Immigration

An Undocumented Foreigner and a Murder

Does a random killing justify fears of uncontrolled immigration?

|

San Francisco Police Department

If you don't recognize the name Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, don't worry: You will. He's not a candidate for president, but before long he'll have higher name recognition than Jeb Bush. 

A felon convicted on several drug charges, the Mexican national had been deported five times but managed to get back into the country. He has been arrested for the apparently random murder of 32-year-old Kate Steinle in San Francisco on July 1. For anti-immigration advocates, his case starkly exposes everything that is wrong with our immigration policies. 

Those flaws would be: First, Lopez-Sanchez was here—illustrating our unwillingness to secure the border. Second, he was (allegedly) violent, proving the danger that unauthorized immigrants pose to American citizens. Third, he was not held for federal immigration agents by the sheriff, an indictment of San Francisco's "sanctuary city" policy. 

Donald Trump used this episode to buttress his claim that Mexico is sending criminals to the United States. Mark Krikorian, head of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), said the tycoon's "widely mocked warnings of this very danger have been vindicated." 

But what does this prove, exactly? It's no secret that anyone who is sufficiently determined to sneak into the country from Mexico can probably do so sooner or later. 

That's not because enforcement is lax. Spending on border security has tripled, after adjustment for inflation, since 2000. The number of Border Patrol Agents has risen fivefold in the past two decades. Politicians act as though we could make the Mexican border impermeable. But recent experience shows that's a fantasy. 

The accused is anything but representative of Mexican immigrants, documented or otherwise. Contrary to myth, this group is averse to violent crime as well as property crime. Noncitizens, who make up about 13 percent of the population, account for about 6 percent of all federal and state prison inmates. Many of them, of course, are not undocumented immigrants, but legal ones. 

A 2008 study by economists Kristin Butcher of Wellesley College and Anne Morrison Piehl of Rutgers for the Public Policy Institute of California reported that people born abroad make up 35 percent of the state's adult population—but only 17 percent of state prisoners. 

"Noncitizen men from Mexico ages 18-40—a group disproportionately likely to have entered the United States illegally—are more than eight times less likely than U.S.-born men in the same age group to be in a correctional setting," the authors found. 

It's true that if Lopez-Sanchez were not in the country, he would not have been able to kill anyone. But if the presence of immigrants has a protective effect against crime in the neighborhoods where they live, as the evidence suggests, then there are murders that would have occurred but didn't because of their presence. 

San Francisco does have a "sanctuary" law that prohibits local police from working with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without a court order or warrant. Maybe in this case the city went too far—or maybe the feds simply dropped the ball. 

They turned the suspect over after he completed a federal prison term for trying to enter the country illegally. It would have made more sense to deport him. In any case, they apparently didn't take legal steps to make sure of getting him back when the city was done with him. Instead, they merely asked the city to hold him. 

A court dismissed an outstanding charge against Lopez-Sanchez. Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi said he would have given him back to ICE if it had issued a warrant. Since it didn't, he let him go. Given that the inmate's record showed no violent crime convictions, though, his implication in a murder was hardly foreseeable. 

The sanctuary policy, in any event, is not a mindless favor to felons, but an attempt to promote valuable cooperation between local immigrants and police. If otherwise law-abiding undocumented foreigners fear being apprehended by local cops on immigration violations, they aren't likely to help solve crimes. If they are assured the cops won't report them, they are more likely to come forward. 

Mirkarimi knows something Trump and his allies refuse to learn: In advancing public safety, undocumented immigrants, when treated generously, are more helpful than harmful. 

It's a shame that Lopez-Sanchez, if guilty, was not deported before he could commit this crime. But he proves no more about undocumented immigrants than John Lennon's killer proves about white guys named Chapman. 

© Copyright 2015 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Drop That Snack!

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. Shred the rule of law, apologize for thugs, call breaking the law “undocumented”.
    The only advantage of anarchocapitalism is some could hire assassins to murder both the illegals and the apologists – probably to thunderous applause. I’m mixed.
    We aren’t securing the border, but sending billions in tax money to crony contractors.

    I’m a citizen, so the police will arrest me if I don’t have a driver’s license, proof of insurance, or Obamacare. I have to pay for everything.

