbc370)

  308. Dave wrote:

    The United Colonies believed that they had the right to secede from Great Britain, and fought a war to make it so. The Confederate States believed that they had a right to secede from the United States, and fought a war to make it so.

    The only real difference? The colonies won, and the Confederates lost.

    No, the real difference is that the colonies were right in their belief, and the so-called Confederate States were wrong.

    By the morals and ethics of 21st century America, sure, they were wrong; by the morals and ethics of 1961, it’s a different story. You judging mid-nineteenth century people like that is no different from the knuckleheads who want to take George Washington’s and Thomas Jefferson’s names off of public buildings because they were slaveowners.

    Might makes right! Had the Confederates won, slavery would have been perfectly moral. Had the British prevailed, General Washington and his compatriots would have been traitors.

    The Confederate Dana (10ea9e)

  309. Treason doth never prosper,
    What’s the reason?
    For if it prosper,
    None dare call it Treason. — John Harrington

    “History is a fable agreed upon.” — Napoleon

    nk (dbc370)

  310. I wonder if Dave is down with our (for the moment, anyway) pro-life CIC raising an army to invade and conquer the abortion states?

    The law be damned, the pro-lifers are right in their belief and the abortion states are wrong.

    Matador (39e0cd)

  311. And let’s face it: slavery as an institution would have died out by the end of the nineteenth century anyway, because it was a terrible economic system. Industrialization was making headway even in agriculture, and large numbers of slaves meant a large population which had to be housed and fed. As mechanization reduced the need for manual labor, slavery would have slowly withered away.

    Kentucky — which never did secede, but initially declared neutrality — might have been the first of the southern states to abolish slavery, because the nature of our economy made slavery less important; the slave population in the Bluegrass State was small, and there were few large plantations. Maryland and Delaware were slave states with similar economic situations.

    The historian Dana (10ea9e)

  312. Of course that is part of it … but conversely ICE might be more active there, just for that reason. Yes, warrants might not be acted upon, but they might find themselves rounded up at the hiring hall instead. I’m told that Home Depot is no longer a safe space for illegals to find day work (haven’t been in SoCal lately though).

    Fair point, Kevin, but it will take more time and resources to do that, as opposed to a system where lcoal law enforcement notifies and turns over to ICE criminals who are here illegally. We have finite resources, especially now when it comes to immigration.

    DRJ (15874d)

  313. Plus, we know ICE is getting illegal immigrants charged with crimes in non-sanctuary cities. Random sweeps will not be as fruitful.

    DRJ (15874d)

  314. Blackbirding — the importation of essentially slave labor — continued well into the 20th century, and is still going on in many parts of the world, Dana from Kentucky. Slave breeding, yes, I suppose that would have gone the way Frederick Douglass militated for.

    nk (dbc370)

  315. Which brings us back to the discussion. Illegal alien workers. Why for you think the rich jerkoffs, in Malibu and elsewhere, want them here for?

    nk (dbc370)

  316. That is all I said.

    You’re a bad person.

    Dave (1bb933)

  317. Matador (39e0cd) — 4/17/2019 @ 6:57 am

    The resupply was the challenge: </blockquote. In the meantime, a lot of federal property and military supplies had been transferred by President James Buchanan's last Secretary of War. Edwin M. Stanton, by the way, was Buchanan's last Attorney General. I wondrr what kind f legal advice he gave? He had wroten an opinion before his appointment that secession for use by his mentor, Jeremiah Black (who was moved to State to replace Lewis Cass the 1848 Democratic presidential nominee) who had resigned because of Buchanan's temporizing.)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Stanton

    On December 30 [1860] Black came to Stanton’s home, and the two agreed to pen their objections to Buchanan ordering a withdrawal from Fort Sumter. If he did such a thing, the two men, along with Postmaster General Holt, agreed that they would resign, delivering a crippling blow to the administration. Buchanan obliged them.[67][Note 2]

    The South Carolinian delegates got their response from President Buchanan on New Year’s Eve 1860; the President would not withdraw forces from Charleston Harbor.[69] ..

    Note 2: In years subsequent, and after a falling out between him and Stanton, Black said that it was he, and he alone, that authored the document and was responsible for Buchanan’s decision. Stanton did not deny this, merely saying that he was part of the process. It should be noted though, that in a letter to a friend, Stanton said that, at that moment, Black was going to the White House to “present the written objections, which [Stanton had] just prepared.”[68]

    Abraham Lincoln later appointed Stanton as his second Secretary of War, to replace the corrupt Simon Cameron, and he stayed there until 1868. Attempting to remove him was the cause of President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment. When Johnson was not convicted by the Senate, Stanton resigned.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  318. “And let’s face it: slavery as an institution would have died out by the end of the nineteenth century anyway”

    “Kentucky — which never did secede, but initially declared neutrality — might have been the first of the southern states to abolish slavery”

    Slavery was baked into the Confederate Constitution.

    “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.”

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  319. 323. The historian Dana (10ea9e) — 4/17/2019 @ 7:47 am

    And let’s face it: slavery as an institution would have died out by the end of the nineteenth century anyway, because it was a terrible economic system.

    That’s what they said later, but nobody was saying that in 1861.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  320. However, Kevin M, I also agree illegal immigrants will decide where they end up. Let’s assume the GOP decided to prove that sanctuary cities are bad ideas by supporting a policy that illegals should only be released to sanctuary cities. Assume further that the GOP did that because it wanted to let bad consequences happen, like Tough Love, to prove it hurts people to have sanctuary cities. Illegals can still travel anywhere in the lower 48 once they are here … and they will.

    DRJ (15874d)

  321. It might very well have been uneconomic. It was a strange thing that they needed to own a person in order to get him to work them. They ahdn;’t realized that, though, until after the 13th amendment.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  322. DRJ (15874d) — 4/17/2019 @ 8:39 am

    Illegals can still travel anywhere in the lower 48 once they are here … and they will

    But, by and large, they’ll stay where they are legal.

    And then some of the anti-immigrant states and localities will legalize some or all of them, in order so that national businesses should locate there (where would you put a warehouse? Where would you put a tech company? A place where some people you want to hire are ineligible, or a place where you can hire more people?)

    And also so that agricultural businesses would have people.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  323. IMO the reason some Republicans want to release illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities is that some, like Trump, think it is a good way to GET EVEN with the Democrats who populate and support sanctuary cities. Some Democrats want the government to put illegals in sanctuary cities because they think they will make better decisions about how to help them. But I think many, maybe most, Democrats and Republicans believe illegals pose problems and some dangers to communities.

    DRJ (15874d)

  324. And the risks aren’t worth it.

    DRJ (15874d)

  325. I wonder if Dave is down with our (for the moment, anyway) pro-life CIC raising an army to invade and conquer the abortion states?
    The law be damned, the pro-lifers are right in their belief and the abortion states are wrong.

