The Jury Talks Back

4/14/2019

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

Filed under: Uncategorized — 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.

45 Comments »

  1. I had written a very long, and rather angry reply to this comment. I’ll instead just point out that as sad as Kate Steinle’s story is, and my heart goes out to her family, this post fails to acknowledge that there are dozens of Kate Steinle-type stories, and worse, happening in border states monthly due to the flood of illegal aliens. At some point those of us in these states are going to get fed up with the rest of the country fiddling while our neighborhoods burn.

    Comment by Sean — 4/14/2019 @ 9:06 pm

  2. Sean,

    I live in Texas. I agree we are and have suffered because of illegal immigration, and it does feel like we have to shoulder more than our share of the burden. That’s part of why I want a Wall.

    But imo Presidents should be like parents and do what is best for the nation/family. If one child is smarter and more responsible, it mat have to do more. That’s why I wish Trump would do a better job explaining things like this. Instead, he is one of those “parents” who teaches lessons with contempt and the hard way.

    This isn’t a great analogy because Americans don’t need Presidents to be their parents. We believe in self-government. But hopefully you can see where I’m going with this. Texas has to be the adult and when we can’t stand things any longer, then …

    Comment by DRJ — 4/16/2019 @ 9:37 am

  3. I also think that if sanctuary cities are sincere about their concern for illegal immigrants then they would be asking Trump to immediately send as many as he can to their cities.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/16/2019 @ 10:04 am

  4. But instead NYC’s Mayor is threatening to sue.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/16/2019 @ 10:05 am

  5. DRJ, I think Texans have been the Country’s adults for a while now (although a case can be made about Cornyn), and if the Federal government HAS to, by law, send these people somewhere why do we we need to continue “taking one” for the rest of the Nation when these cities’ policies make them the perfect fit for these individuals? If sanctuary cities want to welcome all illegals then lets take them up on their rhetoric; it’s not like Trump has another option with these border crossers, the left and courts won’t let him send them back.

    Comment by Sean — 4/16/2019 @ 12:00 pm

  6. I feel the same way about Cornyn (who only seems conservative when he runs for re-election) and about sanctuary cities (if they really cared about illegals, they would demand that the government send the illegal immigrants to them because sanctuary cities care more).

    But, still, I think Patterico is right that releasing illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities makes it more dangerous for the country as a whole. Illegals who commit crimes here are more likely to be caught and deported than they would be in sanctuary cities, and it takes fewer resources to do it.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/17/2019 @ 8:04 am

  7. The enforcement argument might be true, but the overall problem at the border will never reach a proper solution until the people who are blocking border security and laws attempting to rectify the abuses at the border are pressured by their constituents. Right now the majority of the country isn’t suffering from this crisis like the border states. Their politicians want the laws to force Border Patrol to release these people after 20 days, they want these people to come into the interior of the country unchecked, unsupervised, and unvetted, and based on their whining this past week their reasons are purely political. So, if these individuals have to go somewhere in the country let’s see how these cities feel about the border in 5 years when their populaces increase by half a million illegals like we have here in Texas.

    Comment by Sean — 4/17/2019 @ 1:00 pm

  8. I agree that Trump’s proposal has the drawbacks Patterico cited.

    What, however, are the alternatives? I think that in a situation where, thanks to Congress, some have to be released, do it where it’ll hurt those responsible. I also think it the lawsuits against it will be quite interesting; what, exactly, will they list as the harm being done?

    I think just floating the idea was a wonderful way to expose the abject hypocrisy of the left, who are just fine with inflicting this invasion that they created on states like mine.

    Sometimes, the only weapon with which to fight back is a two-edged sword.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 4/18/2019 @ 5:23 pm

  9. Exactly. It’s funny how the location where these illegal immigrants are released, by law, is suddenly an issue to some people.

    Comment by Sean — 4/18/2019 @ 5:39 pm

  10. I think that in a situation where, thanks to Congress, some have to be released, do it where it’ll hurt those responsible.

    You mean release them at the homes of members of Congress? I assume you mean in their districts. Do you really want Presidents to use their powers as swords to hurt other Americans?

    Comment by DRJ — 4/18/2019 @ 5:58 pm

  11. Congress and the courts have already used their power as swords to hurt Americans in border states. Goose, gander. And I fail to see the issue here. By law these people HAVE to be released into the country, so why now, after years of this policy being in place, does the location of their release suddenly matter? It’s not as though the location makes these individuals more or less dangerous to the populace.

