Trump Orders Mexican Border Wall, Targets Sanctuary Cities

Share:

On Wednesday, President Trump began his sweeping crackdown on undocumented immigrants with an executive order to begin the immediate construction of a border wall with Mexico, and calling on a newly expanded force to sweep up immigrants who are in the country illegally.

President Trump’s plan would revive programs where the federal government works with local and state law enforcement agencies to arrest and detain unauthorized immigrants with criminal records, sharing information to help track and deport them.

The New York Times released a draft executive order that would “indefinitely block Syrian refugees from entering the United States and bar all refugees from the rest of the world for at least 120 days.”

While the White House has not officially released the plan, in an interview on ABC on Wednesday, Mr. Trump said he is seeking to erect “formidable barriers for those seeking refuge in the United States.

“It’s going to be very hard to come in.  Right now, it’s very easy to come in,” Mr. Trump said.

“A nation without borders is not a nation,” Mr. Trump said Wednesday at the Department of Homeland Security, where he signed the orders.  “Beginning today, the United States of America gets back control of its borders.”

Wrote the New York Times, “Taken together, the moves would turn the full weight of the federal government to fortifying the United States border, rounding up some of the 11 million people who are in the country illegally and targeting refugees, who are often among the world’s most vulnerable people. It is an aggressive use of presidential power that follows through on the nationalistic vision Mr. Trump presented during his presidential campaign.”

The paper added, “The plans are a sharp break with former President Barack Obama’s approach and what was once a bipartisan consensus to devise a path to citizenship for some of the nation’s illegal immigrants. Mr. Obama, however, angered many immigrant groups by deporting millions of unauthorized workers, largely during his first term.”

The order also threatens roughly three dozen sanctuary cities with losing grant money should they not comply with requests to detain unauthorized immigrants.

These goals cannot be laid out simply by orders.  Congress would be required to appropriate funding for the construction of the wall, estimated in the tens of billions.

However, Mr. Trump directed existing funds to start the wall and called for the hiring of an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents and 10,000 immigration officers.

The response was swift

“With today’s sweeping and constitutionally suspect executive actions, the president is turning his back on both our history and our values as a proud nation of immigrants,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader.

She added, “Wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on a border wall Mexico will never pay for, and punishing cities that do not want their local police forces forced to serve as President Trump’s deportation dragnet, does nothing to fix our immigration system or keep Americans safe.”

“They’re setting out to unleash this deportation force on steroids, and local police will be able to run wild, so we’re tremendously concerned about the impact that could have on immigrants and families across the country,” said Joanne Lin, senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. “After today’s announcement, the fear quotient is going to go up exponentially.”

Newly appointed California Attorney General Xavier Becerra issued a statement as well.

“It is important to put these White House executive actions in context,” he said.  “Executive orders do not change existing law. Executive orders cannot contradict existing law. And Executive orders can be challenged for violating constitutional and legal standards in their enforcement.”

The California Department of Justice (DOJ) is prepared “to protect the public safety and general welfare of all Californians as well as their privacy and property rights. These are rights and protections which have survived numerous legal challenges over time. And they are grounded on our federal and state constitutions not on an executive pronouncement.”

The California DOJ will “protect the rights of all of its people from unwarranted intrusion from any source, including the federal government. In California, we want to foster trust between law enforcement authorities and the communities they are obliged to protect. That’s why California enacted the TRUST and TRUTH acts to guide our men and women in uniform on the proper execution of their public safety duties.”

He added, “California is prepared to work with our federal government to enhance the safety and well-being of all our people. We will work with our sister states to achieve mutual goals of respect and cooperation with the federal government. And we will remain ready to advance and defend California’s policies wherever and whenever necessary.”

California leaders at a press briefing blasted the President.  Senate Leader Kevin de León said, “We can all agree that we need comprehensive immigration reform – clear, predictable and fair guidelines, with secure borders and a path to citizenship for those who are undocumented.

“But the executive actions announced today are counterproductive, divisive and unnecessary. They won’t make us safer. They won’t bring back jobs or solve our economic challenges. In fact, these measures do just the opposite,” he said.

He called them “spiteful and mean-spirited directives that only instill fear in the hearts of millions of people who pay taxes, contribute to our economy and our way of life.”

