An Issue in Need of More Common Sense and Less Ideology

[Mr. Deez]

The story of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien, shooting and killing Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco is as sick as it is sad, and it brings the issue of sanctuary cities back to the forefront. In my view, this is an issue that really needs some common sense and for both sides to simmer down and really use their brains.

I understand and to a point respect the idea behind the sanctuary city. First, illegal aliens usually live in pretty trashy, dangerous neighborhoods, and that means they're going to witness a lot of violent crimes and be in a position to provide information leading to the arrest and detention of violent criminals. If they have to fear deportation just by calling the police or testifying against a violent person, they're not going to call the police or cooperate in any way. Suppose a crime is committed on East Riverside or near Rundberg & North Lamar in Austin. If you don't have the cooperation of illegal aliens, you'll never catch any bad guys, because virtually nobody who's legal hangs out in those areas. Second, it's not the local authority's fault that there are illegal aliens in their city, nor is it their responsibility to help deport people. That's the federal government's fault and its responsibility, so they are first and foremost to blame for guys like Sanchez being in the country to commit crimes.

However, common sense has to enter the picture. If the city has a known felon like Sanchez in custody, it doesn't serve the legitimate concern of fighting crime by not turning him over to ICE, and frankly, it's a ******** diversion to even bring that up in defense of the City's inaction and neglect. He's not the person whose cooperation you need to fight crime. He's the criminal you're trying to prosecute. Furthermore, most illegal immigrants don't want guys like that around randomly shooting people anymore than legal residents do. They want them imprisoned or deported. If you don't want to call ICE on bricklayer who witnessed Sanchez committing a crime and had the good sense called the cops, that's fine. I get that, but don't be stupid and not call ICE on Sanchez. That's just shear idiocy run amok.

What these cities need to do is come up with criteria to determine who gets turned over to ICE and who does not. If someone is only cooperating in a criminal investigation or reporting a crime, then he shouldn't be turned over to ICE. If someone is caught committing a minor traffic offense, I wouldn't turn him over to ICE either. (A minor traffic offense is something you might get pulled over and ticketed for but not something you'd get arrested or have your vehicle impounded over.) However, if you have a felon in custody, you owe it to your community (including the illegal aliens in your community) to turn that guy over to ICE and get him deported. If you don't, you have blood on your hands when he hurts somebody.

 

[Crockett]

Common Sense in government. I'm all for it. Sadly though, by the time Congress and bureaucrats, advised by lobbyist, decide what "common sense" is, it would probably be unrecognizeable according to the commonly understood definitions.

 

[huisache]

throw a dozen or so of Austin's businessmen or women who hire illegals in prison for six months and watch the rest shed their employees. They will have to pay their help more and adjust their schedules some to fit with the availability of students and mothers and buy some more labor saving devices but the result would be a better wage scale and more employment of Americans.

And trash like this murderer would be easier to apprehend and the democratic party could get back to being the party of the workingman/woman and quit dreaming of all the brown voters they will have when they all get legal.

If you are curious about why this has not already been tried, ask a border patrolman. They are told not to arrest employers or make cases against them. It is a class war and both parties are on the same side and have been for a good while,.

Hillary Clinton, the anointed heir to the party of the people once sat on the board of WalMart, the most anti labor company that we have. She never raised a peep about the things the company was doing to its help. She was hired to the board when her pathetic excuse for a husband was governor of arkansas, where WalMart has its headquarters, and so was merely being bribed and was supposed to just shut up and earn diversity points. She did.

It is a rigged game and occasionally we get collateral damage such as the unfortunate woman in California. But we get lower prices every day. God bless China. He snickered

 

[ProdigalHorn]

it's not the local authority's fault that there are illegal aliens in their city, nor is it their responsibility to help deport people. That's the federal government's fault and its responsibility, so they are first and foremost to blame for guys like Sanchez being in the country to commit crimes.

Hillary would respectfully disagree with you:

Mrs. Clinton: Well, what should be done is any city should listen to the Department of Homeland Security, which as I understand it, urged them to deport this man again after he got out of prison another time. Here’s a case where we’ve deported, we’ve deported, we’ve deported. He ends back up in our country and I think the city made a mistake. The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported.So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.

