Immigration

On Sanctuary Cities, Hillary Clinton Joins Hands With Donald Trump

The San Francisco woman's shooting death by an undocumented immigrant triggers bipartisan hypocrisy

|

When it comes to the confederate flag, Republicans are all for states rights. But when it comes to so-called

Hillary.StatuteOfLiberty
The PIX-JOCKEY (visual fantasist) / Foter / CC BY-NC

"sanctuary cities" (that refuse to make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment and turn undocumented workers to the feds for deportation), they want Uncle Sam to club them with the Statute of Liberty itself. And so it is with the recent tragic shooting of a 31-year-old California woman by a clearly nuts undocumented immigrant. Ignoring that cities with a high-undocumented population tend to be the safest, as Radley Balko, Steve Chapman and I have repeatedly documented, Republicans cranked up their outrage machine, blaming the death on San Francisco's "sanctuary policies." Rand Paul, a civil libertarian, condemned the city and rallied his liberty-loving foot soldiers to launch a "revolution" to "secure the border" – never mind that creating an army of Minutemen on the border preventing willing employers from hiring willing workers, for example, is in no way, shape or form compatible with a government of limited and enumerated powers that respects the civil liberties of Americans.  Jeb Bush, who is trying to strike a moderate tone on the issue in his party, also accused such policies of encouraging crime.

And then of course there was the voice of Solomon himself, Donald Trump, who jumped on the incident as a vindication of his recent remarks that Mexicans who come to America are criminals and rapists.

But none of this compares to the outright hypocrisy of Democrats Diane Feinstein and Hillary Clinton, I point out in my latest column at The Week. I note:

Feinstein, who has long posed as a friend of immigration and Latinos, denounced San Francisco, and scolded it to join the federal Priority Enforcement Program — apparently unaware of the fact that San Francisco has joined this program for the simple reason that it is mandatory. And Clinton, who during her previous presidential run had strongly (and rightly) condemned a federal crackdown on sanctuary cities such as San Francisco, has now declared that she has "absolutely no support" for a city that defies federal deportation rules.

This whole characterization is nonsense. The notion that a city would willfully release a dangerous felon — citizen or immigrant, legal or illegal — simply to spite Uncle Sam is totally ludicrous.

So what exactly happened and why are "sanctuary" cities not to blame?

Go here to find out.

 

NEXT: Shikha Dalmia on Libertarianism and the Next Round of Culture Wars

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So was the shooter in San Fran “undocumented” (a legal resident, who had left his green card at home), or was he an illegal alien (someone not allowed to be in the country at all)?

    Ignoring that cities with a high-undocumented population tend to be the safest,

    That’s a difficult statement to give solid support to, since nobody actually tracks illegal aliens, where they live, and what crimes they commit. I note that Radley points to one city (El Paso), and then looks at state-level data. Chapman looks at Chicago, but his study isn’t about illegals, its about immigration and Mexican-Americans and does not, as far as I can tell, attempt to deal with illegals themselves.

    Many (most? who can say?) illegals are here to work and keep their heads down, no question. But only a fool would deny that our current broken immigration system is an open door for criminals. We force many of the workers into the black market for immigration, where they become the ocean in which the criminals swim.

    1. Though, of course, there are simply evil, despicable people who travel to the United States to take advantage of what it offers, commit crime, and shit all over us. I don’t see how you’d prevent shitty behavior, and locking our borders sure as shit won’t make any difference. It’s just a fact of life.

    2. That’s a difficult statement to give solid support to, since nobody actually tracks illegal aliens, where they live, and what crimes they commit.

      Correct. The data simply does not exist. Anyone on either side of the debate who wants to tell you what percentage of illegal aliens commit X Y or Z crimes is trying to sell you something.

    3. I agree completely. I just disagree with the idea that anyone has shown that cities with a lot of illegals are safer.

      I mean, c’mon, when one of the cities touted to support this idea is frickin’ Chicago, you should have a re-think, shouldn’t you?

    4. “So was the shooter in San Fran “undocumented” (a legal resident, who had left his green card at home), or was he an illegal alien (someone not allowed to be in the country at all)?”

      I think the phrase rightly highlights that it’s just the absence of magical papers from the right bureaucrat that make the person’s presence illegal.

      1. Why is it that legal authorization becomes mere “magical papers” when it comes to immigration, but nowhere else?

        Why is it that nobody refers to a drivers’ license or, for that matter, title to property, as “magical papers”.

        Do tell us, Bo, do you regard your (alleged) law degree and (still hypothetical) law license as “magical papers”?

        1. Because in the case of immigration the papers record only that an imaginary line on a map has been crossed without the proper bureaucratic stamp of approval.

          1. In other words, the deed to a property is something that reflects what I or any libertarian respects, the recording of property transfer via a voluntary transaction. The immigration paper reflects something I or any libertarian should have little respect for, a government’s attempt to thwart the exercise of a fundamental liberty (of movement). So I see the former as something to respect and the latter a silly bit of coercive nonsense.

            1. The borders of a property are equally imaginary as the borders of a country but for some reason does not generate that contempt.

              “The immigration paper reflects something I or any libertarian should have little respect for, a government’s attempt to thwart the exercise of a fundamental liberty (of movement).”

              So proof of vaccination, criminal record, isalso something you have little respect for?

              1. The borders of a property don’t reflect some collective sense of ownership.

                I’m not sure what you mean by your question. Proof of vaccination?

                1. The borders of a property don’t reflect some collective sense of ownership.

                  I’m sure families, partnerships, and corporations everywhere will be surprised to learn this.

