A San Francisco federal court judge Friday morning will consider San Francisco and Santa Clara counties’ requests to halt President Donald Trump’s Jan. 25 executive order that would withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions.
Cities and counties that do not assist with federal immigration enforcement by holding arrestees beyond their release date could lose significant amounts of funding for health care, social services and safety programs, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors President Dave Cortese said at a news conference in San Jose Thursday.
“A ruling in our favor tomorrow will give temporary protection for funding owed not only to us, but to communities like us across the country,” Cortese said.
Santa Clara County is facing potential losses of $1.7 billion out of a budget of $6.7 billion.
The county budget for the 2017-2018 fiscal year will be made public by May 1, and will be adopted on June 30, Cortese said, leaving the board scrambling to set aside reserves in case federal funding is cut.
Cuts during economic downturns can be made to social programs, but a loss of $1.7 billion would mean cutting entire programs, county executive Jeffrey Smith said.
“There’s no unnecessary services that we provide, so we’ll definitely be hurting people if we start cutting,” Smith said. “Individual or large donors are unlikely to step in with that much money at risk, so I think if the cuts are made, it’ll mean people are on the street.”
Last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said that jurisdictions that refuse to honor detainer requests “make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on our streets.”
“Countless Americans would be alive today and countless loved ones would not be grieving today if the policies of these sanctuary jurisdictions were ended,” Sessions said, citing the 2015 fatal shooting of Kathryn Steinle by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a Mexican national with a history of drug convictions and deportations.
Lopez-Sanchez was released from jail a few days before shooting Steinle in San Francisco.
But the Center for American Progress released a study on Jan. 26 showing that, on average, 35.5 fewer crimes were committed per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties compared to non-sanctuary counties.
Median household income was shown to be $4,353 higher, the poverty rate 2.3 percent lower and unemployment 1.1 percent lower in sanctuary counties, with the most pronounced effects appearing in low-population counties, according to the study.
When local agencies assist with immigration detention, public trust in law enforcement suffers, a major issue in a county with a population that is more than one-third foreign-born, Sheriff Laurie Smith said.
“We cannot afford to have a single resident fear to call us when they’ve been a victim of a crime or to report a crime. We cannot afford to have a single person fear calling 911,” Smith said.
The executive order, and the county’s lawsuit to stop it, is about more than immigration, Deputy County Executive David Campos said.
“We have a president that is trying to unilaterally use federal funds to essentially extort jurisdictions to make them do his bidding,” Campos said. “And if Donald Trump can do that with respect to immigration, then that sets a precedent on other issues.”
By
By
By
The issue is when an illegal immigrant who has a history of felony crimes get’s arrested, the county/sheriff should make it a policy to hold the person for ICE to deport. I believe everyone would feel safer if that happens. And if someone reported such a person to police, and that person is let back in the community, how does anyone in the community feel that it would be “safe” to report that person again if they are committing a crime?
It’s just that simple.
Bay Area liberals are in a quandary: What can they do, if Trump follows through? The simple answer is: Raise taxes to pay for their social welfare programs; or cut programs. Of course, the Trump administration can still reject many federal grants to California, including the Bay Area, going forward, one example being CalTrain electrification.
This issue of “sanctuary city” status should be put on the ballot for the voters to decide. None of those currently elected officials have run on the issue. Time to let the voters weigh in, rather than be told (in effect) that their views and concerns don’t matter on whether their city government is going to only abide by some Federal laws.
It’s simple. We have laws. They need to be adhered to. We’ll see if California blinks when government money stops coming in.
Joe, you’re absolutely right. The problem is that our legislators are gutless. Any sanctuary city initiative would lose by a landslide and they know it. Most Americans want immigrants to come here legally and follow our laws. Anything less is a crime.
I support and am proud of our Santa Clara Co.’S commitment to its residents.
Sanctuary is generally safer for all and that’s a fact.
Anon, please prove your statement “That’s a fact.” Thank you
I dont think we are talking here about undocumented criminals, who, of course, should be arrested and deported (once they have been found guilty). The issue here is regarding undocumented inmigrants who work and pay taxes, who have commited no crime. Being undocumented is NOT a crime. Is a problem that needs to be soved without ripping families apart. With oportunities, real oportunities to become documented.
The long history to improve guest worker rights since Chavez has now become an open door movement by a very vocal minority. The movement to be fair has grown out of control. People who favor immigration but strongly oppose illegal – illegal – immigration are shouted down and labeled racists while local officials band together to defy federal law to protect illegals. Sanctuary cities are declarations that we will only participate in the rule of law on an a la carte basis, we’ll choose. We want monies donated by all Americans to support our local needs but want to determine which parts of the constitution we agree with. This a frightening development in a nation that respects the rule of law and a very,very dangerous trend. If locals really want to declare sanctuary cities they should also approve the taxes required to assimilate them.
“People who favor immigration but strongly oppose illegal – illegal – immigration are shouted down and labeled racists…”
Truth in labeling…
“Sanctuary cities are declarations that we will only participate in the rule of law on an a la carte basis, we’ll choose.”
Just like the operators of the Underground Railroad did. They were felons at the time, but are now heroes–to most Americans.
@ Greenmom….being in the United States without documentation is against our laws, therefore illegal. You can’t spin this.
“being in the United States without documentation is against our laws, therefore illegal. You can’t spin this.”
No spin needed. These immigrants are obeying the highest law of the Reagan Republican state: the Open Market. Employers are glad to hire them; they are glad to be hired. Deal. The Market at work.
If lesser laws conflict with the Market, change them and you shrink an intrusive big government in the process.
There are very good reasons for our country to have immigration laws. One of the main reasons for our success has been because we are a nation of laws, following rule of law for the benefit and protection of all of us.
Illegal immigration disrupts our society in many significant ways, and hampers the hopes and dreams of the many millions of legal immigrants and those hoping to enter our country legally. It’s also a precedent issue, where do you stop in deciding to ignore the law, and have local governments disregard our Federal laws? The result of that system would be anarchy and less security for all.
It has nothing to do with “open markets”, it’s a civil and social organizational and rule of law issue, not economic. As for the economic repercussions of illegal immigration, there are many. One example are the many millions of American citizens who depend on social services paid for by our tax dollars, now they need to fight for resources from the diversion of resources to the illegal immigrants.
Bottom line: Mexico and Central America need to do a better job governing their own countries and stop exporting their excess population and social problems here. It would be great for all of us and them if they had better economic opportunity there, and rule of law, so that they could be successful in their own countries. That of course still allows millions of legal immigrants to come to USA as usual, which we all want to see continue.
We are greater as a country of immigrants, yet let’s keep it legal immigration.
Entering a country illegally means you broke the law.
I oppose so-called sanctuary cities and attempt to direct my dollars elsewhere, where practical.
Citizens, other legal residents may gave various opinions, and can work to akyer the law, but the law is the law now and this country – just like others – has the right to have a border. What’s not OK is ekectrdd and appointed officials not upholding the laws of this country.
“this country – just like others – has the right to have a border.”
“A” border? Singular? Last map I looked at showed two borders: one with Mexico and one with Canada. Which one are you exempting? Why? Be honest now.