He added, “Thanks to the supermajority we won in November, we have the ability to use urgency clauses to implement new laws immediately, and the actions of the new administration demand an immediate response.”

Among other things, they will expedite the process to pass SB 54 “to prevent state and local tax dollars and law enforcement resources from being used to help ICE destroy families and damage our economy.”  They will also “fast-track SB 6 by Senator Ben Hueso – the Due Process for All Act – to make sure those facing deportation have due process and adequate legal representation.”

Senator de León added, “It’s not the job of our local and county and state law enforcement to turn the cogs of President Trump’s deportation machine. He cannot force us and we will not hesitate to fight him in Congress and settle the matter in court.”

San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi said in a statement, “Today the Trump Administration made it clear that San Francisco can no longer ‘wait and see’ when it comes to defending its residents from deportation. San Francisco’s public defenders stand ready and willing to fight for the city’s families in immigration detention. We are used to taking on the toughest cases, navigating the complicated intersection of criminal and immigration law, and helping people facing indefinite incarceration.”

He added, “We stand in solidarity with millions of people throughout the country in opposition to Trump’s xenophobic attacks on immigrants and believe no family should be torn apart because they cannot afford a private attorney. We call on the City of San Francisco and Mayor Lee to ensure detained immigrants are appointed public defenders to fight for them.”

CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), the the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, Wednesday issued a statement in reaction to executive orders expected to be signed by President Donald Trump restricting immigration from a number of Middle Eastern and African countries.

CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said: “Make no mistake – whatever language is used in President Trump’s executive orders on refugees, immigration and visa programs – Muslims are the sole targets of these orders.

“These orders are a disturbing confirmation of Islamophobic and un-American policy proposals made during the presidential election campaign,” he said.  “Never before in our country’s history have we purposely – as a matter of policy – imposed a ban on immigrants or refugees on the basis of religion, or imposed a religious litmus test on those coming to this nation.”

He added, “This ban does not make our country safer. Instead, it serves to stigmatizes Muslim refugees and the entire American Muslim community. It will hand a propaganda tool to our enemies who promote the false narrative of an American war on Islam.”

—David M. Greenwald reporting

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

69 thoughts on “Trump Orders Mexican Border Wall, Targets Sanctuary Cities”

  1. Keith O

     rounding up some of the 11 million people who are in the country illegally

    Fake news, not true, only convicted criminal illegals will face deportation.

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      “Taken together, the moves would turn the full weight of the federal government to fortifying the United States border, rounding up some of the 11 million people who are in the country illegally and targeting refugees, who are often among the world’s most vulnerable people. It is an aggressive use of presidential power that follows through on the nationalistic vision Mr. Trump presented during his presidential campaign.”

      Earlier I stated: “President Trump’s plan would revive programs where the federal government works with local and state law enforcement agencies to arrest and detain unauthorized immigrants with criminal records, sharing information to help track and deport them.”

      I’ll accept your apology

  2. Tia Will

    It will hand a propaganda tool to our enemies who promote the false narrative of an American war on Islam.”

    I would say that it does far more than provide a propaganda tool. I believe that it demonstrates the victory of one goal of Osama bin Laden which was to destroy the American way of life. In the aftermath of 9/11, driven by fear, we have dramatically altered much of our previous “way of life” from relatively small or inconveniencing changes such as TSA delays to the current hysteria driven abrogation of one of the hallmarks of our civilization, denial of  access to refugees based on religion and/or country of origin. The irony is that we are doing this to ourselves. We are voluntarily submitting to the dismantling of our previous freedoms by a demagog and his followers based on fear and hatred. Prior to the election, I truly believed that our country was stronger,  better than this. Apparently not.

      1. Tia Will

        Hi Diane,

        Right up until the election results, I would have agreed with you. The truth is that he had enough followers to secure the presidency. Therein lies my dismay and my harsh assessment of our current reality.

        1. Howard P

          Well, as one who voted, but neither to the “top two”, I think many Clinton detractors held their noses and voted for Trump, or a third party, or stayed home… in addition, he had ‘bullet voters and his largely “new found” ‘followers’…  I heard a lot more anti-candidate talk than pro-candidate talk…

        1. David Greenwald Post author

          How is it twisting it? Think about how this looks to Muslims – we don’t have to guess, I posted CAIR’s statement. Think how easy it will be to sell new recruits that US is repressive?

