The left in California has gone so far off the rails defending illegal "immigrants" that there is a significant movement to protect ALL criminals.
Read the following if you want to understand how extreme the sanctuary movement has become.
https://www.presstelegram.com/2018/03/12/long-beach-city-council-to-vote...
The Feds need to bring criminal charges against Libby Schaaf, Mayor of Oakland, to send a signal that the rule of immigration law WILL be restored. We have Federal felony statutes against "Harboring" illegal aliens, "Inducing illegal residency" and "Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting" illegal entry and residency.
https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1...
8
There are lots of dummies out there who have written about how powerful edible marijuana is and how they hated taking it. That's like never having a drink then downing a fifth of gin and being surprised that it isn't pleasant - and with booze that amount is likely to kill you. 2,200 deaths each year in the US from acute alcohol poisoning. Current scientific evidence is that THC is not toxic so no deaths reported from weed overdose.
This list of crimes treated as minor offenses for the purposes of sanctuary laws beggars belief. Animal abuse in particular--dog fighting is a serious problem in California and is a felony.
7
What, they don't have gangs to join back where they originally came from? Better they stay here in spite of what the law says just so as not to disrupt their social life. Compassion towards anothers' suffering maybe can be taken a little too far.
5
We've seen this tragedy unfold before when laws forbidding employment of Mexican Americans, Sundowner towns, and hysteria during the Great Depression that drove when 2 million people were deported to Mexico, half of whom were born in America during the Decade of Betrayal.
1
Idiots with edibles.. make the same mistake with alcohol and you are dead.
1
This is not news. I myself have had bad reactions to eating pot cookies, long ago. The reason is that when cookies are made from a batter, it's impossible to know the concentration in each cookie.
1
I live in Santa Barbara and the sheriff does not represent the majority opinion of residents here. In fact, because Bill Brown is the leader of the state-wide sheriffs association, it's never clear to us when he speaks for them and when he speaks for us. We elected him to enforce state laws and county regulations, not speak and fight against them. If the sheriff wants to speak as a private citizen or as a general law enforcement official, fine. But when he speaks as our elected sheriff, we expect that he will speak to upholding existing law and protecting local residents. It may not be an easy job but that's why he was elected. Sheriff Bill Brown: respect the will of local residents and carry out the laws our elected legislators have enacted.
9
"We spoke with Sheriff Bill Brown of Santa Barbara County, who is president of the association and attended Mr. Sessions’s speech."
I would say from this quote that he was speaking as president of the association. It also state that the California State Sheriffs' Association "has been consistently opposed to...Senate Bill 54..." Nowhere do I see where he indicatea he is speaking for the residents of Santa Barbara County.
7
Senate Bill 54 is all about pandering by California's elected officials to the Latino community, and it's not a good long term plan for our state. I have to admit that I can dislike Trump and Sessions but still agree that we need to enforce our existing immigration laws. ICE agents are not seizing random illegal aliens--they are going after criminals and/or persons who have stayed despite having court-ordered deportation orders. SB 54 makes it more difficult and more expensive for ICE agents to do their job. Those are the basic facts, and to anyone who would dispute them, I'd ask--what's your plan for our immigration laws? Under what rules can a person come to our country and decide to stay? Honestly--we have grown to 40 million people in our state, can you let us know when we can stop bursting at the seams?
16
I'm conflicted - I agree that we need secure borders but I also don't thin that we need to deport everyone who entered illegally and if we make it dangerous for them to contact the police than crime will proliferate more than ever.
2
Unfortunately, as long as Democratic pols rely on massive immigration for votes, they will continue to fight against any restrictions on immigration (legal or illegal), or any actual enforcement of immigration laws. Some might argue that illegals can't vote, but they have extended families that do: therein lies the problem.
8
The Sherrif is being highly misleading in his comments. All the crimes he lists—drunk driving, domestic abuse, theft, assault—are serious crimes that make any immigrabf removable, whether the immigrant is documented or not, IF there’s a conviction. (By a judge or more commonly through a plea.) The sherrif seeks to indefinitely detain suspects who have merely been arrested, but not convicted, all of whom are presumed innocent. Furthermore, in such situations, it is especially misleading to speak of multiple offenses. The term is typically used of those previously convicted of crimes, but as I explained, this is not the case here. The sheriff is referring to those merely suspected of multiple offenses, but whose guilt has never been established. Yet he is using a term calculated to create that impression.
13
How many of those who have been released do you think are going to show up for a court date? Especially if your jails are as full as most of the jails in California and the arrested party has just been booked and released or has bailed out.
