Donald Trump

Sanctuary Cities Are Safer

Law enforcement knows better than Donald Trump.


Activists are pushing to make San Antonio a sanctuary city, which would prevent local police from investigating the immigration status of the people they detain. 13 other cities in Texas, including Dallas, Houston and Austin are already sanctuary cities. 

Reason TV's Zach Weissmueller took a deep dive on the issue with his latest video, "The GOP is Wrong About Sanctuary Cities."

Original writeup below:

"We have to end this sanctuary cities crap FAST!" says Donald Trump, the billionaire seeking the Republican Party's presidential nomination.

Trump, who rarely misses an opportunity to inveigh against both legal and illegal immigrants, has been joined in his condemnation of "sanctuary cities" by many of his GOP rivals.

Sanctuary cities—there are more than 200 across the United States—instruct local law enforcement officials to not investigate the immigration status of suspects or prisoners in their custody. The thinking is that such restraint will make victims and witnesses more likely to help police. 

Again and again, Trump points to the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant from Mexico to prove his point that sanctuary cities are out of control, dangerous, and lawless. Starting in the late 1980s, elected officials in San Francisco and other cities changed police protocols in a bid to increase cooperation with local residents, many of whom might have been illegal. 

Defenders of sanctuary cities say Trump and other critics are rank opportunists with no knowledge of stopping crime and protecting public safety. 

"Over the past 25 years, the city and county of San Francisco has been very sensitive to the question of immigration and to the plight of undocumented peoples," says Ross Mirkarimi, the San Francisco County Sheriff who oversees the jail system that released Steinle's alleged killer, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. Prior to Steinle's death from a ricoheting bullet, the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had requested that the county turn Lopez-Sanchez over to them for deportation. But Mirkarimi says that under San Francisco's 1989 "City and County of Refuge" law and its 2013 "Due Process for All" law, ICE needed to supply him with a court order to take custody. Had the agency done so, he would have "happily" complied with the request. In fact, he tells Reason TV that he does so on a regular basis.

In general, first-generation immigrants, whether in the country illegally or not, commit fewer violent and property crimes than either second-generation or native-born citizens. And there's scant evidence that San Francisco is more dangerous than non-sanctuary cities of a similar size. In fact, its murder rate is about one-third that of non-sanctuary Indianapolis.

But this line of argument doesn't hold for some anti-illegal alien activists, such as Don Rosenberg, who started writing about the danger of unlicensed drivers after an illegal immigrant ran over his son in a car and killed him.

"Even if it was true that illegal aliens committed less crime than citizens, every crime that they commit is an additional crime that didn't [have to] happen," says Rosenberg.

Cutting off the flow of new people and reducing the population via mass deportations might reduce the overall number of crimes, but the expense of doing so would be overwhelming, as would the incursions on the civil liberties of all Americans, who would need to get used to showing citizenship papers at routine traffic stops and submitting to a costly and invasive "E-verify" system every time they try to get a new job or hire a new employee.

"To just point the finger at sanctuary cities…because of this tragedy may feel good in venting," says Mirkarimi of Kate Steinle's death. "But it's only going to unravel the good work that is being done to build the kind of trust that needs to be built with these communities in the first place."

About 5 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Shot by Paul Detrick and Weissmueller. Music by Chris Zabriskie.

NEXT: Cuddles Incorporated

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Tldr but looks like two utilitarian arguments, both of which can fuck off.

  2. Whether sanctuary cities are safer or not is immaterial; safety is not the point.

    1. So what is the point?

      1. Well, for me the point is that the more people are forced to pay for each other by the government, the more picky they are about who they’re paying for less tolerant they become.

      2. Morality. See my first post.

      3. East Germany, No Korea, Cuba, are/were very, very safe.

  3. If a state legalized cocaine I wouldn’t want cops in that state to turn a guy involved in a bar fight over to the feds because he had some coke on him. If the feds ban AR 15s I wouldn’t want a local cop telling the ATF that some guy who they busted for fucking chickens happened to have one on his property. The same logic applies here. INS can do its own work.

    1. Exactly. No one’s rights are being violated here. Municipaties can decide for themselves how best to use their resources.

      1. Why should the main border state have to finance the countries immigration law especially if they have determined it’s not a problem for them

        1. “the main border state”

          I see nothing here about Texas

          1. San Antonio isn’t in Texas?

            1. Ah. I see something there about Texas

              1. The busiest international border crossing in the world is in CA.

                Go take a timeout, Gilmore.

                1. I still think Tejas deserves credit for being the main border state.

                  Just because california sends a lot of traffic to TJ and back is nothing to brag about.