          You believe there is a real risk for refugees? I think you have a point. That’s not the issue. If that was Trump’s real concern, he could have handled it much more diplomatically and called for changes to the current policies. That would be reasonable. He’s done a blanket policy, treating something that needs a scalpel with a sledgehammer. I don’t need to twist this, it’s already there and you know it.

        2. Tia Will

          you and Tia can choose to twist it all you want.”

          Terrorist states that his goal is to dramatically alter the way of life in the west which he views as corrupt.

          Targeted country,  citing fears of more terrorist attacks, dramatically alters its safety procedures at great cost and inconvenience, dramatically alters its immigration policies targeting the the specific religion claimed by the terrorist and its current president threatens to create a registry for adherents to the specific religion.

          These are verifiable facts of what happened after 9/11 and ensuing terrorist attacks. Please explain to me how this is “twisting” anything.

        3. Keith O

           He’s done a blanket policy, treating something that needs a scalpel with a sledgehammer.

          Not a sledgehammer at all, just a short moratorium until policies can be looked into and ironed out.  That sounds very reasonable to me.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            There is a short term moratorium – 120 days, but also an indefinite one. If there were legitimate concerns about refugees, it should have been handled much more delicately. There is a large Muslim population already in this country, policies like this risk radicalizing large numbers of them.

            On immigration, there have been various attempts at comprehensive reform, instead, he opted for the campaign slogan, “build a wall” rather than a more moderate approach. This is sledgehammer theater not careful governance.

  3. Tia Will

    The cost of the wall and creation of a more robust border patrol and deportation force are estimated in the billions. I have some alternative suggestions about how that money might be spent more productively.

    1. An infusion of funding into our educational system. Pick your level, preschool through college all could use more funding.

    2. Funding for a major updating of our infrastructure including roads and bridges.

    3. Development of environmentally protective rapid public transportation systems.

    4. Development of a universal single party payer health care system, or at least a public option if one is determined to preserve the until now inefficient, costly and disreputable ( coverage caps, recisions, pre-existing conditions, price gouging ) private health care insurance industry. What people need is health care, not insurance that might or might not cover that needed health care. Billions of dollars could be used to provide what is actually needed rather than propping up an industry that does not provide what is needed for many.

    5. Investment in scientific research in any number of fields : space exploration, clean energy production, cancer research,addiction prevention and treatment which would be far more effective in alleviation of our problems with opioid overdose and death than attempting to block drugs at the border which is not the point of entry for many of these substances.

    Can we really not find better users for these billions of dollars than a deportation program which will likely prove ineffective and or run out of funding ( as did Eisenhower’s program), especially at a time when migration to the north is already decreasing ?

    1. Richard C

      The cost of the wall and creation of a more robust border patrol and deportation force are estimated in the billions.

      Aren’t the Mexicans going to pay for the wall? 🙂

  4. Robb Davis

    This is pure political theater and has nothing to do with “national security.”  The misinformation about sanctuary cities, for example, is intentional deception (I am happy to develop, at another time, in what ways this is so).  This nation’s periodic dalliance with nativism is puzzling at best, disingenuous at worst.

    And for all who call for “law and order” on undocumented workers… they are hypocrites.  Your food is picked by them.  Your offices cleaned by them.  Your meals prepared by them, and your dishes cleaned up by them.

    I know, I know, I have said this all before.  But it is the truth.  Those who wish “them” away are playing with the lives of some of the most humble and hard working members of our communities.  A failure to acknowledge that is dishonest and ultimately hurtful to our communities.

    (Oh and, by the way, when was the last time an Iranian committed an act of terror in the US or against so-called US interests?)

    1. Keith O

      And for all who call for “law and order” on undocumented workers… they are hypocrites.  Your food is picked by them.  Your offices cleaned by them.  Your meals prepared by them, and your dishes cleaned up by them.

      None of these illegal immigrants that you cite are being targeted if they don’t have a criminal record.

      1. Don Shor

        if they don’t have a criminal record.