                  1. I thought this bit of pedanticism was going to follow. Sheesh.

                2. Then criticizing borders as “imaginary” has nothing to do with why you don’t think they should be respected. It is a red herring.

                  Part of what many “open borders” types they will block an alien who is a health risk or a criminal, those things are part of what immigration papers set to establish.

                  1. They’re imaginary in that their entire existence is simply an acknowledgement of government approval.

                    1. All immigration papers reflect is that the government says it won’t mess with you for being in a certain place.

                    2. What, like a security clearance?

                    3. As are property boundaries.

                  2. “those things are part of what immigration papers set to establish.”

                    the immigration system in this country was designed to establish racial quotas for those who could come here. the statist pltatitudes you recite came later. read moar.

            2. So, you must agree that a law license or the requirement to be a member in good standing before the state bar is an attempt to thwart the exercise of a fundamental liberty (the right to work.)

        2. To be fair, I’d say the license constitutes magical papers – it’s just the state’s blessing to practice a business based on one’s knowledge. The degree, like any other, is decidedly less magical. It’s a receipt for sending in your tuition checks on time (and managing not to get yourself drummed out of school on rape charges, which in and of itself is pretty impressive these days).

        3. Because no one must question the church of open boarderz, that’s why.

    5. It shouldn’t even matter whether sanctuary city is safer than other cities. The creep was deported FIVE times and stole a gun that belonged to a federal officer. He was apparently wanted by the federal government. What kid of “fourth amendment” right would shield him from deportation? Let’s not forget that 9/11 terrorists overstayed their visas and the feds ignored

      Shikha is being a bit disingenuous here. No one’s advocating for random raids on the homes of suspected illegals. But that doesn’t mean states should go out of their way and refuse cooperation with the federal government immigration. If you snuck inside America, you’re living in one of its states.

      And in fact, there is a decent amount of abuse and exploitation going on in the illegal alien community. No one here thinks the “nail salon” controversy is isolated, right? The fact that illegals don’t go around shooting people is an indication that background checks WORK. And guns are insanely expensive.

      1. i see. the right to bear arms is contingent upon a permission slip from police and beaurocrats, and where you live and work should should have similar restrictions. sounds like Libertopia to me.

  2. I don’t think a person’s immigration status is of any relevance to anything, since, as far as I’m concerned, immigration documents are just a collection of worthless, meaningless pieces of paper a bunch of illegitimately empowered bureaucrats fling around.

    No matter where he’s from, or who he is, or what language he speaks, a violent felon should have been locked inside a small cell, preventing any of this from happening. Why isn’t that at issue here?

    1. Because, to the people running San Francisco, it is better that no illegal alien be locked up, than that a violent felon be kept off the streets.

      I can’t see any other explanation.

      1. San Francisco’s twisted progressive nonsense is becoming painful for me to contemplate, and I’m no weakling.

      2. “I can’t see any other explanation.”

        You are not familiar with our sheriff’s dept. It is run by a termed-out re-tread biding time to run for ‘real’ office again.
        He was not supposed to be free; the incompetence of the sheriff’s dept simply allowed the left hand to do what the right hand had forbidden.

        1. Point taken. Silly of me to overlook raw stupidity and incompetence.

          1. RC, it’s really worse:
            According to the local rag, the Feds were going to deport him from wherever he was jailed; he has a rap sheet to make a Chi-town politico proud. But for reasons yet to be explained (and no one is claiming it has anything to do with sanc-city), the sheriff’s dept requested he be returned to SF custody for an old dope warrant which would never be enforced now.
            As I understand it, he was then released since the charge was so minor, and hey, presto!
            Natch, the are-waving and finger-pointing are enough to cause a full gale over the bay.

      3. According to the article (did you read it?) none of his priors were violent.

  3. The notion that a city would willfully release a dangerous felon ? citizen or immigrant, legal or illegal ? simply to spite Uncle Sam is totally ludicrous.

    It certainly is. But I have lived in sanctuary cities, and talked to the people pushing this status.

    A large part of the reason they do so is exactly that: to spite Uncle Sam.

    Was this particular person released specifically to spite Uncle Sam? Not really. Was he released as part of a program adopted to spite Uncle Sam? You bet he was. And, yes, that’s ludicrous, but there you have it.

    1. “The notion that a city would willfully release a dangerous felon ? citizen or immigrant, legal or illegal ? simply to spite Uncle Sam is totally ludicrous.”

      Being ludicrous has never stopped either the Federal Govt (or san francisco) in the past.

    2. The whole “sanctuary” movement has been to spite U.S., never to actually help the people given supposed “sanctuary”. I saw this in Selective Service resistance 35 yrs. ago. It doesn’t actually shield anyone, it’s just theater. My fear was that they’d convince some na?ve person who actually needed help, and that person would be up shit creek.

  4. Open borders deserve a smarter advocate than Shikha Dalmia. Then again, that could apply to pretty much anything.

    1. I agree completely.

      A better writer, for example, might have noted that Republicans complaining about sanctuary cities may be hypocrites for doing so, given their usual federalist biases, but that is no more hypocritical than sanctuary city supporters abandoning their usual opposition to federalism for just this one issue.

      1. I note a distinctly anti-Republican fervor in everything she writes, absent any actual substance. She tends to ramble.

        1. Er, a pretty big chunk of this article is her taking it to Democrats like HRC and Feinstein, who are its primary targets: “But none of this compares to the outright hypocrisy of Democrats Diane Feinstein and Hillary Clinton”

    2. Open borders should not have an advocate, because they’re a stupid, reality-denying idea.

  5. Are Shikha and Richman posts always made on weekends as a sort of flypaper to capture both the resident commentariat’s special distaste for these writers, as well as keeping the weekend trolls from infecting any posts/threads that might have more visibility with the general public?