    The illegals – Try being “undocumented” with regards to your 1040 tax form – I dare you – get subsidized everything, amnesty or immunity that would make Lysander Spooner blush, while citizens are slaves and imprisoned for documentation hiccups.

    Where can I as a citizen become exempt from all laws, all liability, all responsibility, and if I commit a felony all I get is a paid vacation in Mexico?

    1. “Where can I as a citizen become exempt from all laws, all liability, all responsibility, and if I commit a felony all I get is a paid vacation in Mexico?”

      Is “Join you local police force or become a Federal Agent” the correct answer?

      Although from what ‘ve been reading you can choose to go somewhere other than Mexico if you’d like.

      1. Charles,

        More to the point is whether or not to accept the core libertarian belief in allowing open borders. This open borders idea is easy to accept and understand, in the abstract. Apart from the crime issue, a more basic problem with open borders should be considered, In our case, with an established lower SES group of Blacks and Whites and Hispanics (and a smattering of others)- not just Blacks-we hurt them be increasing their unlikelihood of getting transient unskilled work by allowing “at will” border crossing of non-HS degree holding non English speakers or slight English speakers (mainly).

        We also as a taxpaying citizenry incur high local taxes for local welfare and community assistance to increased numbers of this imported (by our choice to default on securing the border) lower SES folks, and also increased local payouts to hospitals, clinics and schools. The feds also pay out for various things, even though Dems have insisted they don’t.
        After Libertarians have peeled away the welfare crust sitting on our liberty right now, then and only then should we support the core Libertarian belief in open borders.

  2. I’m pretty sure that anyone who is breaking the law will be reluctant to assist in helping solve crimes if such assistance might uncover their criminal activity. So I can only assume that Chapman would prefer that we just stop prosecuting all crimes, since he gives no justification for why only illegal immigrants should be given this special treatment.

    1. why only illegal immigrants should be given this special treatment

      I read somewhere on the internet that it has something to do with San Francisco being a faggy proggie socialist hell-hole. Didn’t they try to ban Happy Meals? Who would do that? Faggy proggie socialists, that’s who. Because in murderous sociopaths they find a kindred spirit.

    2. OK, I’ll bite — the special treatment is for immigration status only, not for, say, armed robbery or car-theft. But I assume you already know that.

  3. “If you don’t recognize the name Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, don’t worry: You will.”

    Bullshit, Steve. The MSM has GONE OUT OF ITS WAY to report NOTHING about this crime, almost as completely as Reason has ignored EVERYTHING in Rotherham.

    1. Fox News has been all over the Lopez-Sanchez Atrocities?, and they’re as mainstream as it gets, if ratings and viewership count for anything.

      1. ONE out of the usual suspects. And Fox news does not a national discussion make. Face it, we expected Fox to talk about it, and it is worth talking about. But the level at which the MSM (and it is a stretch to call Fox news or the WSJ the “mainstream”when they are so quantitatively outnumbered on the left, the same way “Air America” is in no way a part of the talk radio scene as they were completely drowned out in volume by the right…)

  4. Given that most state facilities don’t record the immigration status of inmates, I’d like to see the citation on where you got that 6% aggregate number from. According to the GAO:

    In fiscal year 2005, the criminal alien population in federal prisons was around 27 percent of the total inmate population, and from fiscal years 2006 through 2010 remained consistently around 25 percent.

    I haven’t found the numbers for more recent years, but the feds are the only ones who consistantly record immigration status of inmates.

    1. Also lumping in all non-citizens with illegals is disengenuous. Legal non-citizen immigrants are an extremely law-abiding group. So, yes, lumping them with illegals will dilute the criminal record of the whole, and ignores the actual issue at hand.

      1. Thank you, being a legal non-citizen myself.

        1. Well, most of us are non-legal citizens. That is, citizens who reguarly do illegal (or at least reprehensible) things.

        2. Well, most of us are non-legal citizens. That is, citizens who reguarly do illegal (or at least reprehensible) things.

    2. Given that most state facilities don’t record the immigration status of inmates, I’d like to see the citation on where you got that 6% aggregate number from. According to the GAO:

      This is consistent with the claim some make that illegal immigrants have a lower rate of welfare receipt than citizens. My state, Jersey, doesn’t require or ask for proof of citizenship to apply or receive most welfare benefits, so the claim is suspect.