                  1. Do they have the donkey show in Reynosa or Juarez? I don’t think so, bro.

                    1. Yes they do have a donkey show in Juarez. I spent a lot of my youth in Juarez.

                    2. Is that why you get so excited about the Kentucky Derby?

                2. I thought Windsor/Detroit was busiest? Maybe that’s trade…it’s the “most” something (besides “ugly” and “NEEDZ LEss DETROYT”).

            2. San Antonio isn’t in Texas?

              Get a rope!


          2. and “13 other cities in Texas”

        2. Exactly, and why should those of us in non-border states have to pay for it if they do think it’s a problem? The rest of the country could care less that I live in a state that could be affected by sea level rise. They aren’t coughing up to save my butt, I’m not interested in coughing up to save theirs.

      2. Yeah, never mind the law. ..

        1. It’s a federal law. Not a local statute.

          1. Sanctuary state for counterfeiting, insider trading, and fed tax evasion!

        2. Local police aren’t even mandated to enforce their own laws, why should they be required to help the feds enforce theirs?

      3. Well in his analogy the chicken might have valid grievance…

        1. Which you, as a being with a cloaca can sympathize with.

    2. “INS can do its own work.”

      In all seriousness, the INS isn’t doing its work effectively, and local (rather than federal) taxpayers are paying the price.

      Going from memory, Prop 187 in California began as a reaction to the courts shooting down a suit in which California sued the federal government for the cost of caring for illegal immigrants.

      The courts were wrong in that case. That’s why Prop 187 was also about keeping illegal immigrant kids out of public schools. There is no reason why local taxpayers should have to foot the bill for a federal responsibility like that.

      And the solution is to reimburse states (and ultimately local government) for the costs to taxpayers for illegal immigrants.

      P.S. Being an American citizen shouldn’t entitle you to anything but the right to vote, and I don’t see why being an illegal immigrant should entitle you to anything either. First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Eighth Amendment rights–you aren’t entitled to that for being an American citizen. You’re entitled to that for being homo sapiens.

      1. Here you go:

        “California Sues U.S. Government Over Costs Tied to Illegal Aliens”
        Published: May 1, 1994…..liens.html

        Prop 187 passed in November of 1994.

        1. In Cosmotarian circles, that is known as California’s Kristallnacht.

  4. [San Francisco’s] murder rate is about one-third that of non-sanctuary Indianapolis.

    Sounds like Indianapolis needs some of that rent control to keep the poors and the albedoly-challenged outside the city gates where they belong.

    1. It should also be noted, just to be accurate, that although it’s true that new immigrants commit less crime than native born Americans, those statistics trend progressively more toward the average of whatever socioeconomic level of native born Americans with each generation.

      In other words, If the murder rate for immigrants is half that of native born Americans, their children may have a murder rate of a quarter that of native born Americans, and their grandchildren basically have the same murder rate of native born Americans–at their socioeconomic level.

      The socioeconomic level is very important if we’re comparing apples to apples. We’re not talking about the poor grandchildren of immigrants having the same crime rate as native born middle class Americans in the suburbs. It means they tend to commit less crime than Americans at that socioeconomic level.

      The crime rate of immigrants could be double what it is for the average American and still be significantly less than it is for other Americans at the low end of the socioeconomic totem poll. You tell me that crime isn’t as bad in East LA as it is in Compton or Watts, and I’m going to say that’s great–but the outrageous crime rate is still going to prevent your average middle class American in the suburbs from looking for a house to buy in East LA.

      1. It should also be noted, just to be accurate, that although it’s true that new immigrants commit less crime than native born Americans…

        I’m really sick of everyone repeating this lie by statistic.

        It’s produced by aggregating legal and illegal immigrants – which have dramatically different levels of criminal activity; and then comparing them to demographically similar groups of native born americans.

        Such that it is accurate to say that among hispanics with less than an 8th grade education, immigrants engaged in less criminal activity than those domestically born. But both groups have higher levels of criminal activity than the US average, which is not the impression that the meme is pushing.

        1. What you were saying is basically what I was saying–but it is true that new immigrants commit less crime than native born Americans of the same socioeconomic level.

          That isn’t a lie.

          It’s just not the answer to the question as most people are asking it.

          If illegal immigrants commit less crime than other poor people but more crime than middle class people in the suburbs and they flooded into Watts, the crime rate would go down locally in Watts–but the absolute number of crimes would increase regionally.

          People in the suburbs who are interested in this want to know what it’s going to do to the crime rate regionally. They aren’t worried about the crime rate in Watts because they’ve never been to Watts, they don’t go to Watts, and they’re never going to Watts.

        2. “”both groups [legal and illegal immigrants] have higher levels of criminal activity than the US average,””

          Show me the data.

          Because sources I’ve looked at (starting in the late 90s, for about a decade) tended to say the opposite. That as a whole, immigrants (illegal and legal) are far less likely to commit crimes, and that even the illegal population is less crime-prone once you normalize for the fact that their mere-existence is considered a crime.