    Discuss.

    also, second issue =

    because there are no real historical crime (or rape) statistics for “mexicans” (and they’ve still not quite gotten a grip on figuring out how to integrate the new classification with all the other govt data that still categorizes things far more vaguely)… people have mendaciously used that data-gap opportunity to argue that means there are very few latino rapes, or that there is like a gigantic iceberg of mexican rape being hidden for political reasons. (see: The Donald)

    1. It’s Nick’s passive aggressive way of sticking it to the regulars.

      Also, I think the FBI should more carefully keep track of what percentage of rapes committed by Mexicans are of the anal variety, and whether pot was a factor.

    2. The FBI Uniform Crime Reports are not the only source of statistics on crime, you know.

      1. It’s the only decent source for national stats. Cities tend to have wide discrepancies on what information they collect, which makes direct apples-to-apples comparisons more difficult.

        1. But the UCR is totally built by stats given to the FBI by local governments, right?

          I’m thinking of things like sentencing and inmate data btw

          1. But the UCR is totally built by stats given to the FBI by local governments, right?

            Correct, but it’s a fairly narrow set of data that’s reported. More or less the baseline data that every police department generally collects. Some departments may collect more data, but not all do, so the national stats reflect basically the least common denominator. Even at that, IIRC, some unknown data is extrapolated from collected data, because not all departments report.

            Stuff like sentencing and inmate data may be richer (I don’t know), but I don’t think there’s any type of repository for it, so you’d have to do it state by state.

            1. I think the Census and the Bureau of Prisons keep up with inmate populations and they’ve been tracking Hispanic ethnicity longer than the FBI.

              1. True, but I was thinking of richer data, like immigration status or national origin. As I posted below, “Hispanic” is hardly a perfect proxy for “Mexican” or “immigrant”, which is really what people are trying to pin down in these policy debates.

                1. This is what I’m getting at. You’d think that immigration status would be something the BOP would collect. So what one should be able to do is to know how many inmates were illegals. I don’t know if that data exists and if it’s made public though.

                    1. Interesting. Looks like there’s at least some data there.

                    2. I bet they just don’t make it easy to view, but I thought it sounded like something they’d collect. It appears from what they have that non-citizens have risen from about 6% of the inmate population to about 9% between 2000-8.

                    3. Yep. Apparently they actually do a complete census of jails every so often (every 5-ish years starting in ’82, but with 2005 being the last one), and the annual survey, which is a nationally representative sample, between full censuses.

                    4. I thought they had that kind of thing. Processing an inmate involves quite the work-up so I strongly suspected they had that information.

                    5. “so I strongly suspected they had that information.”

                      Well bless your heart.

      2. No other agency has ever done “hispanic” accurately or consistently either. Particularly with crime stats.

        Its been re-jigged by different agencies in inconsistent ways since the 1980s, such that most Govt data is entirely incomparable – in particular same-year crime stats from different sources.

        And none of it goes back farther than a couple years for comparison purposes. They often mean entirely different things, or rely on self-selection which is a complete mess as well.

        If you read the first link you’d have gotten a slight grip on the point and its scope. Census still hasn’t figured out how to do it properly.

        http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea…..n-america/

        The main point is that definitions are so mushy, and so inconsistent across types of govt data reporting, that any national generalizations become highly suspect. Especially over any period of time. Its a fucking mess.

        1. Of course it’s not going to be perfect, these are ‘social constructs’ we’re talking about.

          1. Whatever. Apparently you’re still a complete fucking idiot with zero to add.

            1. What are you adding, exactly? ‘Hey, it’s hard for government agencies to correctly count populations by race and ethnicity!!!’ We all *started* at that point professor.

          2. Yeah.Social constructs such as, “is the prisoner a citizen of the US or not ” ?

            I’ve read in places where the percentage of non citizen Federal prisonersis more than 50%.

            I don’t know if that is true or not but if someone is going to fudge the figures it’s queer that they would fudge them to the point of unbelieveability.

            1. That 50%+ figure was mentioned in an article a couple years back. If I remember correctly, some talking head had mentioned it on a news show and then it got repeated over and over by many anti-immigration writers. But nobody has ever been able to find a credible source for it, and the assumption has been that the guy simply made it up off the top of his head.

              It may seem strange that somebody would fudge figures to the point of unbelieveability, but it’s happened with lots of other issues people tend to be fanatical about. The various ‘human sex trafficking’ figures that get tossed around are often equally ridiculous.

        2. That’s the thing. Hispanic is an ethnicity, and the determination is customarily made by the individual claiming the ethnicity. A black immigrant from Trinidad, for instance, might get written up as just “black”, even though he identifies as Hispanic and could reasonably be classified as such. Or a Cuban immigrant with light skin might get written up as just “white”.

          Hispanic also doesn’t necessarily denote any particular nationality, and certainly not any particular immigration status, so even using that as a proxy for those things is tenuous at best.

          1. “the determination is customarily made by the individual claiming the ethnicity”

            That’s just as true for race, right?

            1. Well, yes and no. The limited number of races categorized by law enforcement makes it fairly easy for the officer to put you in the right box even without asking. You could technically be any racial category and claim Hispanic ethnicity, so it’s not as easy as going “White skin, okay, you’re white. Black skin, okay, you’re black”.

              1. I guess I thought that the way that officials put any arrestee into a racial or ethnic box was the same: they asked the arrestee. It’s all self-identification, isn’t it?

                1. I don’t know for sure, to be honest. For race, I can imagine officers just filling in the blank with their perception in obvious cases (nobody is ever going to mistake me for Asian, black or Pacific Islander, for example).