    Whether the southern states were being subjected to tyranny in December 1860 is not a matter of opinion. It is a question of fact.

    Let’s look at just how absurd it is to argue any similarly between the situations in July 1776 with December 1860.

    By July 1776, parts of America had been under military occupation, with soldiers quartered in the homes of unwilling private citizens, and marshal law for over two years (June 1774 – Quartering Act). The elected governments of some colonies had been outlawed by Parliament (May 1774 – Massachusetts Government Act). Some American ports had been under blockade by the Royal Navy for over two years (March 1774 – Boston Port Act). Due process and the right to trial by a jury of peers had been suspended (May 1774 – Administration of Justice Act). British regular armies, thousands strong, had fought pitched battles against citizen-soldiers literally defending their own homes. The Royal Navy had shelled American towns from the sea. The British had actively incited Cherokee attacks and atrocities on the southern frontier.

    In December 1860, the slave-drivers had lost a fairly-contested election and the winner was still three months away from taking office. The lame-duck president and secretary of war were sympathetic to their cause, and the latter (soon to be a Confederate general) surreptitiously transferred hundreds of thousands of rifles and vast supplies of ammunition to the rebelling states, so they could be seized and used against the government he supposedly served.

    If Lincoln had disbanded the government and courts of South Carolina, placed Charleston under military occupation and marshal law, excluded its representatives from Congress, blockaded it from the sea, shelled, and pressed large-scale miltary attacks on nearby cities and towns, for over two years before any secession ordinance was passed, THEN the situations would be similar.

    Dave (1bb933)

  326. It was all about the Benjamins. Benjamin Franklin in 1776, and Judah Phillip Benjamin (successively Attorney General, Secretary of War, and Secretary of State of the Confederacy) in 1861.

    nk (dbc370)

  327. @310. “If any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation with the 1st alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying, “Let us separate.”

    One distinction we haven’t made is between unilateral secession and mutual separation. While Jefferson was a man of contradictions, and I wouldn’t put it past him to have advocated for both right to secession and indissolubility, I suspect he and most of the Founders would not have supported a State’s right to unilaterally withdraw from the Union. Look how the Union was formed. With much discussion and writing and pontificating and meeting and deliberating. I suspect the Founders would have supported secession by the same means, but not unilaterally and not under arms.

    JRH (8f59ea)

  328. Otherwise, what’s the point of Union at all? If any member can walk away at any time why painstakingly construct a “more perfect Union?” Why not just remain a loose association of entities.

    JRH (8f59ea)

  329. 335. DRJ (15874d) — 4/17/2019 @ 8:45 am

    But I think many, maybe most, Democrats and Republicans believe illegals pose problems and some dangers to communities.

    No, they don’t.

    The biggest difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats are in favor of family reunification and Republicans are against, at least those most prominent in the Republican party..

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  330. I believe the Founders and Lincoln wanted our nation to be successful and last, and they acted to try to make that happen. But if the Founders really believed ours is a government that operates based on the “consent of the governed” and if Lincoln thought government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” then shouldn’t the Will of the people matter, too?

    DRJ (15874d)

  331. I am not talking about political leaders, Sammy. I am talking about everyday people. I obviously don’t know everyone in America but most people aren’t taking illegals into their homes.

    DRJ (15874d)

  332. FWIW I think Dave’s 337 is convincing re the Civil War.

    DRJ (15874d)

  333. Jonah weighs in humorously, if belatedly:

    Trump Is Hell-Bent on ‘Owning the Libs’

    During the 2016 campaign, Trump made Kate Steinle, the San Francisco woman who was tragically shot and killed by a man who’d been previously deported five times, into a martyr for his cause. Trump’s logic suggests we need more Kate Steinles to own the libs.

    Trump’s trolling could pay off if some Democrats — say, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York — call on Pelosi and Congress to take the president up on his offer. Then, Trump could say, “See! The Democrats really do want open borders!”

    That such a scenario is not unimaginable is further proof that our politics can always get dumber.

    Dave (62410f)

  334. 342. The will of the people was sharply divided in the late 1780s. You had the Federalists, who believed that the consolidation of power into a central government was a virtual inevitability and the anti-federalists, who believed that such a central government was itself an existential danger.

    One of the issues argued at the constitutional convention was whether FedGov had the right to put down a rebellion by dint of military force. A faction of the framers wanted to explicitly give the Federal Government that exact power, but the anti-federalists threatened to walk away from the table altogether; the convention couldn’t afford to lose any more bodies considering how many had flatly refused to sign already.

    So perhaps it is fair to say that not all of the founders were of one mind on the matter of secession. But the one thing I can say with absolute certainty is this:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Ergo, it is not within the federal government’s authorized constitutional power to force states to accept their statehood against their will, even if that means secession. You can argue that it wasn’t a good idea. You can argue that it wasn’t necessary. But you can not say that the Confederacy was acting illegally; it was Lincoln acting with power that the constitution didn’t authorize. The Confederate states were simply acting with power that the constitution didn’t expressly forbid.

    Gryph (08c844)

  335. Except that making laws which supersede federal authority is specifically forbidden to the states:

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    Thanks for playing.

    Dave (62410f)

  336. 347. An unconstitutional law is not “pursuant thereof.” And there was no law authorizing the federal government to force participation. If there were, the constitution would have never been signed, let alone ratified.

    To imply that the supremacy clause forbids secession is as much of a stretch as trying to convince me that abortion as a constitutional right.

    Thanks for playing, indeed.

    Gryph (08c844)

  337. One of the issues argued at the constitutional convention was whether FedGov had the right to put down a rebellion by dint of military force.

    Probably relevant is the fact that Washington did just that in 1794 (Whiskey Rebellion). It didn’t involve a state per se, but it did involve the CiC bringing a federal force in military array to the disaffected areas.

    Maybe context is important here. For the first few decades of our nationhood, the Federal Government on its own was in no position to enforce its will on a recalicrant state unless other state governments were willing to provide their militias to help enforcement. The Founders were in a situation in which the Federal government was only as supreme as the states would let it be supreme.

    Kishnevi (82cec7)

  338. Great minds think alike:

    During the 2016 campaign, Trump made Kate Steinle, the San Francisco woman who was tragically shot and killed by a man who’d been previously deported five times, into a martyr for his cause. Trump’s logic suggests we need more Kate Steinles to own the libs.

    So says Jonah Goldberg in an essay entitled Trump Is Hell-Bent on ‘Owning the Libs.’ More:

    Many conservative commentators have celebrated this triumph of lib-owning, even as they concede in mumbled parentheticals that it won’t actually happen — not least because it’s almost certainly illegal without congressional authorization, which will never materialize. But some conservatives continue to defend Trump’s theatrics on the grounds that people should take him seriously but not literally. But taken either way, the idea is nuttier than a squirrel’s preferred last meal.