          Everything I’ve seen shows a markedly lower level of criminality in immigrant populations, and this has been the case for decades. Here’s a sample, looking mainly at incarceration rates

          If you have some source claiming otherwise, show it.

          its notable that we’ve imported ~10 million immigrants over the last 30 years or so, and the US violent crime rate has steadily fallen.

          People love to point to small sub-communities around cities and say, “but that’s not low-crime!” Sure. And never have been, regardless of who lived there. The claim that immigrants raise crime rates has very little (if any) evidence.

          1. Two points.

            First, read what you posted carefully and you’ll see the bullshit that I was refering to in my comment.

            Second, the immigration status of incarcerated individuals is no collected in any systemic way and is little more than anecdotal evidence.

            1. I don’t see you showing me any data

              1. You haven’t either.

                The data that was presented by Lord Humugus was dismissed out of hand by you.
                Ergo, I surmise that you don’t really care about data at all.

                1. “The data that was presented by Lord Humugus was dismissed out of hand by you”

                  No = i pointed out that observations about a population of a few-thousand isn’t significant to a population of 10m+

                  particularly when it contradicts all the other information suggesting otherwise

                  You havent offered a single detail to support your claim.

                  1. So this link, is to a Cato ‘artiicle’ which regurgitates the same CIS article that you linked above, which is itself misleadingly written and does not actually say what you think it does.

                    Is all of your other ‘evidence’ as patently ridiculous?

                    You are reminiscent of the prog idiots that claim medical debt was a major cause of bankruptcy, and have innumerable evidence in the form of ‘articles’ that refer back to the same flawed Warren ‘study’.

                    1. “which regurgitates the same CIS article’

                      And about a dozen other things you can’t rebut.

                2. Further –

                  the data people DO try and occasionally use re: claims of higher-criminality of illegal immigrants tend to be isolated in very specific kinds of high-crime urban areas, and aren’t at all consistent with larger trends in the national population, illegal immigrant or otherwise.

                  i.e. if they’re not arguing by anecdote, they’re cherry picking.

                  when its pointed out that violent crime (and almost every category of crime) has been steadily declining for ~3 decades while the nation has absorbed over 10million illegals… the claim that often gets trotted out is that *declines in crime would be even lower*… but for the influx of these mexican murder-mongers, apparently.

                  Which i find funny… sort of like the inverse of Obama’s “Jobs created (or saved)” ploy, or the perpetual Invisible Rape Crisis. There’s tons of illegal immigrant crime, but its all being repressed by the pro-mexican institutional patriarchy or something. They won’t let you know the truth!! (shakes fist)

                  And then the butthurt turns into accusations that everyone must think Mexicans are all angels and saints and aren’t they just awesome… which isn’t what anyone’s arguing.

                  The argument is simply that we’ve been “Importing hordes of criminally inclined populations” is bullshit.

                  I don’t think that fact necessitates any pro or con immigration position either way.

                  1. I meant to put my posts below under this subthread.

                    Again, the data shows that immigrants coming across our border with Mexico are less likely to commit crime than native born Americans of the same socioeconomic level.

                    It’s been that way for a long, long time, too. We’re going back 25 years with that study, and if all the data since then confirms those findings, then why would you ignore that?

                    What they aren’t clear about is that people aren’t impressed with immigrants who are less likely to commit crime than the dregs of our society. And they’re coming here with an 8th grade education and poor as hell.

                    You can’t make the first point and just ignore the second–if crime is really that important.

                    I’m much more interested in terms of how much in the way of government services they use, and how much they cost me as a taxpayer. I don’t want to pay for them or their kids–and I don’t want to pay for native born Americans or their kids either. Get a job. Pay for yourself and your own damn kids. Come to court with a paternity test showing that I’m the father, or leave me out of it.

          2. Immigrants here include boatload of people (mostly Asians) who traditionally commit very little violent crimes in this country. Natives include blacks and American born Hispanics, so the average will be skewed. America brings so many immigrants and integrates them into existing society that the line between immigrants and citizens is increasingly blurred.

            But this is seems like a moot point. Would liberals agree to LOOSEN gun control regulation, since legal gun owners commit a fraction of violent crimes? They wouldn’t. And 2A is a constitutional right. “freedom of movement” isn’t.

            If only 5% of illegal immigrants commit violent crimes and I become one of their victims, then whether natives commit more crimes or not is a moot point. Because they weren’t supposed to be here.

            And sanctuary cities FORBID local enforcement from verifying immigration status of criminals or cooperate with feds. The sheriff in SF made up some rule that required ICE to get court permission before they could request the immigration status of the illegal shooter.

            Immigrants commit less crime than natives, but that’s not an means to end.

