Why do people do such things

Mayor Gavin Newsom vowed Sunday to maintain San Francisco as a sanctuary for immigrants and do everything he can to discourage federal authorities from conducting immigration raids. 

“Even legal immigrants are fearful. This just sends a chill to a lot of people. There are a lot of cities that want these raids. That’s where the federal government should be spending their time.”

No, Gavin.  They should be looking where the illegals are hiding.  Which would logically be a place called “sanctuary.” 

Shades of Logan’s Run

I would expect a comment from SF resident NDT in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .


5 thoughts on “ARRRGGHHHH

  1. Very simple reason, Jamie; 2007 is a mayoral election year, and Gavin Newsom is pandering.

    Fortunately, there are the beginnings of a backlash in The City. People are correctly tying the District Attorney’s refusal to prosecute crimes below a certain level, i.e. murder, to an increase in property crimes and assault. They are also beginning to realize the connection between the Board of Supervisors’s ramming through an ordinance requiring police to patrol on foot, rather than in cars, and the fact that crime has risen almost directly with the resulting increase in response times.

    And, more directly, people have noticed a huge increase in property crimes, muggings, and assaults in the Castro — in several cases, being carried out by members of Latino gangs.

  2. Jamie, L.A. has been a sanctuary city for many years. These declarations don’t really change the dynamic either way.

    The federal government knows where illegal immigrants congregate (so does the media and your run-of-the-mill Californian). They choose to do not nothing about it…for a wide variety of reasons.

    My take on it has always been that human migration is an inevitable reality. Those who oppose it might as well try to fight a hurricane or an earthquake.

  3. I have no opposition to migration, immigration, or emigration. But a mayor of a large American city has no business encouraging the purposeful breaking of laws when it suits him.

    Frankly, if I have to pay taxes out the nose because I live and work here, then those “illegals” need to pay taxes as well. That’s a big problem for me. Those of us who do pay taxes end up subsidizing those who don’t.

    I think immigrants are quite right in seeking a better quality of life for themselves and their families. And we should help them. But there’s a limit to how many we can accommodate at once.

  4. “But a mayor of a large American city has no business encouraging the purposeful breaking of laws when it suits him.”

    Why not? The President of the United States does it all the time. And it doesn’t matter what party they’re in or what region of the country they’re from. Lincoln, F. Roosevelt, Nixon, Bush…are just a few of the names that immediately come to mind. One of Andrew Jackson’s most famous quips was: “The Court has made their decision, now let them enforce it.”

    The executive branch, which includes mayors and governors, enforce the laws as see they fit. They always have been fairly selectively about it too. Sometimes they overreach (as in Newsom’s legalizing of same-sex marriage by executive order) and get slapped down for it. But most of the time, they totally get away with it (as in his predecessor Willie Brown ordering his police department to not deal with marijuana-related crimes).

    “But there’s a limit to how many we can accommodate at once.”

    Yes, but that’s determined by economics, not government quotas. If all the jobs are filled, they won’t come because there are no opportunities. Rather than talk about controlling the borders with a giant wall, because that worked so well for the Chinese that they got overran three times…we need to talk about bringing some sensible controls back into our job market.

    And this is one area where I think Canada does a far better job than the U.S. Credit where credit is due. Their government keeps a much closer eye on hiring than we do. If you’re hiring many illegals and the accounting is fuzzy, they won’t wait 10 years to get to your case. They’ll investigate right away. And that encourages employers to do the background checks themselves, making violations all the more unlikely.

    The “other” politically incorrect (and disturbingly Fascist) alternative is to force Americans to breed at a rate which provides us with all the cheap labor we need. Damn it, Jamie, you and Norm just aren’t doing your part to protect America!

  5. Damn it, Jamie, you and Norm just aren’t doing your part to protect America!

    I live within throwing distance of the Northern border. Just let those illegals try to get by my yard!

    Seriously, though, I agree that the laws regarding illegal employment are not enforced nearly enough. And I don’t think I’ve ever endorsed the whole wall idea.

    But mayors, presidents, or governors do not have the ethical right to call for blatent breaking of laws. No matter how many of them do so. Now, he can propose a change in the law–that’s the executive responsibility. The legislature can ratify it. The courts can determine the ultimate legality of it all.

    But executives do not have the right to be vigilantes, just because they’ve historically gotten away with it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s