You're right of course, but what happens when the government refuses to do its job? Does that then mean that the city must have a hands-off approach? Hillary's comment is revealing in that she historically opposes (as do most dems) the idea of local law enforcement taking deportation into its own hands, and yet in a situation like this, she blames the locals for not doing it.

The real issue here to me is why this guy is able to keep coming back in so easily. The "broken immigration system" term has become a cliche and a talking point, and in my view it's completely meaningless because it could indicate anything from "I want open borders" to "we need more legal immigrants to get in more quickly" to "we need to close our borders" to "we need to know who's in our country" to "we need to make sure that people leave when their visa expires", or a combination of any of these and so many others. But this is an example of where the system is truly broken regardless of your viewpoint. How does a felon get kicked out of this country and come back multiple times? What is the element in our enforcement strategy that allows it? Where is the breakdown? And how do we fix it - and as crucial as it is to fix it, to your point the politics needs to br put aside, and we need to start making decisions about our immigration policy with the eyes-open approach to this issue and an understanding that protecting our citizenry from felons can't be sacrificed because it might make a more harmless person's illegal entry more difficult or traumatic.

What these cities need to do is come up with criteria to determine who gets turned over to ICE and who does not.

I would argue that the sanctuary city concept needs to go, and this concept you describe needs to be in place in all cities - because it's not just sanctuary cities that have this issue. But sanctuary cities will always be a magnet for this type of person, and in fact all illegal immigrants are going to see the fact that we allow these cities as evidence that we really don't care about deporting people, and if they can manage to get past the border, they shouldn't worry about any consequences.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

throw a dozen or so of Austin's businessmen or women who hire illegals in prison for six months and watch the rest shed their employees. They will have to pay their help more and adjust their schedules some to fit with the availability of students and mothers and buy some more labor saving devices but the result would be a better wage scale and more employment of Americans.

I'm on board with that.

 

[Horn6721]

Huis
You have called for this for a really long time and of course you are right.
maybe the climate is changing to the point that the gov't might actually do this.
It would only take 2 or 3 high profile exposures to scare the others.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Hillary would respectfully disagree with you:

We can inject partisan politics into this if you want, but there's so much sleaze, hypocrisy, and horse crap to go around that neither side has even the slightest hint of credibility on any immigration-related issue. They all suck, and none of them have any moral ground to be critical of the other party.

You're right of course, but what happens when the government refuses to do its job? Does that then mean that the city must have a hands-off approach? Hillary's comment is revealing in that she historically opposes (as do most dems) the idea of local law enforcement taking deportation into its own hands, and yet in a situation like this, she blames the locals for not doing it.

No, they shouldn't have to have their hands tied, but the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 has preemption language that ties their hands. Both parties were OK with that, and neither has made a serious effort to change it.

The real issue here to me is why this guy is able to keep coming back in so easily.

That's the real issue for the feds, but why is that a city's issue? There's a lot to criticize about the City of San Francisco, but I don't expect them to send their police officers to the Mexican border and keep people out of the country. That's not their job.

The "broken immigration system" term has become a cliche and a talking point, and in my view it's completely meaningless because it could indicate anything from "I want open borders" to "we need more legal immigrants to get in more quickly" to "we need to close our borders" to "we need to know who's in our country" to "we need to make sure that people leave when their visa expires", or a combination of any of these and so many others. But this is an example of where the system is truly broken regardless of your viewpoint. How does a felon get kicked out of this country and come back multiple times? What is the element in our enforcement strategy that allows it? Where is the breakdown? And how do we fix it - and as crucial as it is to fix it, to your point the politics needs to br put aside, and we need to start making decisions about our immigration policy with the eyes-open approach to this issue and an understanding that protecting our citizenry from felons can't be sacrificed because it might make a more harmless person's illegal entry more difficult or traumatic.

You're bringing up the broader, national problem of illegal immigration, and that's not really the point here.

I would argue that the sanctuary city concept needs to go, and this concept you describe needs to be in place in all cities - because it's not just sanctuary cities that have this issue. But sanctuary cities will always be a magnet for this type of person, and in fact all illegal immigrants are going to see the fact that we allow these cities as evidence that we really don't care about deporting people, and if they can manage to get past the border, they shouldn't worry about any consequences.