        “Criminal record” is pretty broad. What is the list of crimes that might merit deportation? And are you sure it’s people who are convicted, or just those who are accused? Would simply being here illegally constitute a criminal record and be grounds for deportation?

        1. Keith O

          What criminal record or crimes haven’t been determined yet as far as I know.  But just being here illegally won’t qualify as evidenced by the administration already saying they won’t deport the Dreamers.

        2. David Greenwald Post author

          In addition to criminals convicted of violent crimes or serious misdemeanors, it also prioritizes people who have been “charged with any crime” or even “committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense.” Another priority is people who have committed “fraud” and “willful misrepresentation,” which could apply to large numbers of undocumented immigrants who have taken steps to conceal their status. Finally, it gives discretion to individual agents to target anyone they believe would “pose a risk to public safety or national security.”

      2. darelldd

        I’d feel better about this if we could deport the legal citizen criminals as well.

        Here’s hoping that it is these “criminal immigrants” who have stolen all those high-paying jobs from Americans.

    2. Don Shor

      Perhaps you can expand on this, but from what I have read the sanctuary status involves any of these:
      1. specific policies detailing how or whether an agency will cooperate with ICE.
      2. restricting police agencies from inquiring about the documented status of a suspect.
      3. allowing law enforcement to ignore ICE detainer requests if a suspect hasn’t committed a serious felony.

  5. Don Shor

    From Syria, there is a desperate wave of millions of refugees who had to choose between a genocidal dictator on the one hand, and ruthless fanatics on the other. Nothing is going to solve the Syrian crisis quickly. The wave is going to continue. The world has to address this humanitarian crisis, and the numbers we have been accepting are very small compared to the rest of the world. We have the resources and we have the ability to disperse them into our country in ways that minimize the adverse impacts and actually can benefit us.

    The Syrians who are fleeing this far are like the other immigrants who have strengthened America. There are professionals, merchants, educated Syrians, and simply those who had the means and motives to escape and travel. Millions have been left behind, swamping refugee camps and taxing the neighboring countries beyond their limits. We can help. We are able to accept these folks as we have helped Vietnamese, Hmong, Haitians, Cubans, and others escaping turmoil in the past.
    The full absurdity of the executive order is illustrated by the addition of Iran to the list. There are no terrorists coming from Iran. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is not on the list.
    The actions against sanctuary cities are not yet clear, but this is a case of picking a fight solely for the purpose of picking a fight. None of the big city mayors are going to back down. Conservative Republicans just want to punish them in any way possible. None of this enhances public safety in any way.
    Using individual instances of criminal behavior, as apparently the Trump administration plans to continue to do, simply tars a whole group of people with the stigma of violent crime. From the start, Trump has implied in every way possible that immigrants are criminals and that we should fear them. That is appealing to the worst instincts of the public. And linking it to his constant rhetoric against Mexico is simple bigotry.
    Nothing that he is doing makes America safer. And it certainly doesn’t make America ‘great’.
    1. Don Shor

      I haven’t read the executive orders, but here is a description from the Connecticut Mirror newspaper:

      An attempt to pass a law that would strip federal law enforcement money from jurisdictions that don’t share all information about undocumented aliens stopped or arrested by law enforcement faltered in the Senate in the last Congress.

      That legislation would have put as much as $20 million in annual federal policing grants for Connecticut in jeopardy. Most of that money, more than $15 million, comes in the form of Community Development Block Grants.

      If Trump wants to broaden the reach of his executive order, he’ll need legislation like the bills several GOP lawmakers, including Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, have tried to push through Congress.

      Trump’s executive orders also pressed jurisdictions to enter into memorandums of understanding with the federal government that would allow local police to enforce immigration law.

      Assuming that report is correct, the actions would actually reduct public safety if they reduce funds directed to police departments. And requiring local police to enforce immigration law would make immigrants far less likely to seek help when they are crime victims or to cooperate with local police in solving crimes. These actions alone would make communities less safe.

        1. Tia Will

          Keith

           the communities that chose to be a sanctuary city or to stay a sanctuary city have made themselves and their citizens more unsafe.”

           

          Please show your evidence that this assertion is true.

        2. Howard P

          Tia… should you not be asking the same of Don and others?

          “These actions alone would make communities less safe.”

