San Diego Union-Tribune: Say, Maybe We Shouldn’t Be Allowing The Not-So-Bad Illegal Aliens To Stay

The Editorial Board of the SDUT has some concerns

Flaw in California ‘sanctuary state’ bill needs fixing


Yet it is possible to believe all of these things and still be wary of SB 54, a bill touted by Senate leader Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, to make California a “sanctuary state.” In its initial form, what de León calls the “California Values Act” amounted to the state’s formal declaration of noncooperation with the federal government when it comes to federal immigration laws. The measure’s main provision would “prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security departments, from using resources to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes.” After criticism from law enforcement officials, de León amended the bill to allow Sheriff’s Departments to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the release from local jails of certain types of serious and violent felons; to allow law enforcement officers to notify ICE if they encountered someone with a violent felony record who had previously been deported; and to make it clear that local and state law enforcement authorities could be part of investigatory task forces led by federal agencies even if immigration enforcement were involved.

After the changes were made, de León’s bill passed the state Senate 27-12 on Monday on a party-line vote. Democrats, many of them Latino, celebrated the approval as sending President Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other immigration hardliners a defiant, principled message that California stands with its immigrant community.

But these Democrats muddle their message by refusing to take seriously concerns about their attempts to make distinctions between bad felons — take them away — and allegedly not-so-bad felons — let them stay. According to Assembly Republicans, the latter category includes people convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, human trafficking and other significant crimes.

And there’s the flaw: Democrats being soft on illegals who have committed other significant crimes in this bill which would make California a sanctuary state.

But one risk they shouldn’t take is offering protection to convicted felons who are unauthorized immigrants. They haven’t earned the compassionate treatment that de León hopes to provide.

Yet, that is the treatment that Democrats seem to be offering to illegal aliens all the time when they refuse ICE detainers. On one hand, they say they do not want the bad ones, then they show the other hand which attempts to shelter almost all illegals, even those with serious crimes. Perhaps they’ve realized that, in order to gain all these new voters if they could ever get amnesty through, they would need to ignore that a goodly chunk of illegals have committed some sort of serious crime, from DUI and identity theft to illegally crossing the border after being deported, which is a federal felony. It’s not just rape and murder and arson and assault.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “San Diego Union-Tribune: Say, Maybe We Shouldn’t Be Allowing The Not-So-Bad Illegal Aliens To Stay”

  1. Rev.Hoagie® says:

    Frankly, it sounds like a Bill of Secession to me. The state of California refuses to uphold federal law and thereby declares it’s independence from the Republic. All federal funds being sent to CA should be stopped. Including welfare and Social Security and federal pensions. If the state wants independence then they should be encouraged.

  2. Jeffery says:

    California sends more money to DC than DC sends to California.

    Here’s the position:

    We should capture all violent criminals whether undocumented, green card holders or citizens. They should have due process and be separated from society if necessary.

    But merely being here undocumented is not reason enough for deportation.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Thanks for the backup.

    Another way to say it is, “California sends more money to DC than DC sends to California.”

    Why do most red states receive more money from DC than they send?

    • Rev.Hoagie® says:

      Why do most red states receive more money from DC than they send?

      Leftist nitwits like FakeAmerican love tossing around the trope of “blue states pay, red states take,” but they never discuss why. Yet they use it as a moral baseball bat to beat up on their foes (not that they’re being judgmental though, because that’s not who they are).

      The trope as such is true, but it’s an artifact of our grossly top heavy tax system, which exists because income inequality is massive and gets worse every year (something FakeAmerican is probably smart enough to complain about, but too stupid to realize is caused by his very own brand of open border globalist Progressivism).

      Using 2014 numbers (the first I found; it’s only worse now), the top 1 percent paid 45.7% of taxes. The bottom 80 percent — EIGHTY PERCENT — paid 15% of taxes. So the top 20% pays 85% of taxes, and that number is skewed highly to the top of the top.

      Well where do the 1 and 2% tend to live? Yeah, in blue state urban centers or their immediate suburbs. So this greatly skews the results towards those states. You only need a few billionaires to push things into the “pay” column rather than the “take” column (if FakeAmerican reads this, I expect he will send a thank you note to Donald Trump for being a significant reason why blue state New York can flaunt it’s moral status).

      The point of all these dull numbers is that the blue pay/red take trope says nothing whatsoever about the populations of the states beyond the top percent. What would be enlightening is to calculate payers and takers after removing the top 20% of tax payers. This would give you the proper insights.

      Besides, are you counting welfare, Social Security and federal pension payments? Cause I’d stop them too. Let’s see how much “support” the leftists have when the free money stops flowing because they just left the Union. Their dancing fags would then be in front of Spielberg’s house instead of Ivanka’s.
      Is there any way we can throw California out of the Union?

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Wonder how that billion dollar a mile choo choo is coming along whilst the roads are crumbling.

Pirate's Cove