How do you get rid of the sanctuary city? The federal government can't force cities to enforce their immigration laws. That's unconstitutional. You can threaten to pull federal money from the cities (a practice I generally detest when the federal government does it to interfere in matters that would otherwise be unconstitutional), and poorer cities will probably go along. However, wealthy big cities (like San Francisco) will likely stand their ground. And even those cities that go along with scrapping an official sanctuary policy can't be forced to affirmatively turn suspects over to ICE in practice. They may dump the policy but not the practice.

Also, the magnet for illegal immigrants is the 800 - 1000 percent pay raise, and that exists because people who make a huge amount of money by hiring illegal immigrants have massive political power in Washington, D.C. and in the relevant state capitols like Austin and Sacramento. They have that power because one political party (the Democrats) knows that eventually the illegal aliens will have children who are US citizens and will likely vote Democratic, while the other party exploits the business interests that benefit from illegal immigration for campaign money. And of course, the political bases are too dumb to understand what the hell's going on. Poor Democratic voters are OK with it because it's politically correct, even if it screws them. Republican voters are too dumb to look at the issue objectively and can have their attention diverted by people who just shallowly bash the immigrants themselves.

So long as the pay magnet exists, illegal immigrants are going to come to the United States. The presence or absence of sanctuary cities might impact where they live within the US. For example, they may choose to live in Austin rather than Cedar Park, but it's not going to make any difference on whether or not they come. If you actually somehow banned the sanctuary cities and cops started turning every illegal immigrant they encounter over to ICE regardless of the reason, the biggest impact would be that the minute a cop showed up at the scene of a crime, every potential witness who was an illegal immigrant would run away. In areas like East Riverside in Austin, that would mean that virtually no crimes would ever get solved. Murderers, rapists, drug dealers, etc. could pretty much operate at will.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

We can inject partisan politics into this if you want,

I actually wasn't trying to do that... I just happened to read it the same day and thought it was funny. It's true, both parties are complicit.

That's the real issue for the feds, but why is that a city's issue? There's a lot to criticize about the City of San Francisco, but I don't expect them to send their police officers to the Mexican border and keep people out of the country. That's not their job.

I don't think it's their issue, either. That's my point. It becomes a city issue when guys like this start whacking the city populace. Until that's dealt with, this will happen over and over. Guys will get convicted on repeat felony offenses, they will do a few months or be flat-out released, but they will not be deported because the last thing we apparently want to do is deport a felon who might one day witness a crime and be a witness for us.

If you actually somehow banned the sanctuary cities and cops started turning every illegal immigrant they encounter over to ICE regardless of the reason, the biggest impact would be that the minute a cop showed up at the scene of a crime, every potential witness who was an illegal immigrant would run away. In areas like East Riverside in Austin, that would mean that virtually no crimes would ever get solved. Murderers, rapists, drug dealers, etc. could pretty much operate at will.

As opposed to now, where we tell them that we won't even deport them if they commit multiple felonies? It seems right now that we basically tell them "hey, sell drugs, decapitate people, do whatever you want, but keep it in your own community and don't hurt the 'civilians'. If the guy in San Francisco had kept to that rule, he'd be wandering the streets free today and no one would care.

I get this concern, but why isn't it a concern for all cities? Why aren't ALL cities sanctuary cities, if it's such a great help in fighting crime? Apparently the cities who aren't openly declaring themselves as sanctuaries have some means of handling this issue. Basically we're creating the community that's doing a large portion of the drugs, human trafficking and murdering by not deporting them, and so when a crime takes place in that community, the only way we can get help is by assuring them that they're not going to be deported. We may have let the idiocy go on too long to fix it in a way that would be considered "fair" or "equitable." I'd pick removing the community which is causing the issues and dealing with some unsolved crimes (most of which take place within that community) over allowing the community to flourish with protected status. But unfortunately, no one's willing do to that. To do it effectively would create optics and civil rights violation that very few people in this country would be able to stomach.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't think it's their issue, either. That's my point. It becomes a city issue when guys like this start whacking the city populace.

No, it [the ability of a guy like Sanchez to get into the country multiple times] doesn't become their issue just because he starts whacking people. As a matter of law and as a matter of practicality and logistics, cities don't have the ability to keep people out of the country. It's not their issue.

As opposed to now, where we tell them that we won't even deport them if they commit multiple felonies?