One more thing. What border does the USA have with Ireland? You know, the border the 50,000 “undocumented” Irish in this country crossed to get here? Gonna kick ’em out too? Hmmm?
“It has nothing to do with “open markets”,”
It has everything to do with the Open Market. The Open Market is the highest law in Capitalism. What brand of Big Government Socialism are you proposing should be above the Open Market? Why?
The source of this story is ‘Bay City News Service’ but no author is identified. If read carefully, it begins reporting the Judge’s review but ends with the same, familiar arguments against enforcing the law. This article is actually propaganda packed with opinion in favor of the pro-illegal camp.
The argument that illegals would be affraid to report crime is speculative and the study statistics doubtful but both turn the article into editorial. They are the opinions of some in favor of Sancuary – not straight reporting of the judge’s planned review. Why? Is Palo Alto Online trying to promote an agenda?
Finally, Campos is quoted saying that the President is trying to extort jurisdictions to get them to do his bidding. Really? The President is trying to get people to obey the law.
Providing PA with news is a great service but online should not be publishing others propaganda in the guise of a news story.
To your latest comment and question, Curmudgeon.
I certainly agree there are many economic aspects of immigration, both legal and illegal immigration are mostly driven by people’s desire to achieve better economic security for themselves and their families.
The distinction I am making here is that first of all I put a premium on rule of law and believe a society based on following laws supersedes all public policy, and thankfully a majority of Americans still believe this. Most of us believe our country, and our families, are better off continuing as a country based on rule of law.
This means public policy and those leading our country, and those elected officials managing our local and state governments on our behalf, need to obey laws, or they should be fired. I am a big proponent of free market capitalism, pro-business private enterprise, and “open market” economic policies. However, I’m also a big proponent of social and economic policies to assist the economically and educationally disadvantaged. The USA is not a pure capitalist society, or pure socialist society, most western countries are blended. Yet that is another more complex discussion.
As a country based on rule of law, you must have and protect various public policies to enforce that rule of law. We have immigration law to manage the flow of the many millions of people who wish to come here from around the world. Most of us also strongly believe in the benefit and importance of the USA being an independent country with integrity of its borders protected. Thus we have, and must protect, our immigration laws.
If we followed your approach to apply “open markets” to everything in our country, including mass waves of migrants, without codified laws and their supporting public policies, we’d have anarchy and zero regulation of the powerful.
As we know power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We need to follow and protect our laws, it’s what keeps us civilized.
Mexico City is the biggest city in North America – it is an “Alpha City”. If you check it out on Google you can see all of the formal buildings, museums,Tourists places, art galleries. Mexico has resorts on the Pacific and Caribbean coasts. It has agriculture and industry. So who are you saving? And why are we using tax payer dollars to subsidize another countries citizens? It is year 2017 and Mexico today has many resources. The narratives no longer make sense that we commit to the actions that we are now.
“If we followed your approach to apply “open markets” to everything in our country, including mass waves of migrants, without codified laws and their supporting public policies, we’d have anarchy and zero regulation of the powerful.”
Remove the subjunctive voice and you’ve described the present situation perfectly.
Keep in mind that I’m not promoting the supremacy of the Open Market. I’m tweaking the hypocrisies of the great multitude who do advocate it, then flipflop on acknowledging how it works in the immigrant labor scenario.
To be brutally frank, OpenMarketism is not the actual supreme law. Bigotry is. Hence my loaded questions regarding the singular-border remark, and the total lack of a similar focus on “undocumented” Irish immigrants. Likewise the crew of undocumented Polish workers who one Donald J. Trump imported and exploited to build his eponymous tower.
So I ask: What’s the obvious distinction between Irish and Polish “undocumenteds,” and Mexican “illegals”?
I have relatives who were paid to come here – they got transit on a ship for two years worth of labor as miners. We have a lot of mining work here for coal, metals, etc. All of this was paid for and approved by the government. This is of course way back when we were in the industrialized era. We needed workers for factories, building the railroad across America. We are not in that era anymore. We are not in an industrialized era because we have closed our factories and shipped the factory work out of the US. As to the Irish they were shipped to America to be slave labor – but their transit was paid for and when they arrived they went through a formal process of entry. The British did not want them – it wanted their land. There was a huge influx as a result of the Franco-Prussian War in 1870’s – France and Germany did not want a lot of people back then and shipped them out. All of these people went through Ellis Island or Baltimore – the second biggest port in America at that time. Comparing those times to today is not going to work – we don’t have the factories. That is what this whole political campaign was about – bring back the factories so the people who are here can get jobs – rebuild the middle class. Farm works can come in on a H2B visa but our current generation of farmers do not want to go through that process because it documents that they are on the farm working and they have to report for tax purposes. The main problem today is that the people coming at exploited as human trafficking and for drug purposes. Drugs are controlling a lot of the action here.
Tesla brought in a bunch of middle eastern workers to build some buildings at his Fremont location. He did not hire them – they came through an agency. One got hurt rather badly and there was a huge tug-of-war as to who was going to pay for his medical – Tesla or the subcontract company that brought them in.
the H1B come through as subcontractors such as TATA.
Great comments by resident on the nuances and history of immigration! 2017 in USA is completely different than 19th and early 20th Century immigration needs and patterns. Excellent point on the entire issue of drugs and human trafficking as well.
“The main problem today is that the people coming at exploited as human trafficking and for drug purposes. Drugs are controlling a lot of the action here.”
Follow the money trail. There are powerful interests making big bucks. Attorney General Sessions apparently hasn’t got the word yet; else he is totally blinded by his own deep bigotry. In the latter case the powerful interests will eventually take him down.
Thank you Martha – everyone who has done work on their ancestry knows how their people got here. In the SJM today – page B4 is a lengthy article about “Fugitive drug dealer’s dismissed”. That says it all – the cartels have taken over and are intimidating the local government’s, and the state government. There is a huge gang problem in LA from where a lot of legislation on this topic is coming from. That is the problem for year 2017. The farmers can come in on a H2B visa – suck it up farmers and pay the taxes and labor fees the people are due to them. And suck it up Google and pay on the billions that you are holding off-shore. People think they are so clever with their narratives of “helping people” but many subtle activities in process here.
Sessions totally understands the situation at hand here and it working to break it down.
That’s right Resident! Excellent points!
Regarding Crumudgeon’s comments, I beg to differ sir. You are very wrong on almost every point you make. General Sessions is a fine upstanding citizen and leader. The very biased main stream media blindly and very unfairly reports inaccurately about his record and his accomplishments. Finally we have an AG with a backbone ready to protect and enforce the laws of our country.
Our elected officials need to obey the laws, they work for us, the citizens and tax payers of the USA, not Mexico.
“Our elected officials need to obey the laws, they work for us, the citizens and tax payers of the USA, not Mexico.”
Correct. And those laws include the United States Constitution, right? And the Constitution includes the Tenth Amendment, right? And the Supreme Court has clarified that the Federal government therefore cannot commandeer the laws and functions of the states and their subordinate jurisdictions for its own purposes, right? So Donald Trump is indulging his and his followers’ renowned ignorance of the Constitution, right?