          Others have opined that the actions of the Prez make aour communities less safe, croiminally and health wise… their ‘proofs’?

          1. Don Shor

            I’ll leave it to the police chiefs to address this.
            LAPD chief Charlie Beck:

            “I do have a strong conviction that local policing needs the cooperation of a majority of folks that live within their jurisdiction,” he said, mentioning the large number of undocumented immigrants in the city.

            “I need them to be witnesses to violent crime. I need to them to be part of Los Angeles to keep this city safe. If the local law enforcement agency is to take on the role of immigration, that tears that fabric apart. It’s not our job by statute. What is our job by statute is to make this community safer.”

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            Judge: Law didn’t require notifying ICE

            In a ruling issued Friday, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero dismissed the family’s claims against San Francisco and former Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi.

            “No law required the Sheriff’s Department to share Lopez-Sanchez’s release date with ICE, nor did any law forbid Mirkarimi establishing a policy against such cooperation,” Spero wrote.

            The magistrate also dismissed the family’s claim against ICE.

            But he ruled that the family’s lawsuit accusing the Bureau of Land Management of negligence can proceed.

            Authorities said the gun the shooter used had been stolen from a Bureau of Land Management agent’s unattended vehicle.

            A spokesman for the US attorney’s office declined to comment on pending litigation. Federal attorneys have argued the Bureau of Land Management shouldn’t be held liable for crimes committed with the gun after it was stolen.

            This came down a few weeks ago.

        3. Eric Gelber

          Keith O: “Ever heard of Kate Steinle for one?”

          Seriously? You cite an example of one individual killed by an illegal immigrant in a sanctuary city as evidence that sanctuary cities make communities less safe? That is simply not logical. If I gave you an example of someone killed by a legal immigrant from Canada, would that mean Canadian immigration made communities less safe?

          Evidence would be, for example, if it could be shown that undocumented immigrants living in sanctuary cities committed violent felonies at a significantly higher rate than other groups (e.g., legal residents, citizens) controlling for other variables (e.g., socioeconomic level). Selective anecdotes (even multiple ones) do not prove anything about entire groups of people; they only feed false stereotypes and prejudices.

        4. Keith O

          Seriously? You cite an example of one individual killed by an illegal immigrant in a sanctuary city as evidence that sanctuary cities make communities less safe? 

          I guess you missed it that I said “for one”, and also stated “There’s a multitude of examples.”

          I could list many of them but why, I’m not going to change anyone’s mind that posts on here.

          Immigration and Customs Enforcement, reacting to congressional fears of a new crime wave from illegal immigrants, has revealed that some 1,800 released by “sanctuary cities” last year were charged with 7,500 new crimes, including rape and child sex abuse.
          What’s more, most, or over 1,000 of the illegals facing criminal charges, are still free, according to anICE reportto Congress.
          The October 2014 report detailed the release by 276 sanctuary cities of 8,145 illegals held on criminal charges from January to August despite requests to “detain” them for ICE which would consider deporting them.

          http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sanctuary-city-crime-wave-in-43-states/article/2568236
          I can pull up articles like this all day, but why?  Are facts going to change anyone’s mind in Davis?

      1. Dianne C Tobias

        And I would add would make undocumented immigrants less likely to seek health care when needed. Community based safety net clinics have earned trust from these groups over time. Not to exaggerate but this could lead to our communities being less safe health wise also.

        And is this what it appears?

        “and bar all refugees from the rest of the world for at least 120 days.”

        Hard to fathom.

        1. Tia Will

          Diane

          Not to exaggerate but this could lead to our communities being less safe health wise also.”

          I think that you are making a very good point here. I do not know the immunization policies of Guatemala, or Honduras, or Mexico or any other country from which immigrants come across the southern border. But due to widespread vaccination there are a number of diseases that we have virtually eradicated here in the US, but which are still prevalent in other countries. I have not heard much discussion of this point, but I do think that it is worth considering before we take steps that make health care more difficult for those who are themselves undocumented or have family members who are.

  6. Robb Davis

    I have to be quick here:

    1. Ask our own DPD whether they think our resolution makes the City safer or not.  They will say it makes the City safer since people have less fear interacting with the police. (Note: I did not say “no fear.”)