                2. they asked the arrestee. It’s all self-identification, isn’t it?

                  Yup… and Rachael Dolezal is totally a black woman, you ignorant fucktard.

                  I remember my first arrest at thirteen, I told them I was born a poor black child; somehow, they still marked me down as caucasian…

    3. Here’s a novel way to tease out Hispanic crime rates.

      It has been conjectured that the contribution of Hispanics to violent crime is on the point of advancing to the standing enjoyed by blacks. This, however, is not confirmed by our evidence, at least in our largest cities. Whoever thinks or has thought this to be so has come to this determination from evidence not directly related to what is happening on the street, but rather from incarceration records, court appearances or sentencing data. When crimes rather than criminals are counted, and the Hispanic effect is appropriately removed, the data show that violent crime rates for Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites, though a bit higher for Hispanics, are in actual fact quite similar. As for blacks, their crime rate remains by any measure uniquely high.

      1. Yep, its a decent proxy = but still messy. Undocumented people held for mere ‘crime’ of being undocumented would bloat the numbers because they’re criminal by default. It would be cleaner if you could cancel that out and sort by type of conviction/charge.

        “the FBI, is actually prohibited by law from collecting ethnic data. It classifies most Hispanic offenders as “white,” thus bloating the non-Hispanic white contribution to crime while completely missing the Hispanic contribution. The second agency, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, does no better. It classifies offenders only as “black,” “white” or “other race.” Again, most Hispanic offenders fall into the white category. Neither agency recognizes “Hispanic” as a classification. This blurring of ethnic differences by federal agencies has come to be known as the “Hispanic effect.”

        decent summary.

        That said = “”Dr Prodigy, addressing the Union of Nationalist Zapatistas??”

        Someone got upset with me linking to something in a conservative magazine the other day. This is on some next level crystal smoking revolutionary shit.

        1. That analysis was limited to violent crime.

          It’s a joke, referring to Ron Unz’s Hispanic articles.

          1. well, then you have the problem of generalizing from a small sample size that doesn’t tend to correlate well with the larger “non-violent criminal” population, much less the general population.

            never mind conviction rates of non-english speakers, stuff like that. Its better than nothing, but no slam dunk.

            1. Did you read the methodology? Convictions weren’t considered at all.

              1. No, I got a headache from the pompous style and just looked at the charts.

        2. Starting with 2013 (which is the latest year data is available), the FBI national data includes “Hispanic/Latino” and “non-Hispanic/Latino” in the overall arrest stats in addition to the 5 racial categories. It’s Table 43. FWIW, Hispanics were nearly perfectly represented at 16.6% of arrests compared with a 2012 estimate of 17% of the overall US population.

          1. No hat tip?

          2. to my point =

            we have 1 year of data which says nothing much at all.

            1. The ‘one year’ problem is smaller than the ‘first year’ problem.

    4. Are Shikha and Richman posts always made on weekends as a sort of flypaper to capture both the resident commentariat’s special distaste for these writers, as well as keeping the weekend trolls from infecting any posts/threads that might have more visibility with the general public?

      I always assumed it was a tactical move to enrage the Yokeltarians and keep the weekend comment count high.

      1. ” enrage the Yokeltarians’

        To be fair = disagreement w/ shikha’s steez isn’t purely driven by SEKURE TEH BORDERZ people.

        Many people (*some say so below) are very open-borders/loosen-immigration policy, and find her tiresome, inconsistent, and with an odd focus on Detroit, Tits, and Hindu-American politics.

        Not so long ago she was singing praises to Hillary’s Genius on immigration… today, Hillary’s a moron. I don’t even bother reading her stuff anymore.

        Same w/ Richman. I don’t know what Yokeltarian foreign relations are like, but Richman is bizarre enough to piss anyone off.

        Similar to many foreign policy arguments – sometimes there seems to be a tendency to accuse people of holding the “opposite view” simply because they object to the (so-called) libertarian case being made by Reason for something.

        eg. i’ve been called “Pro-War” for suggesting that Non-Interventionism doesn’t provide any coherent set of policy options in most situations, and is basically a bullshit term that doesn’t mean anything in actual practice. Criticizing flawed arguments doesn’t mean you are an advocate of some theoretical ‘opposite’. similarly, I’m pro-choice = but was unimpressed by the argument that libertarians should be advocating for Medicaid coverage of abortion.

        I don’t *feel* very yokel, at least.

        1. i’ve been called “Pro-War” for suggesting that Non-Interventionism doesn’t provide any coherent set of policy options in most situations, and is basically a bullshit term that doesn’t mean anything in actual practice. Criticizing flawed arguments doesn’t mean you are an advocate of some theoretical ‘opposite’.

          I’ve never called you “pro-War” (except when it comes to low ridin’); however, I’ll say again that you insist on a very idiosyncratic definition of non-interventionism that doesn’t match how the term is usually employed. Contrary to what you have argued in the past, a non-interventionist stance doesn’t prohibit the use of soft power.

          Again, nothing I haven’t said before either. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

          1. “We’ll just have to agree to disagree.”

            About what? I was just pointing out Yokel seems like a catch-all of convenience.

            but, since i brought up the tangent =

            “a non-interventionist stance doesn’t prohibit the use of soft power.”

            Not as per the Richman usage. Diplomacy is meddling, and trade is aggression if it upsets someone Militaristic.

            And while I appreciate he’s an unfortunate person to be carrying the banner as Reasons flagship Foreign Policy writer…. that *is* the role he plays. And I haven’t seen anything coming from any others that suggest he’s beyond the pale, off the reservation, etc.