    Stemming illegal (and sometimes legal) immigration is the president’s signature issue. Moving the thousands of refugees currently in detention to sanctuary cities is literally achieving the opposite of his goal.

    ….

    The thing is, most immigrants who are in the United States illegally end up going to these very localities. Sixty percent of them reside in just 20 metro areas, most of which have adopted sanctuary policies and limited their cooperation with immigration enforcement. In other words, Trump is proposing fulfilling the final leg of the travel plans of every caravan working its way through Mexico.

    On my list of the 1000 most important goals to promote for the benefit of America, “owning the libs” nowhere appears. “Educating the libs” is on my list, and while I confess that it is hopeless in the absolute, it is achievable at the margins, and the movement of those margins changes control of the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, plus (eventually) the SCOTUS. Being this incredibly stupid, though — whether we’re talking Trump or Trump supporters who applaud this “send them all the San Francisco” nonsense — is just as contrary to the goal of education as it is to the goal of controlling our borders and improving safety within them.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  339. “… all to San Francisco,” I meant to write in #350.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  340. Ah, I see that Dave (#345) had already linked and quoted Goldberg’s essay. I missed that on my first past through recent comments, in which I was studiously ignoring the re-argument of the Civil War.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  341. @ Matador (#322), who wrote:

    The law be damned ….

    This is the position of an anarchist. I have nothing but contempt for this position, and I marvel at the crassness with which it’s expressed. That I believe the declarant to be absolutely sincere is the chilling part.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  342. The most Matador can be accused of is accusing Dave of holding that position, in my estimation, Beldar.

    I wonder if Dave is down with our (for the moment, anyway) pro-life CIC raising an army to invade and conquer the abortion states?

    The law be damned, the pro-lifers are right in their belief and the abortion states are wrong.

    Matador (39e0cd) — 4/17/2019 @ 7:41 am

    nk (dbc370)

  343. I took Matador to be saying that the law in regards to abortion is not morally correct. I didn’t read him to suggest anyone should actively disobey the law.

    Kishnevi (82cec7)

  344. Ah, I see that Dave (#345) had already linked and quoted Goldberg’s essay.

    “Great minds think alike,” as you say.

    (Note to the humor-impaired – that was a joke…)

    Dave (8afa64)

  345. To imply that the supremacy clause forbids secession is as much of a stretch as trying to convince me that abortion as a constitutional right.

    Which part of “the supreme Law of the Land; … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding” do you not understand?

    A state cannot choose to opt out of even a single federal law, so how could they possibly be allowed to opt out of all of them?

    Dave (8afa64)

  346. Nationalist!

    nk (dbc370)

  347. My original question included the phrase “everything else being equal” to keep you from making up new irrelevant factors to avoid answering the question.

    Except for the kidnapping?

    Is this a joke?

    Everything is equal BETWEEN THE TWO JURISDICTIONS except the fact that one is a sanctuary city.

    But it’s clear you’re dodging answering the question. It explodes your premise, so continually misunderstand it and finally say to heck with all the hypotheticals. Literally do ANYTHING other than engage my actual argument.

    I understand why you’re doing it — nobody likes to admit they’re wrong — but I can’t say I respect the way you’re doing it. It’s a giant fucking waste of my time for me to attempt to have an actual conversation with you while you deliberately avoid answering a difficult question because you know it would expose your position as emotional and illogical bullshit.

    I’m seriously starting to second-guess how I spend my time. Why should I talk to someone who treats me this way? Why should I permit them on my site to waste my time?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  348. And, never mind all the hypotheticals, in the actual case ICE should have deported the guy in the first place.

    The hypothetical you repeatedly dodge and pretend not to understand is the question that goes to the heart of the issue.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  349. I’m going to ask it one more time. One. And then, after I see the next thing you post, I’m doing to make a decision about my further interactions with you for the foreseeable future.

    If an illegal commits a crime like kidnapping that is multi-jurisdictional and he could be prosecuted in an sanctuary city or one that is not, where would you send him, if everything about the jurisdictions were equal except whether they were a sanctuary city?

    You don’t get to pretend one jurisdiction is harsher in punishment.

    You don’t get to import in other assumptions to dodge the question.

    It’s a simple question. Answer it or ignore it or dodge it, in your next published comment, but understand how much anything but a real answer is going to piss me off.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  350. If an illegal commits a crime like kidnapping that is multi-jurisdictional and he could be prosecuted in an sanctuary city or one that is not, where would you send him, if everything about the jurisdictions were equal except whether they were a sanctuary city?

    Ceteris paribus, I send him to the non-sanctuary city, because I don’t trust the sanctuary city to do the right thing before, during or after he is delivered to them.

    Now, the issue of violent immigrants was never my focus in the discussion of sanctuary cities, but it is clearly yours, so there, that is what I would do.

    I will also state that I would not send the guy to San Francisco if my only other choice was another sanctuary city, because they aren’t very good with non-immigrant criminals either.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  351. And with that, I am done with this thread. I can’t even remember what *I* was trying to talk about any more.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  352. Ceteris paribus, I send him to the non-sanctuary city, because I don’t trust the sanctuary city to do the right thing before, during or after he is delivered to them.

    Now, the issue of violent immigrants was never my focus in the discussion of sanctuary cities, but it is clearly yours, so there, that is what I would do.

    I don’t understand why that was so difficult.

    Or why it’s so difficult to understand that sending MANY illegals to sanctuary cities is bad for the same reason it’s bad to send ONE criminal there: nobody can trust them to do the right thing.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  353. Bear in mind that the migrants Trump says he wants to send to sanctuary cities are not violent or otherwise lawbreaking. They would in fact have legal status in this country.

    In reference to the hypothetical Kevin and Patterico are referring to, there is of course one factor that would be decisive, I think. Kevin briefly alluded to it. How would they actually prosecute the case.
    I think we all agree that sending him to a sanctuary city that would properly prosecute him for the crime is better than sending him to a nonsanctuary city that would let him off easy.

    I do think that you (P.) have bought into Trump’s lie that these migrants are violent criminals who should be feared, but you mentioned a possible post defending your position on that very subject, so I will not press the point.