    2. Our resolution says (paraphrase) that our police will not request information on immigration status (federal law does not require us to, our local PD are NOT federal agents) in any interaction with citizens.

    3. Our resolution makes it clear that we will detain and/or arrest people for suspected criminal activity no matter who they are.

    4. ICE detainers are voluntary and state law and the Constitution forbid holding someone without probable cause.  A detainer is NOT a warrant and experience shows ICE often does not even follow up with requests.

    5. A criminal warrant will be honored by ANY police department including ours.  If an agency provides us with a legal warrant we will honor it–again, no matter the status of a person.

    6. The City of Davis does not incarcerate people–we send them to the County.  Therefore, we are not subject to ICE detainer requests.

    We believe our resolution is consistent with state and federal laws and the constitution.  We believe it makes us a safer city.

    Crossing a border is a misdemeaner.  Crossing a border a second time after being found guilty of the misdemeanor is a felony I believe.  Anyone accused of crossing the border is afforded all the rights of due process and cannot be convicted without charges and a proper legal conviction.

  7. Eric Gelber

    Trump’s threat against sanctuary cities will run into significant constitutional barriers. As noted in an article I’ve cited previously (Federalism, the Constitution, and sanctuary cities.), the Supreme Court has held (including in an opinion written by Justice Scalia) that the 10th Amendment forbids federal commandeering of state governments to help enforce federal law. As the article notes, the Trump administration can’t cut off federal grants to sanctuary cities unless it can show that the grants were clearly conditioned on cooperation with federal deportation policies.

    1. Howard P

      Fits with what Robb articulated, and makes sense… thx

      Something about tempest in a teapot (or with current prez, pee-pot, or chamber pot)…

      Am thinking, with a Republican majority in both houses, with most of the leaders opposing and/or not supporting the prez in the primaries, he does indeed have “small hands” (and feet)… still thinking, this, like a kidney stone, shall pass… the current admin may well go down in history as “the great impotency”… yeah, there will be conservative stuff passed, but suspect most Republican legislators are already looking 21 months out (good chance for backlash/payback… the prez will not be on the ballot, but all HR reps will be, and a third of the Senators, and ~ half of the governors)… yet there may well be the pain in passing the “stone”…

      Already some family members who were die-hard ‘Trumpettes’ (they were more against Obama and Clinton) are getting concerned… upper middle-class folk concerned about their “wallet”… they come from Republican HR districts… am biding my time to see if I “act-out” and demand they “own” the agenda…

      I’m pretty comfortable, as a moderate, to let this play out for a few months… Ryan seems to see the warning flags, but has to show ‘solidarity’ now, but that’s just at 5 days into the new admin… McConnell may take a couple of months…

      People should feel free to express their happiness/angst… but there is really nothing of real substance yet, in reality, and three-six months from now, we’ll see…

      Am getting back to the “kidney stone” analogy… yet, there maybe something real good that comes out of this… Republican and Democrat legislators might come to realize they just might have a common enemy, and get past years of ‘deadlock’, (and actually cooperatively) represent the American people… the Prez will probably not lead that effort and blame the media or the __________________(fill in your own blank)

      1. Tia Will

        Howard

        there is really nothing of real substance yet”

        I agree. But unlike you, I do not necessarily find that reassuring in the sense that in place of substance has been many threats, much bullying and bluster. At a time when well considered substance is sorely needed, I am very uncomfortable with a total loose cannon in the White House.

  8. Keith O

    I can’t believe that anyone really has a problem with the deportation of someone who sneaks into our country and then commits crime.   Are these people we really want to protect?  Granted, the level of the crime has to be determined.

  9. Tia Will

    Keith

    Well perhaps I can make a believer of you. For me it totally depends on the “crime”. Jaywalking, blowing through an intersection on a bike, stealing an apple, loaf of bread or bag of cheese to feed a hungry child…..I’m ok with all of those. No deportation necessary. Rape, armed robbery, selling large quantities of drugs….deportation worthy. I am sure that we all have our own “line drawing”.  I don’t see how we could assess the policy change without seeing the list of the current president.

  10. Tia Will

    Keith

    Ever heard of Kate Steinle for one?