    Comment by Sean — 4/18/2019 @ 6:17 pm

  12. @ DRJ,

    Do I really want presidents to use their power as swords to hurt other Americans? You mean like when Obama used his power to sue Arizona and overrule large parts of Arizona’s SB1070 law (Arizona’s attempt to protect itself because the feds were not doing their job), on grounds that immigration is solely a federal prerogative. He did this while letting the sanctuary cities go on with their cancer. (Gee, I thought immigration was a federal issue?)

    In other words, it’s been happening for a long time, and last time I checked, I’m an American.

    As for the newfound concern I’m seeing as to where these invaders get dumped, what do you suggest, given the current circumstances? If the answer is to keep dumping them in my area and similar, I say not just no, but hell no. It’s high time the people causing this mess suffered for doing so, and the more suffering they do, the happier I’ll be. Plus, they can stop it anytime they like – an option I’ve never had.

    I’m very much okay with inflicting pain on the people causing this problem, so yup, I’m going to cheer on Trump if he starts dumping the problem in the laps of NIMBY limousine liberals, because they’ve been doing that to me for years. Let they that have sown the wind reap the whirlwind. Perhaps if they suffer enough, they’ll stop standing in the way of fixing the problem.

    My ONLY regret here is that I’m well aware that not all residents of sanctuary cities and states are guilty of supporting those policies or lefty immigrations policies in general. They would be innocent victims of this, just as I have been for years and years. But most actually are guilty, and that’s going to have to be good enough for me. So, I’ll cheer as the shrieking wokescolds get the very problem they’ve created dumped squarely in their own laps.

    As the old saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. There’s one heck of a lot I don’t like about Trump, but if he actually succeeds in ramming this down the throats of the malevolent bastards who have been inflicting it on me and mine for years, he’s sure as heck got my vote.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 4/19/2019 @ 9:40 am

  13. Here is an example of a reason why sanctuary cities endanger Americans:

    A Harris County grand jury indicted Jimenez, a Mexican native, on April 17 and he is in Harris County Jail without bond. At the time of the crash, he was on deferred adjudication, a type of probation, on a drug possession charge. He was found with less than a gram of cocaine in July 2016 and was under court supervision for two years beginning April 2017.

    Houston in Harris County is participating in ICE detentions now because of a Texas law prohibiting sanctuary cities, but in the past it and other Texas cities put limits on their participation. I suspect Jimenez lived in one of those places so he was not deported after his drug conviction, which is one reason he was in the US when he decided to street race, resulting in a death.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/26/2019 @ 3:43 pm

  14. I am sorry you feel that way, CJ. It is an emotionally satisfying position but it erodes public trust in the law. That you already lack trust because of Obama is, IMO, not a sufficient reason to support further erosion.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/26/2019 @ 3:46 pm

  15. @ DRJ, no need to prove to me that sanctuary cities endanger Americans, I’ve been saying exactly that for years.

    However, the fact of the matter is that law-abiding (in other words, non-sanctuary) cities are not 100% effective in handling the risks these criminals create, so there is still risk. IMHO, you are, defacto, asking me to shoulder even more of such risk, in order to shield people who largely deserve said risk because they are literally asking for it.

    I will not do this. What I will do is support the person shielding me from it.

    What is undermining the rule of law here *is* the sanctuary cities. If demonstrating to them the error of their ways is the only way to restore sanity, so be it.

    If the rule of law matters (And I certainly think it does) then restore the rule of law. Until we do, though, don’t expect me to shoulder extra risk and expense to shield the mendacious mellonheads of the left from their own folly.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 4/26/2019 @ 6:11 pm

  16. Preach on Arizona.

    Comment by Sean — 4/26/2019 @ 8:35 pm

  17. @ Sean,

    thanks. I do realize I’m prone to getting frustrated over this issue.

    The reason is it’s a real one, a case of either-or.
    The illegals have long been, and still are, being dumped in my state.

    https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/2019/04/26/border-patrol-now-releasing-migrant-families-directly-tucson/3593532002/

    The one and only thing I approve of in that article is shipping them west when they are heading east. Anything that makes it harder for them is a good thing.

    I’d have much, much preferred they be dumped in Marin County. Or some of those small Pacific Northwest cities that are all about virtue signaling. If they don’t like it, hey, they can simply start following the rule of law again (by rescinding their sanctuary city status)and the problem stops.

    Better for all if they were dumped back across the border, but the left (plus more than a few sell-out establishment Republicans)stand in the way.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 4/27/2019 @ 2:42 pm

  18. Completely agree. Texas and Arizona have been specifically punished by the Obama Administration dumping illegals in our states because we’re Red. The bureaucracy has continued their policy with devastating results. Many of us here in Texas share the same sentiments with our fellow citizens in Arizona. If they must be shipped to a city in the US then ship them to sanctuary cities.