    Kishnevi (82cec7)

  354. I think Trump was making a Modest Proposal.

    kaf (bd613c)

  355. The idea of Trump being modest about anything…

    Kishnevi (82cec7)

  356. I would wager P. has “lived it”, given his professional re, and that there is a bit of self-selection with regard to the multi felonious criminal vs. the striving family variety of illegal immigrants. California correctional facilities and county jails are probably more comfortable for a Spanish speaking perp who can be assured of 30 to 40 % of the yard being in the same gang, rather than a midwestern or southern jail where the overwhelming majority if inmates might be black or 1/2 black, 1/2 white. That likely deters many of the potential first timers from acting on their urges out where I’m at as opposed to in CA. And I’ve been known to cheer when criminals from the south side or south Cook county get caught over in Northwest Indiana, because they dont BS overvthere.

    urbanleftbehind (6a358f)

  357. @ Kish, who writes, with his typical thoughtfulness (#365):

    Bear in mind that the migrants Trump says he wants to send to sanctuary cities are not violent or otherwise lawbreaking. They would in fact have legal status in this country.

    In reference to the hypothetical Kevin and Patterico are referring to, there is of course one factor that would be decisive, I think. Kevin briefly alluded to it. How would they actually prosecute the case.

    I think we all agree that sending him to a sanctuary city that would properly prosecute him for the crime is better than sending him to a nonsanctuary city that would let him off easy.

    I do think that you (P.) have bought into Trump’s lie that these migrants are violent criminals who should be feared, but you mentioned a possible post defending your position on that very subject, so I will not press the point.

    Yes, until the point that they overstay their hearing dates on their sanctuary claims, as I understand the law, they would have legal status. We know from past experience, just as a matter of statistics, that only a tiny percentage will indeed show up, it being the common and utterly correct perception among such nominal sanctuary seekers (and the lawyers and others who advise and champion them) that only a tiny, tiny fraction of their number will have their sanctuary claims upheld if they show up. So they mostly don’t, and instead become illegal at that point. That is indeed a far cry from becoming violent criminals at that point. But it is problematic for other reasons unrelated to violent crime.

    We certainly all agree that prosecuting genuine criminals is a good thing; that’s a tautology. Beyond that, I have no insight on the relative likelihood of diligent prosecutions in sanctuary and non-sanctuary cities. Others who comment here might, from closer study or first-hand experience.

    But while I mostly agree with your first paragraph, Kish, I don’t think conceding it undercuts or really addresses out host’s point. But I’ll not presume to speak for him.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  358. @ kaf, who wrote (#):

    I think Trump was making a Modest Proposal.

    I see what you did there, with the Trump-like capitalization!

    But I respectfully dissent. I think Trump was dishing out more tough-guy bullsh!t for people who crave his tough-guy bullsh!t, under the willing delusion that tough-guy bullsh!t is a solution to any sort of real problem.

    And this is a real problem. How long will his fans keep buying tough-guy bullsh!t when the problem keeps getting worse by leaps and bounds?

    Trump’s counting on maintaining the delusion through at least election day 2020. That’s an awful indictment on the collective intelligence of his own fan base, but only time will tell if he’s misread them.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  359. “I do think that you (P.) have bought into Trump’s lie that these migrants are violent criminals who should be feared”
    Kishnevi (82cec7) — 4/17/2019 @ 8:03 pm

    Even if these migrants have a lower rate of violent criminality than the citizen population, they are committing crimes that would not occur had they not been allowed to game the system. So, whether it’s a lie or not is irrelevant.

    Munroe (4ecc31)

  360. Eh. I probably ought have written, in #370, that it’s an awful indictment of the collective wisdom (not intelligence) of his own fan base. It’s often intelligent people who are most willing and desperate to be conned, and who defend their con men the most insistently and longest.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  361. Even if these migrants have a lower rate of violent criminality than the citizen population, they are committing crimes that would not occur had they not been allowed to game the system. So, whether it’s a lie or not is irrelevant.

    Munroe (4ecc31) — 4/17/2019 @ 9:11 pm

    But that is just the point.
    These migrants, if released would be here legally. They would be committing no crimes. They would not be faking SSN numbers or anything else.

    [Feel free to dispute or clarify. But it’s well past midnight here, so if I seem not to reply….it’s because I probably asleep…

    Kishnevi (e6517f)

  362. “These migrants, if released would be here legally. They would be committing no crimes. They would not be faking SSN numbers or anything else.”
    Kishnevi (e6517f) — 4/17/2019 @ 9:24 pm

    It cannot possibly be known that they “would be committing no crimes”, anymore than it would be fair to cast them as violent criminals. Maybe I’m missing your point.

    Munroe (d1b3f0)

  363. Good grief do we need to review broken windows theory again, look at those sanctuary districts look at the crime rate, it’s not a new observation, now are there economic variables that intervene but still.

    Narciso (191564)

  364. Let’s assume for purposes of argument that the percentage of asylum seekers who will commit a violent crime within the next five years is exactly the same for seekers who are sent to sanctuary cities as for seekers who are sent elsewhere. To pick a number completely arbitrarily, let’s say it’s 700,000, and the percentage who’ll commit violent crimes (as determined with the benefit of hindsight, for purposes of this hypothetical argument) is 0.01% — so of our total population, 70 will become violent criminals.

    Let’s then suppose that we send an equal, randomly sorted number of seekers to all asylum cities put together as to everywhere else put together. Of our 70 violent criminals, then, we can expect on average, if we repeat this experiment many times, to see 35 end up in sanctuary cities, and 35 not to.

    Let’s assume that 20% of the violent-criminal asylum seekers, these two groups of 35, them are caught and successfully prosecuted in both sorts of venues — seven people in sanctuary cities, and seven in others. Further assume that none of them establishes a valid sanctuary claim. In non-sanctuary cities cooperating with ICE, assuming the system has worked properly, all seven of the violent criminals will be picked up when their sentences are done and immediately deported, whereas all seven of the violent criminals in sanctuary cities are released into the general population. Note well: These are people who’ve “paid their debt to society” for the crimes of which they’ve served their sentences; but now they are indeed all in the country illegally, with no further “sanctuary” claims or other defenses to deportation, if they are caught.

    Can you seriously argue that the city with the three recidivists released into the general population are as safe as the city in which all seven violent criminals were deported? And can you not immediately see how, filtered this way over time, completely apart from the tendency of sanctuary cities to attract intra-US migration by bad guys, our own cities will be concentrating more bad guys in sanctuary cities?

    Assume three of seven from both groups are recidivists — that is

    Beldar (fa637a)

  365. Bah. The last sentence fragment in #376 was left behind through an editing error. Apologies for any confusion.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  366. Even if these migrants have a lower rate of violent criminality than the citizen population, they are committing crimes that would not occur had they not been allowed to game the system. So, whether it’s a lie or not is irrelevant.

    The premise may or may not be correct, but I still find this argument flawed.

    Some of the unborn children who are aborted would commit violent crimes if allowed to enter the world. Does that make abortion a social good? Of course not.

    The focus should be on individuals who *do* commit violent crimes, not a category who *might*.