    What I asked for was evidence. What you gave me is an example. These are not the same. Your assertion was that sanctuary cities are less safe than others. This would require some statistical evidence. If you have any, please present it and I would certainly consider the validity of your statement. Without it, this is your unsubstantiated opinion.

      1. Tia Will

        Jerry

        I must be missing your point. No one is arguing that there has not been an increase in violent crime in Chicago. Can you explain to me how you see that as related to the issue of whether or not sanctuary cities are more or less dangerous than non sanctuary cities ?

        1. Jaroslaw Waszczuk

          Tia

          You asked for statistic than I  gave you statistic s . Chicago is sanctuary city and Rahm Manuel is very vocal about but he  can’t take care of crime in the city . Rahm and two brothers are friends with new President. One was Donald Trump’s  agent I believe for Miss Universe show. If you want more details about the  victims ethnic background  or the police files from  the Chicago ‘s crime scenes than you have to  ask Chicago Police Department or Mayor of Chicago.

    1. Jaroslaw Waszczuk

      Tia

      Lodi is not a sanctuary city and nobody is sending threatening letters to  Muslim community  and vandalizing Mosque  like it is happening in  Davis.  Lodi has quite large Muslims population and  many undocumented residents  as well . Seems to me that  they are  doing ok in Lodi without the  unnecessary scare crow propaganda

      1. Tia Will

        Jerry

        I clearly was not explicit enough about what I would consider evidence.

        In his post of 3:49 Eric defined one set of evidence that might be persuasive if the numbers supported the assertion. Another set of evidence that might shed light on the issue would be to compare cities of similar size, ethnic, religious and economically similar circumstances to control for other variables, one being a sanctuary city and the other not being a sanctuary city and compare their crime rates. I know that these kinds of statistical studies are hard to find and tedious to compare. But just citing individual crimes or even city crime rates without adequately controlled comparisons does not address the issue or support the assertion.

        1. Jaroslaw Waszczuk

          Tia

          You should not expect more details or better  statistics from Keith or  Jerry or even from  yourself because more detailed information are not available for the  general public . If the  law is more oppressive in prosecution of the  legal immigrants with criminals record ( we had liberty to read some DV articles about)  than illegals than something is not right and awkward .

        2. Howard P

          Fits with what Robb articulated, and makes sense… thx

          Something about tempest in a teapot (or with current prez, pee-pot, or chamber pot)…

          Am thinking, with a Republican majority in both houses, with most of the leaders opposing and/or not supporting the prez in the primaries, he does indeed have “small hands” (and feet)… still thinking, this, like a kidney stone, shall pass… the current admin may well go down in history as “the great impotency”… yeah, there will be conservative stuff passed, but suspect most Republican legislators are already looking 21 months out (good chance for backlash/payback… the prez will not be on the ballot, but all HR reps will be, and a third of the Senators, and ~ half of the governors)… yet there may well be the pain in passing the “stone”…

          Already some family members who were die-hard ‘Trumpettes’ (they were more against Obama and Clinton) are getting concerned… upper middle-class folk concerned about their “wallet”… they come from Republican HR districts… am biding my time to see if I “act-out” and demand they “own” the agenda…

          I’m pretty comfortable, as a moderate, to let this play out for a few months… Ryan seems to see the warning flags, but has to show ‘solidarity’ now, but that’s just at 5 days into the new admin… McConnell may take a couple of months…

          People should feel free to express their happiness/angst… but there is really nothing of real substance yet, in reality, and three-six months from now, we’ll see…

          Am getting back to the “kidney stone” analogy… yet, there maybe something real good that comes out of this… Republican and Democrat legislators might come to realize they just might have a common enemy, and get past years of ‘deadlock’, and actually cooperatively) represent the American people… the Prez will probably not lead that effort and blame the media or the __________________(fill in your own blank)

    2. Keith O

      Here Tia, I’ll post it again:

      Read it and learn.

       

      Seriously? You cite an example of one individual killed by an illegal immigrant in a sanctuary city as evidence that sanctuary cities make communities less safe?

      I guess you missed it that I said “for one”, and also stated “There’s a multitude of examples.”
      I could list many of them but why, I’m not going to change anyone’s mind that posts on here.