    Comment by Sean — 4/27/2019 @ 3:40 pm

  19. It would be very satisfying to get even with sanctuary cities by dumping illegal aliens n their doorsteps. Hopefully that is enough for you. Because this is what I think might happen:

    The sanctuary cities won’t cry Uncle and instead will embrace the aliens and asylum seekers, hand out drivers licenses, provide all the state/federal aid they can find (and I bet their various local and state governments will add grants and tax monies), along with free legal assistance by the best law firms. The end result will aliens fanning out across America with the means, legal status, and ability to stay here legally for decades. And no one will listen if Arizonans and Texans say the border is in crisis.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/27/2019 @ 9:40 pm

  20. It will be much, much easier for the ones who are inclined to criminal behavior to victimize Americans. And I doubt they will all stay in the sanctuary cities, so we will have no way to identify or track them because the sanctuary cities will refuse to help.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/27/2019 @ 9:51 pm

  21. @ DRJ, what you postulate in reply #19 is what is happening NOW. The only difference is, it’s not the sanctuary cities that are footing the bill, it’s America in general.

    It’s like San Francisco; their lefty policies have turned the city into a very literal sh**hole. And, people there are, belatedly, starting to realize this is a bad thing, but only because the problem is in their own neighborhoods. Until it was, they did not care.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 4/28/2019 @ 12:08 pm

  22. So you agree that nothing will change (except somehow the funding), but you want more of them to get special treatment?

    Comment by DRJ — 4/28/2019 @ 2:50 pm

  23. My hope (I’m being honest here, it’s just a hope)is that, like we’re seeing with the sudden NIMBY reaction to the sh**hole San Francisco has become, inflicting illegals on sanctuary cities will let them experience the results of their folly, just like they’ve done with the homeless. They were, for a while, all about welcoming the homeless – until the homeless showed up in their neighborhoods.

    The other part of my reasoning is that, in Sanctuary cities, half or more of the people support it, yet in areas like Phoenix the majority do not. So, really, it all boils down to how much more effective law enforcement in non-sanctuary cities is. Which way puts people worth protecting at the least risk? If it’s 40% of the population vs. 75% of the population, you’d need local law enforcement and reporting in the non-sanctuary city to be very effective to break even. I do not have hard numbers so I do not have a firm option, but my hunch is that even with the differential in enforcement, you’re going to be protecting more sanctuary city opponents by dumping illegals in the sanctuary cities.

    Another aspect is personal self-interest. For the exact same reasons I would not want toxic waste dumped in my area, I don’t want illegals dumped here either. I am absolutely disinclined to put myself at any risk or expense to shield sanctuary city supporters in any way whatsoever.

    And yes, I admit it, another part is it just feels dang good to think of the sanctuary city supporters getting this rammed down their throats. They’ve earned this, in spades.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 4/28/2019 @ 4:41 pm

  24. I finally thought of a good (though of course, imperfect) analogy for this issue.

    In parts of the rural West, you get a very special kind of moron. They feed and “befriend” dangerous wild animals (Bear and cougar). This is illegal for good reason (public safety) but, their koombaya mindset sees these animals as “friendly” so they feed them, treat them like they were tame, and in so doing break the law (just like sanctuary cities).

    This habitualizes the wild animals to associate humans with food. This never ends well.

    Here’s a classic example
    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-aug-12-na-bear-attack12-story.html

    The only good news is that the culprit, not some innocent other person in the area, suffered the results of her actions. More often, that’s not the case.

    Would I take personal risk to save someone who was doing this? No, because they’re asking for it. Would I support relocating human-preying bears to communities where most of the people did this? Yup, if my only choice was between inflicting them there, or a town comprised of innocent people. (doing the former puts fewer innocent people at risk).

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 4/28/2019 @ 6:17 pm

  25. I truly hope you will reflect more on this. We don’t relocate wild animals that attack humans because they are too dangerous; we put them down so they can’t hurt anyone. Following your analogy, you would have Trump pardon illegal immigrants who are convicted murderers and relocate them from orison to sanctuary cities — so they can prey on the residents who live there!

    Comment by DRJ — 4/28/2019 @ 8:41 pm

  26. As I said, if my *only* choice.

    “Yup, if my only choice was between inflicting them there, or a town comprised of innocent people.”

    Only choice means only choice. I most certainly would not want Trump pardoning any illegals. I’m only in favor of dumping them in sanctuary cities if there’s absolutely no way to deport them or detain them. I’ve said many times that it’d be better for everyone if we just deport them.