So, now that you know this, kindly cease and desist advocating this gross violation of the United States Constitution.
You do believe in States’ Rights, right? Well, here it is, live and in color.
Gee Cur – have you run for office? Is your actual name on any point of responsibility concerning the Constitution? The people who have run for office – been voted in are fully aware of the legalities concerning the US laws. If the Mexican people are unhappy with their situation then they should be marching and rioting in Mexico City to President Pena and asking him to provide whatever it is that they are looking for. Mexico City is the biggest city in North America and it has all of the resources to provide for it’s citizens. And if you ever tried to go to Mexico you will have to go through a process to clear the border. No – people cannot just walk into Mexico – need to get a permit. The one-way traffic does not work in 2017 – if we need to get permits to enter Mexico then they need to get permits to enter the US. And President Pena needs to get his countries act together so that it’s citizens are safe.
Nooooo not this again. I’d love to jump in and argue on Trump’s behalf, but it seems PAOnline is in the business of shutting down debate. I don’t feel like writing out a thoughtful piece opinionating why I think Sanctuary Cities are unfair & reckless, only to have it censored because the moderator construes it as “racist”.
Don’t PAOnline, the mainstream media, and the Berkeley crybabies realize that censorship and violence, respectively, are the very reason DJT is President? Keep censoring comments and you will ensure his re-election in 2020. Just look at the war chest he’s building up.
“The people who have run for office – been voted in are fully aware of the legalities concerning the US laws.”
Really? Ever heard of one Donald J. Trump?
” If the Mexican people are unhappy with their situation then they should be marching and rioting in Mexico City…”
Gee, I’m not into giving advice to residents of other nations. But there’s that Mexican thing again. What about those 50,000 illegal Irish immigrants, Hmmm? Do they get a break just because they ain’t got permanent tans? And that’s my point.
“Is your actual name on any point of responsibility concerning the Constitution?”
No, I didn’t write the Constitution. Born too late. But I do highly respect it, and I emphatically do not believe in ignoring it to harass dark-skinned people.
“Bay Area liberals are in a quandary: What can they do, if Trump follows through?”
Exactly what they’ve been doing: sue to enforce a conservative application of the Constitution. Exactly what conservatives should be doing.
Dear Crumudgeon,
In fact I do believe in States rights and I have read the United States Constitution multiple times. Your many rhetorical questions are clearly based on very deeply held biases you hold which are antithetical to mine.
Thankfully we still live in a free country and can happily hold our divergent views. Except it is true that the liberal biased main stream media has systematically shut out alternate views and hampered free speech with their totalitarian tendencies. Nevertheless, some of us are even able to debate our views with others in polite and civilized ways.
I don’t assume you to be ignorant just because I disagree with you, nor should you make such very wrong assumptions about me.
Despite any of the recent 9th Circuit rulings, President Trump and AG Sessions have been very successfully upholding and enforcing US immigration laws. Their widely communicated commitment to these efforts has even helped decrease illegal immigration by over 60% since taking office. I applaud them for their great efforts on protecting our border.
As for the recent misguided yet predictable ruling by the extremely liberal 9th Circuit, it remains to be seen how our Supreme Court will ultimately rule on a variety of high profile immigration law related cases. It is a fact that the 9th Circuit holds the prize for consistently producing the most overturned rulings by our Supreme Court. They are a very politically activist court with often misguided interpretations of our Constitution. We are indeed fortunate to live in a country with a brilliant method of checks and balances of all power centers.
Despite that ruling, and I would even agree with you that there are merits to some of the States rights arguments, there is also a great argument to be made on behalf of Federal immigration laws needing to be followed by the States. We shall soon see how the Supreme Court interprets it.
In any case, I hold firm my strongly held view that State and local government officials who disregard Federal immigration laws and refuse to cooperate with ICE on illegal immigrants, especially the criminal illegal immigrants, are doing a disservice to their communities and their constituents. They are also promoting the further deterioration of the integrity of our country’s institutions, integrity of our borders, and the overall integrity of our rule of law.
“In any case, I hold firm my strongly held view that State and local government officials who disregard Federal immigration laws and refuse to cooperate with ICE on illegal immigrants, especially the criminal illegal immigrants, are doing a disservice to their communities and their constituents.”
Self-styled conservatives really, really need to learn what’s actually happening. Nobody’s trying to prevent their ICE heroes from doing their jobs. What sanctuary cities do is enforce the Constitutional prohibition against federal usurping of state and city functions, like local policing, for federal purposes. The ICEers need to stop being so lazy and do the jobs they’re paid for. Yell at them.
Conservatives like to talk against big government. But when big government aligns with their pet projects–in this case, bigotry against dark-skinned individuals-=-conservatives reflexively and enthusiastically support big government. If you object to that characterization, first respond my prior challenge regarding Irish illegals.
“They are also promoting the further deterioration of the integrity of our country’s institutions, integrity of our borders, and the overall integrity of our rule of law.”
Wrong. They are directly fighting the latest illegal conservative attacks against our country’s institutions, particularly its Constitution.
@Mary,
You may want to watch less Fox News and look up facts, since the 9th Circuit court is not the most overturned circuit, that honor lies with the 6th Circuit, covering Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. As a conservative, I may disagree with liberals on a lot of things, but I make sure I have my facts correct.
The fact is that Trump is trying to shift the burden of immigration enforcement from the ICE onto our state and local governments. Please read up on exactly what a sanctuary city is, or explain to the rest of us precisely what part of our duty our local governments are failing to live up to.
Everyone has a different definition of a sanctuary city. Every time someone tries to define what the specifics are it does not happen. People make up what it is suppose to be. From where I am sitting it is protecting the cartel activity that is very ingrained in the major city government actions.
@resident,
There is a quite well established definition of what a sanctuary city is. You can read the statements by the Santa Clara County Sheriff, among others, but the basic overarching idea is that local governments aren’t going to be checking people’s immigration status during the course of basic interactions. So, for example, a domestic abuse victim or a burglary victim will not have their immigration status checked when they report those crimes. This is just good policing, and police departments choose to do this because they need the cooperation of their communities in order to protect everyone.
“Constitutional Conservative”, were you a NeverTrumper?
Sanctuary City is easily defined. It’s right there in the word —- “sanctuary”.
It’s there to protect people from being deported. It cuts both ways… protecting innocents AND dangerous criminals. Some of them might even be related! Harsh reality.
In my experience, the real issue is the language barrier. Causes alienation. Subtle racism, cuts both ways.
At this rate we will be required to learn Spanish in elementary school.
Wow I just couldn’t help it and the moderator strikes again! I rest my case!
p.s. don’t confuse me with the other “resident” of Charleston meadows
@Resident,
I can’t tell if you’re being willfully ignorant or you’ve just misread what I wrote. No sanctuary city policy prevents people from being deported. What the policies do is allow people who are otherwise law-abiding residents to interact with their local governments without fear of reprisal. There’s no value judgment on whether this is good policy, these are just the facts. Regardless of whether you agree with something, it’s important to understand precisely what you’re arguing against.