7
Mr. Portnoy is incorrect. “Serious felony” is a legal term in California law with specific meaning; felony drunk driving and domestic violence are not “serious felonies”, and neither are serial thefts. Indeed, most serial thefts are not felonies at all — in California, theft is never a serious felony, and is a felony only if the value is high, regardless of prior theft.
The sanctuary law uses this statutory definition, so the sheriff’s statement is correct.
5
He is right, why do repeat offenders of serious crimes get to stay in jails (on taxpayer expense) or just get released back out when they should not be here in the first place? What does this serve except a plea for votes from groups. A person who is a repeat offender of DUI should not be here. What are we waiting for ? The person to kill someone before we debate the merits of calling ICE?
16
Because it's not true. Any conviction of a serious crime (and there are dozens and dozens of them listed in the bill, along with a "not limited to" clause) are jst to contact ICE. The sheriff is "lacking candor", as Jeff Sessions would say.
1
And in cities like San Francisco, they would probably release them anyhow even if the person had killed someone. God forbid that the "poor, undocumented person" should have to go back to their own country. In fact, de Leon would probably give him/her a position on a State board.
6
Not all Californians think that the sanctuary laws are desirable, moral, and a benefit to mankind, the US and California.
Some believe that they are a very bad idea, put forth by a political party that is, in essence, buying votes on the backs of every American taxpayer.
20
We wouldn't have sanctuary laws if ICE had limited its deportations to real criminals, like the MS-13 gang and not the poor clerks at 7-11.
12
If the poor clerks at 7-11 are here illegally, they should be deported. They could have applied for citizenship before they came and gotten in line like everyone who wants to come her legally. If you were to sneak into Mexico and get caught when you shouldn't be there, you would probably end up in one of their jails and stay there. I am tired of my taxes supporting all those, citizen, legal, or not legal, who won't work or rely on us to pay their medical and other expenses because they can't or won't.
9
I agree with sheriffs on this issue.
Many immigrant advocates in California conveniently ignore that failing to support the enforcement of federal law on immigration, and even on pot, flaunts the same constitutional principle which enabled federal troops to enforce civil rights in the South half a century ago.
If we want immigration law to change, defeating the 7 California Republican congressmembers up for re-election in 2018 would be a good place to start.
5
You forget that while so many states were relaxing or changing their pot laws the federal government was relaxing and changing it's enforcement of federal laws. It was Sessions who went on the offensive again. But it's no surprise, given we have a teetotaler POTUS and a vice-POTUS who has a stick up his fundament so far he can't have a business meeting with a female unless his wife accompanies him. These are seriously messed up toons.
Sal, no I didn't forget. But whether enforced or not, marijuana remains illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, and the Constitution designates federal law as the "supreme law of the land."
In my opinion CSA needs to be changed, but that's irrelevant - we disregard the Supremacy Clause at our own peril. If it falls, Southern states could legalize slavery again - don't think it couldn't happen.
1
That title is entirely misleading. First, there are multiple statutes; it's not "the sanctuary law." The sheriff is opposed to one aspect of the laws - just one. The one that limits their ability to coordinate with Feds to deport petty criminals (of which there are fewer than among non-immigrants). If that's the case, I surely hope they are working with the legislature to fix it instead of whining about it. There are good public safety reasons that the laws exist.
For rural Californians the county sheriffs are the last line of defence from crime and chaos creeping in from cities... one of the few government entities with common sense remaining.
10
This is a very thorny issue and further complicated by Trump's obsession against immigrants. While I appreciate the humaneness of the sanctuary laws, I wonder why the U.S. has not developed a more comprehensive policy that is both humane and responsible towards our neighbors to the south. Some of the very same right-wingers in the southern United States exploit illegal immigrants in low-paying and dangerous jobs. It is such hypocrisy. I think, too, that it must be hard for dedicated law enforcement people to not enforce the law---which is made more difficult by conflicting laws. But, beyond that, I don't understand our legal system's way of dealing with multiple offenders. The man who "accidentally" shot the young woman in San Francisco had been deported, and arrested, multiple times. I don't see that he deserved much sanctuary. The odds of anyone with multiple arrests for drunk-driving, immigrant or not, of doing serious damage are extremely high. I would much rather lock them up than some immature young black man smoking pot.
6
" Some of the very same right-wingers in the southern United States exploit illegal immigrants in low-paying and dangerous jobs."
Hypocrisy would be to stick to the criticism of southern right-wingers, while ignoring the many Liberals I know, closer to home, who hire illegals for below minimum wage rates to perform back-breaking jobs around the house. But I guess the terminology depends on the exploiters' politics: if you're conservative, under-paying illegals is exploitation; if you're Liberal, it's financially supporting. I get it.
7