At his State of the State speech last month, California Gov. Jerry Brown was emphatic that he would defend the state’s laws limiting what local law enforcement can do to accommodate federal immigration enforcement efforts.
And then Brown added a promise.
“Let me be clear, we will defend everyone. Every man, woman and child who has come here for a better life and has contributed to the well-being of our state,” he said, provoking a sustained standing ovation from many in the Capitol.
It’s a hollow promise, however, to the tens of thousands of unauthorized immigrants whom the federal government has removed over the past six years Brown has been governor. Many of those deported did not have criminal convictions and lived in what are being called “sanctuary cities.”
“Sanctuary” has a meaning – a place of refuge and safety – and it does not apply to immigrants without the proper papers in these cities. It’s rather evil, in fact, to call a city a sanctuary and communicate any kind of reassurance to those who are not permitted to be here.
Various lists that purport to track sanctuary cities include the city and the county of San Diego among them.
Help Us Raise $100k By the End of May
No one is against legal immigrants unless they commit crimes, then they get deported. Jails should hold illegal aliens for 48 hours and notify ICE to pick them up. Same with illegal immigrant inmates when their sentences are up. We don't need criminals and we shouldn't protect them. There should be sweeps in gang infested areas, get rid of MS13 and other criminal gangsters. We should release and deport non-violent illegal alien inmates - to get out early they must sign a document that if they are caught in this country again, they get their original sentence back with 10 years added and no early release.
San Diego has a wall, for the most part, it works. The import border tax isn't even proposed yet but it should only apply to businesses that move production from here to Mexico in the future, not existing factories already operating in Mexico.
NAFTA needs to change, it is lopsided in Mexicos favor. We need to make it easier and cheaper to manufacture here.
I would like to see an agriculture visa, where workers can apply at a licensed agency in Mexico, a background check will be done in Mexico and the US, a passport will be required. Farmers can order workers through these agencies, the worker must pass the background check and this visa is biometric, eye scan and fingerprint, Visa is good for 90 days. Farmer must be responsible for housing and feeding workers on their property. Farmer will be responsible for emergency medical treatment. A minimum wage will be set, the worker doesn't pay taxes only 5% and the farmer pays 5%, this is used to administer the program. If the worker disappears they are eligible for immediate termination and deportation. If they do this for 10 years, there may be a way to achieve permanent residency.
I would like to see a tourist visa, there is no reason people in Mexico shouldn't be able to visit relatives here. The visa will be biometric, good for 7 days. Must have a passport. This would be a web-based visa just like we have to get an FM border card to cross by foot into Mexico. A background check will be done, overstays will terminate the program for this person.
There are some reasonable things we can do like what I have stated above. Employers must use e-verify and the fines for hiring illegal aliens would be brutal.
Keeping San Diego safe should include working with ICE and turning over illegals to ICE that have committed crimes beyond their illegal entry into the US. All San Diegans should support such steps to remove criminals from our streets regardless of immigration status. Jerry Brown's statement that he will protect anyone who comes to CA for a better life shouldn't include those who fell a better life is one of crime.
What a load of hogwash. San Diego is not a sanctuary city? California is not a sanctuary state? Seriously? San Diego County maintains the third largest population of unauthorized immigrants in California and the seventh largest in the United States, according to a new report by the Migration Policy Institute.http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/immigration/sdut-migration-policy-institute-study-immigration-2015aug26-htmlstory.html. According to that study, they have approximately 250,000 illegal immigrants - which equates to about a 10% deportation rate using your deportation statistics. On the flip side of that coin, an illegal immigrant has a 90% chance of not being deported when living in San Diego. Both Los Angeles and San Francisco openly declare to be sanctuary cities, as you note in your own article, and have almost a zero percent deportation rate. Given that California has the largest percentage of illegal immigrants in the nation http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/illegal-immigration-California/2015/09/14/id/691462/ and given the fact that San Francisco and Los Angeles are open sanctuary cities, it is rather intellectually dishonest to say that California is not a sanctuary state. Finally, just because the rate of deportation in San Diego is higher than the two cities with abysmal deportation rates, it is also intellectually dishonest to use that as the basis for declaring that San Diego is not a sanctuary city. Your article is not even close to reality.
Good article. I find it odd that the number of deportees are divided into two groups.
" X# deported but X did not have a criminal record..... I guess they do now! I thought being here illegally was illegal. There's always this kind of spin. I assume the figures came from our diligent government.
@Ron Wilson Illegal border crossing is a civil offense, not a criminal offense. (Just as you don't become a "criminal" for a traffic violation.) Illegal immigrants, therefore, may or may not be criminals. It depends on whether they have committed some criminal offense in addition to the civil offense of illegal entry.
Under Federal Criminal law, it is an offense for an alien (i.e., a non-citizen) to:
- Enter or attempt to enter the United States at any time or place other than designated by immigration officers;
- Elude examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
- Attempt to enter or obtain entry to the United States by willfully concealing, falsifying, or misrepresenting material facts.