  5. That’s not because enforcement is lax. Spending on border security has tripled…

    Spending does not equal effectiveness. Our border security is like our airport security – expensive theater not intended to actually do anything.

    1. Now this is funny. Reason trots out the proggie argument that, since the government is spending more money, it’s more effective.

  6. the apparently random murder of 32-year-old Kate Steinle in San Francisco on July 1

    No way in hell that’s his first murder. How many others has govt incompetence allowed him to get away with?

    1. Which government? Mexico? Or do they get a pass?

      1. What makes you think they should get a pass? But if you want to indict the Mexican government and their incompotence, BW, you are welcome to send Trump your moneys.

  7. I take it back, I favor sanctuary cities. Let the liberals get shot:

    Illegal deported five times who shot woman: I came back to San Francisco because it was a sanctuary city
    A horrifying lesson in incentives for which there’s plenty of blame to go around. Blame for San Francisco, of course, because it’s a sanctuary city where local PD won’t ask residents about their immigration status. Blame for ICE, who handed Sanchez over to San Francisco police to face a drug charge knowing full well the city wouldn’t hand him back later because of its “sanctuary” status. And blame, of course, for our fearless ruling class, whose fecklessness on border security presented ICE with a choice of either sending Sanchez to San Francisco and knowing he’d soon be back on America’s streets or returning him to Mexico ? knowing he’d soon be back on America’s streets….

    1. “Hey, it’s cool if somebody gets killed as long as s/he lives in a city dominated by people whom I politically disagree with.”

      How exactly do you know the victim favored these policies? Or are you just extending your guilt by association argument?

  8. No matter how delicately Trump might have described the problem of illegal immigration, he’d still get called a big meanie for wanting to deport people and secure the border.

    Sure, it’s impossible to perfectly guard the border and a good chunk of illegal immigration is from people who overstay visas. Even so, telling the world that they can stay so long as they reach a sanctuary city is just about the dumbest thing I can think of. If you have sanctuary cities, there is no point in enforcing any other immigration restrictions.

    How about this: make it easy for people to enter the country legally, but also make it easy to deport troublemakers.

    1. At this point, even a clown like Trump has more credibility than the media that persists in vilifying him.

      1. I’m starting to look at it this way.

        If the media will go to such lengths to vilify, then he must have touched a serious nerve.

        1. I am afraid of Trump’s popularity. I don’t think I want to president who goes by “The Donald.”

          That said, I would love to see a Trump v Sanders presidential race. That would be the biggest clown show in years.

          1. No, no, no. In a fit of massive irony, if elected, he’d go all Latin on it. “Don Presidente Trump”.

          2. Sanders could warm up by screaming at a a garbage can in an alley for an hour ahead of time.

            1. I thought that that was Rhianna’s gig…

  9. I came back to San Francisco because it was a sanctuary city

    Notice in the article and accompanying video that he didn’t actually say those words? A man who barely speaks and understands English answers “Yes” to a leading question, and Hotair (and you) put words in his mouth. So you (and they) are liars who revel in an innocent woman being murdered because she might have been a “liberal.” You’re a vile POS.

    1. You’re a vile POS.

      Move to San Francisco. Enjoy the year or so you have until someone shoots you.

      1. DOn’t worry! I have it on good authority from Nancy Pelosi AND Dianne Feinstein that it is actually quite easy to get a CCL in San Francisco!

        1. Are you being sarcastic or just missinformed. just so you know you can’t get a CCL in SF unless your Pelosi or Feinstein

    2. Given he could expect a lower possibility of being deported in a ‘sanctuary city’ than elsewhere in conjunction with his own answer, it appears you’re the one misinterpreting. It’s no stretch to assume why he chose SF.

    3. Also, I assume that there is either an intrepreter or that his grasp of englsh is better than you assume it to be. Just because someone disagrees with you, BW, doesn’t mean that s/he has no brains at all or isn’t trying to do a decent job. Geeze, you are as bad as Tony. “If you think I am wrong you must be a rapist and drink the blood of the innocent.”

  10. The sanctuary policy [is] an attempt to promote valuable cooperation between local immigrants and police.

    “Commuting sentences is an attempt to promote valuable cooperation between local drug users and police.”