My mother worked for the Los Angeles Police Department. The first thing that happens is that the perp is identified and run through the police system to see if there are any outstanding warrants or priors. The police know at the instant the person is picked-up what the status is. Any narrative that says otherwise is pure fiction. If you watch CSI or any other detective show – go back to Miami Vice – you will see the standard process in place. So every one now thinks that standard police practice is not happening. I think that standard practice which is responsible has been turned on it’s head – and that is not to the good for the rest of the citizens. There is a lot of fiction being put out there right now.
Illegal is illegal, there are not flavors of illegal. Creating flavors of illegal with special circumstances is accomodation. In order to maintain illegal status, other acts of false docs or misrepresentation or not having required papers are needed. So, for many, illegal entry or over-stay is followed by more violations. Those wanting to accomodate them have provided paths for drivers licenses, etc. but all of that only encourages more illegals to try. Those who accomodate are providing sanctuary. It would be far better to uphold existing immigration law so that illegals are not coming here with an uncertain future. That would avoid all of the special circumstances such as illegals afraid to report abuse, etc.
People who think they are being kind are actually creating a mess. Insisting on proper immigration ensure the children will have a place and parents won’t have to live in fear.
Dear Curmudgeon,
First, allow me to apologize for inadvertently misspelling your name previously.
Per your latest tautological and illogical argument on this matter I’ll refrain from trying to debate with you on this topic any longer, after my retort of course. :). I also find your communication disrespectful in addition to the consistent illogical arguments, thus not a productive use of my time.
I will end my debate on this topic with these observations:
1. You are perceptive in picking up that I have a conservative POV. I am in fact a very fiscally conservative person, believing our elected officials have the primary responsibility of managing all the peoples’ business in a financially sound manner. The primary responsibility of local government is first and foremost to keep their communities safe and clean, in a financially responsible manner.
2. On your inferring that any and all supporters of President Trump’s immigration policies are racist is very wrong and simply a crude, thoughtless, and meaningless generalization. It is a big mistake many on the left make. The best way forward for the USA on race based issues is to evolve to true Humanism and the golden rule. All humans must be treated with respect and dignity. Indeed All lives matter.
3. Re. your tautology regarding the “illegal Irish” immigrants, this is also meaningless without a time frame or other data. Yet I’ll take a stab at this before I wrap up. If we are talking about the waves of migration our country needed and encouraged in the 19th and early 20th centuries, that was a very different political and social landscape. It would take me pages to describe this for you.
4. Today is 2017 and AI and robotics will continue to decrease the need for salaried/hourly paid human labor, by 2050 this acceleration will be beyond anything we’ve seen to date. The next public policy decision our country will need to address will be exactly how we implement the “minimum income” policy for all Americans who will be displaced by technology. This has big implications for immigration policy as well. We ought focus our energy on debating how best to handle that policy, which will include another epic battle between Conservatives and Liberals, rather than discuss meaningless comparisons between 19th Century migration patterns and current social and geo-political realities.
To the other recent contributor questioning my statement about the 9th Circuit, it all depends on exactly what data you are using, which report and which time frame. Please see link below to a report published by the ABA, clearly it states the 9th Circuit “wins the prize” on producing the most SCOTUS reversals at 80%, they get the lowest grade too at a C- when compared to the universe of all 11 circuits. I was comparing them among the 11 circuits. When you include the Federal Circuit court in this universe, they do drop to 2nd worse after the Federal Circuits 83% reversal rating and a lovely grade of D.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf
@Martha,
That analysis terminates in 2010, which although recent, is almost a decade old at this point.
Politifact does a great job of discussing the issue, evaluating both the content of the claim (false), and the misleading nature of using
a that as an indication of circuit performance.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/
@George, please don’t insist on dehumanizing these people by calling them “illegals.” It contributes nothing to the conversation, and only serves to antagonize others.
“Constitutional Conservative” sounds a lot like Paul Ryan. So knowledgeable yet so ineffective.
Establishment conservatives, who used to be NeverTrumpers and now pretend to support him, will remind you that they know more “facts”, are more educated while the other is “willfully ignorant”.
How about making a straightforward argument without accusing the other side of being uninformed? Some of us actually have different perspectives.
Dear Constitutional Conservative,
True it is from 2010, yet a valid analysis nonetheless. We’re a bit getting into weeds on this point. Many very sound arguments have been made about the 9th Circuit’s outlier status. As with most statistics you can find the right ones to support almost any POV. Eventually humans need to govern and make judgements based on common sense, decency and doing the right thing.
On your requesting no one use the term “illegal immigrant” as a dehumanizing term, I don’t believe in choosing language and words in legal realm to ensure everyones’ feelings are not hurt. That is a dark road leading to Orwellian group think and prescribed language.
When I lived and worked in Japan for some years I was called “geijin” or “alien” almost every day. It didn’t bother me since in fact that is what I was working there legally, nonetheless I was a foreign outsider. I needed to follow their immigration laws which I happily did as guest in their country. There were some “geijin” that broke the immigration laws and were referred to as illegal aliens. This is quite accepted language worldwide.
When people break the law, they are doing something illegal. When we start coddling all our criminals too much that is when the inmates are running the prison. I for one will do everything I can to keep our country a nation based on rule of law. I don’t care if that hurts anyones’ feelings, least of which the law breakers themselves.
The easiest way to fix the immigration mess is to simply get all the illegals here documented, transition them to a legal status in a sensible humane way. Send the criminal aliens home on fast boats to whence they came, as many as possible with due process. The rest well behaved illegal immigrants can become legal by getting documented properly and wait in the back of the line for citizenship behind all the legal people waiting to come here from all over the world. Those who don’t want citizenship can get temp worker permits.
Decades ago I worked in US Consulates overseas for US State Department handling immigration on the front lines with people wanting to come here and taking the time to do so legally. We have the best, fairest system with probably the highest volume intake of legal immigrants in the world. Let’s not destroy that system but make it better.
“On your inferring that any and all supporters of President Trump’s immigration policies are racist is very wrong and simply a crude, thoughtless, and meaningless generalization.”
I have to work with what is happening. All references to undocumented immigrants in this thread refer directly or indirectly to Mexicans. I brought up the issue of Irish illegals multiple times; nobody has followed up on it. Mexicans generally have significantly darker skins than the Irish. What’s a perceptive observer to conclude?
BTW, accusing me of accusing someone does not exonerate them.
“The primary responsibility of local government is first and foremost to keep their communities safe and clean, in a financially responsible manner.”
Agreed. It helps immensely in keeping communities safe and clean when immigrant communities are willing to give crime information to the local police. It hinders crime fighting when they are afraid to open up to the cops. The Trump/Sessions program undermines that willingness and substitutes fear. So, in addition to being unconstitutional, it is a boon to criminals. Why would anyone support that?
In 1986 Ronald Reagan happily promoted and signed an immigration reform act that offered amnesty and a path to citizenship to over 3 million “illegals.” Do you now repudiate Ronald Reagan?