            My gripe is mainly with the way people treat the term “non-interventionist” as though it actually represents a coherent and well-established body of thought in foreign policy that has a long track record of successful mediation of conflict….When in reality its just a adjective to describe a theoretical alternative ‘do nothing’ posture whenever the current version of “doing something” is appallingly stupid. (Which, to be fair, tends to most of the time.)

            At best its just an appeal to a vague ‘hands off’ realism without any further guiding principles.

            this is also sort of interesting on the topic; I don’t know anything about Rothbard’s FP writings, but this seems to torpedo him pretty badly.

  6. But when it comes to so-called “sanctuary cities” (that refuse to make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment and turn undocumented workers to the feds for deportation)

    That’s certainly one – legitimate – interpretation of what a sanctuary city is. But, it could also be argued that these cities are intervening in immigration policy. Isn’t that the same thing that Arizona did and got slapped down for?

    1. One thing I’m not clear on:

      Why is being a sanctuary city necessary to not make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment?

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      How does whether a city cooperates/complies with the feds on handling illegals implicate the Fourth?

      1. I agree with you there, that quote was like ‘whu-?’

      2. “How does whether a city cooperates/complies with the feds on handling illegals implicate the Fourth?”

        The problem is establishing probable cause.

        Can looking Latino establish probable cause?

        1. “Can looking Latino establish probable cause?”

          Well actually yes it can in a lot of commonsense senarios.

          Most of us who live in Texas can pretty much look at a hispanic and tell for certain if they are more than two generations here in this country.

          Actual wetbacks stick out like a sore thumb.

          1. This is horseshit.

    2. The idea that the Fourth Amendment allows cities to ignore immigration law is utter bullshit. Why not “equal protection” or “an emanation of a penumbra”? Even libertarians will do violence to the Constitution, it seems.

      1. What’s even supposed to be the internal logic of that claim? That it’s an unreasonable seizure or something?

        1. I think what she was getting at is that the cooperation between the local and federal agencies is not based on the federal agency obtaining a warrant for the arrest of the person in local custody, but rather a mandatory information-sharing program. But then the immigration status information in and of itself is enough to establish probable cause for detention, so there’s that.

          1. Hmm. I guess I can see some logic to that, but it does seem pretty clumsy.

          2. Why does a city need a warrant to enforce a federal law? Federal law supersedes city law. Let’s say it’s against federal law to traffic in rhino horns, but it’s not against city law. Do you think the city would just say to someone they caught with a truck full of rhino horns: “Never mind, no problem!”?

            1. I’m not prepared to defend her argument, but I think that’s basically the logic of it, yeah. I don’t think it’s a solid argument anyway, but it’s further complicated by the fact that states are constrained in how they are allowed to address federal immigration law. Generally the feds have to be the ones to do the immigration enforcement. Sometimes the way that happens is that the feds say to a local PD “Hey, hang on to this guy for us so we can get somebody over there to take custody” rather than going to a judge, getting a warrant for his arrest, and waiting outside the police station so they can arrest him as soon as he crosses the threshold. That seems to be where she’s bringing in the 4A issue.

            2. That’s how it goes in the legal mj states.

          3. the cooperation between the local and federal agencies is not based on the federal agency obtaining a warrant for the arrest of the person in local custody,

            That seems to get more to how the feds handle any illegal, regardless of whether they acquire the illegal from a city jail, or from a coyote’s pickup.

            Do the feds get warrants for the ones they catch in the wild, but not the ones they get from city lockups? I dunno, but it sounds unlikely.

            1. Yeah, that’s the thing. Just the fact that person in custody has no paperwork (and apparently that information must be shared with the feds via the Priority Enforcement Program) is enough probable cause for the feds to detain them, but the feds aren’t on the scene when that is ascertained at the local level, so it seems they send out these detention orders/requests asking (demanding?) the local PD to hang on to the guy for them. Shikha views this as a 4A violation because the feds didn’t go to the trouble of obtaining a warrant, faxing it over to the PD and making an arrest. At least that’s what I think she’s saying.

              1. Honest question, how is the probable cause established? The person ‘looks’ like a foreigner and can’t produce papers? That seems odd to me. I imagine a fair amount of detainees, illegal or not, could not, while detained, produce some proof of citizenship.

                1. Once you’re booked and run up the flagpole with any kind of background check, you have to provide something in the way of ID for the cops to fill out your paperwork. If you don’t have any or it doesn’t check out (social security number mismatch, etc), there you have it.

                  1. The thing is though, there are people who are arrested in situations like after a long drug infused bender who aren’t going to have any ID on them and likely have very few to no people who would be willing, upon receipt of their call from jail, to bring that to authorities. Surely all these people don’t get held for federal investigation of possible illegal status?

                    1. Surely all these people don’t get held for federal investigation of possible illegal status?

                      Maybe, maybe not. I’m sure there’s also other factors that come into play. If you go in and give a name that’s a known alias, or give the same address you were living at the last time you got deported, or your fingerprints are already in the system, or a prior mugshot, etc, that probably all goes toward determining that.

                  2. “or it doesn’t check out (social security number mismatch, etc), there you have it.”

                    Do you mean if you have a SS# from a State which you never lived in, say Connecticut, that would make the Federal Government suspicious of whether or not you were born in the US ?

                    Interesting.

    3. “Isn’t that the same thing that Arizona did and got slapped down for?”

      Dude you know that principals trump principels.

      And thanks for pointing it out.

    4. Raven, that’s exactly the way see it. When the DOJ deems that interfering with Fed jurisdiction is something they don’t like politically (AZ) they sue, when sanctuary cities do the exact same thing, not a peep from the DOJ. It’s not a consistent approach from an agency that supposedly is sworn to uphold the Constitution. Not hard to see why people are miffed.