    1. Wait a minute?

      A few year’s back, The state of Arizona passed a law purporting to assist the federal government in enforcing immigration law. That law was struck is unconstitutional because enforcement of immigration law was a sole Federal prerogative, and state laws purporting to assist the federal government would interfere with that prerogative.

      But a law in California that is clearly intended to at Federal prerogative, and state laws purporting to assist the federal government would interfere with that prerogative.

      But a law in California that is intended to at least partially interfere with the enforcement of federal immigration law is somehow a ? OK.

      Regardless of how one feels about the immigration issues, one must acknowledge this curious inconsistency.

      1. Damn voice dictation…

  11. “Steven Chapman analyzes the arguments.”

    correction

    “Steven Chapman whitewashes the arguments to defend ILLEGAL immigration.”

    There, fixed it for you.

  12. I don’t understand. The guy picks up a pistol, while admittedly high and negligently discharges it into a pretty white girl. Even if he were picking it up to do some other nefarious deed and wasn’t just unlucky, I’m not sure what the illegal immigration debate wins on a guy who’s been deported five times. Its like wanting more firearms rules because someone bought a gun on the black market and shot someone. Why am I supposed to be angrier about this than other random shootings?

    1. Seems like he was deported multiple times instead of doing hard time for felonies. So we dump him over the border and he comes back repeatedly. He goes back to a “sanctuary city” and apparently has a get-out-of-jail free card. If SFPD picks up an American convicted felon, he goes to jail. An illegal immigrant felon gets let go.

      1. Not how it works. An illegal immigrant felon gets put away just like a citizen felon. What happened here was the feds found out he had an old drug possession warrant in SF. For some absurd reason, even though they had him in fed custody, they turned him over to SF, with a “please give him back to us if you release him”.

        Now, that’s where the sanctuary policy comes into play. Since it was an old drug warrant (and since it was one SF wouldn’t even arrest him for now) that they had no reason to prosecute, they dropped the charges. Because of the sanctuary city policy, they let him go instead of turning him back over to the feds, since he wasn’t wanted on a violent felony.

        Now, you can question the sanity of not turning him back over to the feds. But it isn’t a “get out of jail free” card for immigrants.

        1. The SF Sheriff’s Dept. requested him back from the Feds and sent off duty sheriffs to go pick him up in Bakersfield at taxpayer expense. Why exactly that happened has of yet not been answered. It is now a couple weeks ago and everyone here in charge is pretending it never happened.

    2. #prettywhitegirllivesmatter

      Isn’t this what politicians want? Balkanization. You split a society down along racial lines and the snakeoil salesmen exploit. Burn down Ferguson on a lie and yep, you’ll see silliness in response.

      1. It seems as if you are just as guilty of it as any politician. No one else is saying that this is a matter of race or that her being white mattered. And indeed, I haven’t seen a picture or heard her describes as “pretty” or as “white”.

        1. while admittedly high and negligently discharges it into a pretty white girl.

    3. The pistol had been stolen from the car of a BLM agent in previous weeks. The story that this guy “found it” on a bench wrapped in a t-shirt and that it “went off” is obvious b.s. He’s clearly the guy who broke into the car and stole it. There was an earlier report that claimed he wanted to “shoot at sea lions,” which also sounds weird, because AFAIK there are no sea lions at Pier 14.

  13. “Anyone born on this planet should have a planetary citizenship enabling them to freely explore their home.” -Jaden Smith, 2014, Twitter

    1. That just proves that he’s a moron. I don’t care what celebrities think, let alone children of celebrities. Come back when he has demonstrated some proof of cognitive ability.

      1. You’re just jealous that Jaden didn’t make an ad hominim argument about immigration.

    2. Actually he is not an idiot. Religion and nationalism are what your masters use to stir up wars. You can’t get rid of religion but nationalism is a different story. Does it not seem strange that you are willing to die for your country but you can’t even name the 50 states or 58 if you are Obama

      1. 60 if you’re Obama. He said he’d been to 57 states, with one to go, but that AK and HI were two he would not visit because his campaign staff won”t let him go there.

        I don’t mind a visit. But not suckling on the welfare state–we’ve no need to import poor people just to pad the welfare roles. And citizenship must mean something–at least a chance to vote for more welfare state, right?–otherwise why are they fighting for it.