@Martha,
The use of the term “illegals” is the problem, rather than “illegal aliens,” “undocumented immigrants,” or “unauthorized immigrants.” Regardless of whether someone has broken a law, decent people still refer to them as humans. I suppose I was raised differently than many of you, as I was raised with Christian values to respect the dignity of all humans, as we are all God’s children. Fortunately, I do agree with you that the simplest way to solve this is to grant everyone here a path to citizenship.
As for volume of immigrants, we do take the most in raw numbers, but as a fraction of our population, we rank 65th worldwide in foreign-born population. We’re the best country in the world, and a nation of immigrants, so let’s get to #1!
@Resident,
I suppose it’s a pretty dark time in our country where making decisions based on facts is considered a negative, but we did just elect Donald Trump to the White House, so I shouldn’t be too surprised. If we claim to be a nation of laws, not men, it’s important to clearly outline what those laws are.
“3. Re. your tautology regarding the “illegal Irish” immigrants, this is also meaningless without a time frame or other data.”
The time frame is right now. Google “50,000 illegal Irish” and see for yourself.
Geez. Why do I have to do everybody’s homework for them? What ever happened to good old Anerican self-reliance?
Can we please get on board that it is now 2017 and Mexico has the same resources we do and we don’t need to subsidize their citizens. If we go to Mexico we have to get a permit. So if they come here they need to get a permit. As far as “normal jobs” go they have got it all there – they are the biggest city in North America with tourist resorts throughout the country. We are now trying to cut off the people who are not in the “normal” jobs – those that cost us time and money to monitor. We do not have enough police resources now to control the growing amount of crime and drugs that are crossing the border. 2017 – not twenty years ago or 100 years ago . Focus on where we are at NOW.
“Can we please get on board that it is now 2017 and Mexico has the same resources we do and we don’t need to subsidize their citizens.”
Mexico, Mexico, Mexico. Always Mexico. Can we please get on board that it is now 2017 and Ireland has the same resources we do and we don’t need to subsidize their citizens?
We’re gonna build a wall.
It will be a GREAT wall.
And who’s gonna pay for the wall???
Who???
[Portion removed.] will pay for the wall.
Don’t worry about it, they will.
They just don’t know it yet.
The US has been paying Mexico a large amount of money to help them control their drug problem. Old school thinking. How has that worked out? Money down the drain there in that particular attempt at the problem. So change the solution – use that money to build the wall. It is year 2017 they need to get control of their drug problem internally and not expect everyone else to maneuver around that problem. Everyone grow up here and deal with the issue.
And what is all of the Ireland issue about? Is that a distraction? They are not on our border so what is that all about.
@Curmudgeon “what ever happened to good old A’n’erican self-reliance?”
Apparently it went out the door with your inability to have a healthy debate without sarcasm or passive aggressive discourse.
I am trying to figure out why Curmudgeon gets to put in any outrageous comment and a direct response to that comment gets removed. Maybe the editor can explain why facts are not appreciated but outrageous comments from Curmudgeon sit there. Wikipedia is the source for most posts and current happenings as reported in the WSJ, SFC and SJM. We did not vote for Cur and he has no voice in the running of the city, state, or country.
Back to the original point here: it is a very bad precedent for our country’s various state and local elected officials to ignore federal immigration laws. We are and ought to continue to be a country based on rule of law. The promotion of Sanctuary City status only promotes an erosion of our overall system of laws and our national interests, at least to those of us who are patriotic and believe in the protection of our Republic and the integrity of our borders.
Even if there are 50,000 illegal Irish immigrants here today, along with thousands of other illegals who are here today from Russia, Asia, the Middle East, etc., etc., of course they all ought to be treated same as the illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central America and anywhere else.
People on this thread who have suggested my POV is racist are simply wrong.
The best solution to this problem is simply a new program to get all the illegals documented and put into a legal status, that is not amnesty. It is simply putting all of them on notice to either get documented or they will be put on a deportation list.
President Trump said all along his priority was to first get the illegal criminal aliens out, the “bad dudes” (and there are many), and then work on a humane new system and solution to address the other 10 to 20 million illegal aliens currently in the USA. As part of this there can absolutely be a legal path to citizenship for those who truly want to be law abiding legal citizens. They simply register and get way in back of line behind those waiting who already entered the process legally.
Someone previously mentioned Reagan/amnesty. I do remember the amnesty program implemented under Reagan. I was serving our country overseas at the time with State Department and helping Asian people trying to immigrate to the USA legally.
Also a different time, we are now dealing with new economic and social realities in 2017 that require policy solutions for our current reality.
To those who say sanctuary City status helps keep communities safe because the illegal immigrants are then not afraid to report crimes. There is very little evidence to support this.
Even so, even if there are illegal aliens afraid to report a crime because they are afraid to be deported, that is still taking a very short term view on crime, law enforcement and safety in our communities overall. The long term view to make USA a safe place is to ensure rule of law is known and enforced. I know leaders in law enforcement in various counties in California, many of these counties have kicked out ICE and don’t communicate with ICE effectively. The result is the illegal criminal aliens know they can operate rather easily in the great sanctuary State of California. Thankfully President Trump’s policies are starting to turn that around.
It’s easy to sit in the highly secure bubble of Palo Alto, a rich enclave of protected millionaires and billionaires, and think illegal criminal aliens are not a big problem. If you ask the poor person in a slum in Fresno, or wherever, forced to live in an extremely poor and unsafe neighborhood next door to a home with drug dealers or human trafficking people, they are the USA citizens we need to think about, care about and figure out best long term planning to bring their communities back. Let’s also never forget Kate Steinle.
@Martha,
You might be more productive in arguing your side if you focused your arguments a little more. As it is, they tend to be wordy and all over the place.
We need to go beyond what “feels good” and gets people riled up, and instead look at the burdens and responsibilities of government. The fact is that Trump is trying to shift the burden of immigration enforcement from the ICE onto our state and local governments. No one has pointed to a law that has been passed to make that the responsibility of our state and local governments.
^^^
There he goes again with disparaging other posters.
The State of California violates the Constitution in many ways and everyone looks the other way because their vaunted sense of altruism seems to justify it, whether its regarding the “environment” or “racism”.
The Trump Derangment Syndrome is so strong here and it makes me question the professionalism of the people California elects into office, both locally and statewide. Look at the decisions being made. Look at how money is being wasted. Are we being ruled by a group of self-important ideologues? Led by Jerry Brown himself… who insists out biggest problem is……. plastic bags!
They wanted to make all of California a Sanctuary STATE, for Chrissake.
Please check your Trump Derangement Syndrome. Its about time we elected a Realist.
@Resident,
I’m merely providing polite feedback to help improve our discussion here. I hope this did not offend anyone.
Accusing people of having “Trump Derangement Syndrome” is not a productive way to have this conversation, but I understand how frustrating it is to live among people you disagree with politically. For example, posting specific examples of how the State of California violates the Constitution will help others see your viewpoint and may even lead them to agree with upholding the principles of our great Constitution.