      For the record I worked with a lot of Hispanic dudes for 15 years in the logging business. I became friends with many of them. The majority were very hard working and family oriented and are an asset to the country. I drank a lot of beers with these guys. OTOH I saw the ghettos in even small town Humboldt County with a lot of people relying on the dole.

      I’m with Friedman, dismantle the Welfare state, then you can have open borders. Since that will never happen in today’s world in any conversation with righties or lefties I’d be laughed out of the room for calling for open borders.

      That shit won’t fly these days, if I fail some purity test, oh well. I have become more libertarian over decades dealing with government stupidity and seeing the growth of the regulatory state. I try to point this out to people and once in a while it might click with people.

      Dying on the hill of “open borders” just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. 99 per cent of people of either team (other than a few D strategist types looking for a permanent free shit majority) are not going to buy it.

  7. “But when it comes to so-called “sanctuary cities” (that refuse to make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment and turn undocumented workers to the feds for deportation), they want Uncle Sam to club them with the Statute of Liberty itself.”

    I’m an open borders guy.

    I’ve been arguing for open borders for 12 years on this site.

    I can’t even take this stuff seriously.

    It’s like reading something from Salon about abortion.

  8. Another dishonest, hand-waving piece by Shikha on immigration. What a surprise. Again, conflating illegal and legal immigration. No, Trump did not say all Mexican immigrants are criminals. He said many of them are, which is undeniable. Check out LA’s most wanted and tell me how we should not be concerned with crime by immigrants.

    The argument that “they don’t commit more crime than average” is bull for several reasons.

    1. It doesn’t count crime by second generation immigrants and anchor babies, who tend to commit more crimes than their parents.

    2. Let’s say that a police department has a certain percentage of bad cops, crooks and violent types. Say 5%. We find out that the new cops hired from the police academy are 5% crooks and violent types. Nobody with any brains says: “Oh, that’s OK, because the average of bad cops stays the same.” No, we want to improve the police department by not hiring any bad cops. The effort may not be perfect, but it makes sense to make an effort.

    1. It’s amazing how mendacious people will get when discussing the racial composition of criminals because they don’t want to admit basic facts.

      The other issue not mentioned is that Latinos have a higher average crime rate than EVERY ethnic group other than African Americans. This is important because it allows them to claim that the group with the second highest crime rates are ‘below average’ in the commission of crime because African American crime rates are so high that they skew the numbers and cause every other ethnic group to fall ‘below the average.’

      Obviously no Hispanic (legal or illegal) should be assumed to be a violent criminal based on the actions of other people, just like random, law abiding black people shouldn’t be held to account for the actions of people who happen to share their skin tone. I just don’t like the fact that this is an obvious abuse of statistics meant to make illegal immigration look like less of a danger than it is for political purposes.

      1. And conservatives are also obviously engaged in fearmongering over this subject, too. This is one shooting by one guy and conservatives are acting like there’s some nationwide crime wave caused by illegal immigrants which just does not appear to exist.

        1. True.

          The funny thing is, if there were a nationwide crime wave by illegals, there would be no way to prove it.

          Just as there is no way to prove there isn’t a nationwide crime wave by illegals.

          1. If there were a nationwide crime spree by illegals, you would expect it to be reflected in an increase in America’s crime rate over the last twenty years. Since 1990, America has had a massive influx of illegal immigrants, yet the crime rate has fallen drastically since then. Whatever crime illegals might be committing hasn’t been enough to counteract the 20 year decline in American crime stats, so there can’t be a particularly large amount of crime occurring among illegals – at least not enough to skew our stats upwards.

            1. How much would the crime rate have fallen without millions of illegals? How much crime by illegals goes unreported?

            2. I don’t know if the crime rate in San Francisco has gone down. A lot of poor blacks have left due to rising rents and gentrification, which might be a factor. However, there are a number of Mexican gangs that weren’t here decades ago. There’s also a lot of property crime that either doesn’t get reported to the police, or if you try to report it, you may get ignored (e.g. car break-ins).

      2. “The other issue not mentioned is that Latinos have a higher average crime rate than EVERY ethnic group other than African Americans.”

        You need to talk with Sidd Finch above.

        1. Sidd Finch here to talk.

          Irish is right.

          1. Your source above seemed to say that the crime rates of Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites “are in actual fact quite similar.”

            1. My “source” is a racist, sexist, everythingelseist intellectual who writes under a pseudonym in fear of losing his job. You probably don’t want to go around citing La Griffe du Lion as gospel.

              He also said the crime rate is “a bit higher for Hispanics.” (9 and 14% for 2009 and 2010.)

        2. “You need to talk with Sidd Finch above.”

          You mean the guy who posted an article that explicitly said Hispanic crime rates are a ‘bit higher’ than non-Hispanic whites?

          I didn’t say Hispanic crime rates are really high, I said that among all ethnicities they are second and that it’s mendacious to look at the group with the second highest crime rates and say they’re ‘below average’ because the group with the highest crime rates skew the numbers.

    2. “No, Trump did not say all Mexican immigrants are criminals.”

      I think the statement “”When Mexico sends its people…” is a pretty general one.

      “second generation immigrants”

      What’s a ‘second generation immigrant?’

  9. Shikha also claims that Trump said “that Mexicans who come to America are criminals and rapists”.

    Now, Trump says a lot of things, and is an idiot, but I’m pretty sure that’s a misrepresentation. From what I have seen, what he said was that there are criminals and rapists among the Mexicans who come to the US.

    That’s very different from saying, as Shikha implies, that all Mexicans who come to the US are criminals and rapists.