No, not as opposed to now. That's my whole friggin' point. We need to use common sense on the issue. That means cities like San Francisco should turn over felons and violent criminals over to ICE. However, they shouldn't turn the bricklayer who happened to witness the violent felon committing the crime and called the police over to ICE.

It seems right now that we basically tell them "hey, sell drugs, decapitate people, do whatever you want, but keep it in your own community and don't hurt the 'civilians'. If the guy in San Francisco had kept to that rule, he'd be wandering the streets free today and no one would care.

I'm not following your logic here at all.

Why aren't ALL cities sanctuary cities, if it's such a great help in fighting crime?

Because cities don't all think the same way, and they don't all have the same issues.

Apparently the cities who aren't openly declaring themselves as sanctuaries have some means of handling this issue.

Most of them follow a sanctuary-like policy even if it's not explicitly in their policies. If they find a real bad apple like Sanchez, they might turn him over to ICE, but if a cop in a city like Cedar Park pulls over an illegal immigrant for having a blown tail light, he's not turning him over to ICE. Turning people over to ICE takes time and city resources. Cities aren't going to do that every time they encounter an illegal alien, and they shouldn't have to. It isn't their job.

Basically we're creating the community that's doing a large portion of the drugs, human trafficking and murdering by not deporting them, and so when a crime takes place in that community, the only way we can get help is by assuring them that they're not going to be deported.

Again, that's not the cities' problem. They can't deport people. Furthermore, are you really surprised that people who are illegal are more likely to help solve crimes if they know they're not going to be deported for doing so? Frankly, they'd be fools to cooperate with police if they knew the police would turn them over to ICE.

I'd pick removing the community which is causing the issues. To do it effectively would create optics and civil rights violation that very few people in this country would be able to stomach.

Should they be willing to stomach it?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I think we're saying the same thing in many of these cases but from different perspectives.

No, it [the ability of a guy like Sanchez to get into the country multiple times] doesn't become their issue just because he starts whacking people.

You're speaking from a legal standpoint. I'm speaking from a practical pragmatic standpoint. We can argue the legal semantics all day and I'm not equipped for it because I'm not a lawyer. But at the end of the day, the municipality's primary responsibility SHOULD be to protect its citizens, NOT to support and uphold the level of government above it. That goes from the town hall all the way up to the state government. If a higher power is not doing what it is required by law to do in order protect the safety and well-being of a city's citizens, then yes, I believe the city needs to step up. So that's what I'm saying - if a city has an issue with a violent illegal immigrant population and the feds are unwilling to assist, then the city can't just say "well, you guys just need to be more careful out there because it's not our problem." Does that mean the city is responsible for deporting? No, but it certainly means that a city ought to be able to turn people over to ICE with the expectation that ICE would do their job from that point. And if ICE refuses to deport, then the city needs to be able to use other means of incarceration or execution if called for.

That means cities like San Francisco should turn over felons and violent criminals over to ICE. However, they shouldn't turn the bricklayer who happened to witness the violent felon committing the crime and called the police over to ICE.

I think that's what I'm saying though... other cities who are not "sanctuary cities" are making those judgments now, as you acknowledge as well. The idea that a sanctuary city designation is there to help the local police enforce law is just wrong. It's there because a certain political class believes that anyone here illegally should be able to live openly with no fear or deportation. Basically we're telling people that if they can make it to this city, they're home free. It has nothing to do with the issue of criminal investigation. If we use that logic, why is it any different for a minor felon who witnesses a murder? How do we get those people to talk? I would say we need to let the local authorities handle that problem as they deem appropriate, rather than simply telling people "hey don't worry if you see a copy, we're not going to punish you for whatever it is you're doing illegally."

I'm not following your logic here at all.

I'm saying that if this guy had contained himself to felonies within the drug cartel/slave trade community that we've allowed to blossom in this country, we would have looked the other way because he might one day witness a crime and we don't want him to be afraid to talk to the police. Imagine that. A felon being afraid to talk to the police.

Should they be willing to stomach it?