In another way, I don’t believe that Jerry Brown would claim that plastic bags are the biggest problem facing California, and to say that he does really reduces your credibility and the credibility of us conservatives by proxy. They may even accused us of “California Derangement Syndrome” 😉
The first encounter with an illegal who is committing a crime is by the local police. They will feed the info into the data base to determine who the person is and if there are any outstanding warrants or priors. If a gang member then they will put the person in a holding cell that is not occupied by an opposing gang member. By definition the initial encounter is local. the data base is local, so that is why the city and state are involved – first contact. There is a logic to the whole process and now that logic has been thrown out. The question the city has to answer to is who are they protecting – the job is to protect the citizens as a top priority. The crime committed then determines the results of the police action. If they are making the crook – legal or illegal a higher priority then they are not doing the job they swore an oath to uphold. Ice would not be included until a determination of the crime is completed.
@resident,
You seem to be arguing with an imagined version of what a sanctuary policy is about. Which part of our local sanctuary policies conflicts with the process you’re talking about?
The Palo Alto Online forum moderator edited out key sentences and made my last posting’s first paragraph and final sentence incomplete and somewhat changed the meaning of the sentences. That seems a bit close to censorship, if not actual censorship.
I was trying to say that it’s easy to think that illegal criminal aliens are not a big problem if you are sitting in highly protected uber wealthy Palo Alto. However, the US citizens we really need to think about and care about in this debate are the many less fortunate Americans living in crime ridden neighborhoods. Their neighbors are sometimes drug cartel members, drug dealers and/or human trafficking criminals who are illegal criminal aliens.
California’s promotion of sanctuary cities provides all criminal elements added incentive to feel empowered to carry on and expand their illegal activities since it fosters a climate of disrespect for the law. That less fortunate person living in a crime ridden neighborhood, no matter their color or ethnicity, deserves the same level of peace, safety and protection we all get to enjoy in Palo Alto. That is where the bar needs to be set for our Statewide policies on illegal immigration. Until those folks feel safe, we are failing.
Current policies in this State do impede law enforcement efforts to keep our communities safe. While it’s true the first line of defense has always been local police, yet ICE would in past be able to more proactively go to local jails and ferret out the illegal criminal aliens for deportation. Even that alone provides a deterrent overall to illegal criminal aliens. It is a fact that in certain counties in California ICE is not even allowed in the jails and not communicated with in the most efficient ways. Those are the kinds of policies that breed more crime and corruption.
It is not true that the Trump Administration is trying to force local law enforcement to do ICEs job, they simply want cooperation and communication, as they had in past decades.
Bottom line: the elected officials throughout the State of California ought to be more cooperative with the Trump Administration’s AG and Homeland Security on immigration policy and enforcement.
In response to what “Constitutional Conservative” said earlier:
1. You know the plastic bag comment was hyperbole, so why react with disingenuous condescension while claiming to be “polite”?
2. Who said I’m a pure conservative? I’m not representing you, by proxy or whatever. I’m a former Democrat and a fan of Trump. Seems like you’re on here just to needle Trump supporters. T D.S. indeed.
@Resident,
“Led by Jerry Brown himself… who insists out biggest problem is……. plastic bags!” seems to me like a statement about what Jerry Brown insists. If you’re retracting that, I’ll accept it, but what other parts of your argument were hyperbole that we’re not supposed to take at face value?
I never said you were a pure conservative, but people often take arguments against liberals as representative of conservative thought. I’d be happy to call you a liberal if that would make you happy. My only goal here is to establish facts above the usual rhetoric we see when it comes to immigration issues.
Finally, I’m confident that the side of this discussion being afflicted with a derangement syndrome is quite clear to any readers.
Sessions said tonight that M-13 is on the list of people they are going after. The map shows LA and San Francisco as known M-13 locations. They don’t need local police for this – they know who and where they are.
Note – there are two different people using the Resident – Charleston Meadows notation.
“It’s easy to sit in the highly secure bubble of Palo Alto, a rich enclave of protected millionaires and billionaires, and think illegal criminal aliens are not a big problem.”
It’s even easier to sit in the highly secure bubble of Palo Alto, …, and think illegal criminal aliens are a big problem. But why do that?
Get the facts, ma’am. Get the facts.
@resident,
I believe you mean MS-13, which is a street gang formed in Los Angeles. You can read Wikipedia for more locations, but they’ve been around since the 80s. I’m not entirely sure why this is relevant for this article, unless you’re just going to post anything that references Mexican or Central Americans.
One of the two of you should pick a new name 🙂
I’d really encourage folks to understand what this lawsuit is and is not about. It’s generally about constitutional principles: separation of federal and state powers, and executive (president) vs legislative (congressional) powers. We all should be interested in defending our Constitution — these shouldn’t be partisan issues. Congress is given the power to determine spending, not the executive branch, but our president threatens to withhold all federal spending without congressional approval. In addition, he commandeers State resources, which also goes against well-established Constitutional principles. You can search “anti-commandeering doctrine” for some background (e.g., http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/). This lawsuit is inherently about the fact that our president is over-reaching the powers available to the executive branch and the federal government. If he can do it in this context, what comes next?
You can find a good summary here: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/opa/nr/Documents/FAQ%20on%20County%20Lawsuit%20v%20Trump%20Exec%20Order%20on%20Sanctuary%20Jurisdictions%20-%20Final.pdf
The filing is here. If you want to read just one page, try page 11. http://www.keker.com/Templates/media/files/PDfs/File-Stamped-Motion-for-PI.pdf
If you’re talking about executive overreach, hasn’t Obama already set the precedent? But again, since he is displaying *altruism* and “fighting climate change” you look the other way.
It is unfortunate that the judiciary has become so politicized.
Obviously those with pre-existing contempt for President Trump will dig up all kinds of scholarly data and “facts” to resist him.
FWIW, this is not exactly “scholarly data” — it’s Constitution 101. I have difficulty with the suggestion that Trump understands (and adheres to) the Constitution as well as Obama. (Admittedly, Obama taught Constitutional Law for five years, so it’s not really fair.) I’m sure there are many things to admire about Trump, but his knowledge of and respect for the Constitution are not among them.
Very sadly agree that the judiciary is becoming politicized; it endangers the stability of our nation.
So what is your point? Obama violates the Constitution knowingly, while Trump does it unknowingly?
I have more respect for a Pragmatist Builder than for an Academic Lawyer.
Where exactly is President Trump “politicizing” the judiciary? Clearly it has been Obama and the far left liberals and socialists who have taken over the Democrats that have continuously pushed for and placed many hundreds of highly political and activist judges. Their activist judges all hide behind their “living document” excuse to make policy from the bench, rather than preserve and protect the Constitution.
As Hanson put it best in recent NR article on this: “Coastal elites set rules for others, exempt themselves, and tolerate rampant lawlessness from illegal aliens.” So true!
Hanson in another article explains how about 500 “sanctuary” cities and counties have “decided for political reasons that federal immigration law does not fully apply within their jurisdictions.”
A very sad time for America, our Constitution and our great tradition of rule of law. Indeed, get the facts! Talk to some people who live in middle America and the many crime infested neighborhoods of California. This state is fast becoming a third world type state with the highest poverty rates in the USA, all thanks to the great left wing debt ridden policies of the Democrats who run this place as a one party dictatorship and are fast running it into the ground.