  10. “sanctuary cities” (that refuse to make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment and turn undocumented workers to the feds for deportation)

    Lolwut

    1. Apparently it’s a Fourth Amendment violation to turn people in to the authorities if they’re actually breaking a law.

      Dalmia is very, very dumb.

    2. “Workers”. Yeah, all illegal aliens are workers, especially those who commit felonies.

  11. Back during the Pete Wilson Administration in California, one of the things that gave a lot of impetus to Prop 187 was a lawsuit put forward by California (and other border states) in which they sued the federal government to make them reimburse the states for education and prison costs paid out to take care of illegal aliens. The states lost that case.

    http://articles.latimes.com/19…..immigrants

    If you read that link about the decision, they say specifically that the states can’t be made to pay for the education of illegal immigrants’ children because universal education is mandated by state law rather than federal law.

    So California passed Prop 187 prohibiting state funds from being use to pay to educate illegal immigrants.

    But then the courts ruled that California can’t discriminate against illegal immigrants–on Constitutional grounds, as I recall.

    Supporting Prop 187 made Wilson such a political pariah, that no one even wanted to mention it again, but if the state went back and sued again and made the federal government reimburse the states for the costs associated with state services paid to illegal immigrants, I think a lot of the support for the anti-immigration lobby would disappear.

    1. Point is that if the states can’t refuse to provide services to illegal aliens, and enforcing immigration law is the federal government’s responsibility, then why shouldn’t paying for those services for illegal immigrants be the federal government’s responsibility, too?

      It’s like making California’s taxpayers cover the costs of U.S. airbases in Germany. Whether we should have airbases in Germany is one question, but whether the funding for airbases in Germany should come solely from the taxpayers of California is another question entirely.

      1. Good luck with that. The feds put all kinds of mandates on the states that the states are required to fund.

  12. Thanks for that gawdawful picture.

    Suggested alt-text: “Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble…”

  13. Rand Paul, a civil libertarian, condemned the city and rallied his liberty-loving foot soldiers to launch a “revolution” to “secure the border”

    Because I’m liberty-loving, I’m done with this guy.

    A secure border has two sides, and is an element of the tyrannical state.

    1. I wouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good like that.

    2. Yeah, well obviously, if a Presidential candidate is trying to build a national constituency in all 50 states, and that means he has to compromise on any one of a dozen issues, then there’s no way we should support him for President.

      I mean, who cares if, say, he wants to legalize marijuana at the federal level, balance the budget, get rid of the income tax, and withdraw our troops from all over the world–wherever they aren’t needed?

      If he also doesn’t specifically say that we should all be free to have our own fully automatic weapons, RPGs, and tanks, then there’s no way I’m voting for him. Because ignoring what it takes to win the Republican nomination–regardless of how doing so might help the libertarian movement–is what being libertarian is all about!

      1. I ought to have said: Because I’m liberty-loving, I’m done with electoral politics in the U.S.

        1. You just split two 5’s, and doubled down on your stupid.

          Even if there is no politician you would ever vote for, there are always one or two you should want to vote against.

          Not to mention the “tax levies” and “issues” ballots.

          1. Voting has done you a lot of good, has it?

            IIRC I voted for Harry Browne once. Ah, the folly of youth.

  14. When it comes to the confederate flag, Republicans are all for states rights. But when it comes to so-called “sanctuary cities” (that refuse to make a mockery of the Fourth Amendment and turn undocumented workers to the feds for deportation), they want Uncle Sam to club them with the Statute of Liberty itself.

    The flag isn’t an issue of anyone claiming a right to break the law. Sanctuary cities are a claim by progressives that the law doesn’t apply to them because they’re just so much better than the rest of us.

    Got it, dumbass?

    1. The confederate flag line is pretty silly, but I’m curious as to what you see as the difference between these sanctuary cities and states like Colorado with legalized pot. Should the Colorado sheriff, upon catching someone with pot, hold them for federal authorities because they’re violating the CSA?

      1. Thanks for being smarter than Shikha Dalmia, Bo. Granted, that’s a low bar, but at least you made a decent analogy. Where it breaks down is that Colorado, to the best of my knowledge, isn’t protecting violent criminals (*) because they happen to also be politically useful pot smokers.

        I support anyone simply refusing to cooperate w/ the Feds if they believe it to be wrong. However, if you do something like the below, you’re responsible for the results.

        Letter Shows San Francisco Sheriff Sought Custody Of Francisco Sanchez Before Releasing Him
        …On March 26, the federal agency handed Lopez-Sanchez over to the sheriff’s department. The local agency took him into custody and cleared him of the marijuana charge the next day….

        (*) No, not all illegals are violent criminals; I just don’t believe the Dems care either way if any individual one is.

        1. I’m sure there’s some cynical reasons there too but I imagine most of the support in sanctuary cities comes from an honest belief that federal government is wrong to deport people, just like in Colorado I imagine that some sheriff’s have mixed motives as to why they don’t hold all pot users they come across for the feds.

  15. And so it is with the recent tragic shooting of a 31-year-old California woman by a clearly nuts undocumented immigrant. Ignoring that cities with a high-undocumented population tend to be the safest, as Radley Balko, Steve Chapman and I have repeatedly documented, Republicans cranked up their outrage machine, blaming the death on San Francisco’s “sanctuary policies.”

    They’re not blaming this on guns?

    *goes back to what I was doing*

    But serially:

    cities such as San Francisco, has now declared that she has “absolutely no support” for a city that defies federal deportation rules.

    Hillary Clinton will err towards federal power every. single. time.

    This is hardly hypocrisy.

  16. “So what exactly happened and why are “sanctuary” cities not to blame?”