        The USA can no more accommodate everyone who wants to come here than Europe can accommodate all the Africans who are swimming over, nor can the various indonesian countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand) support the Bangladesh, Rohingya and other immigrants, nor can Dominican Republic just accept all the Haitians who’ve cross to the other side of the island.

        If nothing else, there is a question of fairness to those who have been patiently waiting in line, following the rules. Queue up 1000 nerds at the next Star Wars opening, and even the most libertarian among them will not tolerate someone ignoring the queue and using the fire exit to sneak in and claim a good seat.

      2. Religion and nationalism are what your masters use to stir up wars

        Really, it’s tribalism all the way down. Religionism and nationalism, to the extent that adherents so identify with their “tribe” that they are willing to attack others that are not in the “right” tribe, are just two of the more prominent types of tribalism. Eliminating national borders won’t change that. Without national borders, people will still “tribe up” along other common or shared lines (e.g. what street they live on, or City, or which side of the river, or whether they eat their bread butter-side up or butter-side down).

    3. Jaden Smith is a libertarian! He wants no borders at all! Anachrocapitalist! He probably forces orphans to hire his monocles and swims in piles of gold! KILL!!

  14. Not really the point is it? The point is this illegal alien would not have been able to kill this young woman if it weren’t for our porous border and sanctuary cities. When did Reason turn LIB?

    1. I’m more concerned they’ve turned unreasonable.

      1. +1, I expect Reason to take the rationalist Libertarian point of view.

    2. It’s not so much that they’ve turned lib, it’s just they’ve caught the same wannabeinvitedtothecoolpartyitis that republicans in congress always catch.

      So on positions they agree with the libs their agreement is vocal. On the stuff they agree with republicans on they’re way more careful to couch things. In “supporting” Rand Paul they come after him violently any time he’s not a true full libertarian. Again, they’re doing this to earn points with the progressive cool kids. Of course once the proggies get their hate crime legislation the same editors at reason will be some of the first sent to the reeducation camps…

  15. It’s disingenuous to use the terms “undocumented immigrant.” Their crime is entering the country illegally, like breaking into a house, not neglecting to get the documents that would prove they had come into the country illegally. If they’d obtained permission to enter the house, it would not have been a break-in, true, but they didn’t. They can’t get the documents because they entered illegally, they aren’t illegal because they don’t have the documents. The same can be said of the word “immigrant.” They are, in fact, illegal aliens as a matter of fact, not just nomenclature.

    There’s a reason Reason is called Reason. I expect it to be reasonable and not pervert logic. I respect the publication and gave the arguments more consideration than I would have in another publication but having re-read it, I have to assume Reason is testing its readers’ powers of reason.

    1. If I get stopped for driving without having a driver’s license, I am charged for that (and I get a ride to jail). If I get stopped for driving and left my license at home, I am charged for forgetting to bring my liepcense with me

      The difference in “undocumented” and “illegal alien” are the same.

      1. not true sloppy if the police can call in and confirm that you have a license then they will let you go or if your illegal they will let you go because its not worth their effort.

    2. Charity and goodwill means seeing a man in need and inviting him into my home for food and shelter.

      If the same man crawls through an open window and helps himself to the contents of my pantry and trashes my home, calling the police and hoping he goes to jail is not a crime against humanity.

      Even if I chose not to invite him in, still not a crime against humanity.

    3. Claiming that people who have immigrated to this country unlawfully are simply “undocumented workers” belies their true status.

      First, not all people who have immigrated to this country unlawfully are actually workers. Then consider that some of those who are working have presented fraudulent documents to obtain those jobs–they’re documented, but have committed a separate crime when they used the fraudulent papers.

      Perhaps a more sensible euphemism is “unauthorized alien,” but that would tend to make a car thief an “unauthorized driver” and drug-dealers “unauthorized pharmacists”.

      It seems disingenuous to downplay the fact that most people who have immigrated to this country unlawfully knowingly violated at least a handful of laws when they stepped foot across the border, knowingly violate another handful of laws when they get a job, are often willing to commit fraud and/or conspire with employers to violate another set of laws, and often seek taxpayer-funded relief in the form of food stamps, health care, etc. Any of which if I, as a citizen, violated would lead to very large fines and/or long prison sentences.

      I don’t think that should warrant any euphemism: “illegal alien” works fine.