No wonder they like to treat the Constititution as a “living document,” as they make it whatever they want it to be.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446014/trumps-opponents-use-sanctuary-cities-leaks-foster-lawlessness
@Martha,
Please stop spreading misinformation. You do conservatives like myself a great disservice by posting false and misleading information.
It’s been shown over and over again that sanctuary cities have not “decided for political reasons that federal immigration law does not fully apply within their jurisdictions.” To assert this is ridiculous, and flat out false.
California does have a higher than average poverty rate, but we’re only 35th. Take a look at the states with higher poverty rates than us (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate), such liberal bastions as Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia.
You point to the rule of law, yet have not shown where our policies contradict any laws. The responsibility for enforcing immigration law lies with the federal government. This attempted commandeering of state and local resources is an example of rule by a strongman who wants to show he’s “getting tough” without any regard for the laws and Constitution of our great nation.
@Resident,
Where did Obama violate the Constitution for “altruism” and “climate change?” Or was this hyperbole again that I’m not supposed to take at face value?
When you make such assertions, please support them with examples so that everyone can be convinced.
Martha most certainly speaks for me and I thank her for her well spoken, thoughtful posts. Try all you want to discredit or disparage her however there are MANY who agree with and support her position.
Dear Constitutional Conservative,
No sir, or no ma’am, I’m not spreading disinformation, and your stating that incorrectly demonstrates exactly what is wrong with our national discourse today. You may disagree with my analysis and interpretation of the facts, you may disagree with my conclusions and prescriptions for best solutions and policies, yet to make blanket statements of “you are spreading misinformation” is not an honest debating practice.
I take umbrage at your comment that I give Conservatives a bad name. You may disagree with my conservative POV, yet there are about 50,000,000 other conservatives who mainly agree with my POV and also voted for Trump. So who is the true conservative here? Who are the true conservatives of today is a debate for another day, yet it is not even a valid argument to wrongly accuse me of spreading misinformation.
I’m stating my opinions and I’m referring to facts. Some people today go right to “arguing” the other person is “lying” when we are simply expressing our opinions and analysis. Clearly you hold an anti-Trump bias, as many coastal elites do, people like this often have a knee jerk reaction to any and all Trump Administration policies.
Here are more facts: indeed when you factor in cost of living adjustments California is widely reported by many studies to have the highest poverty rate. See link below with the data. Once again, you and I could split hairs and try and count how many angels stand on the head of a pin by pulling different studies and statistics to debate if California has the highest poverty rate and we’d still both come to different conclusions. I stand by my facts on this.
Also, I never said that enforcing immigration law does not lie within the role of the Federal Government. What I have been stating is simply this: the local and state authorities ought to cooperate with the Federal immigration authorities. The fact is there are multiple counties in California that are purposefully not cooperating with ICE. I know this from real world activities which law enforcement leaders in various counties in California have shared with me and others, and it is public knowledge.
I urge you and others on this thread to read beyond the main stream media propaganda and do look at all the facts. Try to think beyond the Palo Alto bubble. I know that can be hard, but drive to Fresno and go see some of the crime ridden and poverty stricken neighborhoods of California dealing with illegal criminal aliens first hand. Go to Real Clear Politics to see data and analysis from both sides.
Also, kindly refrain from wrongly accusing others of “lying” when we are looking at facts and coming to different conclusions. That is called having a different opinion, not “lying.”
Finally, on M13, wow, you are not well informed. Please check out the facts about M13. Yes they originated in LA, however they are mainly comprised of members from Central America, many of them illegal aliens up here through their vast network of criminal activities and transportation of young members to be their soldiers here. It’s a vast international network of criminals. Clearly no one happily ensconced in the protected space of Palo Alto ever could fully understand what it’s like to live next to M13 gang members.
Sad, we used to be able to debate different opinions and end up with the best policies after healthy debate and collaboration. Now in the People’s Republic of California, people with a different POV are shut down and wrongly accused. It’s getting closer and closer to Stalinist Soviet system or Chinese one party system here in California.
http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/
@Martha,
I see we’ve gotten to the point where you’re going to hammer on “the mainstream media” covering up the real facts. When looking at supplemental poverty statistics, the major driver there is housing costs. Our bad housing policy cuts across the political spectrum, so really can’t be laid at the feet of liberals or conservatives. Considering we’re tied with Florida and followed closely by New York and Louisiana, it doesn’t look like there’s a clear partisan reason for these poverty rates among the states either.
You clearly know that there’s a massive difference between the statement that sanctuary jurisdictions have “decided for political reasons that federal immigration law does not fully apply within their jurisdictions” and that “local and state authorities ought to cooperate.” This type of hyperbole that you inevitably have to walk back hurts your arguments credibility.
Considering you don’t even have the correct name of the gang (it’s MS-13, not M13. Stands for Mara Salvatrucha), maybe you shouldn’t accuse people of not being well-informed?
As to your last paragraph, it seems like California Derangement Syndrome is a more common affliction than previously thought.
Looks like you’ve given up on being polite. And now you’re an expert on gangs.
After seeing laws that allow only clear air vehicles into the HOV lane — provided they have special stickers — bizarre plastic bag regulations that now FORCE EVERY city in California to adhere to the asinine 10 cent charge on paper bags so we will be coerced to “BYOB” cause we must be like the rest of the pagan tree-huggers…I could go on and on. I proudly bear the badge of California Derangement. Been here too damn long. At least I’m honest about it.
@Resident,
I never give up on being polite, but I will stand firm when being called ill-informed. I’m not a gang expert, but I do know the name of the gang and that it’s been around since the 80s. As a quick test, were any of you honestly even aware of it before the AG brought it up?
For the problems with CA, are those meant to be examples of unconstitutional actions by California, or are they just things you don’t like?
As for “pagan tree-huggers,” there’s a long history of Christian stewardship for the environment, but in modern times it certainly has come from the more liberal strains. Regardless, I don’t think it’s appropriate to denigrate the faith of others for political points.
Not sure which Resident CC is addressing the question to but my mother worked in the gang unit of the Los Angeles Police Department. Yes – I have been very aware of gangs since I grew up in LA. And the SJM is noting the gang activity in San Jose. The SJM provides the names of the gangs and location of turf. My son lives in the Oakland Hills and is very aware of the gang activity. Both my niece and daughter-in-law were confronted in down town Oakland. Daughter-in-law’s brother is CHP in San Diego and other brother in Sheriff Department.
And since all of my favorite authors write detective books made into TV/films – Hollywood location – anyone who has those authors is very aware of the gangs.
The NYT and WSJ are following the gangs as well as the current cartel groups in Mexico who people are now busy catching.
The question people have to ask with the homeless camps is the number of needles found. If people have no money then where are the drugs coming from and who is supplying the drugs. That is a problem highly noted in San Francisco.
Check the WSJ 04/19/17 – White House Links Migrant Gangs, Crime. – nice picture of MS-13 gang members in Quezaltepeque, El Salvador.