    I also wonder if you’re worried for nothing. So far, Trump hasn’t dumped any in sanctuary cities, he’s just said he would. I wholeheartedly approve of him saying that, because the outraged shrieks from the left highlights their hypocrisy. What we don’t know, yet, is if Trump will try to actually try to keep his promise.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 4/29/2019 @ 1:00 am

  27. Maybe the Administration is on your wavelength, CJ, and it is already using migrants for political purposes. But instead of taking them to sanctuary citues, they are being bussed to Arizona, which under your theory should help turn a purple state red again. Right?

    Comment by DRJ — 4/29/2019 @ 6:55 am

  28. Maybe I missed Arizona’s theory about bussing illegals making a state more Red, but he’s spot on that the position should be that if the left wants to continue blocking any real immigration reform (including rules governing amnesty) so that the administration’s hands are tied in regards to being forced to let these people go into the interior of the country that they should be dropped off in their sanctuary cities as a matter of pressure. Deportation or forcing them to wait in their country of origin for their asylum hearings would of course be ideal, but given the fact that choice is off the table why shouldn’t Trump begin bussing them to Seattle, San Francisco, and New York?

    Comment by Sean — 4/29/2019 @ 10:12 am

  29. More to the point, why are sanctuary cities bad places to dump these people but places like Fort Worth, Phoenix, and Sante Fe okay?

    Comment by Sean — 4/29/2019 @ 10:13 am

  30. @ DRJ, kindly show me where I said that a Republican administration dumping illegals in a red or purple state will make it more red? Also, the majority of people in Arizona do not support illegal immigration (or sanctuary cities) so unlike sanctuary cities, they do not have a say in this issue. They are, by and large, not the ones causing the problem.

    I also encourage you to rethink your own position, because I wonder if you’re aware of the ramifications of your position of not dumpling illegals in sanctuary cities? A policy of not dumping in sanctuary cities incentivizes sanctuary cities.

    So, DRJ, where, precisely, do *you* think the next busload of illegals should be dumped?

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 4/29/2019 @ 1:30 pm

  31. First, I don’t see the point of sending immigrants to sanctuary cities unless:

    1. You want to change minds by exposing oeople to the reality of what illegal immigration does to the immigrants and the communities they are put in , or

    2. You are tired of having them in your community, or

    3. You want to get even with sanctuary cities.

    Have I missed a motive?

    Comment by DRJ — 4/29/2019 @ 2:01 pm

  32. Second, I have no problem with relocating immigrants to places that can house them and keep track of them. I object to sanctuary cities because I don’t think they will keep track of them. I have no problem with relocating them anywhere, sanctuary city or not, if no one is keeping track of them. I suspect that is the case now.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/29/2019 @ 2:03 pm

  33. But, in theory, it makes no sense to me to put illegal immigrants in the only places where most of the leaders want to encourage more of them and will probably bend over backwards to hide any crimes they commit.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/29/2019 @ 2:06 pm

  34. If your only motive is that you are tired of having them in your community (and I am, too), then we shouldn’t live in border states. For now, it comes with the territory.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/29/2019 @ 2:09 pm

  35. I should add that I do not feel the need to get even with any Americans just because they disagree with me, but I realize that may be a minority view in America today.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/29/2019 @ 2:12 pm

  36. If mayors of sanctuary cities really wanted Trump to dump bus-loads of people into their city they wouldn’t have reacted with lawsuits.

    Comment by Sean — 4/29/2019 @ 2:46 pm

  37. @ Sean
    I look forward to those lawsuits. They’re going to have to list the claimed harm, which will be both illustrative of their hypocrisy, plus legally useful (if they win, establishing via court ruling that dumpling of illegals is harmful to the community).

    @ DRJ
    Your list of three motives is accurate in my case, though I’ll quibble with #3 slightly; I want to get even (make them experience the fruits of their own folly) the supporters of sanctuary cities. I’m painfully aware that not all residents of sanctuary cities support sanctuary cities, so those are innocent victims, just as my whole state has been for many years – and still is, per the busload dumped in Tucson the other day. I would also add a reason #4; dumping them on sanctuary cities and other open-border enclaves at least offers the hope of getting a sane alternative passed. Your way does not.

    This is not about getting even with people who happens to disagree with me. It’s about turning the tables on people who have been inflicting real harm on me, my family, my community, my state, for many years.