            1. The first study I saw was by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas on the impact of border enforcement on crime. They found that border enforcement made violent crime worse along the border and that crime dropped among American cities with larger new immigrant populations along the Mexican border.

              1. “With regard to the former, Butcher and Piehl (1998a), by using Census data on institutionalized individuals show that immigrant men, despite their lower education levels, have lower institutionalization rates than native-born men. Butcher and Piehl also find that early immigrant cohorts are more likely to be institutionalized than recent immigrants, so although all immigrants assimilate to higher native crime rates over time, recent immigrants appear to do so more slowly. This finding is supported by anecdotal evidence from the border that career criminals are not typically recent illegal immigrants, but rather green card holders or U.S. citizens who reside in Mexico and cross the border legally in order to commit crimes on the U.S. side (U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, 1994).

                In another study using CPS data and FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Butcher and Piehl
                (1998b) find that immigration is unrelated to levels and changes in city crime rates. Other studies on the criminality of immigrants generally support Butcher and Piehl’s findings that immigrants have a lower propensity (or at worst an equal propensity) to commit crime as compared with natives. In analyzing prison survey data, Hagan and Palloni (1998) conclude that incarceration rates among Mexican immigrants are not notably different from native rates when age and gender are taken into account.”


                1. And, once again, there isn’t any need to dispute the data itself. It’s just the summary.

                  If someone says that Mexican immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born Americans of the same socioeconomic level, you might counter that illegal immigrants who come here by way of Mexico are not of the same socioeconomic level as the average native born American.

                  For the millionth time on the millionth issue, we don’t have to deny the data every time someone interprets it in a way that we don’t like. We can also accept the data and dispute the interpretation.

                  Eventually, people are going to start associating the denial of data with libertarianism–and there is absolutely no need for that on any issue, ever.

                  Don’t like illegal immigration? Deny the data.

                  Don’t like global warming? Deny the data.

                  Don’t like gun control? Deny the data.

                  There are other, better ways to challenge these arguments.

          3. As much I love CATO, they have an agenda, and they are willing to skew the stats, just like every other group out there. They say “immigrants” but the people everyone is complaining about are illegal immigrants. Not the same demographic. Illegal Immigrants (3.5% of US population) at the federal level make up 20% of kidnapping / hostage taking, 12% of money laundering and 12% of murder convictions. This is disproportionate.


    2. Funny that they don’t compare the murder rate of sanctuary city Oakland CA to non sanctuary city Omaha NE.

      1. I was thinking Cambridge, MA versus Newark, NJ.

      2. Reason is never honest about immigration.

        They picked those two cities because the crime rate anywhere in the US is largely proportional to the percentage black population, and inversely proportional to the Asian population. But you’re not supposed to know that.

        Indianapolis = 28% black, 2% Asian.
        San Fran = 6% black, 33% Asian.

        1. Reason is never honest about immigration.

          That is apparent with their aversion to using the phrase “illegal immigrant” when that is the actual topic.

  5. OT – “there was no skirting this issue”

    A chasidic Jewish woman is harassed, and ultimately expelled, from the Lucille Roberts health club for wearing a short skirt for modesty, which apparently violates their dress code.

    So the woman gives the club a bad yelp review and looks over her membership contract to see if there was a breach.

    I’m just kidding, she filed a “civil rights” lawsuit. Says they discriminated against her because of her Orthodox Jewish religion.

    Now, I don’t know what Lucille Roberts is playing at, since the woman worked out there without any safety issues until they kicked her out. And it’s supposed to be a woman-friendly, non-shaming place (which discriminates against men, apparently legally).

    But if they want to be dicks, then unless they promised in the contract not to be, I don’t see how this is illegal discrimination.

    They’re a private business, not a government agency – so long as they don’t exclude people because of their religion, they ought to have the freedom to set standards for member behavior.

    Otherwise the same government which itself refuses religious accomodations will impose expensive “religious accomodation” requirements on entrepreneurs. Way to promote a good business climate!

    1. Technically they want to be cunts, not dicks.

      1. Women can be dicks….

        And Gilmore is proof that men can be cunts

        1. You’re still mad about Ice-T?

          1. No, after winning that I have moved on.

            Now I am pissed that you compared zerohedge with a pick up artist site.

            1. Zero Hedge is what it is.

              But if you go there or Motley Fool for investment advice, I feel really sorry for you.

              1. Isn’t Zero Hedge’s only investment advice is to buy silver and gold?

                Well that and sell everything else…which is actually good advice for the past two or three months….and likely to be good advice going forward.

                Anyway I go there cuz they actually report how shitting the economy is.

            2. ” I am pissed that you compared zerohedge with a pick up artist site.’

              I doubt i did that, since i have no idea what any PUA sites are.

