A lot of outrage that some county clerks aren’t following SCOTUS and giving out marriage licenses. But lack of enforcement that leads to people being killed, nada.
The lack of any comments here proves my point. These cities can continue to be so-called sanctuary cities, ignore ICE, put the criminals back on the street and there is very little public outrage. A woman was killed on the Embarcadero (a very touristed area) in front of her father by a guy who had multiple felonies, had been deported many times before and who San Francisco had in custody but released.
^^ Were you expecting consistency from these people?
That cool though - turn around is fair play. I know several top county and federal officials who are squashing marriage licenses under the same logic. If the above people can ignore federal law, so can they. They simply got tired of bullies acting like they could ignore laws, yet everyone needs to follow the laws they believe.
From the article, I do not see what in his criminal background indicated that he had a weapon, and that he was a danger to society.
I do not see use or possession of marijuana in that category.
If he was deported five times, how did he get back into the country?
Social media blazed with anger and frustration at the news that the man arrested in connection with the shooting death at San Francisco’s Pier 14 Wednesday has a rap sheet with seven felonies, was in the U.S. illegally and has been deported to his native Mexico five times — and in April was released from San Francisco Jail despite immigration authorities asking that he be kept in custody.
Particularly galling, many said, was that the release of Francisco Sanchez, 45, followed San Francisco Sheriff’s Department policies ordering the department not to comply with requested immigration holds based solely on allegations that a person is in the country illegally.
From SFgate.comhttp://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/S-F-killing-sparks-national-outrage-likely-6366684.php
If he had committed 7 prior felonies, he was certainly a danger to society.
Just as with the marriage licenses, public officials need to follow the law of the land. If ICE says turn them over, they should be turned over.
I’ve thought of the hypocrisy addressed in this thread. In fact, I actually thought I’d start a thread just like this. Then I thought…why…it would only raise my blood pressure.
We have set a precedent for non law enforcement. Drug laws, immigration laws, sanctuary cities etc have opened the door to individuals and groups selectively enforcing or not enforcing laws. Police departments are told to look the other way. Mayors command the police department NOT to report to ICE.
So, really…why can’t some groups of government employees (of which police and mayors are members) choose not to comply with the SSM laws.
The precedent has been set.
I agree up to a point.
When one group is allowed to openly flaunt a law, then laws, in general, become arbitrary. Then, at that point, I have no problem with another group not following some other law that it finds aggregious. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Flouting federal law when it actually kills someone = no outrage from so many here.
This young woman’s family’s grief will be ignored by the political class. After all a few years ago, another woman lost her whole family, a husband and two sons, when illegal immigrant gang members were released and then shot and killed all three. In San Francisco. Nothing changed. When violent crimes are politically inconvenient they are ignored. When they serve to push a political agenda, they are talked about 24-7. Such hypocrisy.
Count me among those galled and disgusted.
Is this a serious question?
You should be a comedian - I mean this in a nice way.
There is so much packed into that this question. I look forward to the answer if it was actually a serious question.
I think it is a sad story and I feel for her family. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has seized on this act of violence in support of his outrageous comments and I don’t see that leadings towards resolution.
I think it is a sad story and so much more. The fact is that it doesn’t serve the media’s narrative, it doesn’t serve a certain political viewpoints narrative, so it will just be swept under the rug.
I mean look at Parents Cafe. How many more people are concerned about marriage licenses and Confederate flags?.
I think it is a problem, no ifs about that, but I think the cause would get more support from “these people” here in the Cafe if they weren’t called “these people.”
As far as attention from the CC community goes… Was there a recent landmark SCOTUS decision on this? Were there public officials making public statements that they openly will not follow the new law?
So I am assuming, those on this thread feel that sanctuary cities should not exist?
That those picked up for illegal entry should be immediately deported?
We better increase the size of ICE, they will need lots of buses to drive them all to the border.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/11/18/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
I’m fine with doing that btw, if we also give priority to refugees seeking asylum, and stop allowing wealthy immigrants to jump the queue.
I would like to see a sensible policy - consistently followed.
Remember…“never let a serious crisis go to waste”. R. Emanuel
Were there public officials making public statements that they openly will not follow the new law?
Post edited by BunsenBurner at 1:00PM
Yes, the Attorney General of California is on this subject every bit as bad as the TX AG on SSM. So are the mayors of the sanctuary cities.
Any government employee who doesn’t follow the law on deportations should resign or be forced to resign, just like the county clerks who don’t want to issue SSM licenses.
This is an extreme result of increasingly liberal policies. Those are the policies that should be on trial as they are making the safety for normal citizens in San Francisco a total joke.
This was a cold blooded murder, but the overal level of condoned criminality is appalling. Very little is safe in San Francisco. And there are reasons why that is,
History repeats itself
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Edwin-Ramos-guilty-of-killing-SF-man-and-his-sons-3546597.php
In 2008 this San Francisco protected individual kill a father and his son.
So the refusal to follow the SSM law is just following precedent.
I think that would be a fair resolution, so long as both resignations occur. However, not holding my breathe that sanctuary cities officials care about the law, so all will be status quo with both sides nullifying aws with their actions.