    Dave (1bb933)

  367. 368. urbanleftbehind (6a358f) — 4/17/2019 @ 8:18 pm

    And I’ve been known to cheer when criminals from the south side or south Cook county get caught over in Northwest Indiana, because they dont BS overvthere. </blockquote. It's the same thing if they miisakenly victimize a prominen person.

    This is one situtation where everybody benefits from the the fact you don't have equal protection of the laws. (As lon as what happens in the case of aorominent person is what shuld happen in every case)

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  368. 378. Dave (1bb933) — 4/17/2019 @ 10:02 pm

    Some of the unborn children who are aborted would commit violent crimes if allowed to enter the world.

    A disproportionate number, since they come from irregular families.

    Does that make abortion a social good? Of course not.

    The wroters of Feakeconics atttribute the reduction of crime after the latte 1980s to the increase in abortion in the early 1970s. But I think it was AIDS infecting drug addicts.

    The focus should be on individuals who *do* commit violent crimes, not a category who *might*.

    The focus should be on individuals who commit violent crimes, not a cateory of people who *might* include ahigher percentage of such people. And if you want to focus instead o a category of person with a higher than average number of violent felons, I can think of amuch better category than people from Central America illegally in the United States.

    And then there’s another thing:

    What about illegal immigrant crime victims?

    Since violent criminals tend to commit or try to commit amore or less fixed number of crimes until they get stopped, the illegal immigrants are substitute crime victims.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  369. If you want to go after criminals, go after criminals, not after mostly innocent people with the excuse that you’re getting rid of criminals. If you want to go after MS-13, go after MS-13.

    Even when you are arresting “criminals”, you’re not really doing that, because you include in your count of criminals many people whom otherwise nobody would want to get rid of.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  370. I don’t understand why that was so difficult.

    It’s kinda obvious, it just didn’t interest me, and I got my back up. My concern in this clusterfrack is about the regular people who are caught up in it, not the criminals. Which is what I was trying to talk about. You didn’t want to, possibly because it didn’t interest you. Oh, well.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  371. Can you seriously argue that the city with the three recidivists released into the general population are as safe as the city in which all seven violent criminals were deported?

    I think you’ve made a pretty convincing case that it’s irrelevant. One city will have 28 additional violent criminals, and the other will have 31.

    For the numbers given, which were admittedly pulled out of thin air and might not reflect reality, this difference is statistically insignificant. In San Francisco, the projected number of violent crimes in 2019 is about 6500. The statistical variation on that number is about +/- 80 (i.e. if there were no changes in the *expected* rate of violent crime for any reason – if you repeated 2019 many times – the number of violent crimes actually committed would fluctuate by roughly that amount year to year.

    Please note, I am not arguing for any leniency in immigration enforcement. I am just trying to examine the arguments people are making.

    Dave (1bb933)

  372. Whether the difference is or isn’t statistically significant depends on the numbers chosen, and mine are indeed arbitrary.

    But the principle — here, of exposing one set of cities to recidivists that the other set of cities isn’t exposed to — doesn’t depend on the numbers. All else being equal, the sanctuary citizen exposes its citizens to more recidivists. Yes?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  373. This is the position of an anarchist. I have nothing but contempt for this position, and I marvel at the crassness with which it’s expressed. That I believe the declarant to be absolutely sincere is the chilling part.

    Beldar (fa637a) — 4/17/2019 @ 5:16 pm

    To the contrary, I made no declaration. nk and Kishnevi read me right.

    It is my belief that laws allowing abortion are as morally incorrect as the laws which permitted one human to own another.

    So, we work within the law to change hearts and minds, to protect the unborn. I would never advocate for the use of force against those who act within the law, no matter how deeply I disagree with them.

    “The law be damned?”, in hindsight, would have been a better choice.

    Matador (39e0cd)

  374. Bah. “All else being equal, the sanctuary city exposes its citizens to more recidivists,” I intended to write in #384.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  375. @ Matador (#385): Thanks for your clarification.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  376. “Some of the unborn children who are aborted would commit violent crimes if allowed to enter the world. Does that make abortion a social good? Of course not.”
    Dave (1bb933) — 4/17/2019 @ 10:02 pm

    Being for or against abortion has nothing to do with crime rates of those unborn lives held in the balance. If you think it’s murder, then crimes prevented don’t matter. If you think it’s a woman’s choice, crimes that would occur don’t matter. Who, seriously, would argue otherwise?

    As for the topic of the post, yes, crimes that would occur or not occur are relevant.

    Do you believe the Steinle family even thinks about the mom who didn’t abort the man who murdered their daughter? Would you? Do you believe they instead think about the immigration laws that weren’t enforced? Yes, we know they do. Wouldn’t you?

    It’s a ridiculous analogy.

    Munroe (c80a96)

  377. Just to extend the math from my #376 above:

    Let’s say that pursuant to Trump’s new order, all 700,000 asylum seekers are released in sanctuary cities. In that case, it’s 70 new violent criminals sent just to asylum cities, and zero sent elsewhere. For non-sanctuary cities cooperating with ICE, they’ll again see zero recidivists (since they saw zero of the original offenders). But now the sanctuary cities are going to see twice as many recidivist crimes.

    I like zero recidivists in the U.S. much better than twice as many recidivists. Why wouldn’t Trump? Why wouldn’t we all — unless we so want to own the libs that we also want to see them unnecessarily and disproportionately become victim to violent crimes (or moreso than they’re already making themselves subject to by their stupid sanctuary city policies)?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  378. For that matter, I like zero asylum-hearing-overstayers better than 700,000. To fix that, either Congress has to act or the Trump Administration has to persuade the courts to modify the Flores consent decree.

    Regarding which, by the way:

    Q: Why hasn’t Trump done that?

    He’s bitched about Flores, tweeted about it I think. To modify it, his DoJ would have to come up with a replacement plan which will satisfy constitutional requirements as well as the requirements of current immigration law.j And the whole effort will have to start with an application in the Central District of California, meaning review in the Ninth Circuit, so trying to replace Flores with some new set of standards is likely to be a long slog at best.

    A: He isn’t serious about immigration as anything but a campaign issue. He’d rather demagogue than actually lead. Leading requires persuading people who aren’t inclined to believe your tough-guy bullsh!t that they ought to do what you’re suggesting. And at that, he’s a complete and utter failure, and always will be.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  379. Further to #387, @ matador: My apology was sincere but insufficient. I ought also have said, “And with your clarification, I now see what you intended. I regret that I jumped to an unflattering and incorrect conclusion.”

    Thanks, too, to nk and kish for sharing their impressions on your meaning, which proved far more accurate than mine.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  380. Being for or against abortion has nothing to do with crime rates of those unborn lives held in the balance.

    One could well be indifferent to the usual metaphysical arguments, and concerned only about a more practical one, to wit, crime.