              I said they were a shitty resource for non-crazy people who need professional commentary on investment-related issues.

              One of the latest things from them seems to make this pretty clear

              FWIW, i’ve subscribed to their feed for years. i still think they say something interesting once out of every 2-dozen posts. But they’re not something people should treat as “investment” insight.

              1. I said they were a shitty resource for non-crazy people who need professional commentary on investment-related issues.

                To a guy who was asking about economic issues for a school paper.

                1. If he used zero hedge as an academic resource, there’s a 90% chance that the professor would have failed him.

                  1. That has more to do with the failing of academia and professors then with zero hedge.

                    Anyway I did point that out in my comment.

                    Somthing like:

                    “use zerohedge, you will get an F but you will be right”

                2. ” a guy who was asking about economic issues for a school paper.'”

                  Specifically, he was asking about the economic & financial impact of low-rates and how they have affected the entire spectrum of asset classes and investment styles.

                  Given that you yourself point out that ZH are basically doom-mongering gold-hoarders, it wouldn’t have been apropos in that case either.

                  1. “ZH are basically doom-mongering gold-hoarders”

                    You spelled FED sceptics wrong.

                    1. “ZH are basically doom-mongering gold-hoarders”

                      Yeah, except that’s bullshit.

                      ZH has some batshit crazy commenters and some useless posts provided by contributors like the one you linked above by Doug Casey, but the Tylers are pretty terrific on market technicals. I only bother to read the stuff submitted by the Tylers.

                      None of the Tylers provide investment advice; they’re macro guys.

                  2. “Specifically, he was asking about the economic & financial impact of low-rates and how they have affected the entire spectrum of asset classes and investment styles.”

                    ZH says low rates have created a stock bubble that will likely pop in the future….

                    Do you think there is not a bubble? If you agree there is do you think it will not pop?

                    1. “ZH says low rates have created a stock bubble that will likely pop in the future….’

                      So does Blackrock, JP Morgan, Goldman, Deutche Bank, Barclays….etc.

                      Its just that they don’t insert that comparatively banal observation into a stew of stupid.

                      Also, not only is saying that assets are overpriced due to excess attempts at stimulus not particularly new or interesting or valuable…. its the “so what” that they get wildly wrong.

                      Its not really even that important. My comment was simply to dissuade a business student from mistaking ideological propaganda for ‘professional economic insight’.

                    2. banal observation

                      One that ZH made before all those banks who by the way are more or less cheerleaded FED policy and is never discussed by CNBC WSJ Fox business etc.

                      In fact without ZH i am at a loss to as to where i can find out out what those banks actually said.

                      And yes that banal observation is very likely to affect “the entire spectrum of asset classes and investment styles.” and it is also likely that making that observation for college paper is going to get you an F even though it is correct.

              2. Wait what is wrong with the deep state stuff?

                Honestly don’t know…I just skim those articles and get the impression that deep state = bureaucrats fucking shit up.

                1. Also should point out that the submitted articles I generally skip unless it is written by Schiff or someone I recognize.

    2. By short skirt for modesty, you mean long skirt, right?

      1. There’s a photo in the article.

        1. All I see is a pick of some treadmills.

            1. I must have been thinking of this article, sorry.

              Scroll down and be rewarded by a down-skirt photo.

              1. I don’t feel very rewarded/

                1. What are you, some kind of prevert?

      2. according to the article it was “knee length”, which is pretty sporty for a hasid

        normally they wear wigs, baggy sweaters, headscarfs, and skirts. Sort of a bland 1950/1970 look which is timelessly dull and smells like pickles.

        1. The orthodox around here wear ankle length denim skirts. The hair has to be covered, but it’s usually with a wig.

          There’s one mom who’s super hot, and she was showing some serious ankle yesterday.

    3. I still can’t figure out what the club wanted of her. Do they want ladies in less revealing outfits, or more? Are they saying her clothes were too long or too short? Not fancy enough or too fancy?

      1. I would assume its some combination of “don’t look so weird” or “we don’t want to get sued when you wear a skirt on an elliptical machine”

      2. Skirts are not safe for working out, especially for kickboxing.

        Don’t ask me, I’m not a lawyer.

  6. What does Trump think about pot and ass sex?

    1. Well, that’s the libertarian moment!

  7. “…But Mirkarimi says that under San Francisco’s 1989 “City and County of Refuge” law and its 2013 “Due Process for All” law, ICE needed to supply him with a court order to take custody. Had the agency done so, he would have “happily” complied with the request. In fact, he tells Reason TV that he does so on a regular basis.”

    Without making comment on sanctuary cities, I would be very cautious in citing any comment by Mirkarimi. He is the m trueman of SF politics; his version of reality can be highly subjective.

    1. Wasn’t he once a she ?

    2. There was apparently a leeway which would have allowed local authorities to converse with feds on immigration matters. ICE was requesting custody of the shooter.