      Immigration and Customs Enforcement, reacting to congressional fears of a new crime wave from illegal immigrants, has revealed that some 1,800 released by “sanctuary cities” last year were charged with 7,500 new crimes, including rape and child sex abuse.
      What’s more, most, or over 1,000 of the illegals facing criminal charges, are still free, according to anICE reportto Congress.
      The October 2014 report detailed the release by 276 sanctuary cities of 8,145 illegals held on criminal charges from January to August despite requests to “detain” them for ICE which would consider deporting them.

      http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sanctuary-city-crime-wave-in-43-states/article/2568236
      I can pull up articles like this all day, but why?  Are facts going to change anyone’s mind in Davis?

      1. Don Shor

        If ICE wants people held on federal charges, they can arrest them and take them to federal facilities. A significant number of those detainers appear to have been for people with no prior criminal record or with misdemeanor charges. Having local law enforcement acting on behalf of federal agencies is a real concern as it can impede the relationships that local law enforcement seeks to build with immigrant communities as they provide public safety. Nobody wants to keep dangerous felons in this country. But that doesn’t mean that every detainer request by ICE is equally valid or even necessarily related to public safety.

        1. Howard P

          fair point… if  ICE had the staff/resources, they could comb the VG and many other sources to ferret out undocumented (sorry, for some, undocumented does not mean “illegal” *) persons…

          [* Dad was “undocumented”… all of his ancestors were citizens prior to 1940 (all before 1880)… yet because his state of birth kept their records at the hospital of birth (which burned to the ground in the late ’30’s), he had to get a sworn affidavit from the minister/pastor who baptized him as a child, in order to enlist in the Navy for WWII]

      2. Eric Gelber

        Keith O: “I’ll post it again.”

        Repeating the same flawed argument doesn’t make it more true. A multitude of selected anecdotes is still not valid evidence. One can readily find far more anecdotes that contradict yours. You are simply doubling down on your preconceived unsubstantiated conclusion. 

      3. David Greenwald Post author

        “I can pull up articles like this all day, but why? ”

        That’s a good question because it isn’t what people asked you to provide. There are at least two problems with the data cited here. One is that they don’t have a control variable – i.e. there is no point of comparison so we are presumed to assume that sanctuary cities policies are to blame, but we have no point of comparison. Second, along similar lines, sanctuary cities are considered the causal variable here leading to release – but is that true? Again, having a comparison point would have been helpful.

  11. Tia Will

    Keith

    I’m not going to change anyone’s mind that posts on here.”

    Some of us actually do believe in evidence based arguments and will change our minds based on solid evidence. I have done it frequently in my career. But anecdotes and slanted articles are not evidence and you are correct, that those are unlikely to change minds, even those that have no idea whether or not your assertion is correct, including me.

    1. Howard P

      Tia… it is very seldom that anyone has seemed to change your mind “based on solid evidence”… you seem to need totally cited, irrefutable PROOF (not just “solid”)  That is your prerogative… Expect the same from others.

      Just play by the same rules… you do, a bit more than 50% of the time… small bit…

      1. Jaroslaw Waszczuk

        Republican and Democrat legislators might come to realize they just might have a common enemy,

        Howard

        Republican and Democrat legislators realized long time  they just might have a common enemy. Donald Trump did not get much support from the  Republican Party legislators  during his  presidential  campaign. The Speaker of  the House Paul Ryan  was the  leading  adversary.  Donald Trump won anyway .

        1. David Greenwald Post author

          That’s a questionable statement all the way around. Paul Ryan was not a leading adversary in any way, shape or form. At best he was caught in betwixt and between. At no time did he oppose him.

          Trump won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. It was an odd year and an even odder outcome.

  12. Jaroslaw Waszczuk

    David

    Donald Trump by  using the  Republican Party platform  won the election with the promises to drain the Washington DC swamp.  Trump’s  presidency  is the wake up call for the  both parties cronies  whose dis-attached  themselves  from the American people.  Hillary Clinton supposedly won the popular vote but she is not popular anymore .   This is the end for the  Clinton ‘s Dynasty  in the White House  and Bushes’s as well.

      1. Jaroslaw Waszczuk

        David

        Maybe it sounds like a rhetoric but it is not . The naked true is that  Quin Hillary has no cloth and no  crown and President Trump is in charge .

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for