I don’t like to go on about the subject but people have their heads in the sand if they have no awareness of what is going on around them and no intention of at least following the standard police practices that we have had in place for decades.
UC Berkeley just banned Ann Coulter from speaking at an event. That’s a violation of the First Amendment. Happy now?
I have no idea of the intent in your constant trolling of this thread, “Constitutional Conservative”. You put up this veneer of being an omniscient erudite but in reality, you come across as a condescending douchebag.
What is your point other than to insult us? What are you fighting for?
One thing I never understood is: aren’t universities supposed to be about education? Education that prepares people to be productive members of the economy?
Why is it that now, academia is all about politics and activism?
All the riotous activism — people holding signs whining and getting violent — seems like an unproductive waste of time to me. Anarchy and a slow slide towards becoming a 3rd world country.
@other Resident,
I hardly think that disagreeing with you and asking for facts to back up your rhetoric counts as “trolling.”
We’re getting really far afield from the content of the article at this point, but I just looked in to the Ann Coulter event your referenced. Your claim that she was banned simply doesn’t pass muster. If you read the letter sent to the student group, there were safety concerns and they are attempting to reschedule the event for when they can secure a venue. After the past weekend where I saw footage of a young woman being punched in the face by a white supremacist at Berkeley, I think we can all agree that the physical safety of students should be a top priority.
@resident,
Yes, I understand that gangs exist in the country. I’ll ask again: why is this relevant for this article, unless you’re just going to post anything that references people of Mexican or Central American origin?
The classic “safety” excuse. You need to get better at spotting dishonesty. UC Berkeley can muster the security forces to protect Ann Coulter.
But they won’t. Because they hate her.
Letting threats of violence deter Freedom of Speech should disturb you all. But it’s not the real reason they banned her!
Then again, “Constitutional Conservative”, you’re being so disingenuous with your posts I question if this back-and-forth is really worth my time.
Also MODERATOR: please do your job moderatoring instead of letting your emotions and political bias delete our posts on impulse. How can we have a proper conversation when you are constantly editing everything? I’m sure we can handle a little crass language. You’re probably gonna delete this post as well so why put any more effort into expressing myself on here.
So back to the topic at hand – diversion of taxpayer dollars for sanctuary City efforts that have not been voted on by the taxpayers. That is a major issue – if you put this to a taxpayer vote it will lose. Mr. Campos is noted in the article above – he is a SF council member who was termed out – but during his time wanted SF to divert taxpayer dollars to increasing the budget for supporting sanctuary city policies, including protecting people who have committed high level crimes. That did not get passed.
Note the NYT today 4/20/17 – “In Mexico, Mounting Misdeeds, but State Leaders Often Escape Justice”. The governors of the various states in Mexico keep absconding with the taxpayer funds. Government corruption is the rule of the day. Lengthy article. So take you back to the topic – why would the US federal government subsidize a group of policies that it does not agree with and are illegal? And why isn’t the taxpayer allowed to vote on this?
@resident,
Why do you keep bringing up the policies of Mexico? “State leaders” in that headline refers to Mexican states, not California.
You claim that the sanctuary policies are illegal, but over and over you and others have failed to reference a single law that they are in violation of. The reason for that is that they are entirely legal, as responsibility for immigration enforcement lies with the federal government.
CC – the person who enacted the Sanctuary City rules in California was Mr. Deleon in LA – who has illegal relatives in his household. Mr. Vicenti Fox of Mexico is now on the talk circuit – Palo Alto, Commonwealth Club. He is saying that Trump is crazy. However he does not mention in his speeches the wholesale corruption of his government. The fact that the NYT had this article which is very lengthy says that Mr. Carlos Slim is not pleased with the bad actors here – he is one the richest men in the world and is a major stock holder in the NYT Corporation. And he owns most of the companies in Mexico and is trying to improve it’s image. Since we are on the border to Mexico we have a number of states who grow pot who want illegals to help with the pot/hemp industry. So this is about a number of activities – the most important of which is the cartel control which is now taking over the major cities. That is why this is important. And yes the transfer of people is called Human Trafficking, the transfer of drugs is illegal, and crossing the border without permits is illegal. Pure and simple. Sorry – the “blue” states are making it up s they go along.
@resident,
His name is Vicente Fox, not Vicenti. Yet again, though, I don’t see what his doing a speaking tour, or Carlos Slim owning the New York Times has to do with our sanctuary policies. Are you just posting facts and news articles about people who are Mexican or Central American?
I’m really not even going to touch your conspiracy theory about cartel control of major American cities. This is the kind of stuff that gives us conservatives a bad name.
Further, you stated that sanctuary policies are illegal. You’ve still failed to demonstrate this by pointing to any law that they violate, instead pointing to other activities that I agree are illegal.
CC – you are talking in circles – you have nothing to point to say that the “elements” of the sanctuary city “values” are legal. Yes – we were slammed with a legislative act that no taxpayer was asked to vote on to justify the expenditures by the government – they are pulling funding from designated pools to use for SC activity. That is illegal. Newspapers are the approved method for the reporting of progress on any activity. So are you now in dispute of the newspapers? I specifically pointed to laws that say the actions are illegal. I am done here – don’t bother responding.
@resident,
I honestly can’t make heads or tails of the text you just posted. I don’t mean this as an insult, could you please clarify what you mean? I’ll try to address this as best I can, but forgive me if I’ve misinterpreted.
At their core, sanctuary policies state that state and local governments won’t be actively checking the immigration status of people during their normal interactions. Which law mandates that they perform these actions? For these policies to be illegal, there would have to be a legal mandate for them to perform these actions. Yet again, you’ve failed to provide any such law.
In a representative democracy, the people vote on their representatives who then are tasked with passing laws, deciding funding, and more. Do you expect every action of the government to go to a full vote?
What do you mean saying I’m “in dispute of the newspapers?”
“So back to the topic at hand – diversion of taxpayer dollars for sanctuary City efforts that have not been voted on by the taxpayers.”
Not diversion to. Diversion from. It costs local taxpayers money to do the Feds job for them, like housing ICE-designated individuals in jail while ICE gets around to coming to get them. If ICE wants somebody, ICE can easily find them and pick them up, if it cares to make the effort. It has the funding and the authority.
Why are you so eager to spend taxpayer dollars needlessly?
Noteworthy article today in the SFC concerning the proliferation of Syringes “Scourge of Syringes” – Heather Knight. Lengthy articles on this topic and taxpayer dollars diverted to clean up this mess – in this case SF dollars – what a lovely tourist mecca SF has become. At no point is the cause of the problem identified – Where are the drugs coming from, who is selling them, and why do the homeless people have money to spend on the drugs vs food.
That is called Leading from Behind – a favorite tactic for the last couple of years. A problem balloons out of proportion then taxpayer time and dollars are spent to clean up the mess.
Stop protecting drug dealers – ship them back to where they came from. That is called local law enforcement – what a novel idea.
At some point an ideological cause has to hit the ground relative to cause and effect. An ideological cause does not solve problems – it pushes them down the road and are an excuse for doing nothing – or an excuse to diverting taxpayer dollars to hire more people to solve the problem. Our pension system loves this. So lead from behind.