      1. First, Mirkarimi is a termed-out supervisor, and as far as anyone can tell, he figured the Sheriff’s Dept would be a safe place to pick up a second retirement account. Even for SF, he’s on the left, so natch, he got elected. And then promptly busted for spousal abuse; he can’t carry a gun.
        Anyhow, according to the story that came out a bit later, ICE had requested the change in custody, and that was typically all that was required. It didn’t happen, since the request probably got lost on his desk (the Dept is a mess, since no body likes or trusts Mirkarimi, and he has zero experience running anything like that), so the guy was released more or less by default. Then Mirkarimi checked and found that, according to the book, ICE was to file Form 37X.001 and figured he was CLEAN.
        OO, AFAIK, he’s not a tranny.

  8. I wanted to find an article about Mexicans, pot and ass-sex, and I got one, but it’s a tad more depressing that I thought.

    “An 8-year-old’s tragic illness tests Mexico’s ban on marijuana use…

    “After years of cycling through ?anti-convulsive medications, her family is now desperate to try the one experimental treatment that Mexico prohibits ? a marijuana oil that has helped American children in similar conditions. But even as American states approve marijuana for recreational and medicinal use, the country that is the main channel for illegal drugs to the United States opposes legalization as staunchly as ever….

    “Earlier this month, though, a federal judge ruled that the Mexican government could not prevent Grace’s parents from importing cannabidiol (CBD) to treat her seizures. If the family can obtain the product, Grace could become the first person to legally use marijuana in Mexico….

    “Even in Mexico City, where residents voted in favor of gay marriage and access to abortion, marijuana legalization failed.” [there’s the ass-sex]

  9. Maybe a choice between Hillary and The Donald contains a silver lining: the people will finally realize that the Executive Branch is totally out of control and needs to be reigned in (maybe even destroyed). One can dream.

    1. One can, and it would make one not want to wake up.

    2. That’ll happen if any republican wins the presidency.

  10. Whoa. What in the fuck happened in Turkey?

    1. Somebody bombed a “peace rally“, killed 86 (so far)

      the PKK is probably who will be blamed (and maybe who did it)

      I’d guess its actually ISIS related. Last i checked the PKK were scrupulous about attacking police stations, military personnel, vehicles, installations, etc and have little experience with purposely targeting crowds of civvies, particularly ones agitating for peace w/ kurds.

      1. If you watch the video, at the end theres some “Allahu Akbar”, so I don’t think they are going to have any trouble finding out who did it.

    2. Terrorism…most likely by a group that got US aid.

      1. Speaking of US aid to terrorists I read that Isis’s new Toyota trunks were sent by the US state department to Syrian rebels.


        1. What are they going to do with swim wear in the dessert?

      2. Or some group connected to the Turkish intelligence forces. Conspiracy theorists will have a field day.

        1. Conspiracy theorists

          It is not a conspiracy that terrorists have equipment from the US.

          Saying it was an accident is worse not better in regards to US’s complicity.

          “Opps we gave aid to terrorists” is a great reason to admit failure and get the fuck out. Using it as an excuse to double down our involvement is shear madness.

    3. The rally was organized by the political arm of the PKK so it’s not likely they were involved in bombing themselves.

      ISIS or a false flag by Erdogan to destroy the ceasefire.

  11. Relevant to the “Immigrants and Crime” thing =

    Jerry B. approves legislation trying to encourage immigrants to inform cops rather than remain silent about crime in their midst, and normalize police implementation of the law…

    “California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill designed to help undocumented immigrants who are victims of violent crime, by introducing time limits on law enforcement’s response to their U.S. visa applications in an attempt to standardize police forces’ uneven treatment of applicants.

    The federal government grants visas to undocumented immigrants who help law enforcement try to catch criminals. The so-called U visa allows the recipient to live and work in the United States for four years, but to apply, a victim must first ask local law enforcement to verify their cooperation.

    A Reuters investigation last year found vast geographic disparities in law enforcement approaches to this visa, with some agencies readily verifying cooperation and others stonewalling.”

    1. Turning my cynical-engine on, i can see that there could be a small industry emerging in committing minor ‘violent crimes’ against people, who then report and get their free 4yr-pass from The Man.

      basically, you tell Jorge to beat the shit out of you, you go to the cops and say it was one of the Usual Suspects, and since you’re now cleared to work for 4 years, you send Jorge your first paycheck

      Simplified, but still. The problem with ‘incentives’ programs, or endlessly expanding the ad-hoc ‘system’ that functions as the grey market between citizens and immigrants, is that they are always being gamed by everyone.

      Instead, they should just fucking normalize people at the border, get their info, give them their “worker-permit” stamp, and not create this kind of complexity. It also makes it easier to boot out the people who don’t have their stamp – because nothing should have stopped them in the first place.