    Whether people actually base their opinions of abortion on that or not is irrelevant. Consistency would require that anyone espousing the reductio ad absurdum absolutist position (“it doesn’t matter if only one asylum-seeker out of millions commits a violent crime, we still need to exclude all of them to prevent it”) do the same vis-a-vis the unborn.

    In my opinion there are many good reasons for excluding illegal immigrants, and deporting the ones already here. But their committing crime at a lower rate than the rest of population (if that’s true) isn’t one of them.

    Dave (1bb933)

  381. Dave, you understand risk mitigation, right? You surely understand that one considers not just the magnitude and likelihood of the risk, but also its relative ease in mitigation or elimination.

    If the sanctuary cities will follow the law, then we eliminate a particular set of risks — block the causation chain required for that risk, by its definition (recidivists) — at a pretty low cost: The individual has no right to be here, he’s breaking the law by continuing to be here, and he’s already demonstrated ability and willingness to engage in violent crime. I don’t think his interests count for much if anything in the weighing of costs and benefits here. As far as the out of pocket costs, that’s also chump change: We’re talking people who are already caught, unless given an ICE-free release by a sanctuary city. As compared to other types of immigration enforcement, this is a spectacularly cost-effective and efficient one.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  382. All else being equal, the sanctuary citizen exposes its citizens to more recidivists. Yes?

    Yes. But.

    I guess I am a reductionist by training and trade. Figuring out which things make no measurable difference in the aggregate, and ignoring them to focus on the things that do, has become second nature. It’s what I do, and it’s what I teach my students to do.

    An example of what I mean: If you smoke three packs of cigarettes a day, is it reasonable to worry about the incremental risk of cancer from getting a chest X-ray, flying cross-country, or the power lines 50 yards from your home?

    The reductionist view would be: no.

    (The Radon in your basement is a different story, though…)

    Dave (1bb933)

  383. I’m not really disagreeing with you Beldar, and I’m not arguing that sanctuary policies do no harm. Not at all.

    My original comment was just to point out that your numbers, which we both agree might not be realistic, could support an alternative conclusion. It boils down to a matter of degree, I guess. You are looking at things in relative terms (more of something bad is bad – impossible to deny!), while I was trying to look at them in absolute terms (0.05% more of something that fluctuates randomly by ~1.2% year-to-year is not going to be very noticeable or significant in aggregate).

    We often see flawed arguments in other areas of policy to the effect of “If it saves even one life, XXXX must be done/banned/regulated/etc.”

    Your point about ease of mitigation is a good one, and steers clear of that trap.

    Dave (1bb933)

  384. @ Dave: Thanks for the interesting exchange, sir.

    I’ve frequently represented clients who were under attack in court for failing to hold themselves to an “if it can possibly save one life/injury like this one” standard. The appeal of such arguments to plaintiffs’ lawyers seems to be directly proportional to the defendant’s net worth, and the rest of the numbers can be manipulated in whatever way is necessary to permit a closing argument that a large fraction of it ought to change hands by way of the jury’s verdict. Inevitably the best defenses involve arguments and analogies drawn from everyday experience which fall under the general rubric of “applied common sense.”

    *****

    Big news day tomorrow. Sleep well tonight, everyone. 😀

    Beldar (fa637a)

  385. In October 1981, on literally my first day as a practicing lawyer, I was invited by a young partner and senior associate at my firm, whom I’d met and worked with during my summer clerkship in 1979, to join them as the third-chair defending the firm’s largest client, the local electric utility. The plaintiffs were two house painters, one in the country illegally, who’d gotten their aluminum stepladder into the distribution line at the back of the lot on which the new-construction house they were painting was built. They had horrific damages, having each lost multiple limbs to amputation and with third-degree scarring just about everywhere else — had they not been helicoptered out to one of the world’s best trauma centers, they’d both surely have died.

    Among their lawyers’ theories was the utility was negligent in failing to bury those distribution lines. We fought very hard to knock down that theory, and were entirely successful in doing so to the jury’s satisfaction: They agreed with our experts’ testimony regarding the relevant costs and benefits — including not just economic costs, but other accident and casualty risks — and we related that to Houstonians’ own personal experience by providing testimony about how much longer it would take to restore electrical coverage after our average hurricane if we were dealing with flooded underground lines instead of quickly-accessible overhead ones.

    But the jury went against us, hard, on one of the plaintiffs’ alternate theories — that the utility’s inspectors, who were regularly touring construction sites like this one, had failed to detect and then remedy a clearance violation of the National Electric Safety Code: The homebuilder, without clearing it with anyone else, had flipped (for aesthetic reasons) the blueprints that had been approved through the normal process, and in consequence the house’s second story, which should have been nearer the street, came so close to the back lot-line that it intruded into the T-shaped easement around the power lines, into which building is forbidden.

    The jury didn’t think it was at all reasonable for us to inflict on the entire user base the costs of being required to bury all residential distribution lines, in other words. But they would damned well hold the utility responsible for failing to pay attention to that which it knew was dangerous, and which had appeared again and again right under our client’s employees’ eyes. During his final closing argument — when the defense would have no further opportunity to respond — the plaintiff’s lawyer picked up from the evidence table a photograph of the backyard taken a week after the accident, and casually directed the jurors to the date-stamp. “When you’re assessing punitive damages, ladies and gentlemen,” he thundered, “Please take due note of the fact that as this photo proves, the power company didn’t even bother to come in and fix this conceded violation of the National Electric Safety Code for fully another week after it had burned my clients nearly to their deaths. That shows you just how little they care for you or anyone else in this community.”

    The jury awarded more than the plaintiffs’ lawyers had asked for; the first post-verdict motion I ever argued was asking the court to reform the verdict to hold the jury to the plaintiffs’ pretrial prayer.

    The good news: The company took the verdict directly to heart, and immediately revised its field inspector training and practice standards so that the company couldn’t again be so righteously accused of refusing to fix a problem it certainly knew of and could have fixed. The company also spread this result industry-wide, which I know for a fact prompted other, comparable utilities to do likewise.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  386. @391, Beldar –

    Thank you.

    Matador (39e0cd)

  387. Leftists Demand That All Criticisms Of Trump Cease Until He Stops Getting Death Threats

    U.S.—The left has urged people to stop quoting stupid things Representative Ilhan Omar has said and to stop accurately pointing out that she’s a bigot because Omar has received death threats. It was revealed, though, that President Donald Trump has also received death threats.

    “Yes, it’s hard to believe, since I’m the greatest president ever,” Trump told the press. “My death would be the worst tragedy this country has ever seen — I’d expect mass suicides if it happens.” Still, he confirmed that the Secret Service has intercepted numerous death threats.