  16. We don’t need to secure the borders. The majority of ileegals work. Give them work permits. Someone needs to help pay for the welfare babies. Besides who do think works the fields and chicken processing plants. It sure is not black gang bangers or whiney self indulged whiite liberal. Better than worrying about illegal aliens maybe someone should start worrying about gangs in every major city across this country. They are the real problem that no one has the guts to address.

    1. Better than worrying about illegal aliens maybe someone should start worrying about gangs in every major city across this country. They are the real problem that no one has the guts to address.

      Yeah right. How do we address the problem when their union has already negotiated their contract with the politicians whose campaigns they financed?

      Those are the “gangs” you’re referring to, aren’t they?

  17. The SF Sheriff’s Dept and City Hall have basically said that they will not cooperate with Federal law that they disagree with. Wonder what would happen if some municipality or state decided that they didn’t agree with the gay marriage decree, or an EPA mandate, or drug laws, or firearm restrictions?

    1. Good point. Some lawbreakers are more equal than others.

    2. the next time there is a bank robbery in San Fran, which happens a lot there, the FBI should refuse to help.

    3. It’s well established that local and state agencies cannot be compelled or forced to be in essence federal law enforcement agents. Indeed, with regards to drug laws, San Diego recently attempted to claim that it must enforce federal marijuana law over state law; that was a loser in federal court.

      The gay marriage decree is based on the US Constitution, which the states are required to adhere to so the comparison is not apt.

      With regards to EPA mandates, those are challenged by states all the time. Indeed, the EPA just lost a case before the Supremes brought by Michigan.

    4. Don’t flaunt Federal laws that are on the way in. It’s OK, sort of kind of sometimes, to flaunt Federal laws that are the way out. You have to know which way the wind’s blowing.

  18. Are there sanctuary cities where legal citizens who have committed a crime can go and not be prosecuted. why are illegals granted immunity from laws that citizens must abide by?

    1. The claim is that they only offer sanctuary for immigration violations only. So it’s similar to saying, before the SCOTUS decision, that gays have the same right to marry as anyone else. They just can’t marry members of the same sex.

      In this case any citizen would be immune to the same immigration violation enforcement, but the argument is theoretical, because citizens aren’t subject to those immigration rules.

      1. How about human trafficking?

        omestic Transporting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.

        Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

        Encouraging/Inducing — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who — encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

        Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

  19. Undocumented foreigner?

    How so? he has more arrest, release, and deportations than Charles Manson.

  20. “law-abiding undocumented foreigners”

    How can you say this with a straight face? If they were law-abiding they would still be in Mexico or would have their green card because they entered our country legally.

    Stop with this disingenuous “undocumented” bullshit. I can understand why the liberal media will bend over backwards for illegals, they want their votes, but I can’t understand why Reason and Libertarians would do the same thing. The illegals are always going to vote the opposite of what you’ll want.

  21. We must drive these invaders from our soil and punish their collaborators most severely

  22. Trump is a blowhard, but I did think it was hilarious the other night when I was watching NBC run their interview with him. The interviewer was putting the full court press on him about his stance on Mexico, pestering him about when the last time he went to the border was and asking how he could possibly know what the real situation is down there, among other things. They were going out of their way to refute his statement that illegals commit crimes.

    The *very next* story was about Lopez-Sanchez, how he was deported several times, got his hands of a stolen weapon and killed someone. I can’t believe a producer did not catch that.

  23. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  24. I’ve worked in immigration courts for two decades and this story doesn’t add up. People are charged with re-entry, receive whatever sentence the district court gives them, and are afterward turned directly over to INS/DHS. The alien is again jailed in those lockups and again deported. County and municipal levels are not involved. In fact, as in alcohol violations in the early 1920s, anything the court calls a “drug” automatically triggers “moral turpitude” grounds for deportation. I would lay odds no California judge would have set bond for this one. As for sending criminals into the US Mariel-style, the US exports looter-prohibitionist fanaticism everywhere to the detriment of entire economic systems. This is the main reason marxists are elected in Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil and elsewhere as PREFERABLE to dry-killer-mentality juntas the US government seeks to prop up by pressure and infiltration. Surely Reason can report the facts better than this.

  25. Yeah its a good article. I hope you also like my website I’ve done some great work check it Happy New Year

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.