  12. Jesus Christ, Reason – compare incarceration rates and what people were thrown in jail for:

    Illegal Aliens Murder at a Much Higher Rate Than US Citizens Do

    The Government Accountability Office has data that show otherwise. Here is the leading sentence from a 2011 GAO report (GAO-11-187, Criminal Alien Statistics, March 2011).

    “The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), and the majority were from Mexico.”

    (SCAAP is the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program and in this context means “illegal aliens” ? a GAO term meaning “Noncitizens whom ICE verified were [or whom states and local jurisdictions believe to be] illegally in the United States at the time of incarceration”.)

    As for those federal prisoners, the GAO states, “In fiscal year 2005, the criminal alien population in federal prisons was around 27 percent of the total inmate population, and from f

    unless someone can dismiss the GAO numbers – show your work – the idea that illegals are these noble men that do no harm is full of shit,

    1. Let’s take homicide as an example. The GAO estimates “criminal aliens” were arrested, convicted and incarcerated for 25,064 homicides. If non-citizens committed them over seven years, the annual rate would be 14.2 per 100,000 non-citizens. If illegal aliens committed them over four years, the annual rate would be 58.0 per 100,000 illegal aliens. Either way you compute, those are high rates.

      By comparison, the FBI reports the murder rates for the entire U.S. from 2003 through 2009 varied from 5.0 to 5.8 per 100,000 inhabitants for an average rate of 5.5. To be clear, 5.5 is much lower than either 14.2 or 58.0.

      Or look at the total number of homicides in those years. Per the FBI, there were 67,642 murders in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. Per the GAO, criminal aliens committed 25,064 of them. That means they committed 22% to 37% of all murders in the U.S., while being only 3.52% to 8.25% of the population.

      Conclusion: criminal and illegal aliens commit murder at much higher rates than all inhabitants of the U.S. ? at least 3 to 10 times higher.

      1. Forget it Humungus,

        They ain’t gonna let little things like facts and logic dislodge their religious belief.
        Might as well try falsifying transubstantiation to a Christ fag.

        1. “They ain’t gonna let little things like facts and logic dislodge their religious belief’

          Which is funny, because I asked you for data supporting your case (while providing you plenty supporting my own) and you ignored me.

          1. Your link does not say what you think it does.

            I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince a true believer, it’s pointless. As you’ve repeatedly demonstrated here.

    2. Extrapolating from a tiny population of federal criminal murderers to the general immigrant population isn’t exactly high-quality social-science either

      as noted in links I posted above, the crime rates in high-immigrant communities are lower than average, and the incarceration rate of immigrants is lower than average.

      i’m sure one could probably learn a lot about the super-high murder rate in immigrant gang groups like MS13, or whatever, through that data you’re focusing on…. but not much at all about the wider population.

      1. Extrapolating from a tiny population…


        Gilmore doesn’t need no stinking evidence.

        He already knows the TRUTH.

        1. The federal prisoner population is about 200,000

          (versus ~2m total in the state +federal system)

          the violent criminals only represent about 3% of those, or about 5,500 inmates

          A certain % (high, probably, proportional to their population) of those are illegal aliens

          What that population of a few-thousand actual signifies about the wider population of 10m + is completely in your imagination.

          because the more you look at large #s, the more its clear that immigrant populations are *less criminal* than average.

          There’s no true-believing here. Its just a matter of digesting all the data, rather than the stuff that simply confirms your desires.

  13. Here’s an inspiring story of real dedication to The Cause:

    A young, female ‘No Borders’ activist working in a migrant camp on the France-Italy border remained silent about her gang rape by Sudanese migrants for over a month because “the others asked me to keep quiet.”

    Colleagues are alleged to have said that reporting the crime would set back their struggle for a borderless world.

    The ‘No Borders’ activist had dedicated a month of her life to helping migrants.(…)…..age-cause/

    Assuming her story is true is there some kind of libertarian award we can offer her?

    1. Cosmotarian of the Month?

    2. You know who else didn’t believe in borders?

      1. Barnes and Noble?

      2. John Lennon?

        Bennett S Lebow?

    3. She’s a future Darwin Award winner, it’s only a matter of time.

  14. “…as would the incursions on the civil liberties of all Americans, who would need to get used to showing citizenship papers at routine traffic stops and submitting to a costly and invasive “E-verify” system every time they try to get a new job or hire a new employee.” That may be the most bloviating overstatement I have ever read.

  15. “1,2,3,4.. let’s have a Thumb War

    Kim = North Korea Ready For “Any Kind of War” With U.S.

    translation = “why is no one paying attention to us? we need more aid. China, pay us to shut up”

    1. I dunno. I think the Norks could easily hold their own in a battle of the bands:

      Or this:

      (I know they’re Chinese in that video, but pretend they’re Norks for the sake of the joke.)