    If there is one thing the American left is known for, it’s being extremely consistent and never only espousing certain principles in a partisan or self-serving way. Thus when they heard President Trump had received death threats, they immediately went after those who would criticize the president.

    “There is a lot of extreme rhetoric out there about the president, and it has to stop immediately,” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said in a statement on Twitter. “All this talk about him being a ‘unique danger to this country’ and that he’s ‘separating families’ is just encouraging the threats against him. It doesn’t matter if you think they’re true; they need to stop, as they all represent dangerous incitement to violence.”

    https://babylonbee.com/news/leftists-demand-that-criticisms-of-trump-cease-until-he-stops-getting-death-threats

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  388. 357. Whether or not nullification is itself a constitutional concept, if the federal government is free to set the limits of its own power (which it most certainly does now and has, back to the Civil War), the constitution itself is ultimately meaningless as a system of checks and balances.

    And here we are with a citizenry that knowingly or not, is satisfied to live under a strong man government where 545 individuals can dictate the law to the other 329,999,455 of us.

    Gryph (08c844)

  389. Anarchist!

    nk (dbc370)

  390. Here’s the the Thing:

    The Secesh arguments in this thread all ignore Duty of Loyalty to a Sovereign, the Sovereign in this instance being the United States of America.

    Even the Confederates did not do that. They considered their Sovereigns to be their respective States to whom they owed their first Duty of Loyalty.

    nk (dbc370)

  391. Now, if someone does not believe that the United States of America is a Sovereign Nation, but just a hotel that they can move out of if they don’t like the room service or the guests in the next room ….

    nk (dbc370)

  392. 390. Beldar (fa637a) — 4/17/2019 @ 11:00 pm For that matter, I like zero asylum-hearing-overstayers better than 700,000. To fix that, either Congress has to act or the Trump Administration has to persuade the courts to modify the Flores consent decree. Neither of which is likely to happen, and if it did happen, you still wouldn’t have zero.

    He’s bitched about Flores, tweeted about it I think. To modify it, his DoJ would have to come up with a replacement plan which will satisfy constitutional requirements as well as the requirements of current immigration law.

    and just what would that be?

    I think, in the end, the immigration hardliners will have to admit defeat. Talking about sending released people to sanctuary cities is a step in tha direction.

    A: He isn’t serious about immigration as anything but a campaign issue. He’d rather demagogue than actually lead.

    I think he’s a little bit serious. He’s really trying to enforcer the law. I think he will succeed in proving it impossible. And I don’t see any reason why anyone should expect it to be possible in a free country. Where is it written that any law you pass can always be enforced?

    Why can’t it enforced? Because we’re not going to tear away all humanitarian considerations, or make aiding and abetting the greatest crime.

    Of course Trump always demagoies and makes arguments that can only make sense if you remain ignorant. Democrats do the same sort of thing on oher issues if not this – criticizing for instance, the secrecy of some of the contenst fo the Mueller report even thiugh it is mandated by law/ Misinforming people, and hinting at sinister motives. Barr;s press coference won’t help because he won;t be able truly to explain.

    Trump also has to demangogue the immigration issue because it’s the only way he can justify his policy – but he as his policy mostly because it wasa campaign issue he ran on.

    Leading requires persuading people who aren’t inclined to believe your tough-guy bullsh!t that they ought to do what you’re suggesting. And at that, he’s a complete and utter failure, and always will be.

    That would mean dealing with the ethical issue, but the Democrats try to hide that because not everbody agrees. They prefer to creat a straw man ethical issue and talk about indibidual cases. Since Trump also pretends there is no ethical problem, often by lying about teh facts, the status quo remains.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  393. Start if 404 corrected:’390. Beldar (fa637a) — 4/17/2019 @ 11:00 pm

    For that matter, I like zero asylum-hearing-overstayers better than 700,000. To fix that, either Congress has to act or the Trump Administration has to persuade the courts to modify the Flores consent decree.

    Neither of which is likely to happen, and if it did happen, you still wouldn’t have zero. The law is more likely to be canged to make gaining asylum easier. Frmer Attorney general Jeff Sessions took some steps to make it harder.

    As it stands now, a credible fear of being killed is not enough to be granted asylum. It depends on who you are afraid of, and/or the reason they want to kill you. Naturally, this shocks the conscience, so the law gets distorted. Lawyers can tell asylum claimants what to claim.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  394. No collusion. Evidence developed did not support obstruction charge. Attempts to undermine Trump’s presidency, propelled by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  395. Barr is basically repeating what is in his 4-page March 24 letter, except he’s elaboarating on it slightly.

    Additional facts:

    1. He specifically discusses the leaking. Which he notes would not be a crime if the persons concerned were not involved in the hacking. He;s still caefully choosing his words, so as not to exclude knowing help by some U.S. persons not associated with Trump.

    2. He notes that Nueller considered 10 possible acts of obstruction. We have a number. W ealso know from efore that most of these ten incidents are publicly known already.

    3. He and Rosenstein did not agree with all of Mueller’s theories as to how acts could be obstruction. Some of them did not meet the legal definiton of obstruction.

    4. Trump had a non-corrupt motive in not wanting his presidency under a shadow. (if it didn’t need to be, it goes without saying.)

    5. The ingoing cases because of which there might be some redactions include the Internet Research Agency sockpuppeting and the Roger Stone case.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  396. Obstruction of justice does not include loudly proclaiming one’s innocence. It’s not telling the FBI director that Mike Flynn is a “good guy”. It’s not tweeting that the investigation is a witch hunt, which it was. An obstruction of justice threshold would be met if one threatened people so they don’t cooperate with authorities or by destroying evidence, for example, bleach-bitting your computer server or smashing blackberry cell phones with a hammer. But we know the WH cooperated fully with Mueller’s witch hunters. Obstruction of justice is not firing the FBI director, as that’s a perfectly legal action by a president. It’s not threatening to fire Mueller and shutting down the investigation, which is also legal.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  397. 406. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 4/18/2019 @ 6:47 am

    More clearly: Wanting to stop an investigation because it is the result of attempts to undermine his presidency, propelled by his political opponents and fueled by illegal leaks is not a corrupt motive if there is no underlying crime.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  398. The President “faced an unprecedented situation”.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  399. No calls by the WH for executive privilege on redactions.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  400. @406. Spin cycle. No truth. For a fella who told We The People and our elected representatives in Congress he wasn’t going to comment further on the ‘report’ until it was made public, Wernher Von Barr spent a lot of time doing just the opposite this morning at a presser– nobody has yet seen it but him and his staff. John Mitchell would be proud.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  401. Democrat Assplosions to begin in 5…4…3…2

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  402. Keep looking for the poney disco.