    This post so missed an opportunity for the headline,

    Shihka Sells Sanctuary

    1. Shihka Sells Sanctuary

      By the sea shore?

    2. darn you

  17. Im making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

    This is what I do! .. http://www.homejobs20.cf

  18. From the constitutional standpoint, the states and localities can’t obstruct the fedgov in the exercise of its constitutional powers, but likewise, the states and localities are not *obliged* to lend a helping hand. They can legitimately say, “you passed the law, *you* enforce it.”

    I suppose that, with enough legal ingenuity, you could say that a state which keeps an illegal immigrant in prison and then turns him loose after his sentence expires, is “harboring” that person – not saying I agree, but lawyers gonna lawyer.

  19. “This whole characterization is nonsense. The notion that a city would willfully release a dangerous felon ? citizen or immigrant, legal or illegal ? simply to spite Uncle Sam is totally ludicrous”

    Except that is exactly what they did. We are talking about San Francisco here remember.

    1. The crazy/wacko part is that they do it simply to spite Uncle Sam.
      We are talking about San Francisco here, remember?
      However, the sanctuary for iIlegals began with Christian churches, which has several centuries of providing various sanctuaries.. (See famous escape scene in Hunchback of Notre Dame)

  20. Aw geez, ANOTHER one thinks the Ron/Rand Paul Cult is libertarian.
    They play to every bigot in America, and always bounce around on both sides of federalism,

    1. Hi there, it’s great to see you again!

    1. Sounds like Ms. Skenazy needs to pay this kid a visit.

    2. So, is the kid now on a sex-offender list?

  21. I’ve been working and traveling abroad for years now. Never have I once simply ignored the local entry requirements because I considered it my right to simply roll wherever I want. I certainly didn’t demand exemption from local law, and publicly demonstrate contempt for the nation into which I have entered.

    I would like to see a world where people can freely move about to engage in work and trade with a minimum of impediment. I also acknowledge that the U.S. immigration system is FUBAR beyond belief, wherein there is a strong incentive to evade legal procedures which are ludicrously long and Kafkaesque in their absurdity.

    This does not, however, mean that the solution is to simply throw open the gates and denounce any form of examination as “racist”. Keeping felons and violent gangsters out of one’s territory is one of the (very few) reasonable expectations of government. Additionally:

    1. 1) The primary reason for businesses supporting illegal immigration to the perpetuation and maintenance of a cheap, expendable serf class and the avoidance of even basic protections of workers. This also creates a market distortion, because people not operating sub rosa cannot compete.

      2) There are two ways in which illegal immigration props up kleptocratic regimes: by serving as a pressure valve to prevent the populace from changing the system, and obviating the reforms that might actually make it less of a shithole; and by adding foreign remittances to the coffers, allowing unsustainable regimes to avoid bottoming out.

      3) To be blunt, Third World shitholes are usually such for a reason. Bringing the culture and attitudes that create such conditions means that the degradation to such conditions is likely.

      4) As much as we would like it to be different, all of this imposes physical and fiduciary costs on non-consenting others, which is unacceptable. If there were no welfare state (and no ongoing campaign to restrict the self-defense rights of citizens), this would be less of an issue, but that is not the reality in which we live.

      5) This is simply the latest iteration of the longrunning scam of progressives to create what they consider to be a locked-in voting bloc, and to continually delude the public into thinking there is no ratchet going on (“we’ll fix the system this time for sure, super cereal!”)

  22. It is long past time to shitcan this open borders hobby horse, which is heavily infested with the same sort of Social-Justice-feelz-based thinking for which progressives are rightly castigated in these pages, and start coming up with something more rational.

  23. I don’t necessarily disagree with the morality behind this argument. I’m inclined to side with due process in all cases.

    That being said, just like American citizens don’t forfeit their constitutional rights (when dealing with the U.S. gov’t) when traveling overseas, foreign citizens don’t become assured of those rights when traveling here. It’s this flaw in thinking that leads neocons to try and defend these rights for foreign citizens on foreign soil.

    That being said, due process should always be the standard. Unless of course the foreigners in question are British regulars marching towards DC. But due process is not guarunteed for non-citizens, regardless of their geographical location. There’s nothing unconstitutional about ICE detainer orders. Unseemly? Immoral? Yes. Unconstitutional? No.

    Furious backlash in 3 … 2 … 1 …

  24. I personally believe in open borders. I also believe Constitutional rights should only apply to people that have sworn an oath to live by the laws of this country. Why are we deporting people who want to work and giving welfare to those that don’t. Give we a family of illegals any day over a crack whore with her half a dozen bastard kids. And before you reply in outrage no I am not PC and have no intention of becoming PC. And the next idiot I hear refer to this country as the greatest democary on earth I am going to scream. If you are to stupid to know what our form of government is we have you need to keep your mouth shut. Politicans say we have a democary because most are dumber than dirt and the rest want you to actually BELIEVE you have a voice in what happens. WAKE THE F*** UP

  25. I’m getting sick and tired of the ‘open-borders libertarians’ BS. If you are American, and believe in property rights, AND believe in the sovereignity of the borders of our nation then you shouldn’t be supporting any open borders ideas. If you don’t believe there should be borders to a nation that should be respected then you are no better than the One World Government idiots. Also the 4th amendment applies to legal citizens, not a bunch of border jumpers. Rights protect citizens, not those here illegally. It’s a slap in the face to those who worked hard to get here legally to automatically endow those here legally with the same rights and privileges. Hope this makes sense…I’m drunk.

  26. Hillary is a great friend of Trump, in his own words. If Hillary has her hand up Trump’s backside, this may prove to be the most creative play for power since the 1930s.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.