The punishment under this federal law faces up to 6 months of incarceration....
Okay, and then there is this.
"3. Is San Francisco the only Sanctuary City in the country?
No. In fact, San Francisco is just one of hundreds of cities across the U.S. with sanctuary policies or related law enforcement orders. California and certain other states also have related laws or policies."
In other words, the government of SF is openly stating that it IS a sanctuary city. What a preposterous article that you've written Scott.
@shawn fox That was my point: they can say whatever they want but they're not sanctuaries and deportations happen, it's misleading and dangerous for them to provide assurances they can't back up. The federal government, with a warrant, can get anyone. And even without one, plenty of people are removed from the country. (By the way, I don't see anything different in San Francisco's actual policies from San Diego's other than the word, sanctuary). Thanks for reading and offering such a thoughtful rebuttal.
@Scott Lewis @shawn fox That response is nonsensical Scott. Of course they can't stop ALL deportations. The federal government will in some cases deport people whether the locals like it or not. Being a sanctuary city simply means doing everything that they can do to prevent it, and refusing to cooperate with ramped up efforts by the Feds. The term sanctuary absolutely applies to that situation.
Moreover Scott your numbers imply a very tiny percentage of illegal immigrants being deported which certainly does imply that this is a state with very little interest in deporting illegal immigrants. We're now allowing "illegal" immigrants to simply walk into the DMV for state IDs, and you say we aren't a sanctuary state. Bizarre! Why bother deporting anyone?
By your own data, San Diego deported far more illegal immigrants then either San Francisco or LA. Does that not imply that people are "safer" from deportation in those cities as compared to San Diego?
San Francisco has no right to federal tax dollars as far as I know. The city policy that requires ICE to have a warrant assumes that ICE knows that they have someone in custody. Are the ICE agents supposed to be mind readers? How would they know to get a warrant for someone that the city or county has arrested if neither the city or the county notifies ICE? That was the issue with the man who was released from custody that subsequently murdered a woman. Looking at the stats in question, I would certainly consider both LA and San Francisco sanctuary cities. This entire article is highly suspicious and it clearly isn't news. It's an editorial. Never mind that cities and universities all over have been openly declaring their refusal to cooperate with ICE in the future even when ICE does have a warrant. Why is it "moral" to deport new illegal immigrants while allowing the existing illegal immigrants to stay, get drivers licenses, use public schools, and so forth. Immigration policy in this country is simply wacky and nonsensical. Sooner or later if the people that are here illegally aren't going to be legalized then what do we do? Just ignore the fact that they are illegal and allow them to stay in the country with this gray area status? Trump shouldn't let bully's cause him to back down. Either say that you are doing to deport as many illegal immigrants as possible, or say that you are going to support a path to citizenship. The way I see it, the only two reasonable answers are one of those two possibilities.
@shawn fox It has something to do with our location on the border. Seems self explanatory but perhaps you needed it spelled out. I agree that leaving them without a path to citizenship is wrong. My article is what it is and I think it provides valuable data, reporting and perspective.
@Scott Lewis @shawn fox You aren't agreeing with me at all. A path to citizenship only makes sense if we are refusing to deport illegal immigrants. In my mind there should be no sanctuary whatsoever. i'm just pointing out that since do nothing politicians aren't going to do it then we might as well not beat around the bush. Deportation levels may or may not have something to do with proximity to the border. You have not provided any facts to back that up, and therefore it shouldn't be obvious to anyone Scott. It could very well be the case that San Diego law enforcement is actually trying a little harder to do their job.
There are also no "undocumented immigrants" , they are illegal aliens and have already committed their first crime by coming across the border illegally.
@craig Nelson Correction of fact: Illegal border crossing is a civil offense, not a crime. See explanation above in my reply to Ron Wilson.
@Mary Carol Sears @craig Nelson Mary: As was stated above you are 50% wrong. Civil penalties can be assessed in addition to the Criminal penalties for the primary improper entry offense as stated here:
For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both. For a subsequent offense, the person can be fined or imprisoned for up to two years, or both. (See 8 U.S.C. Section 1325, I.N.A. Section 275.)
So please become more educated before you get people's hopes up falsely.
This was also pointed out to you above by Otto Matic.
I agree that sanctuary is an improper term, but the stance taken by some local and state law enforcement agencies is not meaningless. Local law enforcement officers who develop reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally have ways to detain them and contact ICE, so that they can be processed for deportation. There was a time this was the norm. Various changes in directives to law enforcement officers in some agencies (LA is an example) mean that even if it is abundantly obvious that someone is in the country illegally, ICE shall not be summoned. Sanctuary? Not in the sense that local law enforcement is actively protecting those sought by ICE from ICE, but in the sense that someone who reports a crime against them to local law enforcement, for example, is not vulnerable to being reported or turned over to ICE. This is the Los Angeles Police Chief's point. He wants those in the country illegally to feel no fear from his officers that a contact for service will result in deportation.