    To give you an example, about 20 years ago I lived in a town where a major developer wanted to build a huge project. The people in the part of town that would be adjoining it did not want it. The city council, even those who were supposed to represent that area, thought otherwise (quite a few of them had immediate family members who would profit massively, what a coincidence~!) and was bending over backwards to get the development (a shopping mall) to happen. And they got their way. They also, to keep the developer happy (plus create lucrative contracts for council family members who owned construction companies), granted the developer permission to work around the clock, including blasting, heavy earth-moving equipment (they were moving part of a large hill) etc. So, the people in the area who did not want this project were subject to all manner of noise, dust, dirt, damage, construction debris, 24/7.

    A decision was made to make the city council members share in experiencing what they had wrought. Their home addresses and phone numbers were obtained. People began calling them at all hours, complaining about the noise, demanding they end it. They also took to dumping the debris on their front lawns in the middle of the night, blasting their houses with dirt and dust, throwing rocks, doing to them in spades what they had so cavalierly done to others.

    It didn’t stop the development. But you know what? Those city councilors never did anything that high-handed again (plus, several didn’t even bother trying to get reelected). Why? Because they’d been made to pay a price – experiencing the fruits of their own folly. Turnabout is fair play, after all. Plus, more importantly, sometimes it works.

    For those who live in sanctuary cities who don’t want these criminals dumped on them, well then, let’s use your own words and reasoning; they shouldn’t live in sanctuary cities or states. For now, it comes with the territory.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 4/29/2019 @ 4:07 pm

  38. Whether or not we agree on where to send them, maybe we can agree on this: I want the Southern invasion to stop. I want a Wall because Congress won’t act and it may help limit the ability of immigrants to get access/claim asylum.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/29/2019 @ 6:12 pm

  39. This is not about getting even with people who happens to disagree with me. It’s about turning the tables on people who have been inflicting real harm on me, my family, my community, my state, for many years.

    I don’t see the difference. Either you want to teach them a lesson like Tough Love, or you want to punish them. I get the point of the former, even though I don’t think it will work in the short term. I don’t get the point of the latter.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/29/2019 @ 6:14 pm

  40. They are not mutually exclusive positions, there is no either-or. I want them to experience the mess they are making, so hopefully they’ll stop preventing a solution. There is also the fact that somebody’s got to experience the mess they are making, and I’d much rather it be them than people who don’t deserve it. Plus, I like Karma.

    Likewise, I much prefer it when a gang drive-by kills gang members rather than innocent people. That does not mean I support gang drive-bys, it means if somebody is going to get hit by one, I’d prefer it not be an innocent person.

    BTW, to be clear, I would MUCH prefer to dump illegals south of the border, rather than in sanctuary cities or anywhere else in the US.

    And, on what you say in #38, wholeheartedly agreed! I think a wall will help (Thus I support building it by any means necessary), but I also think at some point congress will need to act, such as closing loopholes and enacting e-verify, to name two measures off the top of my head.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 4/29/2019 @ 7:43 pm

  41. They are not mutually exclusive positions, there is no either-or. I want them to experience the mess they are making, so hopefully they’ll stop preventing a solution. There is also the fact that somebody’s got to experience the mess they are making, and I’d much rather it be them than people who don’t deserve it. Plus, I like Karma.

    Karma came for Kate Steinle. That’s what she gets for living in a sanctuary city. Sorry Kate!

    Comment by Patterico — 4/30/2019 @ 7:19 am

  42. @ Patterico, no, that’s not Karma, that’s a tragedy, because as far as I know, Kate Steinle was not a backer of sanctuary cities and similar policies.

    Karma would be the case if she was, though.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 4/30/2019 @ 12:19 pm

  43. Do you equate public vulgarity, crassness, lying, bullying, and insults by politicians with similar behavior in private? Those are materially different to me, and I don’t think it is hypocritical to say that.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/30/2019 @ 6:44 pm

  44. @ dRJ,
    I’m not sure exactly what we’re talking about here; Trump’s utterly disgusting “grab ’em by the…” tape? If that’s classed as public, quite a few things LBJ said should be as well, and those were said while he was in office.

    On the other hand, if Trump, or any president, says Bulls**t occasionally, that does not bother me at all (and sometimes it’s appropriate).

    Actually, come to think of it, I prefer someone who says the same things in public as in private, because at least you know what you’re getting.

    Comment by Arizona CJ — 4/30/2019 @ 6:54 pm

  45. I don’t think anyone can argue, let alone believe, that Trump talks with the same thoughtfulness and care other modern Presidents have used. And, of course, there are also his tweets and his countless prior interviews. They show who and what he is, and I don’t think it is good — even if you find it honest. If you don’t see a difference or if you like the difference between Trump and others, that is your choice.

    Comment by DRJ — 4/30/2019 @ 8:42 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Live Preview


Powered by WordPress.