      I ain’t afraida no spectre haunting Europe!

      It’s amazing how many songs fit with that clip:

  16. Pelosi reflects on the closing of San Fran’s last gun store:

    Yeah, that’s some primo derp.

    1. Funny how she alludes to the free market.

  17. This is Troll Appreciation Saturday, and I already did my circumcision, deep-dish and Lincoln links yesterday.

    So here’s some Kim Davis articles – specifically, a couple of gay-marriage promoters are beginning to have some doubts about the, shall we say, excesses, of their movement.

    The first of these Girondins writes for a Kentucky paper and says the whole mess could have been avoided if Kentucky had passed a religious-freedom bill like the one in icky conservative Utah.

    Girondin Number Two is a pro-“gay rights” anthropologist and radio personality. He is put off by the rhetoric of his fellow-homophiles:

    “…Deal with the issue as an intellectual matter. I know it’s hard, and it’s a more interesting narrative to demonize the enemy and glorify those on your side. It’s our instinct to tell stories this way, but sometimes it serves to obscure not only complex issues, but also the truth.

    “But for those of you who continue to fail to deal with the topic as a matter of law, logic and justice, and continue to hurl insults like “slut,” “hillbilly” and “bigot,” go look in the mirror. There you will see kin of the most reviled of all modern creatures: the Internet troll.”

    1. “gay rights” anthropologist

      Sargon in a recent video has some interesting observations about homosexuality in ancient Greece.

      At 18:21 He mentions Xenophon’s description of a homosexual but neglects to mention that Xenophon is critical of Epistheses’ homosexuality portraying him as frivolous and overly emotional.

      Xenophon was an Athenian who likely had a mentor whom practised Greek mentor pederasty with him….that fact and that he is critical of homosexuality seems to contradict the idea of Greek homosexuality being widely practised.

      1. I don’t know a lot about ancient Greek sex lives, but IIRC Mr. Sargon says Epistheses was a for-real gay person, not just a straight guy who molested teenage boys in response to cultural expectations. Just to be clear, I don’t know if Mr. Sargon is full of it or not.

        1. “but IIRC Mr. Sargon says Epistheses was a for-real gay person, not just a straight guy who molested teenage boys in response to cultural expectations.”


          Don’t know if I said anything to contradict that. If I did it was a mistake.

  18. “Even if it was true that illegal aliens committed less crime than citizens, every crime that they commit is an additional crime that didn’t [have to] happen,” says Rosenberg.


    1. every crime that they commit is an additional crime that didn’t [have to] happen

      So you’re saying they’re taking jobs Americans won’t do?

  19. Coming soon to America.

    Thanx open boarders advocates

    1. Daily Mail headline: Syrian gang rape victim who fled to Germany after her ordeal is stabbed to death ‘in honour killing ordered by her own mother because she was seen as unclean after her sex assault’

      Coming soon to America: Syrian gang rape victim who fled to America shoots the fuck out of some assholes trying to stab her to death ‘in honour killing ordered by her own mother because she was seen as unclean after her sex assault’, praises Allah for the Second Amendment

  20. But this line of argument doesn’t hold for some anti-illegal alien activists, such as Don Rosenberg, who started writing about the danger of unlicensed drivers after an illegal immigrant ran over his son in a car and killed him.

    So is it the Cosmo position that getting a government permission slip, in and of itself, makes people better drivers?

    What other behaviors do they similarly believe will be improved with mandatory permission slips?

    1. Besides driving and relationships, they seem to be all giddy over marijuana permission slips too. Whenever those become available Reason shouts “LEGAL IN [place xyz]”

  21. Did no one read the very first post? Where the fuck did all these utilitarians come from? Is deontology dead?

    1. I’m with you. By necessity all the anti-immigrant folk are utilitarians. And you can’t imagine that this crowd isn’t going to argue.

  22. Convenient law enforcement stats. I live in San Antonio and welcome any immigrants from Mexico with open arms. Our schools are a disaster, property taxes soar each year, I’d bet 90% of the city is on welfare. At least 60% of the city is very similar to a Mexican border town. No way Nick would drive through in his slick leather jacket. San Antonio is the prettiest city in Mexico. So I think open the borders and get it over with. Implosion is coming. But please check your law enforcement stats. Immigrants from Mexico are awesome. We’ve never recovered from the Katrina influx. Ask SAPD about sanctuary from New Orleans. The crime stats are incredible.

  23. It is probably true that reports of violent crime by illegal aliens is going to be lower in places where they do not check to see if a criminal is an illegal alien.

  24. Sanctuary state for counterfeiting, insider trading, and fed tax evasion!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.