    Narciso (12edd6)

  403. The clown might just as well have read text from his 18 page job interview memo.

    Sad end to a career.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  404. 402. The FedGov isn’t sovereign over the states — or at least wasn’t supposed to be. The constitution was a compact between states outlining exactly what powers they were willing to give to the central government collectively in order to preserve order. That was the intent. Just how successful they were in fulfilling that intent is another matter altogether (Shay’s Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, Civil War, Etc), but it just begs belief that the states were always intended to buck up and accept tyranny (real or perceived) because “FedGov.” Even I’m beginning to come around to think that maybe the anti-federalists were (and the Rothbardians are) right.

    Gryph (08c844)

  405. Its assumed after 1932 that’s not the arrangement its extraconstitutional but those are negative liberties. Largely an import of German political philosophy.

    Narciso (12edd6)

  406. 412. DCSCA (797bc0) — 4/18/2019 @ 7:02 am

    – nobody has yet seen it but him and his staff.

    The white House has seen it, in the last day or two. Not because they asked for it, but because Justice Department ethhics guidrlines requore it (because it concerns Trump, the person, and other people in the White House. They asked for no redactions. This could mean other people mentioned in it saw parts concerning them, too.

    He says there are not too many redactions, and each of the redactions is labeled with what category it falls into:. Intelligence related, ongoing case related, harming the reputation of peripheral persons (only if they asked for it?) or grand jury information not known any other way.

    The intelligence community may have asked for some redactions.

    Congress will get the report in a hour. With redactions, n their version, limited to grand jury information.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  407. @414. ‘Watch what we do, not what we say.’ – Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell, 1969

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  408. Barr said dcleaks and Guccifer [Guccifer 2.0 I think he means] were controlled by Russia, but does not say the same thing about Wikileaks, and mentions no other people or organizations involved in disseminating the results of the hacking, which doesn’t mean nobody was.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  409. @420. ‘… allegiance ruled by expedience…’ Sammy, if Von Barr says it’s sunny — bring along your umbrella.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  410. dcsca will ALWAYS have the dead Dick Nixon to kick around.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  411. Barr was well-respected on both sides of the aisle until Trump. Somehow, he will survive the slings and arrows of a member of the hoi polloi

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  412. Barr is merly reporting what Mueller says. I paid careful attention to what he does not say.

    For some things he says no American was involved, and for some things he says something like no person in the Trump campaign. I assume the identity of other people involved in the leaking of the hacks is grand jury information and/or they are peripheral people who may have asked their names not be released.

    The full report will be released in half an hour, that is 11 O’Clock Eastern Daylight time.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  413. Naked gun references are apropriate:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/iowahawkblog/status/1118887599039553536

    Narciso (12edd6)

  414. Barr press conference, which is basically an extended version of his 4-page letter

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X13UvNBBec

    Trump is going to appear before the press.

    He’s already tweeted “Game Over.”

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  415. @422. History rhymes.

    _______________

    Patriot Games

    Today’s score:

    Rule of Men – 12
    Rule of Law – 0

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  416. Trump fully cooperated, and never shut it down.

    It will be interesting to read what the folks here who work in the legal system have to say after they’ve had a chance to read and digest the 400 page report.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  417. Prediction: Jerry Nadler will soon transition to Jerry Nadless.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  418. T – 1 minute (less now) for release to Congress. The public wil get to see a more redacted version a bit later.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  419. Nadler will ask for the release of anything that isn’t public, including Trump’s actual answers to Mueller’s questions. To placate the more leftwing members of Congress.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  420. @428, Not really; a redacted report is incomplete; the spin cycle is merely part of the whitewash.

    “The gray, middle America– they’re suckers,” – The Big Dick , 5-4-72

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  421. eyes on media
    Job One: suppress news that makes
    democrats look BAD!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  422. 432… ‘an unusual case of “penis envy” ‘

    Dr. Sigmund Freud – April 18, 1899

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  423. @434. Liars lie. Impeachment is a political act.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  424. Prediction: Hillary still evades prosecution.

    Munroe (589f00)

  425. North Korea doesn’t want to deal with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and is demanding he be removed from e negootiations, claiming (according to the news report I heard) that he had downplayed the importance of Kim Jong Un.

    Trump made a dozen tweets or retweets this morning altogether on the subject of the Mueller investiation and report etc.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  426. N Korea is used to us proxies who concede every point to reach an agreement.

    Narciso (12edd6)

  427. The report is 448 pages long and has some executive summaries.

    There’s a lot redacted on the question of how information got to Wikileaks.

    Mueller looked at the idea that some campaign officials might have been an unregistred foreign agent or a campaign finance law violation but the evidence was not sufficient to charge.

    On the Trump Tower meeting dirt was promised but not provided and (therefore?) the evidence was not sufficient to charge a campaign finance violaton.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  428. Nadless-
    Applause. Col.

    mg (8cbc69)

  429. Now is the time for the real investigation to start.
    Bombs away>>>

    mg (8cbc69)

  430. Mueller in fact said that Congress could find there was obstruction of justice, and if it were his conclusion that Truno dir NOT ibstruct justice they would say so. He also said he followed justice department guidleines about not indicting a sitting president but investigated him anyway in order to preserve the evidence t a time when memories were fresh.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)

  431. ot, in other news, Judith clark, the last of the brinks bank robbers still in prison, gets parole after 37 years,

    narciso (d1f714)

  432. In other news, it seems that Cocaine Mitch is upset that teenagers are spending their money on tobacco instead of his wife’s crack. Or maybe it’s because Kentucky tobacco growers supported Matt Bevin?

    nk (dbc370)

  433. nk, maybe you meant Fentanyl, but isnt she from Taiwan, not mainland?

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  434. It’s an inside joke, urbanleftbehind. “Cocaine Mitch” was coined by jailbird running for the Senate in the Republican primary in West Virginia who accused Elaine Chao’s family of taking a shipload of cocaine from Colombia to France. (Or something close to that, it’s hard to understand nutjobs.) https://www.nbcnews.com/card/blankenship-defends-cocaine-mitch-tv-ad-ad-no-longer-exists-n870386

    nk (dbc370)

  435. yes he took Schweitzer’s findings and confugulated them

    https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1118908340208394241

    narciso (d1f714)

  436. I knew about that, but then I’m on the fence as to the degree that Mitch the B—h 2 (M the B 1 is Mitch Daniels) should be indulging in the Cocaine brand looking like a Telemundo Narcovela protagonist.

    urbanleftbehind (6a358f)

  437. actually that was the story of the Saudi prince, who was uncovered by the father of the sister in spykids, see how complicated these things get,

    narciso (d1f714)

  438. 47. Elaine Chao was born in Taiwan in 1953, but both of her parents escaped from Shanghai before the Communists took over.

    Sammy Finkelman (30b6b6)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 1.0894 secs.