Absolutely. That's why Trump is scoring points right and left. I have no idea if the guy has any real solutions or concepts of how to run a government, and my guess is he's pretty short on solutions. But he's willing to call the border issue what it is (granted in politically incorrect and sometimes broad-brush overgeneralized terms), and that's galvanized a lot of people that think that someone needs to actually view it as a problem before they will offer any actual solutions.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You're speaking from a legal standpoint. I'm speaking from a practical pragmatic standpoint. We can argue the legal semantics all day and I'm not equipped for it because I'm not a lawyer. But at the end of the day, the municipality's primary responsibility SHOULD be to protect its citizens, NOT to support and uphold the level of government above it.

I'm speaking from legal, practical, and logistical standpoints. Yes, a city can't legally deport people, but it also doesn't have the practical ability to become enforcers of federal immigration laws in general. That's a very big job that requires a level of money and jurisdiction far beyond what a city has. If in the course of doing their normal jobs, they come across a particularly dangerous illegal immigrant (such as a convicted felon), that's one thing, but they can't as a practical matter start going after illegal immigrants who are otherwise law-abiding.

So that's what I'm saying - if a city has an issue with a violent illegal immigrant population and the feds are unwilling to assist, then the city can't just say "well, you guys just need to be more careful out there because it's not our problem."

No, but the scope of their activities still has to be limited to those who are actually violent, which they should be doing regardless of anyone's immigration status.

Does that mean the city is responsible for deporting? No, but it certainly means that a city ought to be able to turn people over to ICE with the expectation that ICE would do their job from that point. And if ICE refuses to deport, then the city needs to be able to use other means of incarceration or execution if called for.

A city can turn people over to ICE. It chooses not to, and of course, if the person commits a crime, the city can incarcerate them like they could with someone in the country legally. Execution? That seems a bit extreme just for being an illegal immigrant.

I think that's what I'm saying though... other cities who are not "sanctuary cities" are making those judgments now, as you acknowledge as well. The idea that a sanctuary city designation is there to help the local police enforce law is just wrong. It's there because a certain political class believes that anyone here illegally should be able to live openly with no fear or deportation.

It's there for both reasons, and most "non-sanctuary cities" (such as Austin) are de facto sanctuary cities even if they don't call themselves that. Many cities that are liberal to the point of being nutty are ideologically pro-illegal immigration and will avoid assisting ICE even to their own detriment. However, there is a law enforcement element as well. The police need the help of anyone who witnesses a crime to help prosecute that crime, even if that help comes from other illegal immigrants. That's why I'm calling for common sense on the issue. The nutty liberal cities are stupid, but the people who think the cities should be rounding up people and turning them over to ICE for no reason other than their immigration status are also stupid and unrealistic.

ow do we get those people to talk? I would say we need to let the local authorities handle that problem as they deem appropriate, rather than simply telling people "hey don't worry if you see a copy, we're not going to punish you for whatever it is you're doing illegally."

The local authorities are making this decision, and no city (even San Francisco) refuses to punish someone for committing a crime just because they're an illegal immigrant. That's not what a sanctuary city is.

I'm saying that if this guy had contained himself to felonies within the drug cartel/slave trade community that we've allowed to blossom in this country, we would have looked the other way because he might one day witness a crime and we don't want him to be afraid to talk to the police. Imagine that. A felon being afraid to talk to the police.

Again, that's why we need common sense. The felon is the bad guy who needs to be turned over to ICE. It's the bricklayer who called the cops on the felon who should be comfortable reporting his crime. It's a matter of priorities and prosecutorial and evidentiary need.

Absolutely.

"When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist. When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out."

- Martin Niemöller

If you're indifferent to civil rights violations just because they aren't happening to you, you're treading on dangerous ground.

But he's willing to call the border issue what it is (granted in politically incorrect and sometimes broad-brush overgeneralized terms), and that's galvanized a lot of people that think that someone needs to actually view it as a problem before they will offer any actual solutions.

American voters (especially Republican primary voters) aren't that deep. Few (especially in the GOP presidential primary) don't think the border issue is a problem, and most will talk about it. The big difference with Trump is that he acts like much more of a jerk when doing so, and that's why he's gaining in the polls. You can be politically incorrect without acting like a jerk, but political incorrectness doesn't motivate jerks. Acting like a jerk motivates jerks.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Execution? That seems a bit extreme just for being an illegal immigrant.

Seriously? You're better than that.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Seriously? You're better than that.

Better than what? You're the one who mentioned executions. Perhaps you can explain what you meant.

 

[zork]

only execution if they don't put their cig out.